Thaksin Slams Anupong For Crackdown On Red Shirts

[Insight]

mazeltov - Any chance you can respond to any of MikeyIdea's questions? If you have already please repost it again. Thanks.

What questions? and how many actually?

Did he questioned anything what i have said in my posts or wanted to have something verified, substantiate? or did he ignored that content totally and came up with something else?

If something is unclear what i have said i will be always willing to give further explanation if there is somebody interested in.

edit: changed a double post into a different entry.

Characteristically evasive as per usual.

I'll make it simple for you. How much preparation do you think the red shirts put in to their arson attacks? Weeks or months?

Ask a poster, who you don't like, heavily loaded questions of your own design. Then keep demanding answers and call that poster 'evasive': I've highlighted this standard flame procedure several times in the past. It's a favourite of anti-reds on TV . Of course, loaded questions on this arson issue and attempts to answer are pure speculation at this stage. Hopefully, there will be a good and fair investigation, hopefully the correct perps will be fingered, and hopefully we'll find out just how large (or small) a conspiracy this was. Until then, feel free to speculate away according to your colour favour. And make sure you question the integrity of any posters you don't like along the way .

It's a debate - Get over yourself.

Are you also insinuating it wasn't the red shirts behind the arson attacks?

[Siam Simon]

Why would questions on the arson issue and attempts to answer them be pure speculation at this stage?

Are you suggesting that the arsons didn't happen, or perhaps that some red leaders didn't - already last year - encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Edit: changed say that they would burn Bangkok? to encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Please read my post again and try to see a little beyond your pre-conceptions. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we can only speculate about how large the conspiracy was and who was involved.

And, Insight, no I'm not insinuating that. In fact, I'm 99.99 percent sure that it was some Red Shirts who committed at least some of the arsons (though nothing would surprise me in this country). Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

Yes, it's a debate. Disingenuous team attempts to discredit other posters is not debate.

[MikeyIdea]

Why would questions on the arson issue and attempts to answer them be pure speculation at this stage?

Are you suggesting that the arsons didn't happen, or perhaps that some red leaders didn't - already last year - encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Edit: changed say that they would burn Bangkok? to encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Please read my post again and try to see a little beyond your pre-conceptions. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we can only speculate about how large the conspiracy was and who was involved.

And, Insight, no I'm not insinuating that. In fact, I'm 99.99 percent sure that it was some Red Shirts who committed at least some of the arsons (though nothing would surprise me in this country). Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

Yes, it's a debate. Disingenuous team attempts to discredit other posters is not debate.

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty – assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

[Siam Simon]

Why would questions on the arson issue and attempts to answer them be pure speculation at this stage?

Are you suggesting that the arsons didn't happen, or perhaps that some red leaders didn't - already last year - encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Edit: changed say that they would burn Bangkok? to encourage people to burn Bangkok?

Please read my post again and try to see a little beyond your pre-conceptions. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we can only speculate about how large the conspiracy was and who was involved.

And, Insight, no I'm not insinuating that. In fact, I'm 99.99 percent sure that it was some Red Shirts who committed at least some of the arsons (though nothing would surprise me in this country). Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

Yes, it's a debate. Disingenuous team attempts to discredit other posters is not debate.

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty – assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

What a nonsense argument! Most anti-reds on here were ecstatic in their cheering of the murder of Sae Daeng. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy to murder? Same argument, same nonsense conclusion. (cue more rants of how Sae Deng got what was coming, probably leading to discussions on the morality of extra-judicial killing and more discussions about fake reds/soldiers/insert your favourite, and so on and so forth )

[rixalex]

Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

How do you differentiate the people on the bandwagon who were setting fires from the gangster/criminal elements who may have set fires and who may have jumped on the bandwagon?

They are all arsonists. They are all criminals.

[Siam Simon]

Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

How do you differentiate the people on the bandwagon who were setting fires from the gangster/criminal elements who may have set fires and who may have jumped on the bandwagon?

They are all arsonists. They are all criminals.

I agree. They are all arsonists, all criminals. But you differentiate for the same reason that you differentiate to solve any crime. You don't just blame one criminal or one set of criminals or one large section of a population for all crimes or even a series of similar crimes. You investigate thoroughly and find out who did what. That's how it's done. I thought everyone understood this.

