PM Abhisit Criticizes Thaksin For Continuing To Damage The Country

[JetsetBkk]

I would suggest that the red-shirt/UDD movement is already 'fairly represented', although many might not think much of the PTP in parliament these days, since they seem unwilling to co-operate on electoral-reform, or much else.

Perhaps they might stop proposing censure-motions, and start properly representing their constituents again, then the sit-down/talk you propose would recommence ?

PTP is far too busy trying to build a robot that can campaign on behalf of Kokaew to be worrying about representing their supporters in parliament.

http://www.nationmul...e-30132376.html

Too ridiculous for words.

Do you think he was maybe just having a laugh?

[JetsetBkk]

compare to red shirt supporters (me) / red shirt terrorists/bombers/arsonists supporters (not me) / Thaksin supporters (not me).

By being a "red shirt supporter", you will be labeled a terrorism supporter and/or Thaksin supporter, regardless of your sympathy for the poor.<snip>

Yes, I know.

...Most people do sympathize with the poor but do not support the red shirt movement, because the UDD are only using the poor to get votes from them.

The poor need to separate themselves from the red shirt movement (including Thaksin) and find some other platform for promoting fair policies that would benefit them. Forget silly colors, incitement to violence and libelous hate speech.

I don't believe they have another platform. What they had has been hijacked by the nutjobs.

[animatic]

One thing missed in the IRA Irish solution analogy.

The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence,

and in many cases finance it, ARE in jail for a LONG time.

Only those that ;

a ) never got caught

b ) renounced violence and started dialog

got the all is forgiven card handed to them.

In the name of peace...

And the dualing religious aspect of 500 + years is completely missing.

The change of culture re-design issue is much different.

Besides the obvious that this is the 'lever of increased force',

more than the prevailing reason to win the endgame.

It's not fighting for their godhead, but the godhead fighting

through them for it's temporal power and wealth.

Right now actions are aimed to reign in the revenge aspect, before it becomes a generation of tit for tat vendetta's.

This revenge mindset comes from the us against them indoctrination of the demagogues,

which is also being reigned in less successfully, but must be. Not silence the voices of the people,

but diminish the force of the demoguges manipulating them

For what ever reasons of the egotists that covet power,

their methods often leave in their wake heartaches and pain

for many years after their tales are spun.

Edited June 25, 2010 by animatic

[Rucharee]

One thing missed in the IRA Irish solution analogy.

The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence,

and in many cases finance it, ARE in jail for a LONG time.

Only those that ;

a ) never got caught

b ) renounced violence and started dialog

got the all is forgiven card handed to them.

In the name of peace...

And the dualing religious aspect of 500 + years is completely missing.

The change of culture re-design issue is much different.

Besides the obvious that this is the 'lever of increased force',

more than the prevailing reason to win the endgame.

It's not fighting for their godhead, but the godhead fighting

through them for it's temporal power and wealth.

Right now actions are aimed to reign in the revenge aspect, before it becomes a generation of tit for tat vendetta's.

This revenge mindset comes from the us against them indoctrination of the demagogues,

which is also being reigned in less successfully, but must be. Not silence the voices of the people,

but diminish the force of the demoguges manipulating them

For what ever reasons of the egotists that covet power,

their methods often leave in their wake heartaches and pain

for many years after their tales are spun.

"The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence, " I suppose you are referring to Thaksin, Veera, Natawut, Jatupon, et al.

[rixalex]

I would suggest that the red-shirt/UDD movement is already 'fairly represented', although many might not think much of the PTP in parliament these days, since they seem unwilling to co-operate on electoral-reform, or much else.

Perhaps they might stop proposing censure-motions, and start properly representing their constituents again, then the sit-down/talk you propose would recommence ?

PTP is far too busy trying to build a robot that can campaign on behalf of Kokaew to be worrying about representing their supporters in parliament.

http://www.nationmul...e-30132376.html

Too ridiculous for words.

Do you think he was maybe just having a laugh?

I don't know. Didn't strike me as really being that funny. Did it you?

