Thaksin Lawyer Slams Phony Thai Reconciliation

[Lost in LOS]

how many lawyers have their clients plead guilty, never seen it happen. if they have a video of the fugitive killing someone this lawyer will says its the democrats wearing a mask

[hammered]

how many lawyers have their clients plead guilty, never seen it happen. if they have a video of the fugitive killing someone this lawyer will says its the democrats wearing a mask

Amsterdam may be described as a lawyer but his job is as a propagandist. 2BKK has some interesting links to articles on him. His big clients have never to date really gained anything form him but he has sold himself rather well. Good at propagdandizing his own abilities and good businessman is our Amsterdam. He is also master of internet manipulation

[lensta]

Whilst I take everything that this lawyer says with a big pinch of salt, the same applies to the statements by Khun Mark and Thai government spokespersons.

No-one is telling the truth here. Both sides have selfish agendas and neither of them are for the good of Thailand.

Simon

Totally agree with you

[yoshiwara]

<snip>

Competent, clear headed rational, able government doesn't result in bloodbaths

<snip>

Amen, brother.

.

Now that the red thugs are off the streets of Bangkok the bloodbath has stopped.

The reds on the other hand would just love to go back and do it again.

They know it.

We know it.

Just as Thaksin forced the reds to discard negotiations in May, so he will force the same thing again.

And again.

He pays. he calls.

[scorecard]

Whilst I take everything that this lawyer says with a big pinch of salt, the same applies to the statements by Khun Mark and Thai government spokespersons.

No-one is telling the truth here. Both sides have selfish agendas and neither of them are for the good of Thailand.

Simon

TV is virtually a yellows only zone nowadays, Simon. You are right, but don't expect many to agree with you.

What do you mean by "yellow" ?

It is red cult belief that if you are anti-red then you are yellow. Simplistic analysis linked to their hatred building single source indoctination techniques.

Most people seem to clearly be anti-red and anti-yellow, which to my thinking is a principled position as it doesnt mean supporting outrageous and unjustifiable actions, but each to their own

Agree, the notion that your either red or your yellow is false. Many TV members show clearly that they don't support either group.

[frankman]

Didn't I say yesterday, that we should NOT give these "lawywers" so much headlines.

Just you journalists !!!

DON'T  go to these arranged "press meetings"!!!

They just want  to hurt this beautifull country.

Because some people have to live somewhere else,

and can not come back.

Man without motherland !

[LomSak27]

hammerd posted

It is red cult belief that if you are anti-red then you are yellow. Simplistic analysis linked to their hatred building single source indoctination techniques.

Well around here if you somehow have doubts about PAD, the Dems, the Yellows in general, your labeled a Thaksin apologist.

[Insight]

hammerd posted

It is red cult belief that if you are anti-red then you are yellow. Simplistic analysis linked to their hatred building single source indoctination techniques.

Well around here if you somehow have doubts about PAD, the Dems, the Yellows in general, your labeled a Thaksin apologist.

More flawed logic. The Democrats are not the PAD/Yellows/NPP and have frequently been attacked by them (but obviously much less than the reds).

People here have been very critical of the Democrats without being labelled Thaksin apologists. The fact they were arguably such a weak opposition during the Thaksin era helped attribute to this mess in the first place.

[Crushdepth]

At least this lawyer hasn't been convicted of bribing court officials yet

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Agree that it is getting annoying being branded as yellow just because we are anti red. The fact is that many people may have, myself included, supported the yellows in late 2005- early 2006, but unacceptable actions of the yellows have made us reevaluate and turn against them...would be nice to see some red supporters have similar ability to readjust their positions when faced with facts. Today, the yellows are not an immediate threat. The reds are. If the yellows start doing something damanging to the country again then I am sure we would all be up in arms slagging them off too. Take off your myopic red glasses and try to see other shades and hues.

[TAWP]

I saw the yellow as a necessary evil when the PPP was trying to push through a white-wash of Thaksins deeds. Much like I would have accepted help from communist underground groups in occupied France during WW2. Always aim for the bigger joint enemy and live to fight another day with the lesser threats.