[MikeyIdea]

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

What a nonsense argument! Most anti-reds on here were ecstatic in their cheering of the murder of Sae Daeng. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy to murder? Same argument, same nonsense conclusion. (cue more rants of how Sae Deng got what was coming, probably leading to discussions on the morality of extra-judicial killing and more discussions about fake reds/soldiers/insert your favourite, and so on and so forth )

What argument? It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Do you consider the reds that were cheering their approval when the red leaders said that they would burn Bangkok to be guilty of anything? If so What?

Edited June 11, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[rixalex]

I agree. They are all arsonists, all criminals. But you differentiate for the same reason that you differentiate to solve any crime. You don't just blame one criminal or one set of criminals or one large section of a population for all crimes or even a series of similar crimes. You investigate thoroughly and find out who did what. That's how it's done. I thought everyone understood this.

I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating anything else.

Just because people point fingers, doesn't mean that they are calling for extrajudicial justice.

The reds might feel the finger pointing is unfair, but those who witnessed them calling for crimes to be commited that subsequently were, probably won't afford them too much sympathy. You reap what you sow.

[Jimi007]

Yet another, somewhat amusing read. I'm not sure why I bothered, as I already knew who would post the most, defending the ex- PM, who never did anything wrong and still hasn't... Just an observation.

[Siam Simon]

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty – assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

What a nonsense argument! Most anti-reds on here were ecstatic in their cheering of the murder of Sae Daeng. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy to murder? Same argument, same nonsense conclusion. (cue more rants of how Sae Deng got what was coming, probably leading to discussions on the morality of extra-judicial killing and more discussions about fake reds/soldiers/insert your favourite, and so on and so forth )

What argument? It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Do you consider the reds that were cheering their approval when the red leaders said that they would burn Bangkok to be guilty of anything? If so What?

Your argument, as in your opinion. You know, the one that you presented to me as your opinion? and then asked me for my opinion, which I gave?

And my answer to your question is: No, I don't think they are guilty of any criminal offence by the act of cheering, but they were guilty of bad judgment.

[Siam Simon]

I agree. They are all arsonists, all criminals. But you differentiate for the same reason that you differentiate to solve any crime. You don't just blame one criminal or one set of criminals or one large section of a population for all crimes or even a series of similar crimes. You investigate thoroughly and find out who did what. That's how it's done. I thought everyone understood this.

I wasn't aware that anyone was advocating anything else.

Just because people point fingers, doesn't mean that they are calling for extrajudicial justice.

The reds might feel the finger pointing is unfair, but those who witnessed them calling for crimes to be commited that subsequently were, probably won't afford them too much sympathy. You reap what you sow.

Your post bears little relation to my post to which you were replying, which makes a response difficult. But I'll try:

1)Some anti-red posters are advocating the concept that Red Shirt = conspiracy to commit arson.

2)I haven't seen anyone in this thread calling for extra-judicial justice. I certainly haven't. What point are you trying to make here?

3)That might be the case but what has that to do with the criminal investigations and any potential criminal guilt, which was the point of my post that prompted your above reply?

sp

Edited June 11, 2010 by Siam Simon

[rixalex]

Your post bears little relation to my post to which you were replying, which makes a response difficult. But I'll try:

1)Some anti-red posters are advocating the concept that Red Shirt = conspiracy to commit arson.

2)I haven't seen anyone in this thread calling for extra-judicial justice. I certainly haven't. What point are you trying to make here?

3)That might be the case but what has that to do with the criminal investigations and any potential criminal guilt, which was the point of my post that prompted your above reply?

sp

My reply stemmed back from your original comment that gangster/criminal elements may have been involved in some of the fires. It implied that there were other fires in which a gangster/criminal element was not involved.

My comment about extrajudicial justice was in response to your comment about thorough investigations being required. It suggested that you thought there were some who were not in favour, and were happy for convictions to be made without due process. I haven't seen anyone in favour of that.

[rabo]

Please read my post again and try to see a little beyond your pre-conceptions. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we can only speculate about how large the conspiracy was and who was involved.

And, Insight, no I'm not insinuating that. In fact, I'm 99.99 percent sure that it was some Red Shirts who committed at least some of the arsons (though nothing would surprise me in this country). Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

Yes, it's a debate. Disingenuous team attempts to discredit other posters is not debate.