[whybother]

compare to red shirt supporters (me) / red shirt terrorists/bombers/arsonists supporters (not me) / Thaksin supporters (not me).

By being a "red shirt supporter", you will be labeled a terrorism supporter and/or Thaksin supporter, regardless of your sympathy for the poor.<snip>

Yes, I know.

...Most people do sympathize with the poor but do not support the red shirt movement, because the UDD are only using the poor to get votes from them.

The poor need to separate themselves from the red shirt movement (including Thaksin) and find some other platform for promoting fair policies that would benefit them. Forget silly colors, incitement to violence and libelous hate speech.

I don't believe they have another platform. What they had has been hijacked by the nutjobs.

The nutjobs which you support?

[kissdani]

Perhaps they might stop proposing censure-motions, and start properly representing their constituents again, then the sit-down/talk you propose would recommence ?

That's very funny!

What is most funny is the word AGAIN... they have yet to ever do this, not since TRT threw out a few crumbs in 2005.

"AGAIN "

ROTFLOL.

The funny part is that the Democrats, during their time in opposition, started several censure motions against the then Prime Ministers. Censure motion is part of the check and balance system in a parliamentary democracy, nothing wrong with that.

But the most ridiculous one started by the Democrats was based on the claim that the then PM was not born in Thailand and an illegal alien and and is therefore not eligible to serve as prime minister.

These claims were false, a stupid birther argument, and the then PM proved his Thai Nationality with documents that he had registered to military service in his youth as every Thai man is required to do by law.

This silly and xenophobic censure motion wasn't many years ago in a very distant past during the "heydays" of anti Chinese sentiments and discrimination of Chinese immigrants, but only recently, less than 15 years ago.

If you look at the current PM, Democrat leader is that more funny than that what you called most funny.

Abhisit might have won the twitter war, but he could not provide the document that he registered for military conscription at age 18, unlike Banharn Silpa-archa (that is the then PM) who was also born in Thailand and not in China as the Democrats claimed to have "evidence" for.

[hammered]

One thing missed in the IRA Irish solution analogy.

The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence,

and in many cases finance it, ARE in jail for a LONG time.

Only those that ;

a ) never got caught

b ) renounced violence and started dialog

got the all is forgiven card handed to them.

In the name of peace...

And the dualing religious aspect of 500 + years is completely missing.

The change of culture re-design issue is much different.

Besides the obvious that this is the 'lever of increased force',

more than the prevailing reason to win the endgame.

It's not fighting for their godhead, but the godhead fighting

through them for it's temporal power and wealth.

Right now actions are aimed to reign in the revenge aspect, before it becomes a generation of tit for tat vendetta's.

This revenge mindset comes from the us against them indoctrination of the demagogues,

which is also being reigned in less successfully, but must be. Not silence the voices of the people,

but diminish the force of the demoguges manipulating them

For what ever reasons of the egotists that covet power,

their methods often leave in their wake heartaches and pain

for many years after their tales are spun.

"The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence, " I suppose you are referring to Thaksin, Veera, Natawut, Jatupon, et al.

Nattawut is on video making inciteful statements that would be a very clear breach of the law in most western countries let alone Thailand. Very 30's Europe stuff

[animatic]

One thing missed in the IRA Irish solution analogy.

The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence,

and in many cases finance it, ARE in jail for a LONG time.

Only those that ;

a ) never got caught

b ) renounced violence and started dialog

got the all is forgiven card handed to them.

In the name of peace...

And the dualing religious aspect of 500 + years is completely missing.

The change of culture re-design issue is much different.

Besides the obvious that this is the 'lever of increased force',

more than the prevailing reason to win the endgame.

It's not fighting for their godhead, but the godhead fighting

through them for it's temporal power and wealth.

Right now actions are aimed to reign in the revenge aspect, before it becomes a generation of tit for tat vendetta's.

This revenge mindset comes from the us against them indoctrination of the demagogues,

which is also being reigned in less successfully, but must be. Not silence the voices of the people,

but diminish the force of the demoguges manipulating them

For what ever reasons of the egotists that covet power,

their methods often leave in their wake heartaches and pain

for many years after their tales are spun.

