Thaksin Says He Can Push Thai Politics Back On Course

[rubl]

rubi.

I think you get the general idea, but you are good at twisting the story/words around to suit your own way of thinking.

We are going off topic and should go back to if /can Thaksin push Thai politics back on course?.

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

That's what democracy is about, Now lets come up with constructive suggestions on how they (Thailand) should resolve and move forward to obtain real? democracy, whichever side of the political fence you sit on.

We are just observers here and will never have the right for any input into their form of democracy. (As the two foreign wanke_rs found out when sticking their noses in where they shouldn't have).

Cheers.

Love this thread.

I resent the 'twisted' part. Show me where and what.

[sevenhills]

rubi.

I think you get the general idea, but you are good at twisting the story/words around to suit your own way of thinking.

We are going off topic and should go back to if /can Thaksin push Thai politics back on course?.

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

That's what democracy is about, Now lets come up with constructive suggestions on how they (Thailand) should resolve and move forward to obtain real? democracy, whichever side of the political fence you sit on.

We are just observers here and will never have the right for any input into their form of democracy. (As the two foreign wanke_rs found out when sticking their noses in where they shouldn't have).

Cheers.

Love this thread.

I resent the 'twisted' part. Show me where and what.

Apologies for upsetting rubi and not including rixalex and scorecard.

Edit. I didn't say you were "twisted"

Edited September 8, 2010 by sevenhills

[rixalex]

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

Treating the forum as some sort of private experiment by saying things controversial just to shake things up and see what sort of a reaction it provokes is a form of trolling.

[sevenhills]

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

Treating the forum as some sort of private experiment by saying things controversial just to shake things up and see what sort of a reaction it provokes is a form of trolling.

Please get back on track. "Form of trolling" or "private experiment" where did you dream that up?

A good discussion of the topic is what I want, for or against, nothing else.

But if you want to go fishing, There's always someone that will bite.

[rixalex]

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

Treating the forum as some sort of private experiment by saying things controversial just to shake things up and see what sort of a reaction it provokes is a form of trolling.

Please get back on track. "Form of trolling" or "private experiment" where did you dream that up?

A good discussion of the topic is what I want, for or against, nothing else.

But if you want to go fishing, There's always someone that will bite.

I didn't dream anything up. Good discussions can take place when people are civil and respectful of each other, and express their opinions openly and sincerely. Throwing something out there for a reaction - or fishing as you call it - simply diverts discussions and antagonizes other members.

[Tanlic]

Thaksin said he believed Thailand could become a truly democratic country under two conditions:

1. The charges against him be dropped

2. The people elect him as Prime Minister for life

1; Agrred 2. I'm sure he'd much prefer President ))

Only way he'll get back into Thailand is in a wooden box

[sevenhills]

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

Treating the forum as some sort of private experiment by saying things controversial just to shake things up and see what sort of a reaction it provokes is a form of trolling.

Please get back on track. "Form of trolling" or "private experiment" where did you dream that up?

A good discussion of the topic is what I want, for or against, nothing else.

But if you want to go fishing, There's always someone that will bite.

I didn't dream anything up. Good discussions can take place when people are civil and respectful of each other, and express their opinions openly and sincerely. Throwing something out there for a reaction - or fishing as you call it - simply diverts discussions and antagonizes other members.

Well I resent the remarks that I am Trolling or having a private experiment. So please drop it and move on. This is now becoming a slanging match.

Thaksin is the topic so lets go back there.

[scorecard]

rubi.

I think you get the general idea, but you are good at twisting the story/words around to suit your own way of thinking.

We are going off topic and should go back to if /can Thaksin push Thai politics back on course?.

My original post "Come back Thaksin......" has had the required effect of spurring on great discussion /disagreement with a lot of members, both for and against.

That's what democracy is about, Now lets come up with constructive suggestions on how they (Thailand) should resolve and move forward to obtain real? democracy, whichever side of the political fence you sit on.

We are just observers here and will never have the right for any input into their form of democracy. (As the two foreign wanke_rs found out when sticking their noses in where they shouldn't have).

Cheers.

Love this thread.

I resent the 'twisted' part. Show me where and what.

Apologies for upsetting rubi and not including rixalex and scorecard.

Edit. I didn't say you were "twisted"

Not including me in what?

[scorecard]

A great reply, A pity some of the one eyed yellow supporters did not do their homework and just listen to this illegitimate government.

