Viktor Bout: No Recording Of Meeting With Thai MP Sirichoke

[whybother]

Mr Amsterdam's arguments may be coherent but they are not factual. The reason you like them is that they are saying what you want to hear.

Just show us clear and unambiguous evidence for the falseness of even one single of Amsterdam's arguments.

First article I looked at: http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2904640.htm

If you're aware the Red Shirt leaders had issued with clarity an unconditional request for negotiation with the government and that was turned down.

All their requests came with conditions of some sort.

Edited August 28, 2010 by whybother

[rubl]

Mr Amsterdam's arguments may be coherent but they are not factual. The reason you like them is that they are saying what you want to hear.

Just show us clear and unambiguous evidence for the falseness of even one single of Amsterdam's arguments.

Now you touch on the right spot! Robert A. is seldomly lying outright. He doesn't need to. He's a master in suggesting, insinuation, casting doubt in other peoples thoughts.

[rubl]

Mr Amsterdam's arguments may be coherent but they are not factual. The reason you like them is that they are saying what you want to hear.

Just show us clear and unambiguous evidence for the falseness of even one single of Amsterdam's arguments.

First article I looked at: http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2904640.htm

If you're aware the Red Shirt leaders had issued with clarity an unconditional request for negotiation with the government and that was turned down.

All their requests came with conditions of some sort.

The quote should have a bit more (as said by UDD leaders at that time): unconditional request for talks as soon as the government withdraws it's troops, or something similar.

As I said before Robert A. seldomly lies outright, he's just sloppy with the truth.

Edited August 28, 2010 by rubl

[jayboy]

I wouldnt recommend worrying overly what a very highly paid propaganda whore had to say about anything.

"Well paid propaganda whore", a phrase worthy of Goebbels himself.Actually I'm rather taking a shine to Amsterdam who apparently can make an argument coherently, unlike some of his opponents.So bloody what if he's paid.

Mr Amsterdam's arguments may be coherent but they are not factual. The reason you like them is that they are saying what you want to hear.

You have no idea of what I want to hear.Indeed for educated people that is an absurd proposition.If anything I enjoy arguments which make me challenge my existing views.

The point I was making about Amsterdam is simply that he's intellectually streets ahead of those who take him on, that poor old pudding Somtow for example.He also puts some effort into researching his position.As for Hammered and his eastern philosophy point, peace man and feel the force.I'm probably old fashioned in placing reliance on logic,reason and thought.

But hey I have no doubt that the Thai Government could hire somebody equally or more plausible.

[ballpoint]

Mr Amsterdam's arguments may be coherent but they are not factual. The reason you like them is that they are saying what you want to hear.

Just show us clear and unambiguous evidence for the falseness of even one single of Amsterdam's arguments.

For a start, here's a sign of his honesty, integrity and truthfulness...

"Most amazingly, Amsterdam's biography on his own firm's website states that Amsterdam is a member of the New York Bar Association (www.amsterdamandperoff.com/amsterdam.html). Yet Amsterdam is not a member of the New York bar. Such false representation is an unsettling form of fraud, particularly from a lawyer supposedly defending the rule of law around the world."

http://www.borba.rs/.../view/5542/123/

And what about...

"And the people who presently pretend to be the government of Thailand are not representative of the Thai people and extort their power through the barrel of a gun."

Please show us one constituent MP who was not elected by the Thai people. The only extorting by the barrel of the gun, (and RPG launcher, and LPG tanker) has come from the red side.

"I just left a campsite where there were thousands of people who had slept under the stars for weeks and weeks trying to get their message about their desire for some form of democracy out there. They risked their lives. They took bullets for this."

I don't know why he singles out just the bullets the reds took along to the protest. They also took grenades, molotov cocktails, sniper rifles, Thaksin's money ...

"In Thailand the people who have now shot these protesters occupied an airport two years ago to try to seize power through the same type of means they're condemning with live rounds today. That's the focus. That's the issue."