"The guys that were known to actually hands on do the violence, " I suppose you are referring to Thaksin, Veera, Natawut, Jatupon, et al.

No, that was referencing the Irish peace proccess after 30 years of 'The Troubles.'

[kissdani]

Nattawut is on video making inciteful statements that would be a very clear breach of the law in most western countries let alone Thailand. Very 30's Europe stuff

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

[rubl]

Nattawut is on video making inciteful statements that would be a very clear breach of the law in most western countries let alone Thailand. Very 30's Europe stuff

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Edited June 26, 2010 by rubl

[kissdani]

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Who did this, comparing Kokaew with Bobby Sands?

[rubl]

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Who did this, comparing Kokaew with Bobby Sands?

Oops, K. Jatuporn and a few other PT members, but comparing Bobby Sands with K. Nattawut. Anyway just as ridiculous.

Edited June 26, 2010 by rubl

[kissdani]

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Who did this, comparing Kokaew with Bobby Sands?

Oops, K. Jatuporn and a few other PT members, but comparing Bobby Sands with K. Nattawut. Anyway just as ridiculous.

So you got it wrong, nobody compares Kokaew with Bobby Sands.

And who are the few others PT members comparing Bobby Sands with K. Nattawut?

[rubl]

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Who did this, comparing Kokaew with Bobby Sands?

Oops, K. Jatuporn and a few other PT members, but comparing Bobby Sands with K. Nattawut. Anyway just as ridiculous.

So you got it wrong, nobody compares Kokaew with Bobby Sands.

And who are the few others PT members comparing Bobby Sands with K. Nattawut?

I'm surprised you didn't mention my typing errors yet

[animatic]

Nattawut is on video making inciteful statements that would be a very clear breach of the law in most western countries let alone Thailand. Very 30's Europe stuff

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Interesting someone thinks to bring something I posted from last August up and match to something Hammered says,

and then seem to get them both out of context and... well where in hel_l does Bobby Sands come up from???

Maybe Jatuporn will starve himself to the brink in jail.... Might take a LOOOONG time though.

[rubl]

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Interesting someone thinks to bring something I posted from last August up and match to something Hammered says,

and then seem to get them both out of context and... well where in hel_l does Bobby Sands come up from???

Maybe Jatuporn will starve himself to the brink in jail.... Might take a LOOOONG time though.

Sorry for bringing Bobby S. in. I was just trying to point out that comparing the 30's in Germany with now in Thailand is as ridiculous as comparing K. Nattawut with Bobby S.

Maybe I should compare Kissdani with K. Jatuporn instead ?

[kissdani]

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Interesting someone thinks to bring something I posted from last August up and match to something Hammered says,

and then seem to get them both out of context and... well where in hel_l does Bobby Sands come up from???

Maybe Jatuporn will starve himself to the brink in jail.... Might take a LOOOONG time though.

Sorry for bringing Bobby S. in. I was just trying to point out that comparing the 30's in Germany with now in Thailand is as ridiculous as comparing K. Nattawut with Bobby S.

Maybe I should compare Kissdani with K. Jatuporn instead ?

You are not able to tell who is who and mingle facts with fable.

I don't argue over typing errors and i didn't came up with that "30's Europe stuff".

And it become now very clear what is downright ridiculous.

[kissdani]

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Interesting someone thinks to bring something I posted from last August up and match to something Hammered says,

and then seem to get them both out of context and... well where in hel_l does Bobby Sands come up from???

Maybe Jatuporn will starve himself to the brink in jail.... Might take a LOOOONG time though.

Where in hel_l rubl got Bobby Sands from he cannot answer himself and why he mentioned as comment to your good summary what happen back the days during the 30's in Europe can be only explained as ridiculous.

But why you say your older entry is totally out of context? You point out the key facts how a dictator with the help of fear-mongering and rule by decree could rise to absolute power and the common people found nothing objectionable in the way they lose their civil rights and freedom.

