Pue Thai Party To Sensor Pm

[bangkoklight]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Okay. I understand and I completely agree with you - power comes from the Privy Council and the traditional elite. And I do believe that this is what Russell meant too. But the pro-government supporters here (want to) believe that Abhisit came to power as a democratically elected leader in a true democracy. If Abhisit doesn’t have the final say in military action, then he shouldn’t be representing the Democratic Party, right?

[klikster]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills.

" .. but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes" .." By that same logic, Taksin would have given that same final "yes" to the 2006 coup.

BTW .. I think G. Prem owes his job to the Monarchy and that the top military brass owe their jobs to G. Prem.

Sorry to have mixed fact and logic in with your political rants.

[klikster]

If Abhisit doesn’t have the final say in military action, then he shouldn’t be representing the Democratic Party, right?

That's up to the Democratic Party.

But until things change drastically in Thailand, no political party will ever have " .. the final say in military action ..".

The coup that removed Chatichai Choonhavan from office in '91 was reportedly triggered by a proposed attempt to bring the Thai military under control of the P.M.

[RussellHantz]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills.

" .. but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes" .." By that same logic, Taksin would have given that same final "yes" to the 2006 coup.

BTW .. I think G. Prem owes his job to the Monarchy and that the top military brass owe their jobs to G. Prem.

Sorry to have mixed fact and logic in with your political rants.

The "he" was referring to Abhisit not prem, I though you could have figured that out but as your so excitable this afternoon you are excused for making that mistake, along with your other silly "logical" mistake about Thakin and the 2006 coup.

[blackman]

Money was never the issue and you know it - the army has had billions of baht thrown at them since the 2006 coup and it wouldn't have cost much more to have executed a more human dispersal.

Maybe the cost of one of those airport scanners or the multi million baht toy blimp would have done it.

weren't the airport scanners subject to a one off personal tax by Thaksin and his cronies?

[blackman]

Do you really think that the Thai army has the training, funding and equipment to do anything different than what they did.

Or a head nod

Yep, they were following orders. Orders that came from the top - Abhisit.

Obviously his dispersal of the protesters was his primary objective, but the crushing way he went about it hints at his secondary objectives, which are roughly inline with all other rough, dictatorship like tactics he has taken against his political opponents.

crushing?

could you quantify crushing?

[klikster]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills.

" .. but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes" .." By that same logic, Taksin would have given that same final "yes" to the 2006 coup.

BTW .. I think G. Prem owes his job to the Monarchy and that the top military brass owe their jobs to G. Prem.

Sorry to have mixed fact and logic in with your political rants.

The "he" was referring to Abhisit not prem, I though you could have figured that out but as your so excitable this afternoon you are excused for making that mistake, along with your other silly "logical" mistake about Thakin and the 2006 coup.

The "logic" aspect of my post was to indicate that there is no "logic" in the PM - Military - Privy Council relationships.

As to figuring out what you meant .. I tend to detail what I mean. That's always a good thing here on TV.

As to my "excitable" state this afternoon ..

[blackman]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills and tries to silence

seems to me Russell you have a bit of a fixation with the young and handsome Abhisit

fix·a·tionplay_w2("F0155100") (fk-sshn)n.1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.2. An obsessive preoccupation.3. A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.

[EvilDrSomkid]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills and tries to silence

It seems to be quite clear that you are not a fan of Abhisit. It also seems that you are of the opinion, nay conviction, that Abhisit ordered the killing of unarmed civilians. That is just ridiculous.

I will not use the words innocent people, because this expression has no meaning anymore. No one is innocent. Even grandma waving her hand clapper.

They were used as cannon fodder, they might not have known this, but this chose to be there.

I would like to ask you, Russel: Do you support the red shirt cause? If not, do you condemn the grenading of Sala Deang, looting and burning of the affected parts of Bangkok by disgruntled and enraged low-lives? I hope you do.