Like it or not, this government is not illegitimate. One-eyed red supporters should do their homework and pay less attention to anti-government propoganda.

Oh gawd! Here we go again with the euphemisms. The present government was formed after several factions of the previous government were ordered by the army to attend a meeting at which they were 'given' a 'proposal' by Gen Anupong and his cronies to form a coalition with the Dems. They were then locked in hotel rooms sans cell phones and room phones and left to stew overnight. When they emerged the following day to join the Dem coalition, at least two MPs were quoted in the Thai English press as stating that they had no choice.

Do you Democrat apologists think that this style of government-forming is normal and goes on all the time in mature democracies? Would this sort of carry-on be legal in a western democracy?

WOW!

"The present government was formed after several factions of the previous government were ordered by the army to attend a meeting at which they were 'given' a 'proposal' by Gen Anupong and his cronies to form a coalition with the Dems. They were then locked in hotel rooms sans cell phones and room phones and left to stew overnight. When they emerged the following day to join the Dem coalition, at least two MPs were quoted in the Thai English press as stating that they had no choice."

I've not heard of this before.

Any other members aware of this?

OP, please quote a source.

[Siam Simon]

A great reply, A pity some of the one eyed yellow supporters did not do their homework and just listen to this illegitimate government.

Like it or not, this government is not illegitimate. One-eyed red supporters should do their homework and pay less attention to anti-government propoganda.

Oh gawd! Here we go again with the euphemisms. The present government was formed after several factions of the previous government were ordered by the army to attend a meeting at which they were 'given' a 'proposal' by Gen Anupong and his cronies to form a coalition with the Dems. They were then locked in hotel rooms sans cell phones and room phones and left to stew overnight. When they emerged the following day to join the Dem coalition, at least two MPs were quoted in the Thai English press as stating that they had no choice.

Do you Democrat apologists think that this style of government-forming is normal and goes on all the time in mature democracies? Would this sort of carry-on be legal in a western democracy?

WOW!

"The present government was formed after several factions of the previous government were ordered by the army to attend a meeting at which they were 'given' a 'proposal' by Gen Anupong and his cronies to form a coalition with the Dems. They were then locked in hotel rooms sans cell phones and room phones and left to stew overnight. When they emerged the following day to join the Dem coalition, at least two MPs were quoted in the Thai English press as stating that they had no choice."

I've not heard of this before.

Any other members aware of this?

OP, please quote a source.

**groan** I'm doing your donkey work for you pro-Demo propagandists again. Here is a start for you:

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/10/politics/politics_30090626.php

You can use this start to google to your heart's content in order to satisfy your 'astonishment'. Like I wrote before: This semi-putsch was well documented at the time. Either you pro-Demo propagandists never read the news or you have a 'perma-disingenuous mode' for any news that doesn't marry your one-eyed take on things.

Edited September 9, 2010 by sbk
link to disallowed article removed

[Siam Simon]

Your fellow right wing extremist Insight chastised me for editing one of his posts and a mod placed a strong warning about doing such shortly afterward. I suggest you delete your above quoted post, quote my original post in full and post a relevant reply. You are currently in serious breach of forum rules.

Right wing extremist? First you accuse me of being paid to post, now a of being a right-winger.

I support the Democrats (left), not PAD/NPP (right) and definitely not UDD/Phua Thai (further right). How does that make me right-wing?

/edit - regarding the post editing, you included the post I was quoting yet removed my reference to it. Are you really ethically challenged to the extent you cannot fathom why that was unacceptable?

In your reply to TallForeigner in the post to which you refer you made this statement:

"To think I fell for your posts a while back about the reds in Ratchaprasong."

And I replied:

"Where?"

Why on earth would I have to include the rest of your bizarre rantings in my quote? I'm not in the slightest bit interested in them. I was only interested in your quoted statement, because I couldn't find any posts where you fell for any of TallForeigner's opinions. I asked you the question again and you still haven't pointed me in the direction of your stated gullibility toward TallForeigner's opinions.

Anyway, your forum mate Rixalex disagrees with you over the forum rule (about quoting) that you led me to believe I was breaking, and the mods haven't done anything about the alleged transgression on my or Rixalex posts so It's a non-issue.

And you are right wing just like your forum mate Rixalex. People like you and him are known affectionately and somewhat sympathetically in the UK as 'Daily Express Readers' .

[Insight]

Your fellow right wing extremist Insight chastised me for editing one of his posts and a mod placed a strong warning about doing such shortly afterward. I suggest you delete your above quoted post, quote my original post in full and post a relevant reply. You are currently in serious breach of forum rules.