A question could be: were the Germans naive, ignorant and stupid or willing executioners? And can we learn something from history. Some Thai people see in Hitler only the strong and powerful leader and don't think about the bad things that came with him.

Farangs know that part of history better and i think to that it is no-nonsense to ask the question - "Sound familiar to todays shenanigans?" After the night of the snipers in April and the days of massacre in May it makes even more sense and you saw it last year already coming.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters

[animatic]

Yes, sadly last year I did see this coming.

I seem to have better than typical pattern recognition for some reason.

All the pieces of the neo-Maoist /pseudo Goebbels demagogue mechanism have been in place for some time now.

It's been in Issan for many years, but recently grew in force. The need to expand the field of control into Bangkok,

to regain control only happened the last couple of years. I saw the beginnings of this national horror falling together here,

in 2006, and much more strongly and obsessively around the time Samak tried for the SOE.

Edited June 26, 2010 by animatic

[rubl]

A very clear breach of what law? 30's Europe stuff? What you mean? Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?

"quote name='animatic' date='2009-08-03 00:10' timestamp='1249225850' post='2915019'"

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...

"/quote"

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, ..."

Well, well, another comparision out of the blue. Just as ridiculous as comparing K. Kokaew with Bobby Sands. Having studied mathematics ages ago I remember that 1 + 1 = 1 ONLY under certain condition which need to be well defined, else it's just nonsense.

Interesting someone thinks to bring something I posted from last August up and match to something Hammered says,

and then seem to get them both out of context and... well where in hel_l does Bobby Sands come up from???

Maybe Jatuporn will starve himself to the brink in jail.... Might take a LOOOONG time though.

Where in hel_l rubl got Bobby Sands from he cannot answer himself and why he mentioned as comment to your good summary what happen back the days during the 30's in Europe can be only explained as ridiculous.

But why you say your older entry is totally out of context? You point out the key facts how a dictator with the help of fear-mongering and rule by decree could rise to absolute power and the common people found nothing objectionable in the way they lose their civil rights and freedom.

A question could be: were the Germans naive, ignorant and stupid or willing executioners? And can we learn something from history. Some Thai people see in Hitler only the strong and powerful leader and don't think about the bad things that came with him.

Farangs know that part of history better and i think to that it is no-nonsense to ask the question - "Sound familiar to todays shenanigans?" After the night of the snipers in April and the days of massacre in May it makes even more sense and you saw it last year already coming.

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters

The remark "Thailand Reichstagsbrandverordnung farce?" on the article about 30's Germany may have misled me to think that the two were suggested to be the same. That's why I say it's just as ridiculous as comparing Kokaew with Bobby Sands (which I corrected myself into Nattawut). Now you know why Bobby Sands was mentioned.

[kissdani]

This is just as ridiculous as declaring Thaksins twitter messages want to destroy Thailand.

[rubl]

This is just as ridiculous as declaring Thaksins twitter messages want to destroy Thailand.

I assume you mean your one-liner quoted above?

[JetsetBkk]

I would suggest that the red-shirt/UDD movement is already 'fairly represented', although many might not think much of the PTP in parliament these days, since they seem unwilling to co-operate on electoral-reform, or much else.

Perhaps they might stop proposing censure-motions, and start properly representing their constituents again, then the sit-down/talk you propose would recommence ?

PTP is far too busy trying to build a robot that can campaign on behalf of Kokaew to be worrying about representing their supporters in parliament.

http://www.nationmul...e-30132376.html

Too ridiculous for words.

Do you think he was maybe just having a laugh?

I don't know. Didn't strike me as really being that funny. Did it you?

I think he was alluding to the RoboCup competition that's just finished in Singapore and has been in the news recently.

I guess if you didn't know about the competition, his comments would sound a little strange.

[kissdani]

Not only this robot but also all lot of other robots are all over the News recently, including a restaurant where a robot serve food. Some kind of 'robot fever'. If you don't know about this and live only in your farang bubble world it must sound strange.