[rubl]

<snip>

Competent, clear headed rational, able government doesn't result in bloodbaths

<snip>

Amen, brother.

.

Now that the red thugs are off the streets of Bangkok the bloodbath has stopped.

The reds on the other hand would just love to go back and do it again.

They know it.

We know it.

Just as Thaksin forced the reds to discard negotiations in May, so he will force the same thing again.

And again.

He pays. he calls.

Having 89 deaths during three months protests may be deplorable, but doesn't really seem to justified the term 'bloodbath'. Without restraint it could have been thousands. A lawyer knows sometimes he only needs to sow the seeds of doubt. That's why a lot of Robert A's remarks are not really lies, not really wrong, but definitively not right either.

Edited June 24, 2010 by rubl

[JetsetBkk]

Whilst I take everything that this lawyer says with a big pinch of salt, the same applies to the statements by Khun Mark and Thai government spokespersons.

No-one is telling the truth here. Both sides have selfish agendas and neither of them are for the good of Thailand.

Simon

TV is virtually a yellows only zone nowadays, Simon. You are right, but don't expect many to agree with you.

What do you mean by "yellow" ?

It is red cult belief that if you are anti-red then you are yellow. Simplistic analysis linked to their hatred building single source indoctination techniques.

Most people seem to clearly be anti-red and anti-yellow, which to my thinking is a principled position as it doesnt mean supporting outrageous and unjustifiable actions, but each to their own

This is funny. I support the rural poor and want them to have a better deal. So I am labelled red by the yellows but the yellows don't like being labelled yellow by those it thinks are reds.

What a joke.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Glad you see humour in it. Most of us Thais find this situation extremely alarming and distressing. And most of us do not like being labelled, so you are right there.

[wester]

When I see a polical movement anywhere on the planet that adheres to the following program I will not support it :

tactical heavyhandedness, poverty of analysis, and intellectual weakness

no contrition for repression and death

stubborn refusal to offer reasonable justification for anything it does

constant bleating and refusal to take responsibility for almost anything - ie blaming everything on X

no plan to end the sex trade and provide those who are driven into it with alternatives that are not degrading and humiliating

no plan to make the economy environmentally sustainable and viable in the longterm (i.e. not a good place to invest my money)

no plan to reform a situation that allows foreigners to profit from the exploitation of the domestic population

no plans to transition away from unaccountable unelected non-transparent undemocratic ossified ineffectual institutions.

no realistic plans to close the wealth and income gaps between the rich and the poor

an economic policy that results in piling on the government debt with little creative effort applied towards creative economic solutions that

help those who find themselves in trouble

if any such movement gives itself a color, you can always call me anti- that color.

[yoshiwara]

This is funny. I support the rural poor and want them to have a better deal. So I am labelled red by the yellows but the yellows don't like being labelled yellow by those it thinks are reds.

What a joke.

The joke is the patronising red cheerleaders who do not have one economic demand from the Thaksin forces except amnesty for Thaksin and violence on the streets. They certainly do not support the working class of Bangkok. Just burn their workplaces down. Stick that on their labels.

[yoshiwara]

When I see a polical movement anywhere on the planet that adheres to the following program I will not support it :

tactical heavyhandedness, poverty of analysis, and intellectual weakness

no contrition for repression and death

stubborn refusal to offer reasonable justification for anything it does

constant bleating and refusal to take responsibility for almost anything - ie blaming everything on X

no plan to end the sex trade and provide those who are driven into it with alternatives that are not degrading and humiliating

no plan to make the economy environmentally sustainable and viable in the longterm (i.e. not a good place to invest my money)

no plan to reform a situation that allows foreigners to profit from the exploitation of the domestic population

no plans to transition away from unaccountable unelected non-transparent undemocratic ossified ineffectual institutions.

no realistic plans to close the wealth and income gaps between the rich and the poor

an economic policy that results in piling on the government debt with little creative effort applied towards creative economic solutions that

help those who find themselves in trouble

if any such movement gives itself a color, you can always call me anti- that color.

Political movements normally have economic demands. The Thaksin reds have none.

Just red apologetics here, masquerading as soggy liberalism.

