phiphidon Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I do not think the red shirts had anything to gain by starting a fire fight at a temple agreed for use as a sanctuary. Then again that viewpoint is irrelevant because there was not a firefight at the Wat. It was one way firing and more than irresponsible. The "fire fight" 12 witnesses mention was outside the temple, some say in the direction of Siam Paragon. At least one witness reports people fleeing in the direction of the Wat away from the fire fight. The "men in black" were allegedly seen by the Army witnesses under a pedestrian bridge or next to a flyover pillar. The Army are linked by radios so this information must have been passed on to the men on the ground. You seem to think that the murders at the temple can be pinned down to "who is to gain". Have you ever considered the possibility that the "The reds provoked the Army into shooting Red Shirts for propaganda purposes" agenda proposed by the hard of thinking on this forum is complete and utter BS? And using the Witness 41 statement as a backup to that thinking is hardly likely to help your case. The alternate proposal is that 2 separate units decided to fire at random, or deliberately at unarmed protesters,for no apparent reason. Compare that to one unit coming under attack, calling for support, and support fire going in the wrong direction. "Who gains" is a basic investigative tool for determining motive. You have yet to propose a better one than a mass onset of homocidal mania in trained soldiers. I believe my proposed motive is much more believable. The whole event was supposed to attain early elections (offered and refused), and escalated in violence until it met a violent response. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderous bastards, a political ploy that worked quite well. There is sufficient number of accounts of money changing hands for this to have been an expensive operation, and to justify that investment, protesters had to die at the hands of the military. You don't believe that. I and others believe that a sociopath like Thaksin would accept that proposition in a moment if he stood to personally gain. To use street vernacular the Royal Thai Army has "previous". Certain factions of it have a lot to lose sometime sooner or later. the fact that you don't realise that this "explanation" is more applicable to the red-shirts and Thaksin is both indicative and a little scary. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjag Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 And have the Red Shirt Mafia paid for Damages to Central World, Center One and Big C? Has Mr. Watermelon been summoned? He was in charge of the military not Khun Abhisit. As always Thailand has got it back to front. A bit off topis but: Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know. And who is is NOT creating stable Government, the other lot. Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept? Yes, if you care to enlighten us witch election promises the Maria-like Mrs.Yingluck kept! docn, you care to answer skywalker69, come on blasting the last government for what, what have you got thats exciting now, and transparent ???? dictatorial democratic dictatorship, Ha Ha bash when needed ---why are you not bashing-it is needed, or haven't you noticed in the last 6 months all promises are delivered, as in pre election-for the POOR Thai people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 And have the Red Shirt Mafia paid for Damages to Central World, Center One and Big C? Has Mr. Watermelon been summoned? He was in charge of the military not Khun Abhisit. As always Thailand has got it back to front. A bit off topis but: Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know. And who is is NOT creating stable Government, the other lot. Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept? Yes, if you care to enlighten us witch election promises the Maria-like Mrs.Yingluck kept! Just guessing, but DocN, with his sense of humor, was perhaps pointing out that Abhisit did not make any election promises at all before becoming PM, hence none to keep, either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Just guessing, but DocN, with his sense of humor, was perhaps pointing out that Abhisit did not make any election promises at all before becoming PM, hence none to keep, either... He would have made election promises when he was elected as an MP in the 2007 election. I don't know what they were, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koosdeboer Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Well if you have any more information, tell us. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant where they died - A live fire zone doesn't make a death any less tragic, let alone their questionable (for a supposedly democratically governed country) legitimacy. If you're going to deploy snipers against your own countrymen why bother going through the sham of having live fire zones? Because in the more congested areas where there were black shirt snipers, there was more risk to by-standers, as shown by the guy being shot picking up his grand daughter. You don't think most other countries have snipers in place when criminals are running around with guns? How do you know there were "black shirt snipers" apart from the government telling you there were? If they do/did exist how do you know they were near the grandfather or even what relevance they are to the death of the grandfather Most other countries don't use snipers to shoot unarmed citizens. Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Well if you have any more information, tell us. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant where they died - A live fire zone doesn't make a death any less tragic, let alone their questionable (for a supposedly democratically governed country) legitimacy. If you're going to deploy snipers against your own countrymen why bother going through the sham of having live fire zones? Because in the more congested areas where there were black shirt snipers, there was more risk to by-standers, as shown by the guy being shot picking up his grand daughter. You don't think most other countries have snipers in place when criminals are running around with guns? How do you know there were "black shirt snipers" apart from the government telling you there were? If they do/did exist how do you know they were near the grandfather or even what relevance they are to the death of the grandfather Most other countries don't use snipers to shoot unarmed citizens. Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com Was there a point to that photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post JAG Posted January 11, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) It shows a couple of blokes wearing red shirts, and one who happens to be wearing a black outfit, standing by a pile of old shotguns. By the time this forum reaches 275 posts it will be cast iron proof that the shootings were a desperate last ditch response to an armed uprising that was aimed at establishing year zero in Thailand, and that Abhisit and the RTA top brass were as pure as the driven snow. I expect someone will write some blank verse, using impressively long words, to clinch the deal! Edited January 11, 2012 by JAG 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) and your point is? Crowd control techniques dealing with violent crowds begins well before a crowd becomes violent, assessing the risks of violence, planning for possible violence, and in this case, also planning for crowd dispersal. If your comment on grenades is somehow meant to justify the governments botched handling of the riots and the government's decision to start killing people, then you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with you. And I feel it is also just a knee-jerk reaction which requires little effort and is also far too common on this forum. If this protest would have been carried out in the US there would have been a Waco after a few days, not been allowed to go on and having grenade attacks against civilians by armed terrorists etc. Or how do you claim this would have ended if this was on the streets in downtown Manhattan? Edited January 11, 2012 by TAWP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Just guessing, but DocN, with his sense of humor, was perhaps pointing out that Abhisit did not make any election promises at all before becoming PM, hence none to keep, either... He would have made election promises when he was elected as an MP in the 2007 election. I don't know what they were, though. surely you realize they mean election promises to the voting public, surely you realized that before you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Just guessing, but DocN, with his sense of humor, was perhaps pointing out that Abhisit did not make any election promises at all before becoming PM, hence none to keep, either... He would have made election promises when he was elected as an MP in the 2007 election. I don't know what they were, though. surely you realize they mean election promises to the voting public, surely you realized that before you posted. Do you mean the voting public that voted in the 2007 election? Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Just guessing, but DocN, with his sense of humor, was perhaps pointing out that Abhisit did not make any election promises at all before becoming PM, hence none to keep, either... He would have made election promises when he was elected as an MP in the 2007 election. I don't know what they were, though. surely you realize they mean election promises to the voting public, surely you realized that before you posted. Do you mean the voting public that voted in the 2007 election? Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com no, i meant the way they were obviously talking about when he was made PM... and his election promises to the public were irrelevant, as the public didn't vote for him to be PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) no, i meant the way they were obviously talking about when he was made PM... and his election promises to the public were irrelevant, as the public didn't vote for him to be PM The public didn't vote anyone to be PM in the 2007 election. Why would his election promises be irrelevant? Are you suggesting that he said "Stuff the 14 million people that voted for us. I'm not going to do what I promised because I couldn't get a coalition together after the election."? The fact is, for the 2007 election campaign, he made some election promises. The fact is, he was elected as an MP. The fact is, he became PM. The discussion is, did he (attempt to) fulfill his election promises? Edited January 12, 2012 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 no, i meant the way they were obviously talking about when he was made PM... and his election promises to the public were irrelevant, as the public didn't vote for him to be PM The public didn't vote anyone to be PM in the 2007 election. Why would his election promises be irrelevant? Are you suggesting that he said "Stuff the 14 million people that voted for us. I'm not going to do what I promised because I couldn't get a coalition together after the election."