Utter rubbish. Unless he's trying to say the black shirts were former members of the PAD?

"(The red leaders) were very clear in annunciating to me not only their commitment to non-violence which they demonstrated by surrendering themselves up to possible execution by the authorities. But they were determined to try to get some international mediation because they have absolutely no faith in an illegal government that presently runs Thailand."

More tripe. The ones that didn't run away gave themselves up because their assets were being frozen and they were scared for their own tender hides. Call for revolution, incite violence, pay the people to stand, and hold their children up, in the line of fire (from ahead and behind), but run away when their arse is on the line. And more of the "illegal government" bullshit. The PPP was an illegal government. The courts ruled on that. The TRT too would have been in any true democracy, from the asset cover up, through to the mass murder on drugs, the bird flu cover up, the murder of opponents and witnesses and the rampant stealing from the Thai people.

"ELEANOR HALL: And what's Thaksin Shinawatra telling you about how he feels about the state of his country at the moment? Is he worried about civil war?

ROBERT AMSTERDAM: He is terribly worried, shocked and horrified by what the government has done. I think that you've had a government turn on its own citizens in an absolutely incredible way, with live bullets, killing journalists indiscriminately."

Thaksin was shocked to find out he'd played with the people's lives and resoundingly lost again. There are a number of confirmed reports of the reds targetting journalists, whether it be those trapped in the Channel three building while they tried to burn it down, or the orchestrated attack on the Thai reporter for France's Channel 24. Robert Amsterdam is a sordid liar for hire who doesn't care how many lives are destroyed in his quest for payment and fame, A bit like his organ grinding master in that respect.

The above quotes come from

http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2904640.htm

The link to the Channel 24 reporter is

http://www.asiaone.c...519-217109.html

Interestingly, Reporters sans frontiers saw things a little differently from the esteemed Amsterdam...

"Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters."

http://en.rsf.org/a-second-journalist-killed-in-19-05-2010,37509.html

Apologies for going off topic.

[jayboy]

Interestingly, Reporters sans frontiers saw things a little differently from the esteemed Amsterdam...

"Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters."

http://en.rsf.org/a-second-journalist-killed-in-19-05-2010,37509.html

Actually Reporters without borders sees things a little differently from your selective quote, but their position doesn't really fit in with your argument I'm afraid.Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay.

http://en.rsf.org/thailand-report-on-violence-against-media-08-07-2010,37905.html

Money quote

"Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked."

Edited August 28, 2010 by jayboy

[rubl]

Interestingly, Reporters sans frontiers saw things a little differently from the esteemed Amsterdam...

"Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters."

http://en.rsf.org/a-second-journalist-killed-in-19-05-2010,37509.html

Actually Reporters without borders sees things a little differently from your selective quote, but their position doesn't really fit in with your argument I'm afraid.Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay.

http://en.rsf.org/thailand-report-on-violence-against-media-08-07-2010,37905.html

Money quote

"Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked."

Why did you feel a need to say "Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay."? Even if said jokingly it devalues your other remarks.

Edited August 28, 2010 by rubl

[way2muchcoffee]

Interestingly, Reporters sans frontiers saw things a little differently from the esteemed Amsterdam...

"Reporters Without Borders condemns the violence against journalists by Red Shirt demonstrators and the government’s continual violation of the right to information. Thailand has rarely experienced the level of violence that was reached today, just hours after the army staged its assault on the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters."

http://en.rsf.org/a-second-journalist-killed-in-19-05-2010,37509.html

Actually Reporters without borders sees things a little differently from your selective quote, but their position doesn't really fit in with your argument I'm afraid.Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay.

http://en.rsf.org/thailand-report-on-violence-against-media-08-07-2010,37905.html

Money quote

"Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked."

Jayboy - How about addressing the lies pointed out above instead of throwing up a red herring to divert attention.

Edited August 28, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Hakuchi]

Jayboy - How about addressing the lies pointed out above instead of throwing up a red herring to divert attention.

