Thaksins Drug War

[rixalex]

Awww isn't this convenient. Avoid the issue by pointing fingers. When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest were no worse than others, the Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming, no. Well, I'm sorry but the examples I cited are just as bad, if not worse and yet, no one takes a consistent position. Nice.

Thaksin defender?

Having for so long vigorously denied the Thaksin supporter label that your posts tended to scream, i am amazed to hear you use that term. Is there really much difference from a defender to a supporter? Seems like a short hop from one to the other.

[SteeleJoe]

"...his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest..."

So many things go through my head at this (all of them rather derogatory so I don't type them) -- but I'm almost literally stunned by this. It's genuinely difficult for me to believe that any reasonably intelligent and informed person could really view things this way.

"Apologist" is one of those words that I think get tossed around far too often, far too easily and are so often used as an ad hominem attack, in lieu of any real argument. But I'll be da_ned if I can think of a more classic example of someone being just that.

[Buchholz]

Awww isn't this convenient. Avoid the issue by pointing fingers. When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest were no worse than others, the Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming, no. Well, I'm sorry but the examples I cited are just as bad, if not worse and yet, no one takes a consistent position. Nice.

Thaksin defender?

Having for so long vigorously denied the Thaksin supporter label that your posts tended to scream, i am amazed to hear you use that term. Is there really much difference from a defender to a supporter? Seems like a short hop from one to the other.

Of course, there's not much of a difference.

And it's really just the same, but equally opposite of, Thaksin detractors.

The thing is, when he, posting as a Thaksin defender, it's described as :

When Thaksin defenders point out

as if it's all laid out gently and is cordially produced in a well thought-out and level perspective...

but when you, myself, jdinasia, and countless others similarly post... it, all of sudden, becomes described as...

Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming

.

[h90]

3000 people dead, half of them had nothing to do with drugs.

[jdinasia]

Awww isn't this convenient. Avoid the issue by pointing fingers. When Thaksin defenders point out that his errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest were no worse than others, the Thaksin bashing contingent will sputter and froth at the mouth exclaiming, no. Well, I'm sorry but the examples I cited are just as bad, if not worse and yet, no one takes a consistent position. Nice.

Thaksin defender?

Having for so long vigorously denied the Thaksin supporter label that your posts tended to scream, i am amazed to hear you use that term. Is there really much difference from a defender to a supporter? Seems like a short hop from one to the other.

His characterizations of the posters that he disagrees with imho certainly shows which camp he identifies with. The understatement of the behavior of Thaksin (particularly since this thread is about the war on drugs) and the ill-thought-out comparisons add to the impression I have of which side of the political divide in Thailand he falls on.

please note --- I do not say that people cannot actually be neutral, but in this case any such claim would appear to me to be untrue.

[SteeleJoe]

3000 people dead, half of them had nothing to do with drugs.

If that's the case, then apparently it's what's known as "an error in judgement".

[Moonrakers]

3000 people dead, half of them had nothing to do with drugs.

If that's the case, then apparently it's what's known as "an error in judgement".

Having ANYBODY killed without a fair trial is more than just an error of judgement.

[SteeleJoe]

3000 people dead, half of them had nothing to do with drugs.

If that's the case, then apparently it's what's known as "an error in judgement".

Having ANYBODY killed without a fair trial is more than just an error of judgement.

I would have hoped that was exceedingly obvious; I was being sarcastic (see geriatrickid's post above).

[Moonrakers]

3000 people dead, half of them had nothing to do with drugs.

If that's the case, then apparently it's what's known as "an error in judgement".

Having ANYBODY killed without a fair trial is more than just an error of judgement.

I would have hoped that was exceedingly obvious; I was being sarcastic (see geriatrickid's post above).

Whoops

I missed it. Blame it on the hangover, I am.

[SteeleJoe]

No problem. But I'd be frustrated if after several (too) lengthy posts, on this thread and another, decrying the abrogation of due process and the sanctity of rule of law blah bla blah someone would actually see me as someone who didn't view it as you do.

[JurgenG]

An other heavy weight of Thai politic joins the "apologist" side : Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva

In an interview with FORBES dated of this month, the Prime Minister admits "Thaksin had almost six years in, and there were achievements from his rule--we don't deny that. And many Thais are happy with those achievements."

http://www.forbes.com/global/2011/0411/companies-abhisit-vejjajiva-thaksin-shinawatra-up-for-vote.html

[SteeleJoe]

"Thaksin had almost six years in, and there were achievements from his rule--we don't deny that. And many Thais are happy with those achievements."

I think perhaps you've misunderstood what "apologist" means -- or if not then, I have.

Thaksin had almost six years in. FACT.

There were there were achievements from his rule. FACT

many Thais are happy with those achievements. FACT.

If acknowledging those facts makes one a Thaksin apologist, then I am an apologist too.

What is not simply acknowledging facts would be, for example, diminishing any and all wrongs done by Thaksin as merely "errors in judgement and perceived conflicts of interest".

[SteeleJoe]

By the way, can you see any reason why PM Abhisit might be inclined to be very diplomatic in speaking of Thaksin in general but especially right now? For the former think in terms of trying to keep things as peaceful as possible and for the latter?

Look no further than the title of the article.

[jdinasia]

An other heavy weight of Thai politic joins the "apologist" side : Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva

In an interview with FORBES dated of this month, the Prime Minister admits "Thaksin had almost six years in, and there were achievements from his rule--we don't deny that. And many Thais are happy with those achievements."

http://www.forbes.co...p-for-vote.html

Huh?

I would expect that after calling someone a terrorist, you would never be accused of being an apologist for that same person ..... oi vey!