That the reds attacked the working class workplaces of Bangkok seems to have escaped the above contributor's shopping list.

Even Thaksin has to be hidden as Mr X.

Plans? policies? Where is the red programme?

There isn't one.

Just made up by whichever red who wants to wave a stick.

But one thing is clear.

Thaksin has dictated that real class politics is out.

Noting must disturb the northern landowners.

Patronise the peasantry by all means, but no, no, no to class demands.

The red cheerleaders can only swivel away.

Reconciliation with these people?

I don't think so.

Edited June 25, 2010 by yoshiwara

[Rucharee]

<snip>

Competent, clear headed rational, able government doesn't result in bloodbaths

<snip>

Amen, brother.

.

Now that the red thugs are off the streets of Bangkok the bloodbath has stopped.

The reds on the other hand would just love to go back and do it again.

They know it.

We know it.

Just as Thaksin forced the reds to discard negotiations in May, so he will force the same thing again.

And again.

He pays. he calls.

Having 89 deaths during three months protests may be deplorable, but doesn't really seem to justified the term 'bloodbath'. Without restraint it could have been thousands. A lawyer knows sometimes he only needs to sow the seeds of doubt. That's why a lot of Robert A's remarks are not really lies, not really wrong, but definitively not right either.

89 death is OK.

There are more than 60 million people in Thailand, not counting you Farangs.

Go on Mark, let kill another 100 bad criminals drug dealer, football gamers, red head, etc; to better this country. You have the full support of the Thai people.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Rucharee

[rixalex]

This is funny. I support the rural poor and want them to have a better deal. So I am labelled red by the yellows but the yellows don't like being labelled yellow by those it thinks are reds.

What a joke.

Other people don't need to label you a red, it's how you label yourself:

compare to red shirt supporters (me)

It's not your support of the rural poor that makes you a red. It's your support of the reds that does it.

My belief is most of us here want to see better oppurtunities for the poor in Thailand. The difference is that you seem to see the red shirt movement as a vehicle for that objective.

The red shirt movement is no more interested in helping the poor than the yellow shirt movement. Reds just do a better job of creating the illusion that they care. Old square face being the master illusionist.

[rixalex]

There are more than 60 million people in Thailand, not counting you Farangs.

you Farangs? Don't be excluding your good self.

[whybother]

When I see a polical movement anywhere on the planet that adheres to the following program I will not support it :

tactical heavyhandedness, poverty of analysis, and intellectual weakness

no contrition for repression and death

stubborn refusal to offer reasonable justification for anything it does

constant bleating and refusal to take responsibility for almost anything - ie blaming everything on X

no plan to end the sex trade and provide those who are driven into it with alternatives that are not degrading and humiliating

no plan to make the economy environmentally sustainable and viable in the longterm (i.e. not a good place to invest my money)

no plan to reform a situation that allows foreigners to profit from the exploitation of the domestic population

no plans to transition away from unaccountable unelected non-transparent undemocratic ossified ineffectual institutions.

no realistic plans to close the wealth and income gaps between the rich and the poor

an economic policy that results in piling on the government debt with little creative effort applied towards creative economic solutions that

help those who find themselves in trouble

if any such movement gives itself a color, you can always call me anti- that color.

So you are anti-every Thai political movement then?

One thing I don't understand about red shirt supporters, is their demands that the Abhisit government apologise for the recent events, but then deny any wrong doing by the red shirts.

[wester]

anti-X does not mean pro-Y. this is a demonstration of Logical Fallacy -

called false dilema http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

This is a psychological trait of those who suffer from a totalizing, authoritarian or manichaen personality

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

If you were a responsible PM, and you were asked for an apology for over 100 of your constituents who died and thousands who were wounded at the hands of your soldiers, and you knew that an apology would actually diffuse the situation and lower everybody's blood pressure,

...but you or those around you choose to be too sanctimonious or too proud or too crazy to do that,

then iyou should understand that the uneasy feeling in your gut is the Mandate of Heaven passing away.....forever....

and the most astonishing part is that it is passing by y'alls own choice.