Right wing extremist? First you accuse me of being paid to post, now a of being a right-winger.

I support the Democrats (left), not PAD/NPP (right) and definitely not UDD/Phua Thai (further right). How does that make me right-wing?

/edit - regarding the post editing, you included the post I was quoting yet removed my reference to it. Are you really ethically challenged to the extent you cannot fathom why that was unacceptable?

In your reply to TallForeigner in the post to which you refer you made this statement:

"To think I fell for your posts a while back about the reds in Ratchaprasong."

And I replied:

"Where?"

Why on earth would I have to include the rest of your bizarre rantings in my quote? I'm not in the slightest bit interested in them. I was only interested in your quoted statement, because I couldn't find any posts where you fell for any of TallForeigner's opinions. I asked you the question again and you still haven't pointed me in the direction of your stated gullibility toward TallForeigner's opinions.

Anyway, your forum mate Rixalex disagrees with you over the forum rule (about quoting) that you led me to believe I was breaking, and the mods haven't done anything about the alleged transgression on my or Rixalex posts so It's a non-issue.

And you are right wing just like your forum mate Rixalex. People like you and him are known affectionately and somewhat sympathetically in the UK as 'Daily Express Readers' .

You kept TallForiegner's lie in the post while deleting my reference to it. If you can't understand what's wrong with that it's an simply an indication of your ethics, or lack there of. Not my problem, but hardly a surprise.

"And you are right wing just like your forum mate Rixalex" - another accusation with followed by zero justification, and I've learnt by now not to expecting any. Rather than waste your time conjuring one up why not learn how to use the forum search function?

[Siam Simon]

Your fellow right wing extremist Insight chastised me for editing one of his posts and a mod placed a strong warning about doing such shortly afterward. I suggest you delete your above quoted post, quote my original post in full and post a relevant reply. You are currently in serious breach of forum rules.

Right wing extremist? First you accuse me of being paid to post, now a of being a right-winger.

I support the Democrats (left), not PAD/NPP (right) and definitely not UDD/Phua Thai (further right). How does that make me right-wing?

/edit - regarding the post editing, you included the post I was quoting yet removed my reference to it. Are you really ethically challenged to the extent you cannot fathom why that was unacceptable?

In your reply to TallForeigner in the post to which you refer you made this statement:

"To think I fell for your posts a while back about the reds in Ratchaprasong."

And I replied:

"Where?"

Why on earth would I have to include the rest of your bizarre rantings in my quote? I'm not in the slightest bit interested in them. I was only interested in your quoted statement, because I couldn't find any posts where you fell for any of TallForeigner's opinions. I asked you the question again and you still haven't pointed me in the direction of your stated gullibility toward TallForeigner's opinions.

Anyway, your forum mate Rixalex disagrees with you over the forum rule (about quoting) that you led me to believe I was breaking, and the mods haven't done anything about the alleged transgression on my or Rixalex posts so It's a non-issue.

And you are right wing just like your forum mate Rixalex. People like you and him are known affectionately and somewhat sympathetically in the UK as 'Daily Express Readers' .

You kept TallForiegner's lie in the post while deleting my reference to it. If you can't understand what's wrong with that it's an simply an indication of your ethics, or lack there of. Not my problem, but hardly a surprise.

"And you are right wing just like your forum mate Rixalex" - another accusation with followed by zero justification, and I've learnt by now not to expecting any. Rather than waste your time conjuring one up why not learn how to use the forum search function?

I didn't keep anything whatsoever by TallForeigner in the post. You are a bare faced liar. Here is the post:

[Insight]

I didn't keep anything whatsoever by TallForeigner in the post. You are a bare faced liar. Here is the post:

... Which has since been modified, as plenty of other people on the forum can attest to. Interesting below-the-belt tactics you're resorting to here, Simon, but again am completely unsurprised.

Red shirt supporters

Edited September 9, 2010 by Insight

[Siam Simon]

I didn't keep anything whatsoever by TallForeigner in the post. You are a bare faced liar. Here is the post:

... Which has since been modified, as plenty of other people on the forum can attest to. Interesting below-the-belt tactics you're resorting to here, Simon, but again am completely unsurprised.

Red shirt supporters

In what way has the post been modified? Where is the modification timestamp? If you think I've hacked the forum source codes, you should get Admin involved. Or do you think Admin is in cahoots with me? Have you thought about seeing a doctor? Hope you feel better soon.

