Thaksin Slams Anupong For Crackdown On Red Shirts

[cdnvic]

Tasteless photo deleted. Even if it was from the paper.

[MikeyIdea]

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

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.

Your attempt to answer the question is still not succeeding to answer the question. No one with more than minimal education thinks that cheering is covered by criminal law. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. Answer the question please. We are of course talking about civil law, not criminal law

Edit: Removed additional line feeds

Edited June 14, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[MikeyIdea]

Tasteless photo deleted. Even if it was from the paper.

I can understand that TV is moderating tasteless pictures but if it was relevant to the topic discussed, then may I have the link to the picture please. Please PM if you don't want the newspaper link in TV. The topic of wounded and/or dead people are spot on for this topic

Apologies if picture was off-topic

[mazeltov]

Tasteless photo deleted. Even if it was from the paper.

I can understand that TV is moderating tasteless pictures but if it was relevant to the topic discussed, then may I have the link to the picture please. Please PM if you don't want the newspaper link in TV. The topic of wounded and/or dead people are spot on for this topic

Apologies if picture was off-topic

It wasn't off topic.

calling it "tasteless" a view from an North American, Western European background.

the article from The Nation. a memento mori photography.

the article about nameless innocent victims without a lobby.nobody came to claim their bodies. some already denying that these person ever existed.

but you will not forget after you saw that photo. i saw the photo, it is in my head. i will remember.

People take pictures of the Summer,

Just in case someone thought they had missed it,

And to proved that it really existed.

Fathers take pictures of the mothers,

And the sisters take pictures of brothers,

Just to show that they love one another.

You can't picture love that you took from me,

When we were young and the world was free.

Pictures of things as they used to be,

Don't show me no more, please.

People take pictures of each other,

Just to prove that they really existed,

Just to prove that they really existed.

People take pictures of each other,

And the moment to last them for ever,

Of the time when they mattered to someone.

People take pictures of the Summer,

Just in case someone thought they had missed it,

Just to proved that it really existed.

People take pictures of each other,

And the moment to last them for ever,

Of the time when they mattered to someone.

Picture of me when I was just three,

Sucking my thumb by the old oak tree.

Oh how I love things as they used to be,

Don't show me no more, please.

[Siam Simon]

Your attempt to answer the question is still not succeeding to answer the question. No one with more than minimal education thinks that cheering is covered by criminal law. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. Answer the question please. We are of course talking about civil law, not criminal law

Edit: Removed additional line feeds

You are funny . I've answered your questions in full as you've expanded them, and I'll continue to do so with your latest expansion ("of course" we were talking about civil law. How silly of me not to read your mind!). Just about anything is possible in civil law. Thaksin was quite fond of using it when he was PM. Unlike criminal law, where even the best private lawyers are always going to come up against highly-trained, highly-professional Crown lawyers, big civil cases are often like poker games with the side putting in the biggest stakes (hiring the best lawyers, making the case too expensive for their opponent, etc) winning.

[MikeyIdea]

Your attempt to answer the question is still not succeeding to answer the question. No one with more than minimal education thinks that cheering is covered by criminal law. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. Answer the question please. We are of course talking about civil law, not criminal law

Edit: Removed additional line feeds

You are funny . I've answered your questions in full as you've expanded them, and I'll continue to do so with your latest expansion ("of course" we were talking about civil law. How silly of me not to read your mind!). Just about anything is possible in civil law. Thaksin was quite fond of using it when he was PM. Unlike criminal law, where even the best private lawyers are always going to come up against highly-trained, highly-professional Crown lawyers, big civil cases are often like poker games with the side putting in the biggest stakes (hiring the best lawyers, making the case too expensive for their opponent, etc) winning.

You forgot to answer the question....