Bitching about Amsterdam or Jatuporn or to discuss Bout and that strange question by his visitor MP Sirichoke? Or the records vs. tapes issue, Goebbels vs. eastern philosophy? What is the red herring here?

[ballpoint]

Actually Reporters without borders sees things a little differently from your selective quote, but their position doesn't really fit in with your argument I'm afraid.Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay.

http://en.rsf.org/th...2010,37905.html

Money quote

"Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked."

My "selective quote" is the opening paragraph from their condemnation statement, not an obscure side piece tucked away in its body. Neither it, nor your selection, accuse the government of deliberately targetting journalists, although both imply that the reds were doing so. A couple of times the link also makes it clear what RSF thinks the protests were all about:

" the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters"

" last night’s army assault on deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s “Red Shirt” supporters in Bangkok"

[rubl]

Jayboy - How about addressing the lies pointed out above instead of throwing up a red herring to divert attention.

Bitching about Amsterdam or Jatuporn or to discuss Bout and that strange question by his visitor MP Sirichoke? Or the records vs. tapes issue, Goebbels vs. eastern philosophy? What is the red herring here?

As the OP here is about Bout and the legal issues regarding extradition, could you two return to that. The first para below Bout's photo has nothing to do with the remainder of the article. You may call it a red herring inserted by that paper.

Edited August 28, 2010 by rubl

[way2muchcoffee]

Jayboy - How about addressing the lies pointed out above instead of throwing up a red herring to divert attention.

Bitching about Amsterdam or Jatuporn or to discuss Bout and that strange question by his visitor MP Sirichoke? Or the records vs. tapes issue, Goebbels vs. eastern philosophy? What is the red herring here?

Please read the posts above. You will see that jayboy didn't bother to respond to the catalog of Amsterdam's lies presented.

Edited August 28, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jayboy]

Actually Reporters without borders sees things a little differently from your selective quote, but their position doesn't really fit in with your argument I'm afraid.Still never mind they are probably in Thaksin's pay.

http://en.rsf.org/th...2010,37905.html

Money quote

"Reporters Without Borders decided to let the victims and witnesses of the violations speak for themselves. Some of their accounts clearly show that Thai soldiers put civilian non-combatants, including journalists, in mortal danger and respected no rule of engagement. Similarly, armed activists within the Red Shorts were guilty of unacceptable acts of violence against the press.

Among its recommendations, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to publish the final reports on the deaths of journalists Hiroyuki Muramoto and Fabio Polenghi as soon as possible. Opposing the continuation of the state of emergency, the organisation also calls on the government to stop censoring media, especially news websites that are being blocked."

My "selective quote" is the opening paragraph from their condemnation statement, not an obscure side piece tucked away in its body. Neither it, nor your selection, accuse the government of deliberately targetting journalists, although both imply that the reds were doing so. A couple of times the link also makes it clear what RSF thinks the protests were all about:

" the Bangkok district occupied by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters"

" last night’s army assault on deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s “Red Shirt” supporters in Bangkok"

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

For the fellow who wants me to respond to all Amsterdam's points tough luck.I hold no brief for Amsterdam simply noting that as an intellect and debater he trumps his admittedly feeble opposition.I wouldn't want to go on holiday with him but that's hardly the point.

[ballpoint]

Jayboy - How about addressing the lies pointed out above instead of throwing up a red herring to divert attention.

Bitching about Amsterdam or Jatuporn or to discuss Bout and that strange question by his visitor MP Sirichoke? Or the records vs. tapes issue, Goebbels vs. eastern philosophy? What is the red herring here?

Although the OP doesn't mention Jatuporn's name, it was his "revelation" during the budget debate that started this whole thing off. Any discussion of this thread without mentioning him would be incomplete.