(I was actually joking when I referred to this guy as a forum nutter in that tongue-in-cheek thread that I started in General .)

[Insight]

I didn't keep anything whatsoever by TallForeigner in the post. You are a bare faced liar. Here is the post:

... Which has since been modified, as plenty of other people on the forum can attest to. Interesting below-the-belt tactics you're resorting to here, Simon, but again am completely unsurprised.

Red shirt supporters

In what way has the post been modified? Where is the modification timestamp? If you think I've hacked the forum source codes, you should get Admin involved. Or do you think Admin is in cahoots with me? Have you thought about seeing a doctor? Hope you feel better soon.

(I was actually joking when I referred to this guy as a forum nutter in that tongue-in-cheek thread that I started in General .)

Pathetic - The post directly below yours by "Buchholz" also quotes yours before it was modified. Frankly I don't care how it was modified, but you're only supposed to lie about things you have a slight hope of covering up. Up to you if you want to carry on dragging these lame denials out.

[sbk]

OK Everyone, seems this thread is taking the usual nasty track with a few members who can't debate in a reasonable manner without resorting to flames. Drop the flaming or suspensions will be handed out to the worst transgressors.

as for the other issue: from what it looks like to me a moderator probably edited Siam simon's post to remove the unconfirmed inflammatory and propagandish post and forgot to use the edited by button. Its not good, but accidents do happen.

[Siam Simon]

OK Everyone, seems this thread is taking the usual nasty track with a few members who can't debate in a reasonable manner without resorting to flames. Drop the flaming or suspensions will be handed out to the worst transgressors.

as for the other issue: from what it looks like to me a moderator probably edited Siam simon's post to remove the unconfirmed inflammatory and propagandish post and forgot to use the edited by button. Its not good, but accidents do happen.

I beg to differ. The original post by TallForeigner is still intact:

as are all the replies quoting it, including the one by Insight.

I stopped reading Buchholz' posts because he appears to be a new cyber-incarnation of a repeatedly banned well-known TV trouble causer. The above posts have brought his quote of my post "Where?" to my attention. He has clearly modified my quoted post to include the line by TallForeigner. Wasn't this sort of behaviour one of the reasons why Sriracha John was banned?

[way2muchcoffee]

OK Everyone, seems this thread is taking the usual nasty track with a few members who can't debate in a reasonable manner without resorting to flames. Drop the flaming or suspensions will be handed out to the worst transgressors.

as for the other issue: from what it looks like to me a moderator probably edited Siam simon's post to remove the unconfirmed inflammatory and propagandish post and forgot to use the edited by button. Its not good, but accidents do happen.

I beg to differ. The original post by TallForeigner is still intact:

as are all the replies quoting it, including the one by Insight.

I stopped reading Buchholz' posts because he appears to be a new cyber-incarnation of a repeatedly banned well-known TV trouble causer. The above posts have brought his quote of my post "Where?" to my attention. He has clearly modified my quoted post to include the line by TallForeigner. Wasn't this sort of behaviour one of the reasons why Sriracha John was banned?

What is your deal with SRJ? I've read no less than 20 posts from you over the last several months accusing multiple users of being SRJ. You sound disturbingly obsessed. Let it go man.

Edited September 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[yoshiwara]

OK Everyone, seems this thread is taking the usual nasty track with a few members who can't debate in a reasonable manner without resorting to flames. Drop the flaming or suspensions will be handed out to the worst transgressors.

as for the other issue: from what it looks like to me a moderator probably edited Siam simon's post to remove the unconfirmed inflammatory and propagandish post and forgot to use the edited by button. Its not good, but accidents do happen.

I beg to differ. The original post by TallForeigner is still intact:

as are all the replies quoting it, including the one by Insight.

I stopped reading Buchholz' posts because he appears to be a new cyber-incarnation of a repeatedly banned well-known TV trouble causer. The above posts have brought his quote of my post "Where?" to my attention. He has clearly modified my quoted post to include the line by TallForeigner. Wasn't this sort of behaviour one of the reasons why Sriracha John was banned?

What is your deal with SRJ? I've read no less than 20 posts from you over the last several months accusing multiple users of being SRJ. You sound disturbingly obsessed. Let it go man.

The red apologists will not let things go.

Anything goes to support the return of Thaksin to power.

It is a broken record, and it plays the same tune.