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty – assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

What a nonsense argument! Most anti-reds on here were ecstatic in their cheering of the murder of Sae Daeng. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy to murder? Same argument, same nonsense conclusion. (cue more rants of how Sae Deng got what was coming, probably leading to discussions on the morality of extra-judicial killing and more discussions about fake reds/soldiers/insert your favourite, and so on and so forth )

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

Edited June 11, 2010 by rabo

[Siam Simon]

Your post bears little relation to my post to which you were replying, which makes a response difficult. But I'll try:

1)Some anti-red posters are advocating the concept that Red Shirt = conspiracy to commit arson.

2)I haven't seen anyone in this thread calling for extra-judicial justice. I certainly haven't. What point are you trying to make here?

3)That might be the case but what has that to do with the criminal investigations and any potential criminal guilt, which was the point of my post that prompted your above reply?

sp

My reply stemmed back from your original comment that gangster/criminal elements may have been involved in some of the fires. It implied that there were other fires in which a gangster/criminal element was not involved.

My comment about extrajudicial justice was in response to your comment about thorough investigations being required. It suggested that you thought there were some who were not in favour, and were happy for convictions to be made without due process. I haven't seen anyone in favour of that.

If you want to make off-kilter interpretations of my posts, that's your problem.

[Siam Simon]

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

I also think some were later involved.

The two notions of 'guilt by cheering' are equally absurd. It seems one only gets respect from the anti-reds on TV by singing from the same hymn sheet as them. Otherwise, one is subject to sneaky attempts to be drawn into breaking forum rules, tag team forum attacks, accusations of being paid to post by Thaksin or being such-and-such a returning banned poster, etc.

In answer to your little thought experiment: I think the arson would still have taken place after the scenario you paint.

By the way, one question mark is enough at the end of a question directed at me. Spare me the amateur dramatics.

[rabo]

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

I also think some were later involved.

The two notions of 'guilt by cheering' are equally absurd. It seems one only gets respect from the anti-reds on TV by singing from the same hymn sheet as them. Otherwise, one is subject to sneaky attempts to be drawn into breaking forum rules, tag team forum attacks, accusations of being paid to post by Thaksin or being such-and-such a returning banned poster, etc.

In answer to your little thought experiment: I think the arson would still have taken place after the scenario you paint.

By the way, one question mark is enough at the end of a question directed at me. Spare me the amateur dramatics.

If the reds had disapproved and left, then who would have done all the arson? (Single question mark indicating non rhetorical question)

[Siam Simon]

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

I also think some were later involved.

The two notions of 'guilt by cheering' are equally absurd. It seems one only gets respect from the anti-reds on TV by singing from the same hymn sheet as them. Otherwise, one is subject to sneaky attempts to be drawn into breaking forum rules, tag team forum attacks, accusations of being paid to post by Thaksin or being such-and-such a returning banned poster, etc.

In answer to your little thought experiment: I think the arson would still have taken place after the scenario you paint.

By the way, one question mark is enough at the end of a question directed at me. Spare me the amateur dramatics.

If the reds had disapproved and left, then who would have done all the arson? (Single question mark indicating non rhetorical question)

The types who made up the small minority who carried and used firearms are very likely the types who did the burning. I doubt the majority had any influence over them. In fact, I have my doubts that anybody had any influence over many of them after Sae Daeng was murdered, and that they were just a bunch of rebels without a cause.

[Insight]

The types who made up the small minority who carried and used firearms are very likely the types who did the burning. I doubt the majority had any influence over them. In fact, I have my doubts that anybody had any influence over many of them after Sae Daeng was murdered, and that they were just a bunch of rebels without a cause.

So buildings were torched pretty much in accordance with the plan reported by a fair few people who had spoken to the red shirts who allegedly said they'd go on a massive arson spree if the army moved in. And this happened because the rouge general - who said he'd carry on fighting regardless of if the other leaders surrendered - was off'ed. Got it.

[rixalex]

If you want to make off-kilter interpretations of my posts, that's your problem.

Nothing off-kilter about the interpretations i made.

This comment below of yours clearly suggested that some of the fires were not commited by ganster/criminal elements:

Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

And this comment below clearly suggested that you thought some people were in some way not in favour of or not aware of the proper course of justice:

You investigate thoroughly and find out who did what. That's how it's done. I thought everyone understood this.

If you didn't mean to make those suggestions then you need to start expressing yourself more clearly.

[animatic]

JUMP! JUMP already!

Are you a WIMP! Jump from that building!!!