You are correct about the Amsterdam red herring allegation though. But look, it was introduced in post 43, by Jayboy, one of the forum's red supporters. I must confess to feeding that troll by actually looking at, and responding to, his link, but then the challenge to present "clear and unambiguous evidence for the falseness of even one single of Amsterdam's arguments" was laid down by TallForeigner, another pro red poster, and away it went, as so often these political threads do. You're new here, or renewed here, I really don't care which; you'll soon get used to it.

[whybother]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

For the fellow who wants me to respond to all Amsterdam's points tough luck.I hold no brief for Amsterdam simply noting that as an intellect and debater he trumps his admittedly feeble opposition.I wouldn't want to go on holiday with him but that's hardly the point.

"Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger" by armed red shirts too.

[rubl]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

For the fellow who wants me to respond to all Amsterdam's points tough luck.I hold no brief for Amsterdam simply noting that as an intellect and debater he trumps his admittedly feeble opposition.I wouldn't want to go on holiday with him but that's hardly the point.

Robert A. tends to speak in either 'absolute truths' (e.g. the sky is blue') or fantastic sentence constructions which leave you thinking for a moment to understand what the heck he says or wants to say.

"The army did not respect rules of engagement." The rules of engagement are a framework, guideline. You may step from one to seven when you're shot at.

"Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army." Lots of journalists and civilians placed themselves in mortal danger.

"The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated". The killing is under investigation.

"censorship of news/websites remains intolerable". Finally almost right. I agree at least with the closure of PTV, too much hate-sowing, war-mongering. Can't judge the websites, can't get them

I agree Robert A. is intelligent, good debater as in scoring points, rather than properly founded explanations. Dangerous man in my eyes.

[ballpoint]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

Rubbish. The only people placed in "mortal danger" were those who went to, or were already at, the barricades. No amount of spinning by you, Amsterdam, Dr's Thaksin, Goebbels or Crippen, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, can change the fact that the army did not rampage around Bangkok, blasting away at anything that moved, especially members of the press. The army tried to contain the protest site by surrounding it. It came under attack from those who moved out to the barricades and those who came in from the outside. Anyone "trapped' inside only had to move inwards to the central (no pun intended) protest site and sit peacefully. Anyone attacking from the outside was free to leave whenever they wanted to. The selection I posted showed the lie to Amsterdam's statements of the government targetting journalists, and Thaksin not being involved, other than moral support. I made no comment on censorship, "civilian non-combatants" or rules of engagement, and I'm not going to on this thread. As has been pointed out, the herrings you have been introducing here are an appropriate colour, and you'll just have to make do with eating them rather than rely on me feeding you any further.

[jayboy]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

Rubbish. The only people placed in "mortal danger" were those who went to, or were already at, the barricades. No amount of spinning by you, Amsterdam, Dr's Thaksin, Goebbels or Crippen, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, can change the fact that the army did not rampage around Bangkok, blasting away at anything that moved, especially members of the press. The army tried to contain the protest site by surrounding it. It came under attack from those who moved out to the barricades and those who came in from the outside. Anyone "trapped' inside only had to move inwards to the central (no pun intended) protest site and sit peacefully. Anyone attacking from the outside was free to leave whenever they wanted to. The selection I posted showed the lie to Amsterdam's statements of the government targetting journalists, and Thaksin not being involved, other than moral support. I made no comment on censorship, "civilian non-combatants" or rules of engagement, and I'm not going to on this thread. As has been pointed out, the herrings you have been introducing here are an appropriate colour, and you'll just have to make do with eating them rather than rely on me feeding you any further.

Okay with this fatuous and inaccurate post you have completely lost it now.I assume you are are a foreigner not a Thai, but your rage and incoherent response simply confirms the refusal of many to contemplate a different narrative, or at least that their narrative might be corrected in some way.

[jayboy]

I agree Robert A. is intelligent, good debater as in scoring points, rather than properly founded explanations. Dangerous man in my eyes.

I think that's a very fair summary.The feedback I get from this thread is the fury and rage when defenders of the status quo (the corrupt feudal/military/corporate establishment and their lower middle class urban Sino-Thai hangers on) are presented with arguments/facts that contradict their fixed ideas.It's quite frightening when one comes across it among elite Thais, less so of course with foreigners on this forum.