Reminds me of a recent quote from James Kunstler: "Life is Tragic, Dude"

In the future, please don't ask for pity when you have shown none.

Good luck with the attitude and the program kids... I think you will need it.

[Robby nz]

If you were a responsible PM, and you were asked for an apology for over 100 of your constituents who died and thousands who were wounded at the hands of your soldiers

That Wester is worse BS than Amsterdam is spouting.

You know as well as I do how many were killed and injured or if you dont you havent been paying attention.

What neither of us knows is how many died directly from either the reds or the soldiers. There is an inquirey underway at present they should be able to shed some light on this.

However we do know that the red leaders must be responsible for all as they wanted to be there and through their actions and words wanted to cause trouble. Anyone who calls on their supporters to kill and burn as they did must be held responsible when the supporters heed those calls.

The Govt and PM on the other hand did not want any of the trouble and were forced to act when the reds refused to move.

And as for Amsterdam he is only doing the job he is payed to do.

[jackdawson]

And most of us do not like being labelled

actually, when ur on the right side (the side which DIDN"T burn down the city), i don't mind at all

[animatic]

A governmental apollogy is not yet due.

If it ever should be. Sadness at the loss of life has been expressed.

The facts are not even adequately determined, yet, so apologia is premature.

More people are happy they acted to end the rally,

than are mad because it was, by neccesity, done strongly.

Why that had to be so, and how it played out, is yet to be definitively determined.

But one thing is clear, and in the public record, the Red Leaders,

repeatedly prolonged this rally and their statements ratcheted up

the violent mindset of those in the rally. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is how that Red side violence played out vs the security forces and the civilians.

And that no doubt is directly correlated to the security forces responses to it.

And the relationships between the Red 'rank and file' and the red/black ringers in their midst,

is also presently being assessed, via the huge mountain of conflicting media,

and interpretations of same... spinmeisters out in force. (damned hampsters)

Facts are not the tools of reconciliation, but that which shows

where the issues actually stand.

Reconciliation is in minds, not balance sheets or videos.

And those with a heavy indoctrination, are typically unlikely,

to show any near term mental flexibility in their emotional and logical stances.

So for the moment the work of the demagogues will win the day, if not the war.

Edited June 26, 2010 by animatic

[rubl]

Now that the red thugs are off the streets of Bangkok the bloodbath has stopped.

The reds on the other hand would just love to go back and do it again.

They know it.

We know it.

Just as Thaksin forced the reds to discard negotiations in May, so he will force the same thing again.

And again.

He pays. he calls.

Having 89 deaths during three months protests may be deplorable, but doesn't really seem to justified the term 'bloodbath'. Without restraint it could have been thousands. A lawyer knows sometimes he only needs to sow the seeds of doubt. That's why a lot of Robert A's remarks are not really lies, not really wrong, but definitively not right either.

89 death is OK.

There are more than 60 million people in Thailand, not counting you Farangs.

Go on Mark, let kill another 100 bad criminals drug dealer, football gamers, red head, etc; to better this country. You have the full support of the Thai people.

If this is a sarcastic reply on my remark, it's totally misplaced and somewhat distasteful. Don't ever joke about killing people!

[siampolee]

For a frightening dose of reality and what life would be like under Thaksins and his Red Shirts aided and abetted by that other great liberator Robert Amsterdam check out this link. The truth is so near us .

[wester]

Partial list of logical fallacies -

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

3. Therefore X is false.

Example:

A: All I want is a new election and my vote to count.

B: Last time you voted for Thaksin who is a terrorist and bad guy. Therefore you should have no election and no vote

_________

Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Example:

A: Somebody shot live bullets from the red camp. Therefore all claims by every red protester, their opinions, freedoms and very life are forfeit in perpetuity.

HINT: This is the central argument at the crux of the claimed legitimacy of the Abhisit government and its continued program. Continue to use it at your discretion.

_________________________

Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.

2. Therefore X is true.

Example:

Everybody in Bangkok knows Thaksin is a rat.

Therefore Thaksin is a rat.

____________________________

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences (for me) .

EXAMPLE: We don't need quick elections (cuz I'll lose)

__________________________

Appeal to Fear

The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:

1. Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).

2. Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).

Example: If there is an election, or the emergency decree is lifted then Thailand will descend into chaos and might cease to exist.

_______________________

Appeal to Novelty

Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is new.

2. Therefore X is correct or better.

EXAMPLE: Abhisit is not Thaksin. Therefore Abihisit is preferable.

_____________________________

Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

2. Therefore X is true.

Everybody in Bangok approves of the killing of protesters and supports the actions of Abhisit's government and knows it is good for Thailand. Therefore it is good for Thailand.

________________________

Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

2. Therefore claim C is false.

EXAMPLE: Red thugs and Red terrorists destroyed the peace and quiet. Therefore their demands are illegitimate.

______________________

Appeal to Spite

The Appeal to Spite Fallacy is a fallacy in which spite is substituted for evidence when an "argument" is made against a claim. This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.

2. Therefore claim C is false (or true)

A: I think I'll vote Red.

B. Remember, Red's are non-human terrorists who threaten the very existence of Thaiand.

A: OK - maybe I will reconsider

______________________________

Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X is old or traditional

2. Therefore X is correct or better.

EXAMPLPE:

Institution X in its current incarnation has a long history in this country. Therefore Institution X and its current incarnation are correct.

________________________

Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Red shirts are responsible for their own deaths despite the fact that they were all several meters away from the finger that pulled the trigger.

When lethal force is used which results in death and injury, the burden of proof (usually extremely high) lies with the shooter, not the shot.

Once a Burden of Proof fallacy has been invoked (see above), Poisoning the well is a necessary tactic of Propaganda to reinforce the mistake.

___________________

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.

3. Therefore claim X is false.

EXAMPLE:

A: The Red Shirts have a more well reasoned program, not riddled with logical fallacies

B: All of you reds took money from Thaksin, therefore your claim is bunk.

__________________________

Composition

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.

2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

EXAMPLE

A: There were one or more shooters in the red shirt camp. Therefore all the red protesters are violent thuggish terrorists, totally illegitimate untrustworthy and bad for Thailand.

_______________________________

Description of Division

The fallacy of Division is committed when a person infers that what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that inference is not provided.

There are two main variants of the general fallacy of Division:

The first type of fallacy of Division is committed when 1) a person reasons that what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts and 2) the person fails to justify that inference with the required degree of evidence. More formally, the "reasoning" follows this sort of pattern:

1. The whole, X, has properties A, B, C, etc.

2. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C, etc.

EXAMPLE:

A: The Red Shirt movement is composed of terrorists that are a threat to Thailand. Therefore the 3 year old kid, teenage girl, guy in a wheelchair and 80 year old grandma who attended the protest are terrorists as well.

___________________________

Description of False Dilemma

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).

2. Claim Y is false.

3. Therefore claim X is true.

A: You don't support the Yellows, so you are a Red.

__________________________

etc.....Get the drift? My advice is that you pray that this stuff never reaches an international court.

Any political propaganda which can't build its case based on reason, will continue to have to defend itself from claims against its legitimacy.

Imagine the scene:

Lawyer at the Hague questioning "Thai person X " in the dock.......

Thai Person X "But those bad guys made me shoot!!!! They killed themselves."

Laughter......fade to black

[MikeOboe57]

Partial list of logical fallacies - [...]

Hmmm.... quite a bit of work to rebuke accusations no one has made in this forum.

But thanks for posting just a "partial list of ..." and sparing us with the rest.

Are you Robert Amsterdam? Your style of writing matches his.

Regards

[rubl]

Partial list of logical fallacies -

-- remove partial list, no need to repeat --

etc.....Get the drift? My advice is that you pray that this stuff never reaches an international court.

Any political propaganda which can't build its case based on reason, will continue to have to defend itself from claims against its legitimacy.

Imagine the scene:

Lawyer at the Hague questioning "Thai person X " in the dock.......

Thai Person X "But those bad guys made me shoot!!!! They killed themselves."

Laughter......fade to black

The imagined scene would cause laughter indeed. Still you imply from your partial list that the Thai government would be that stupid. This assumption probably also has a fancy latin name and may have been omitted from your partial list ?