NOW! Ju ump Ju ump Ju ump.

Kill the bastard, kill him beat him, kill him, he insulted you,

he's not one of us, get 'm, go on do it, kill him.

She's drunk, go on screw her, she's came here for it. Bang that slut,

Go on do her, what are you a wimp, she wants it, go on screw her now.

So what if she's drunk, go on, do her.

--------------------------------------------------

All the above could be seen as forms of 'cheer leading', urging people on to actions.

Oh it's JUST TALK... but talk that leads to actions that are reprehensible and illegal.

Guilt by cheer leading can be a legitimate offense.

Especially if that offense is sedition and leads to, murders, arson and insurrection,

by those who are the target of such 'cheer leading'.

Edited June 12, 2010 by animatic

[Siam Simon]

JUMP! JUMP already!

Are you a WIMP! Jump from that building!!!

NOW! Ju ump Ju ump Ju ump.

Kill the bastard, kill him beat him, kill him, he insulted you,

he's not one of us, get 'm, go on do it, kill him.

She's drunk, go on screw her, she's came here for it. Bang that slut,

Go on do her, what are you a wimp, she wants it, go on screw her now.

So what if she's drunk, go on, do her.

--------------------------------------------------

All the above could be seen as forms of 'cheer leading', urging people on to actions.

Oh it's JUST TALK... but talk that leads to actions that are reprehensible and illegal.

Guilt by cheer leading can be a legitimate offense.

Especially if that offense is sedition and leads to, murders, arson and insurrection,

by those who are the target of such 'cheer leading'.

Ah, yes, sedition. First we had this odious piece of work trying to intimidate with thinly-veiled threats:

Thai PM Abhisit Under Fire Over Deadly Crackdown - Thailand Forum - Page 5

Farang Threatens To Burn Central World Down And Steal Everything From It .. - Thailand Forum - Page 10

Red-Shirt Leaders Turn Themselves In At National Police Office - Thailand Forum - Page 14

Edited June 12, 2010 by cdnvic
Removed content that violates forum rules.

[animatic]

Simon says:

Jump off that cliff like a lemming!

Any one gonna do it?

Not without months of mental preparation, coaching,

pseudo patriotic indoctrination and a bit lf Laokao,

or other nervous system depressants and judgment modifiers.

Sounds like being in the Red Camp for 2 months...

Old Mao, knew how to stir the masses and make them do horrendous things

for the good of the party. Those effective techniques still work, for those

amoral enough to use them in the quest for power and profits.

Edited June 12, 2010 by animatic

[Jimi007]

Simon says:

Jump off that cliff like a lemming!

Any one gonna do it?

Not without months of mental preparation, coaching,

pseudo patriotic indoctrination and a bit lf Laokao,

or other nervous system depressants and judgment modifiers.

Sounds like being in the Red Camp for 2 months...

Old Mao, knew how to stir the masses and make them do horrendous things

for the good of the party. Those effective techniques still work, for those

amoral enough to use them in the quest for power and profits.

The last sentence in your Mao quote hit the nail on the head! It fits Thaksin to a T. Amoral as well as arrogant...

[cdnvic]

Calling out members by their real names (correct or not) had gotten people permanently banned in the past. I don't want to see it again. (some deletions made)

[Arkady]

What Thaksin was actually thinking was, "dam_n you Anuphong for being so weak and not cracking down on my red shirt buffaloes much harder and faster, as I would have done in your position. You spoiled my plan yet again by only creating a measly body count for my expensive farang lawyers to work with - only one woman for god's sake and no kids at all - and it is still dwarfed by own spectacular achievements in the field of human rights abuse while I was in office. When I get back I will get even with you for sure and you will get shaken out of your comfortable retirement. Mark my words motherf*cker."

[animatic]

Or words to that effect!

[Tony Clifton]

However smelly or boiling the big pot of shit is, Thaksin just can't help adding even more and stirring it again and again.

He probably has not yet fully realized that he's fallen into it, never to crawl back out, condemned to paddle in shit for the rest of his criminal life, on the run, thinking up coups/civil war at all cost to derail the justice system no more under his control, hiring shameless PR firms for good world exposure and sucking up to lowlife journalists in order to stay afloat.

He is as persistent as a dung beetle.

[animatic]

However smelly or boiling the big pot of shit is, Thaksin just can't help adding even more and stirring it again and again.