[rubl]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

Rubbish. The only people placed in "mortal danger" were those who went to, or were already at, the barricades. No amount of spinning by you, Amsterdam, Dr's Thaksin, Goebbels or Crippen, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, can change the fact that the army did not rampage around Bangkok, blasting away at anything that moved, especially members of the press. The army tried to contain the protest site by surrounding it. It came under attack from those who moved out to the barricades and those who came in from the outside. Anyone "trapped' inside only had to move inwards to the central (no pun intended) protest site and sit peacefully. Anyone attacking from the outside was free to leave whenever they wanted to. The selection I posted showed the lie to Amsterdam's statements of the government targetting journalists, and Thaksin not being involved, other than moral support. I made no comment on censorship, "civilian non-combatants" or rules of engagement, and I'm not going to on this thread. As has been pointed out, the herrings you have been introducing here are an appropriate colour, and you'll just have to make do with eating them rather than rely on me feeding you any further.

Okay with this fatuous and inaccurate post you have completely lost it now.I assume you are are a foreigner not a Thai, but your rage and incoherent response simply confirms the refusal of many to contemplate a different narrative, or at least that their narrative might be corrected in some way.

Dear Jayboy, before you loose it, stay cool, relax. You're in danger of saying more fatuous and inaccurate things. Furthermore it starts to have less and less to do with the OP. As for foreigner or Thai, I can only assume you're a human being.

[slapout]

The lawyers and politicians I have known and those whose career, I have followed, seem to sink to or raise to the level of those they represent/work with (on a voluntary basis).Both professions, as a whole, seems to lack a universal respect, by many who have been associated with or observed their antics. This seems to be a self inflicted/determined characteristic of each individual vs the profession they have chosen. The level of the intelligence of some of the referenced individuals in this tread, may be another indication of how a potential real contributor to society can end up being a blight on society, as are those who associate with them.

[rubl]

I agree Robert A. is intelligent, good debater as in scoring points, rather than properly founded explanations. Dangerous man in my eyes.

I think that's a very fair summary.The feedback I get from this thread is the fury and rage when defenders of the status quo (the corrupt feudal/military/corporate establishment and their lower middle class urban Sino-Thai hangers on) are presented with arguments/facts that contradict their fixed ideas.It's quite frightening when one comes across it among elite Thais, less so of course with foreigners on this forum.

Interesting to see you only refer to the part where I more-or-less agree with you, ignoring the part before. Also I wouldn't have said what you said, certainly not in a throw-in-some-terms sort of way. If you feel like it read this article on "First-order logic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

[Insight]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

Rubbish. The only people placed in "mortal danger" were those who went to, or were already at, the barricades. No amount of spinning by you, Amsterdam, Dr's Thaksin, Goebbels or Crippen, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, can change the fact that the army did not rampage around Bangkok, blasting away at anything that moved, especially members of the press. The army tried to contain the protest site by surrounding it. It came under attack from those who moved out to the barricades and those who came in from the outside. Anyone "trapped' inside only had to move inwards to the central (no pun intended) protest site and sit peacefully. Anyone attacking from the outside was free to leave whenever they wanted to. The selection I posted showed the lie to Amsterdam's statements of the government targetting journalists, and Thaksin not being involved, other than moral support. I made no comment on censorship, "civilian non-combatants" or rules of engagement, and I'm not going to on this thread. As has been pointed out, the herrings you have been introducing here are an appropriate colour, and you'll just have to make do with eating them rather than rely on me feeding you any further.

Okay with this fatuous and inaccurate post you have completely lost it now.I assume you are are a foreigner not a Thai, but your rage and incoherent response simply confirms the refusal of many to contemplate a different narrative, or at least that their narrative might be corrected in some way.