Most people would think that since there is an election coming up within the next 16 months, the red supporters would concentrate on that, but since their May violence failed, they are covering the clear possibility of losing the election with the continued de-legitimisation of the state order, particularly as Thaksin has failed (again) in his primary objective of seizing the army leadership positions.

Whatever Thaksin says you can be pretty confident to assume the opposite is true.

ie the last thing Thaksin wants is political 'normalcy'. That in his eyes would make the current government 'legitimate'.

If the SOE can continue and a few bombs go off at regular intervals, then he can still try to play the anti-military card.

Remember it is the anti-military card which is being played for all it is worth by the reds now.

Why? Because unlike the police, the military would not crawl into Thaksin's pocket.

That is why our forum reds go for them.

The rest of us are happy that the military cleared the red thugs off the streets.

[rixalex]

**groan** I'm doing your donkey work for you pro-Demo propagandists again.

It's nobody's donkey work but your own. If you tell a story about MPs being locked in hotel rooms having had their mobile phones taken from them, the onus is on you to provide some sort of substaniating evidence, or at least something to back it up, and if you can't do that then you have to accept that all you have done is told a story. That's something anyone can do: Suthep and Thaksin used to be lovers. Don't ask me how i know. I just do. I read it somewhere. Go Google it yourself. See how easy it is?

The link you offer is an opinion piece from The Nation (isn't it the red shirts who are always telling us to not believe a word they say?) that is almost entirely based on un-named sources, and what's more, it makes no mention of people being locked in hotel rooms.

[Insight]

**groan** I'm doing your donkey work for you pro-Demo propagandists again.

It's nobody's donkey work but your own. If you tell a story about MPs being locked in hotel rooms having had their mobile phones taken from them, the onus is on you to provide some sort of substaniating evidence, or at least something to back it up, and if you can't do that then you have to accept that all you have done is told a story. That's something anyone can do: Suthep and Thaksin used to be lovers. Don't ask me how i know. I just do. I read it somewhere. Go Google it yourself. See how easy it is?

The link you offer is an opinion piece from The Nation (isn't it the red shirts who are always telling us to not believe a word they say?) that is almost entirely based on un-named sources, and what's more, it makes no mention of people being locked in hotel rooms.

He offered another link which was removed. You can find it by Googling "Thai military plays key role in forming new government"

It still doesn't really provide much supporting Simon's allegations, especially given the source of the house-hostage incident is "the pro-government (???) United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship" (description taken directly from the said article).

The article can be found on the World Socialist Web Site, which IMHO - for this article at least - has been severely mislead.

[rubl]

In this modern world of hightech and internet all you read you have to check. Example from wikipedia:

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths (including one Japanese journalist and 5 soldiers) and over 800 injuries. ... On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory roadmap and elections on 14 November. The roadmap was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions, the government withdrew the election offer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests

and

"By 11 April, clashes between protesters and the military had resulted in 18 or 19 people (one military) being killed and over 800 injured. ... On May 3, the Thai Prime Minister announced he was willing to hold elections on November 14 should the opposition red shirts accept the offer. The following day red shirt leaders accepted the proposal to leave the occupied parts of Bangkok in return for the new election on the scheduled date, subject to further details of the offer. When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Thai_political_crisis

[sevenhills]

In this modern world of hightech and internet all you read you have to check. Example from wikipedia:

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths (including one Japanese journalist and 5 soldiers) and over 800 injuries. ... On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory roadmap and elections on 14 November. The roadmap was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions, the government withdrew the election offer."

http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests

and

"By 11 April, clashes between protesters and the military had resulted in 18 or 19 people (one military) being killed and over 800 injured. ... On May 3, the Thai Prime Minister announced he was willing to hold elections on November 14 should the opposition red shirts accept the offer. The following day red shirt leaders accepted the proposal to leave the occupied parts of Bangkok in return for the new election on the scheduled date, subject to further details of the offer. When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

http://en.wikipedia....olitical_crisis

Rubi,

"When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

So you agree that no legal proceedings be taken by the government for these unlawful killings, so elections could take place on November 14? Just sweep it under the carpet so to speak, let bygones be bygones?

Just wondering.

