Abhisit Administration Appears To Have Perfect Recipe To Mock Truth

[hanuman1]

Not if you are a red shirt supporter.

I actually had to laugh when I read his post. He is obviously one of those who maintain the red shirts are not all that bright. He knows he is on a loosing horse and dosen't know how to get off it. Hence the Reply that they were maybe stupid.

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

You forgot to include the other part of your reply to posters opposed to red shirts

You attack thousands of people who you don't personally know

your bigotted views

Are you insinuating that I attack thousands of people who I don't know and accuse them of being capable of doing abhorrent things like you do? Remind me of the post.

Alternatively, quit addressing me on this forum unless you want to supplement the boredom your posts usually induce with renewed bickering between us.

You said we were done. Did you lie?

[Buchholz]

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

You forgot to include the other part of your reply to posters opposed to red shirts

You attack thousands of people who you don't personally know

your bigotted views

Are you insinuating that I attack thousands of people who I don't know and accuse them of being capable of doing abhorrent things like you do? Remind me of the post.

Alternatively, quit addressing me on this forum unless you want to supplement the boredom your posts usually induce with renewed bickering between us.

You said we were done. Did you lie?

Just sharing your style of inflammatory, overly personal, unsubstantiated accusations with the other forum members that voiced similar opinions to mine, which elicited the above response.

If I can help others to see the sort of vitriol you post routinely, than that's a good thing to share with them.

If you are incapable of remembering what you post yourself yesterday, go to your profile and obtain your posting history.

[hanuman1]

You forgot to include the other part of your reply to posters opposed to red shirts

You attack thousands of people who you don't personally know

your bigotted views

Are you insinuating that I attack thousands of people who I don't know and accuse them of being capable of doing abhorrent things like you do? Remind me of the post.

Alternatively, quit addressing me on this forum unless you want to supplement the boredom your posts usually induce with renewed bickering between us.

You said we were done. Did you lie?

Just sharing your style of inflammatory, overly personal, unsubstantiated accusations with the other forum members that voiced similar opinions to mine, which elicited the above response.

If I can help others to see the sort of vitriol you post routinely, than that's a good thing to share with them.

If you are incapable of remembering what you post yourself yesterday, go to your profile and obtain your posting history.

Okay, you want to perpetuate our spat at the expense of other readers' enjoyment, fine. I offered to call it quits but you don't want that. Fits in with your normal posting habit of just bombarding threads with the same message time and time again.

Where's the vitriol in my posts? You have a mighty thin skin for someone who does nothing but throw stones. It seems I can't see the vitriol I employ against one specific individual whose viewpoint has been plastered all over this forum for months, and you can't see the outrageous accusations you make (for example, that all red shirts are capable of using their children as human shields) against thousands of individuals whose individual viewpoints you know hardly anything about.

You said we were done but apparently you want this to carry on. Make your mind up - or shouldn't I trust what you say now as being what you really feel?

Edited December 17, 2010 by hanuman1

[MaiChai]

The Singaporeans are right; both parties are corrupt. Abhisit probably has a very tough job trying to get anyone to do things legally by the book. I believe him to be pretty honest and straight, but how can he control everyone else in his government? Think about how difficult this must be? Thai politics are dirty and its very difficult changing this. We can only dream about clean politics and a fair society. Maybe one day...

[hanuman1]

hunman1 you said

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

This post has been edited by hanuman1: Today, 14:46

You might not accuse them of being stupid because that is the Thai way. If they were not stupid what would you call them. Did they think the barricades were to throw money into and have the kids find it. Did they not understand what there leaders were wanting them to do with the violent rhetoric. Are you maintaining it was just a pay check to them they did not pay any attention to what was going on. Give me and yourself a break.

I am not overly fond of Abhist but I do care about Thailand. And he is the best thing Thailand has going for itself.

I am incapable of hatred so you lose there also.

As far as I am concerned The Yellow Shirts are No better for Thailand than the Red Shirts. Neither one of them has admitted to doing any thing wrong (well the red shirts did admit they were wrong invading the hospital) other than that they think the rest of the world is wrong.

Did either one try to make up the monetary damage they did to private citizens. The answer is no.