Care to break down which parts are "inaccurate" ? Did the red shirts not set up new shop on Rama 4 and Din Daeng (where they told their followers they are now their own boss and they should "burn everything") once the army moved into positions around Siam?

Given the numerous amounts of proven propaganda distributed by the red shirts over this period attempting to paint the army negatively - the images taken from a video of the soldiers shot in the south and placed onto a poster stating this is what happens when soldiers refuse to deal with red shirts, the photoshopped photos of the slain protesters, and not to mention the many images of the so called MiB and Chavalit's men armed and wearing army fatigues on a skytrain station - it's the red shirts with a real credibility crisis and the reason many people are taking their claims about the army shooting journalists and nurses with a very large dose of salt.

Perhaps if they just sat it out and had themselves a genuinely peaceful, propaganda-fee protest things would be very different.

[Hakuchi]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

Rubbish.  The only people placed in "mortal danger" were those who went to, or were already at, the barricades.  No amount of spinning by you, Amsterdam, Dr's Thaksin, Goebbels or Crippen, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, can change the fact that the army did not rampage around Bangkok, blasting away at anything that moved, especially members of the press.  The army tried to contain the protest site by surrounding it.  It came under attack from those who moved out to the barricades and those who came in from the outside.  Anyone "trapped' inside only had to move inwards to the central (no pun intended) protest site and sit peacefully.  Anyone attacking from the outside was free to leave whenever they wanted to.  The selection I posted showed the lie to Amsterdam's statements of the government targetting journalists, and Thaksin not being involved, other than moral support.  I made no comment on censorship, "civilian non-combatants" or rules of engagement, and I'm not going to on this thread.  As has been pointed out, the herrings you have been introducing here are an appropriate colour, and you'll just have to make do with eating them rather than rely on me feeding you any further.

Okay with this fatuous and inaccurate post you have completely lost it now.I assume you are are a foreigner not a Thai, but your rage and incoherent response simply confirms the refusal of many to contemplate a different narrative, or at least that their narrative might be corrected in some way.

Care to break down which parts are "inaccurate" ? Did the red shirts not set up new shop on Rama 4 and Din Daeng (where they told their followers they are now their own boss and they should "burn everything") once the army moved into positions around Siam?

Given the numerous amounts of proven propaganda distributed by the red shirts over this period attempting to paint the army negatively - the images taken from a video of the soldiers shot in the south and placed onto a poster stating this is what happens when soldiers refuse to deal with red shirts, the photoshopped photos of the slain protesters, and not to mention the many images of the so called MiB and Chavalit's men armed and wearing army fatigues on a skytrain station - it's the red shirts with a real credibility crisis and the reason many people are taking their claims about the army shooting journalists and nurses with a very large dose of salt.

Perhaps if they just sat it out and had themselves a genuinely peaceful, propaganda-fee protest things would be very different.

off topic.

but there is an discussion about this in the other thread "Anger Over Red Shirts Riot Autopsy Reports ". So one question: Were all these crimes you talking about proper investigated, i mean with lots of crime tape involved all over the scene and so on? If not, forget it, because than is is just propaganda.

[Insight]

Care to break down which parts are "inaccurate" ? Did the red shirts not set up new shop on Rama 4 and Din Daeng (where they told their followers they are now their own boss and they should "burn everything") once the army moved into positions around Siam?

Given the numerous amounts of proven propaganda distributed by the red shirts over this period attempting to paint the army negatively - the images taken from a video of the soldiers shot in the south and placed onto a poster stating this is what happens when soldiers refuse to deal with red shirts, the photoshopped photos of the slain protesters, and not to mention the many images of the so called MiB and Chavalit's men armed and wearing army fatigues on a skytrain station - it's the red shirts with a real credibility crisis and the reason many people are taking their claims about the army shooting journalists and nurses with a very large dose of salt.

Perhaps if they just sat it out and had themselves a genuinely peaceful, propaganda-fee protest things would be very different.

off topic.

but there is an discussion about this in the other thread "Anger Over Red Shirts Riot Autopsy Reports ". So one question: Were all these crimes you talking about proper investigated, i mean with lots of crime tape involved all over the scene and so on? If not, forget it, because than is is just propaganda.