What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please

[Siam Simon]

Your attempt to answer the question is still not succeeding to answer the question. No one with more than minimal education thinks that cheering is covered by criminal law. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. Answer the question please. We are of course talking about civil law, not criminal law

Edit: Removed additional line feeds

You are funny . I've answered your questions in full as you've expanded them, and I'll continue to do so with your latest expansion ("of course" we were talking about civil law. How silly of me not to read your mind!). Just about anything is possible in civil law. Thaksin was quite fond of using it when he was PM. Unlike criminal law, where even the best private lawyers are always going to come up against highly-trained, highly-professional Crown lawyers, big civil cases are often like poker games with the side putting in the biggest stakes (hiring the best lawyers, making the case too expensive for their opponent, etc) winning.

You forgot to answer the question....

What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please

So far, they are not guilty of anything in civil law because no civil case has been judged on this issue. Like I said, anything is possible in civil law if there is the will and the money to pursue a case. Why don't you test the waters on this one yourself?

If you think that all Red Shirts should have the book thrown at them because you don't like them, why not just say so? You won't get me agreeing with you no matter how much you load or modify your question.

[MikeyIdea]

Your attempt to answer the question is still not succeeding to answer the question. No one with more than minimal education thinks that cheering is covered by criminal law. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. Answer the question please. We are of course talking about civil law, not criminal law

Edit: Removed additional line feeds

You are funny . I've answered your questions in full as you've expanded them, and I'll continue to do so with your latest expansion ("of course" we were talking about civil law. How silly of me not to read your mind!). Just about anything is possible in civil law. Thaksin was quite fond of using it when he was PM. Unlike criminal law, where even the best private lawyers are always going to come up against highly-trained, highly-professional Crown lawyers, big civil cases are often like poker games with the side putting in the biggest stakes (hiring the best lawyers, making the case too expensive for their opponent, etc) winning.

You forgot to answer the question....

What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please

So far, they are not guilty of anything in civil law because no civil case has been judged on this issue. Like I said, anything is possible in civil law if there is the will and the money to pursue a case. Why don't you test the waters on this one yourself?

If you think that all Red Shirts should have the book thrown at them because you don't like them, why not just say so? You won't get me agreeing with you no matter how much you load or modify your question.

You forgot to answer the question... again.

No one with more than minimal education thinks that a person is guilty as changed until the person has been charged. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please, And since they are not charged, I of course don't ask you to quote the judges'end statement.

I ask your opinion

Edit: Moved down "I ask your opinion" to its own line to make it more visible

Edited June 14, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[Siam Simon]

You forgot to answer the question... again.

No one with more than minimal education thinks that a person is guilty as changed until the person has been charged. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please, And since they are not charged, I of course don't ask you to quote the judges'end statement.

I ask your opinion

Edit: Moved down "I ask your opinion" to its own line to make it more visible

What on earth are you blathering on about?

You keep asking me slight modifications of the same question, and I keep providing straight, direct answers.

Are you trying to bore me to death? Is this the latest TV anti-red tactic?

Edited June 14, 2010 by Siam Simon

[MikeyIdea]

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

You forgot to answer the question... again.

No one with more than minimal education thinks that a person is guilty as changed until the person has been charged. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please, And since they are not charged, I of course don't ask you to quote the judges'end statement.

I ask your opinion

Edit: Moved down "I ask your opinion" to its own line to make it more visible

What on earth are you blathering on about?

You keep asking me slight modifications of the same question, and I keep providing straight, direct answers.

Are you trying to bore me to death? Is this the latest TV anti-red tactic?

You have deliberately misread my posts to not having to answer the question for several posts.

Now if you please: Answer the question

[Siam Simon]

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

You forgot to answer the question... again.

No one with more than minimal education thinks that a person is guilty as changed until the person has been charged. So why did you dilute the answer by bringing that in?

I am happy to offer you one more opportunity. What were they guilty of? Or were they perhaps not guilty? Civil law please, And since they are not charged, I of course don't ask you to quote the judges'end statement.

I ask your opinion

Edit: Moved down "I ask your opinion" to its own line to make it more visible

What on earth are you blathering on about?