Regarding your last paragraph, I find it a bit over the top.

-He thinks he is god's gift to Thai politics? How do you know, can you hear his thoughts?

However, I think that if would have the right collection of people around him, he could actually do something positive for the country.

Who would be a better candidate now?

-Irresponsible? Hardly. I think he show great restraint in the handling of the crisis. If anyone was irresponsible, it was the police and the red shirt terrorist leaders.

-Stubborn? I would prefer: assertive and self confident. Who would have any confidence in a PM who gives in to extortion and violence?

Abhisit came across as a calm and confident politician. He is eloquent and educated and not an abrasive old dicknose like Samak.

-That he would probably never be voted in to power by people might be true. Prior to this his becoming PM, I had never heard of him. Not that says much.

Is he corrupt like other politicians in Thailand? Well, do fish swim? That's beside the point right now.

Just so it is clear, I like Abhisit. My wife likes him, too. I am NOT a yellow shirt supporter. As far as I am concerned Sondhi and his cronies deserve to be thrown in jail for life. My wife's business missed out on a million baht in jobs because of the yellow occupation and her business is similarly affected now. 5 jobs have been canceled because of this red idiocy.

I think Abhisit has handled this crisis better than other former Thai PMs would have handled it.

But I can tell you one thing, just to get back to the censure motion by Chalerm, if that unspeakable person with his mafia sons ever would come to power and there would be a similar "protest" under his premiership, the street would be filled with bodies.

If anyone would start killing opponents, then it would be him.

Why are you so quick to accuse Abhisit of killing opponents? Because 85 people got killed in confrontations between military and thugs/mercenaries?

What were the soldiers supposed to do? Not shoot back? In conflicts like this, people will get hurt. All this BS about crowd control equipment (wait, didn't they use tear gas and rubber bullets?) and use of horses, it is all academic.

Its easy to sit on the fence and criticize. What would YOU have done, if you were the Thai PM?

Hmmm?

This country is changing and will keep changing.

[bangkoklight]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like Prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsibility for the deaths.

And if he can't say "yes" to the killings (as any decent human being would have) then he should have stepped down.

Problem is Abhisit thinks he is gods gift to Thai politics when he is simply an irresponsible, stubborn, leader who will never get voted into power by the people no matter how many of his opponents he kills and tries to silence

seems to me Russell you have a bit of a fixation with the young and handsome Abhisit

fix·a·tion 1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.2. An obsessive preoccupation.3. A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behaviour that persists throughout life.

Here we go, another dictionary definition man. Nothing to do with the topic at all.

[bangkoklight]

"... but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes" .." By that same logic, Thaksin would have given that same final "yes" to the 2006 coup.

BTW... I think G. Prem owes his job to the Monarchy and that the top military brass owe their jobs to G. Prem. Sorry to have mixed fact and logic in with your political rants.

There is a chain of command and a logical course of actions in a true democracy so Abhisit (and any other PM) should have the final say, but as you say Klikster, the PM doesn't have the real power.

I've made a simple logic chart for Thailand's democracy, which Abhisit currently represents:

Reds democratically elected + Army interference = Yellows in power

Reds democratically elected + No army interference = Reds in power

Yellows democratically elected + Army interference = Yellows in power

Yellows democratically elected + No army interference = Yellows in power

[Chaimai]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Okay. I understand and I completely agree with you - power comes from the Privy Council and the traditional elite. And I do believe that this is what Russell meant too. But the pro-government supporters here (want to) believe that Abhisit came to power as a democratically elected leader in a true democracy.

If Abhisit doesn't have the final say in military action, then he shouldn't be representing the Democratic Party, right?

Your last sentence shows that you have not been listening to a word that you have read.

Let's try again:-

"If you believe that the Thai army follows orders from K. Abhisit, then I believe you are misinformed or naive."

[meom]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Technically orders come through Abhisit, from the military and people like prem (since he owes his job to them), but Abhisit is the one who basically gives the final "yes", so I suppose my point was that he must take some responsiblity for the deaths.

