Robert Amsterdam Responds To Somtow's Article

[SamritT]

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. The fact is that only 91 people died because of Abhisit.

[Wozzit]

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit.

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. The fact is that only 91 people died because of Abhisit.

Being cute again SamritT. You seem more and more like a parrot with dislexia imo.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Wozzit

[Insight]

(Keep mentioning this site, but) It appears 2Bangkok.com has picked up on the ethics of Mr Amsterdam's ghost writers. Bit silly of them really to steal an image from a website which is typically not very supportive of the Thaksin regime; perhaps why they were apprehensive about linking back?

Who on this forum uses terminology such as "quasi-fascist ruling elite"? Sounds dead fancy.

[rubl]

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit.

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. The fact is that only 91 people died because of Abhisit.

Being cute again SamritT. You seem more and more like a parrot with dislexia imo.

Ignore her is the best solution here. Most of her posts are one-liners having been copied, or slightly modified.

[jayboy]

This last sentense of the OP says it all

"Say what you will about Mr Thaksin, but if the current government had "trusted the people" as much as he has consistently been willing to, the hundred men and women who died because Mr Abhisit did not feel sufficiently confident in his electoral prospects would still be alive today."

This sound like an opinion rather than the truth, close to wishfull thinking and somewhat convoluted.

The 100 people who died because K. Abhisit felt less confident would still be alive if the government has 'trusted the people'. Died because of this, be alive because of that? What logic here?

I don't think anyone can prove that the government did or didn't trust 'the people', nor that K. Thaksin did or didn't. It's also the first time I hear K. Abhisit didn't feel sufficiently confident AND this being used as explanation of those 91 dead.

If only one sentence can be analyzed and commented on, image reading all 75 pages thoroughly. Well not me, I have a life, other things to do. This nice paper reminds my of MacBeth "It's a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. Khun Abhisit had offered the reds a deal long before the dispersal of the reds. If they had accepted this then the events in May would not have happened. However, the reds did not accept the deal because they were (as subsequent events have shown) looking for violence - in other words they were spoiling for a fight and our PM showed the utmost restraint - even, I suspect, in the face of some opposition from his own side. Its strange is it not how people rewrite history to suit themselves. Amsterdam is a past master at that, but all he succeeds in doing is showing himself up to be a bit shallow. Most thinking people know what he's up to.

The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.

[rubl]

The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.

Agree with a slight modification.

Change "awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army" into "awkward fact that many unarmed civilians seem to have been shot by the army". It fits better with the unarmed part.

As you say yourself there is no explanation available. All of us (I think) wait anxiously for a report on the April - May unrest. This includes the M79 grenade attacks and the four or five killed then.

[TAWP]

However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army /../

No, it is not.

[hammered]

Hammered posted

Amsterdam's whole career is built on creating lies, fabrications, internet creations and memes for his clients. That is all anyone needs to know. Period.

I guess I could make the obligatory joke here about lawyers, Doh. However this is what Lawyers do ... that is what they are paid to do ... that is why you hire them and that is why the goverment retains a slew of them. All the blather like the above, leads me to conclude a lot of posters here have led very sheltered lives, and bravo, but my god this is the real world.

Amsterdam makes a very good rebuttal to Mr Somtow. I would like to see Mr Somntow respond but that is highly doubtful.

This is the real world and calling a propagandist or spin doctor exactly that and ignoring whatever spews from their mouth or various organs is the best approach imho. To take any of it seriously is a waste of time and energy wherever it comes from imho, but each to their own;). I never did think the adversarial approach to finding truth ever achieved that goal personally and of course in what is very much a belief based world now makes the discovery of truth nigh on impossible which just brings it all back to belief and the manipulation of it by highly paid spin doctors, lawyers, propagandists etc. Sad really but that is the real world.

[jesse89]

Australia

Our Prime Minister was kicked out of power should we now get all the poor people together and form a revolt if the Liberal party win

Can Mr R Amsterdam tell me when he will come to Australia to help

The situations that led to the Kevin Rudd's resignation and those that led to the Thai political crisis are polar opposites, so I do not think that a revolt will be necessary. Though the way that the election campaign is going I wish there was a group throwing a few bricks just so that Australian media had something to talk about other than Gillard's latest hair style and Abbott's budgie smugglers.