He probably has not yet fully realized that he's fallen into it, never to crawl back out, condemned to paddle in shit for the rest of his criminal life, on the run, thinking up coups/civil war at all cost to derail the justice system no more under his control, hiring shameless PR firms for good world exposure and sucking up to lowlife journalists in order to stay afloat.

He is as persistent as a dung beetle.

And the good taste that goes with it.

A turd in a $3,000 suit is no less a turd for all the dressing up.

[mazeltov]

This guy Thaksin wont stop. He needs to suffer the same fate as Seh Daeng. He's crying for international intervention something he shrugged off a premier. "The U.N. is not my father". He slaughtered 100's of muslims and assainated thousands of "suspected" drug suspects. Now he wants a "neutral" panel to investigate. The man is desperate to regain money and power at any costs.

When Thaksin said "the UN is not my father" he meant that he isn't worried about when the UN comes to Thailand and does an independent investigation.

Thaksin "slaughtered 100's of muslims and assainated [sic] thousands of "suspected" drug suspects." - that isn't true and nothing more than a very stupid propaganda lie.

sticking to the facts not a stronghold of the Thaksin haters.

Guess it is their different education that separates Thaksin haters at this board from other members.

Although K. Thaksin didn't personally slaughter anyone (as far as I know), he had it done. If K. Abhisit can be accused of killing innocent protesters, why can't we say some like this about K. Thaksin. Fair's fair, and all posters here seem to (dis)like double standards.

next to the 'who pulled the trigger' issue ...

fair comment? standard comment?

recommending the use of deadly force to stop Thaksin. deliberately misquoting him and telling lies. exaggeration and unsubstantiated claims.

maybe a standard here at the board and/or a standard for you.

"slaughtered 100's of muslims and assainated [sic] thousands of "suspected" drug suspects.

please tell me where these numbers coming from?

There is also a difference between the numbers of homicides happen during the time a PM is in power and how actively he is involved in the commando structure of security measures that lead instantly to a bloodshed.

not that i am denying any deaths and cases where nobody knows who killed these people.#, but these figures above are just false. The Thaksin regime was not free of wrongdoings, but that doesn't mean you can tell any lie about them. If you want condemn Thaksin, was is your right to do so, stick to the facts, don't exaggerate, don't simplify or you will lose credibility.

The problems in the South are to complex to blame solely Thaksin for it. As for the numbers of death in the insurgency related violence, it increased significant after Thaskin was ousted. from Jan 2004 till Sept 2006 (2 years 9 month) the death toll was somewhat of 1400 death and reached 3000 death in march 2008 (around 1 year 6 month later) it became clearly more worse after Thaksin.

And that death toll is the total number of deaths, including all victims of the insurgency related violence. victims of bomb attacks, drive by shootings, beheaded farmers, murdered teachers, assassinated police officers, dead terrorists, killed nurses, state officials ...old people, young people, children, people of all religions, buddhist, muslims. and yes, amongst the death are muslims who died in clashes with security forces. but 'slaughtered 100's of muslims???'

for the sake of a cheap argument 'blamers' seems to be not much interested to have a look at the details, at the circumstances, the personal involved, what leads to it, how was it investigated and to what a degree Thaksin could be hold accountable for, even if he wasn't pulling the trigger.

Without looking at the details and study the cases you will also fail to learn from it. learning to avoid same or similar things in the future. just repeat it again, as excuse you can always point at former wrongdoer. and the best part is, when you team up with the one who actually pulling triggers, you may don't have to be afraid of a coup.

[JLester]

"slaughtered 100's of Muslims and assassinated, thousands of "suspected" drug suspects.

that should 1,000's of Muslims

Excerpt from:

Does a fit and proper person only need to have bootfuls of money? | Mail Online

23 June 2007

Does a fit and proper person only need to have bootfuls of money?

Sarah Green, an Amnesty spokesperson, told me: "During his premiership, Shinawatra showed a disregard for human rights. In the south of the country, which has a predominantly Muslim population, State security forces acted far beyond the rules. Around 1,900 people were killed in three years, there were arrests without trial, disappearances and many instances of torture.

"The police and military knew they could get away with it because they knew they would not be investigated. And Shinawatra passed an emergency decree which accelerated this situation.

"Violence in Thailand intensified during his administration and he took decisions which inflamed it. A lot of deaths would not have happened had government policy been different.