You keep asking me slight modifications of the same question, and I keep providing straight, direct answers.

Are you trying to bore me to death? Is this the latest TV anti-red tactic?

You have deliberately misread my posts to not having to answer the question for several posts.

Now if you please: Answer the question

Yep. Definitely the latest TV anti-red propagandist tactic. Zzzzzzzzzz...........

[hammered]

Forgetting the grannies, farmers and students etc that leaves the red leadership, guard dudes and black shirted types. Considering the PTP MPs and some of the red leadership are basically up country power brokers and mafiosa kinds it is hardly surprising that a bunch of burning and violence occurred. That isnt to say the grannies, the framers, the students and even some of the milder leaders and even a few red giards were involved in the planning and execution of it. The likely were not and likely had no control over it even if they wanted to.

However until the red movement ousts or breaks away from the violent and mafiosa kinds there movement as a whole will remain tainted by the actions of it. The only way they can break away or oust it is to actuially also be honest about it. It will be interesting to see if this happens or if the violent elements continue to actually control the organization. Without the lunatics the red movement would probably win every social (as opposed to poltical power game) demand in a very short time. While the violent groups remain this eventualtiy reamains less likely.

[Old Man River]

Forgetting the grannies, farmers and students etc that leaves the red leadership, guard dudes and black shirted types. Considering the PTP MPs and some of the red leadership are basically up country power brokers and mafiosa kinds it is hardly surprising that a bunch of burning and violence occurred. That isnt to say the grannies, the framers, the students and even some of the milder leaders and even a few red giards were involved in the planning and execution of it. The likely were not and likely had no control over it even if they wanted to.

However until the red movement ousts or breaks away from the violent and mafiosa kinds there movement as a whole will remain tainted by the actions of it. The only way they can break away or oust it is to actuially also be honest about it. It will be interesting to see if this happens or if the violent elements continue to actually control the organization. Without the lunatics the red movement would probably win every social (as opposed to poltical power game) demand in a very short time. While the violent groups remain this eventualtiy reamains less likely.

At the end of the day it is all about funding. Without Thaksin and his cohorts, who is going to fund the Red Shirts? OK, assuming there are some people who would fund them who want a viable political entity upcountry, would these people want to bang heads with the violent ones? On this, I doubt it.

[hammered]

Forgetting the grannies, farmers and students etc that leaves the red leadership, guard dudes and black shirted types. Considering the PTP MPs and some of the red leadership are basically up country power brokers and mafiosa kinds it is hardly surprising that a bunch of burning and violence occurred. That isnt to say the grannies, the framers, the students and even some of the milder leaders and even a few red giards were involved in the planning and execution of it. The likely were not and likely had no control over it even if they wanted to.

However until the red movement ousts or breaks away from the violent and mafiosa kinds there movement as a whole will remain tainted by the actions of it. The only way they can break away or oust it is to actuially also be honest about it. It will be interesting to see if this happens or if the violent elements continue to actually control the organization. Without the lunatics the red movement would probably win every social (as opposed to poltical power game) demand in a very short time. While the violent groups remain this eventualtiy reamains less likely.

At the end of the day it is all about funding. Without Thaksin and his cohorts, who is going to fund the Red Shirts? OK, assuming there are some people who would fund them who want a viable political entity upcountry, would these people want to bang heads with the violent ones? On this, I doubt it.

I tend to doubt it too and the reality is that when push camer to shove it was the violent power game players who made the call on the roadmap and not the lefties. However, the irony remains that the violent power players undermine all the nice sounding demands that some of the poor and milder leaders really believe in. I also understand that nobody in their right mind is going to go against the local feudal lord (read PTP MP) in a province if they value their life. This is reality of provincial life that few trying to analyse the situation are aware of.

It is all a tragedy really.

Funding becomes crucial although there are some rumours that fuinding to the opposition has dried up which if ture would create conditions for another power block to move in. We will see.