Edited August 3, 2010 by jesse89

[jayboy]

The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.

Agree with a slight modification.

Change "awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army" into "awkward fact that many unarmed civilians seem to have been shot by the army". It fits better with the unarmed part.

As you say yourself there is no explanation available. All of us (I think) wait anxiously for a report on the April - May unrest. This includes the M79 grenade attacks and the four or five killed then.

I think you have commented very fairly and we should await the report.Nevertheless my concern is that the Thai army has never permitted a rigorous inquiry into its alleged wrongdoings, and it is hard to see why it should be different this time.Having said that my impression is that the Thai army acted reasonably professionally in the clearing of the Reds, but some understanding is still needed of why so many unarmed civilians were killed.

Of course there will always be those like TAWP who prefer an ostrich like denial of unpalatable facts.It was ever thus.

[yoshiwara]

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit.

I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. The fact is that only 91 people died because of Abhisit.

Being cute again SamritT. You seem more and more like a parrot with dislexia imo.

Indeed that parrot exclaims 'Pieces of Hate'.

[TAWP]

Having said that my impression is that the Thai army acted reasonably professionally in the clearing of the Reds, but some understanding is still needed of why so many unarmed civilians were killed.

Of course there will always be those like TAWP who prefer an ostrich like denial of unpalatable facts.It was ever thus.

The only ostrich is you that don't understand how a riot works.

If you see a crowd of 500 football hooligans storming your way, screaming that they are going to kill you, do you at this point ask them to raise their hand as to whom is carrying a gun or do you recognize that fists, feet, knives and slingshots shooting metal beads can hurt and kill you too?

And when you do exercise your right to use lethal force, do you ask everyone to stand still for 30 seconds so you can take pictures of their weapons they have in their hands before their comrades drag them away and remove the items/pick them up to use themselves?

[whybother]

The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.

I don't see that a majority of deaths of protesters would be put in the "unexplained" or "murder" categories.

There were 80+ protesters killed but only pictures of a dozen or so. We don't know if all those that were killed were not armed. There were 1400+ injured. If any of these were armed, they wouldn't be taking their guns with them to the hospital.

There were armed protesters fighting the army and there were unarmed protesters (often with fireworks or non-lethal arms) provoking the army, and supporting or hiding the armed protesters. Most protesters that were killed were probably in the second category. Those in the first category were probably trained military, so knew how to keep themselves safe.

So the explanation is that most of those killed were breaking the law AND shooting at, or supporting those shooting at, the army.

[way2muchcoffee]

Agree with a slight modification.

Change "awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army" into "awkward fact that many unarmed civilians seem to have been shot by the army". It fits better with the unarmed part.

As you say yourself there is no explanation available. All of us (I think) wait anxiously for a report on the April - May unrest. This includes the M79 grenade attacks and the four or five killed then.

I think you have commented very fairly and we should await the report.Nevertheless my concern is that the Thai army has never permitted a rigorous inquiry into its alleged wrongdoings, and it is hard to see why it should be different this time.Having said that my impression is that the Thai army acted reasonably professionally in the clearing of the Reds, but some understanding is still needed of why so many unarmed civilians were killed.

Of course there will always be those like TAWP who prefer an ostrich like denial of unpalatable facts.It was ever thus.

There is a difference between the government and the military. There is also a difference between military command and the soldiers on the ground. I have to wonder how much information is really available. Do the military commanders even know about the actions of their own men? It seems likely that any soldiers who violated the rules of engagement in the field would not be too forthcoming to their commanders.

I suspect that the government really doesn't know the answers to the important questions. Soldiers withholding the truth from squad leaders, squad leaders from the field commanders, and field commanders from CRES. And then there is the police, who nobody trusts. There probably isn't enough conclusive information obtained from the interrogations of detained redshirts/blackshirts. Accusations and innuendo abound without proof.

[bkkharry]

Hey this guy is smart, he just billed Thaksin $25,000 for this piece of crap. Just easy money for this guy.