Does the same logic apply to Tak Bai where technically orders came through Taksin from the same people?

[bangkoklight]

Actually, when RusselHantz wrote, "Orders that came from the top - Abhisit," it said volumes about his grasp of the true power structure in Thailand.

Okay. I understand and I completely agree with you - power comes from the Privy Council and the traditional elite. And I do believe that this is what Russell meant too. But the pro-government supporters here (want to) believe that Abhisit came to power as a democratically elected leader in a true democracy.

If Abhisit doesn't have the final say in military action, then he shouldn't be representing the Democratic Party, right?

Your last sentence shows that you have not been listening to a word that you have read.

Let's try again:-

"If you believe that the Thai army follows orders from K. Abhisit, then I believe you are misinformed or naive."

Why does it show that I have not been listening?

I'm not saying that the Thai army follows orders from Abhisit. I am saying the opposite. The pro-government supporters here say Abhisit became PM from truly democratic means in a true democracy, but this is not the case as the army have the real power - according to both pro-government and anti-government supporters posting here. If Abhisit, as the leader of the Democratic Party, wants to be a true democrat, he shouldn't be in power only as a puppet PM for the army.

Edited May 23, 2010 by bangkoklight

[bangkoklight]

eu contraire bkklite

Russell cannot make a post without mentioning the fair Abhisit in some way, and as he brought it up it becomes part of posting history and hence part of the topic

I find its better to give dictionary definitions to Russell Hantz, he fails to understand the most basic social commentary

as his avatar suggests and his behaviour, he is a bit of a cavemen type:

http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2010/04/...or-battery.html

'Survivor' villain Russell Hantz busted for battery

By Hanh Nguyen

"Survivor's" favorite love-to-hate villain has had a run-in with the law.

Russell Hantz -- he of the piercing eyes, pot belly and black soul -- was arrested in Lafayette, Louisiana Friday morning (April 23) for attacking someone at the Festival International de Louisiane, reports TMZ.

The castaway was partying during the five-day Francophone world music street fest when he allegedly "shoved" a fellow festivalgoer to the pavement.

Before you could say "Survivors, ready? Go!" he was cuffed and taken to a nearby jail where he was eventually released.

Well, seeing as Abhisit is the prime minister and this thread is entitled "Replying to Pue Thai Party To Sensor (Censure) PM", who do you think he should talk about - the Dali Lama? LOL!

Are you really a black man?

Edited May 23, 2010 by bangkoklight

[Ulysses G.]

By the way, that smug whistling smiley does nothing to help your weak, pityful excuses for the mans inhumane actions.

What an amazingly erudite argument. Did you learn the smiley bashing techniques on the Oxford debating team?

[bangkoklight]

By the way, that smug whistling smiley does nothing to help your weak, pityful excuses for the mans inhumane actions.

What an amazingly erudite argument. Did you learn the smiley bashing techniques on the Oxford debating team?

Answered with a smiley. Oh dear...

[Ulysses G.]

You noticed. Very good!

Edited May 23, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[bangkoklight]

You noticed. Very good!

Regarding censure debate. If the Pue Thai Party were to run their own man for PM and try to dissolve the current government, how would Abhisit and his government react? Are smileys valid in the House?

[Ulysses G.]

I'm really not sure, but there is a possiblity that the Pue Thai Party might have lost a lot of support after burning down Bangkok and causing problems all over the country.

[bangkoklight]

I'm really not sure, but there is a possiblity that the Pue Thai Party might have lost a lot of support after burning down Bangkok and causing problems all over the country.

Thought you might say that. Thanks for clarifying. So smileys are definitely out of the big boys' discussion, thanks.

[Ulysses G.]

I understand that they use them on written speeches, but they are not used when actually speaking.

[sbk]

Well, since it seems the OP has been answered and its devolved into the same endless loop of arguments.

//CLOSED//