Diversion tactic one: Off topic - many posts on this thread, including your own, have barely been on topic.

Diversion tactic two: I was specifically referring to the journalists and nurses shot, not the protesters. But as you mentioned it, the investigations are still ongoing, are they not?

Diversion tactic three: Who are you accusing of propaganda? I merely pointing out why the red shirts are having difficultly in attempting to convince people of their version of events. If referring to the investigations, consult my response to your last diversion.

You guys really stick out. Try a real job.

[hammered]

Wriggle all you like but RWB is quite clear.The army did not respect rules of engagement.Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army.The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated and censorship of news/websites remains intolerable.Difficult to see much ambiguity here.

For the fellow who wants me to respond to all Amsterdam's points tough luck.I hold no brief for Amsterdam simply noting that as an intellect and debater he trumps his admittedly feeble opposition.I wouldn't want to go on holiday with him but that's hardly the point.

Robert A. tends to speak in either 'absolute truths' (e.g. the sky is blue') or fantastic sentence constructions which leave you thinking for a moment to understand what the heck he says or wants to say.

"The army did not respect rules of engagement." The rules of engagement are a framework, guideline. You may step from one to seven when you're shot at.

"Civilian non-combatants and journalists were placed in mortal danger by the army." Lots of journalists and civilians placed themselves in mortal danger.

"The murder of journalists remains uninvestigated". The killing is under investigation.

"censorship of news/websites remains intolerable". Finally almost right. I agree at least with the closure of PTV, too much hate-sowing, war-mongering. Can't judge the websites, can't get them

I agree Robert A. is intelligent, good debater as in scoring points, rather than properly founded explanations. Dangerous man in my eyes.

Amsterdam is hired because he speaks in a way that appeals to western elites that run western countries, and he has built up a certain amount of contacts in these powerful groups. That is his job. It doesnt mean what he says is right. He is selective in what he speaks or writes about and does it in a careful way. It is all about propaganda. Propaganda that comes form what is seen as free, edcuated and well argued is far more effective than what comes from say state media. Amsterdam while in no way being any of these things does his best to create a corporate mythology around his business of human rights, neutrality seeking truth etc. It works to a degree as most dont look below the surface. Propaganda.

[Hakuchi]

<

Diversion tactic one: Off topic - many posts on this thread, including your own, have barely been on topic.

Diversion tactic two: I was specifically referring to the journalists and nurses shot, not the protesters. But as you mentioned it, the investigations are still ongoing, are they not?

Diversion tactic three: Who are you accusing of propaganda? I merely pointing out why the red shirts are having difficultly in attempting to convince people of their version of events. If referring to the investigations, consult my response to your last diversion.

You guys really stick out. Try a real job.

What??? You are still off topic. Did you bother to read the thread title and the OP? You are just feed the red herring. what has all this to do with Bout and MP Sirichoke? You could start to talk about Jesus or Goebbels and than accusing of diversion tactics if i tell you its off topic. You play a funny job here.

Investigation and propaganda, i was referring to posts by the crime tape detectives in the other thread that is about Red Shirt, unlike this thread. Let me post a quote:

Hundreds of crime scenes involved here, most all of which were

inaccessible until their forensic value was utterly degraded.

There is much to know, but that doesn't mean it's possible,

not matter how much wishful thinking and suspicion is involved.

Totally true on the forensic front and autopsies wont furnish any evidence as to who did the killing. People will believe what they want to believe and what they are propagndized into believing

  

[thaimelody]

@Buchholz

Wake up, man!!

The claim that Jatupron was talking about an audio tape recording was alledgedly put into his mouth by the media.

He was talking about a record - that could also be in form of written notes by Viktor Bout. And that record is exactly what was published yesterday.

I'm wide awake, thank you.