Edited September 9, 2010 by sevenhills

[rubl]

In this modern world of hightech and internet all you read you have to check. Example from wikipedia:

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths (including one Japanese journalist and 5 soldiers) and over 800 injuries. ... On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory roadmap and elections on 14 November. The roadmap was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions, the government withdrew the election offer."

http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests

and

"By 11 April, clashes between protesters and the military had resulted in 18 or 19 people (one military) being killed and over 800 injured. ... On May 3, the Thai Prime Minister announced he was willing to hold elections on November 14 should the opposition red shirts accept the offer. The following day red shirt leaders accepted the proposal to leave the occupied parts of Bangkok in return for the new election on the scheduled date, subject to further details of the offer. When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

http://en.wikipedia....olitical_crisis

Rubi,

"When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

So you agree that no legal proceedings be taken by the government for these unlawful killings, so elections could take place on November 14? Just sweep it under the carpet so to speak, let bygones be bygones?

Read again, you want my glasses? I said all you read you may have to check. And gave two examples from one website which contradict each other. I didn't give a value to either. Now go bother other people.

[sevenhills]

In this modern world of hightech and internet all you read you have to check. Example from wikipedia:

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths (including one Japanese journalist and 5 soldiers) and over 800 injuries. ... On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory roadmap and elections on 14 November. The roadmap was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions, the government withdrew the election offer."

http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests

and

"By 11 April, clashes between protesters and the military had resulted in 18 or 19 people (one military) being killed and over 800 injured. ... On May 3, the Thai Prime Minister announced he was willing to hold elections on November 14 should the opposition red shirts accept the offer. The following day red shirt leaders accepted the proposal to leave the occupied parts of Bangkok in return for the new election on the scheduled date, subject to further details of the offer. When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

http://en.wikipedia....olitical_crisis

Rubi,

"When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

So you agree that no legal proceedings be taken by the government for these unlawful killings, so elections could take place on November 14? Just sweep it under the carpet so to speak, let bygones be bygones?

Read again, you want my glasses? I said all you read you may have to check. And gave two examples from one website which contradict each other. I didn't give a value to either. Now go bother other people.

So what you are not saying is that we should not believe what we read in print in either Wikipedia or the Nation? both trusted and reliable sources of information!

Please don't answer this if it bothers you. But maybe another reader could further elaborate.

Thanks.

[way2muchcoffee]

1) Wikipedia is user-edited. Fact-checking is complicated and not reliable. Anything on Wikipedia must be taken with a very large grain of salt. This is particularly true for contentious topics. Whatever you find on Wikipedia today may well change tomorrow.

2) The Nation is heavily biased against Thaksin. The Nation takes this position because of the severe abuse they received from him in the form of lawsuits and extreme political pressure. Anything written in The Nation must be viewed with this in mind.

Edited September 9, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rubl]

In this modern world of hightech and internet all you read you have to check. Example from wikipedia:

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths (including one Japanese journalist and 5 soldiers) and over 800 injuries. ... On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory roadmap and elections on 14 November. The roadmap was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions, the government withdrew the election offer."

http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests

and

"By 11 April, clashes between protesters and the military had resulted in 18 or 19 people (one military) being killed and over 800 injured. ... On May 3, the Thai Prime Minister announced he was willing to hold elections on November 14 should the opposition red shirts accept the offer. The following day red shirt leaders accepted the proposal to leave the occupied parts of Bangkok in return for the new election on the scheduled date, subject to further details of the offer. When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

http://en.wikipedia....olitical_crisis

Rubi,

"When it became clear that Abhisit government leaders responsible for unlawful killings of unarmed protesters would be exempt from legal proceedings, the rallies continued."

So you agree that no legal proceedings be taken by the government for these unlawful killings, so elections could take place on November 14? Just sweep it under the carpet so to speak, let bygones be bygones?

Read again, you want my glasses? I said all you read you may have to check. And gave two examples from one website which contradict each other. I didn't give a value to either. Now go bother other people.

So what you are not saying is that we should not believe what we read in print in either Wikipedia or the Nation? both trusted and reliable sources of information!

Please don't answer this if it bothers you. But maybe another reader could further elaborate.

Thanks.

Start to read forum rule #5 again, please.

[sevenhills]

1) Wikipedia is user-edited. Fact-checking is complicated and not reliable. Anything on wikipedia must be taken with a very large grain of salt. This is particularly for contentious topics because the information may change tomorrow.

2) The Nation is heavily biased against Thaksin. The Nation takes this position because of the severe abuse they received him in the form of lawsuits and extreme political pressure. Anything written in The Nation must be viewed with this in mind.

Thank you. No more to add.

[SomTumTiger]

I like Siam Simon. He really livens up the joint with this crazyness