Ask them and they will tell you. No why should we, we did nothing wrong. And you my fine feathered friend are a ed shirt supporter. Saying they were not stupid as they loaded the gun for the next shot.

Only a Red Shirt supporter would say they didn't have a clue what was going on.

I am incapable of hatred so you lose there also.

Once again, you show your inability to think outside of a zero-sum game. I don't lose because of you being incapable of hatred, but it is a victory for you. You can't understand that. I'm happy for you if you are incapable of hatred.

Saying they were not stupid as they loaded the gun for the next shot.

Yeah, just put words in my mouth. Shall I say you condone armed robbery? How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you just make things up as you go along? Show me where I said violence was acceptable. You just create demons for the pleasure of putting them down. Does everyone else on this forum need to be witness to your self-serving pastime?

Edited December 17, 2010 by hanuman1

[rixalex]

To be sure, many thought it would turn violent (a lot of the speeches people are discussing on here are about what they should do if the army moves in). However, that doesn't automatically mean that it was justifiable to shoot anyone that was in the crowd. Just because they knew there'd be violence, and hell a lot were willing to stand up to the army, and some knew there were armed men in amongst them. But if you enter a crowd or are part of a protest are you responsible for everything anyone else in the crowd does? Should I be shot because someone else apparently on my side is using a gun? I don't think I should be. You seem to have justified the military's irresponsibility on the basis that people in the mob knew what they were getting into. Obviously people in the crowd should take responsibility for their actions & yes, I think they have agency and thought for themselves about what they were getting into. But it doesn't justify everything the security forces did, nor does it mean they shouldn't be held accountable. I think when you put on a uniform I think you have to accept you're going to be held to greater account than ordinary people in a crowd, and we should demand high standards from those supposedly working to protect & serve ordinary citizens.

If a public building is illegally taken over by a group of extremists, some of whom are armed, and a stand off between them and authorities ensues, during which time the authorities issue warning after warning, day after day, week after week, for any extremist who values their life to leave the building voluntarily before things get ugly, how much sympathy will there be for those who stay and get harmed when the building inevitably gets stormed, and how much responsibility rests with authorities and how much with the organizers of the extremists and the extremists themselves, who were willfully breaking the law and who knew yet ignored the daily warnings?

Is there much difference between this scenario and that of the red shirt protests?

[Emptyset]

To be sure, many thought it would turn violent (a lot of the speeches people are discussing on here are about what they should do if the army moves in). However, that doesn't automatically mean that it was justifiable to shoot anyone that was in the crowd. Just because they knew there'd be violence, and hell a lot were willing to stand up to the army, and some knew there were armed men in amongst them. But if you enter a crowd or are part of a protest are you responsible for everything anyone else in the crowd does? Should I be shot because someone else apparently on my side is using a gun? I don't think I should be. You seem to have justified the military's irresponsibility on the basis that people in the mob knew what they were getting into. Obviously people in the crowd should take responsibility for their actions & yes, I think they have agency and thought for themselves about what they were getting into. But it doesn't justify everything the security forces did, nor does it mean they shouldn't be held accountable. I think when you put on a uniform I think you have to accept you're going to be held to greater account than ordinary people in a crowd, and we should demand high standards from those supposedly working to protect & serve ordinary citizens.

If a public building is illegally taken over by a group of extremists, some of whom are armed, and a stand off between them and authorities ensues, during which time the authorities issue warning after warning, day after day, week after week, for any extremist who values their life to leave the building voluntarily before things get ugly, how much sympathy will there be for those who stay and get harmed when the building inevitably gets stormed, and how much responsibility rests with authorities and how much with the organizers of the extremists and the extremists themselves, who were willfully breaking the law and who knew yet ignored the daily warnings?

Is there much difference between this scenario and that of the red shirt protests?

The point is, both sides should be brought to account by impartial courts. It's pretty obvious that neither side has the moral high-ground here and neither should escape punishment if wrongdoing can be proven in court. Why is it not legitimate to worry about the impartially of some of the investigators involved here? The problem is, if PT win you might well end up with a reverse scenario, so I'm honestly not sure what the best solution would be. I thought blanket amnesty was a good idea, but Thailand has been down that road many times so it'd be much preferable that everyone was punished impartially, according to their crimes.