So you're saying then that Jatuporn never said, "In a couple of days, the tape will come out," which would logically imply that journalist Tulsathit Taptim lied about that quote.

In addition to attending Bout's wife's press conference, were you also present at the news conference in which Jatuporn made his statements?

live only on pay per view only............. handbags at dawn............. the all time "no im right your wrong classic"

[Insight]

<

Diversion tactic one: Off topic - many posts on this thread, including your own, have barely been on topic.

Diversion tactic two: I was specifically referring to the journalists and nurses shot, not the protesters. But as you mentioned it, the investigations are still ongoing, are they not?

Diversion tactic three: Who are you accusing of propaganda? I merely pointing out why the red shirts are having difficultly in attempting to convince people of their version of events. If referring to the investigations, consult my response to your last diversion.

You guys really stick out. Try a real job.

What??? You are still off topic. Did you bother to read the thread title and the OP? You are just feed the red herring. what has all this to do with Bout and MP Sirichoke? You could start to talk about Jesus or Goebbels and than accusing of diversion tactics if i tell you its off topic. You play a funny job here.

Investigation and propaganda, i was referring to posts by the crime tape detectives in the other thread that is about Red Shirt, unlike this thread. Let me post a quote:

Hundreds of crime scenes involved here, most all of which were

inaccessible until their forensic value was utterly degraded.

There is much to know, but that doesn't mean it's possible,

not matter how much wishful thinking and suspicion is involved.

Totally true on the forensic front and autopsies wont furnish any evidence as to who did the killing. People will believe what they want to believe and what they are propagndized into believing

  

Have been following this one since the speech by Bout's wife at the FCCT 4.30pm yesterday.

How many times have you mentioned Goebbels now?

[hammered]

<

Diversion tactic one: Off topic - many posts on this thread, including your own, have barely been on topic.

Diversion tactic two: I was specifically referring to the journalists and nurses shot, not the protesters. But as you mentioned it, the investigations are still ongoing, are they not?

Diversion tactic three: Who are you accusing of propaganda? I merely pointing out why the red shirts are having difficultly in attempting to convince people of their version of events. If referring to the investigations, consult my response to your last diversion.

You guys really stick out. Try a real job.

What??? You are still off topic. Did you bother to read the thread title and the OP? You are just feed the red herring. what has all this to do with Bout and MP Sirichoke? You could start to talk about Jesus or Goebbels and than accusing of diversion tactics if i tell you its off topic. You play a funny job here.

Investigation and propaganda, i was referring to posts by the crime tape detectives in the other thread that is about Red Shirt, unlike this thread. Let me post a quote:

Hundreds of crime scenes involved here, most all of which were

inaccessible until their forensic value was utterly degraded.

There is much to know, but that doesn't mean it's possible,

not matter how much wishful thinking and suspicion is involved.

Totally true on the forensic front and autopsies wont furnish any evidence as to who did the killing. People will believe what they want to believe and what they are propagndized into believing

  

It is true that the forensic scenes in a riot are devalued and virtually useless and it is also true that autopsies tell you how people die and not who did it. If you have any knowledge of how forensic scene investigation and autopsies are done you would know this. And forensic science is very often not an exact thing assessing possibilties rather than exactitude. That is what leaves it as people will believe what they want to. Some of the forensics on the TV shows are quite amusing if not exaclty in line with reality, but I guess they entertain.

Another aspect beyond this truth is that in Thailand the investigators both forensic and police etc are well polticised and bias with their own ends which also only adds to leaving people to believe. There is absolutely no way the truth will ever come out, but if you have any experience in observing reported or investigated events worldwide you would also know that that is not exactly confined to Thailand although in many countries such is hidden beneath societal myths that the majority accept or agree on. In Thailand right now there is no agreement on what the societal myth should be which also doesnt help in creating a sense of trust in an investigation, and trust in an investigation is more about trust that it will cme out the right way than trust that it will lead to truth.

Anyway Im not sure why you moved this issue into this thread.