? The fact is, for the 2007 election campaign, he made some election promises. The fact is, he was elected as an MP. The fact is, he became PM. The discussion is, did he (attempt to) fulfill his election promises? first comment... how so? if you're saying they voted for a party not a PM, then that's a strawman. the fact is, abhisit wasn't elected as PM by the pubic... ever, he would never get a majority vote from the public.. people were discussing his election promise's, which made no difference because of the fact that he wasn't voted to be PM by the public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 first comment... how so? if you're saying they voted for a party not a PM, then that's a strawman. the fact is, abhisit wasn't elected as PM by the pubic... ever, he would never get a majority vote from the public.. people were discussing his election promise's, which made no difference because of the fact that he wasn't voted to be PM by the public. The PPP didn't get a majority of the vote or seats. A clear majority didn't vote for Samak as PM. So it was up to the politicians to wheel and deal, and Samak got elected PM. IF the wheeling and dealing had gone a different way, then Abhisit would have been PM and he would have been "voted to be PM by the public". Just because Abhisit didn't become PM immediately after the election doesn't make his election promises null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 first comment... how so? if you're saying they voted for a party not a PM, then that's a strawman. the fact is, abhisit wasn't elected as PM by the pubic... ever, he would never get a majority vote from the public.. people were discussing his election promise's, which made no difference because of the fact that he wasn't voted to be PM by the public. The PPP didn't get a majority of the vote or seats. A clear majority didn't vote for Samak as PM. So it was up to the politicians to wheel and deal, and Samak got elected PM. IF the wheeling and dealing had gone a different way, then Abhisit would have been PM and he would have been "voted to be PM by the public". Just because Abhisit didn't become PM immediately after the election doesn't make his election promises null and void. i'm not saying his election promises were null and void... i'm saying it's irrelevant to the public to how he was made prime minister. as the public didn't vote him or his party into power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 first comment... how so? if you're saying they voted for a party not a PM, then that's a strawman. the fact is, abhisit wasn't elected as PM by the pubic... ever, he would never get a majority vote from the public.. people were discussing his election promise's, which made no difference because of the fact that he wasn't voted to be PM by the public. The PPP didn't get a majority of the vote or seats. A clear majority didn't vote for Samak as PM. So it was up to the politicians to wheel and deal, and Samak got elected PM. IF the wheeling and dealing had gone a different way, then Abhisit would have been PM and he would have been "voted to be PM by the public". Just because Abhisit didn't become PM immediately after the election doesn't make his election promises null and void. The PPP didn't get an absolute majority no... but they did get the majority of votes in comparision to any other party.. it goes back to the same PTP DIDNT GET A MAJORITY cry that you often hear, when people clearly mean they got the most votes out of any party. that particular argument makes me chuckle, it boils down to wordplay because people obviously understand what is meant when people say they got the majority... as in majority of votes, not the majority of the public voted for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) i'm not saying his election promises were null and void... i'm saying it's irrelevant to the public to how he was made prime minister. as the public didn't vote him or his party into power... The discussion isn't about how he came to power. The discussion is "what were his promises?" He did come to power, and the people that did vote for him (a similar number to those that voted for PPP) would have expected him to fulfill his promises. The PPP didn't get an absolute majority no... but they did get the majority of votes in comparision to any other party.. it goes back to the same PTP DIDNT GET A MAJORITY cry that you often hear, when people clearly mean they got the most votes out of any party. that particular argument makes me chuckle, it boils down to wordplay because people obviously understand what is meant when people say they got the majority... as in majority of votes, not the majority of the public voted for them. The "PTP didn't get a majority" is only relevant when posters say "The Thai people voted for PTP". They got a majority of seats and were able to form government without a coalition. The "PPP didn't get a majority" is relevant because they couldn't form government without the help of a coalition, which means, theoretically, that the Democrats could have formed government if they were able to get the support of the other parties. It doesn't matter who gets the most votes (or specifically, the most seats) if it's not more than 50% (ie a majority). The most votes or most seats doesn't get you into government. A majority does. The PPP didn't get a majority. They did get the most votes and the most seats. They were able to form government, but only with a coalition. (read my signature for definitions of 'majority') Edited January 13, 2012 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 i'm not saying his election promises were null and void... i'm saying it's irrelevant to the public to how he was made prime minister. as the public didn't vote him or his party into power... The discussion isn't about how he came to power. The discussion is "what were his promises?" He did come to power, and the people that did vote for him (a similar number to those that voted for PPP) would have expected him to fulfill his promises. The PPP didn't get an absolute majority no... but they did get the majority of votes in comparision to any other party.. it goes back to the same PTP DIDNT GET A MAJORITY cry that you often hear, when people clearly mean they got the most votes out of any party. that particular argument makes me chuckle, it boils down to wordplay because people obviously understand what is meant when people say they got the majority... as in majority of votes, not the majority of the public voted for them. The "PTP didn't get a majority" is only relevant when posters say "The Thai people voted for PTP". They got a majority of seats and were able to form government without a coalition. The "PPP didn't get a majority" is relevant because they couldn't form government without the help of a coalition, which means, theoretically, that the Democrats could have formed government if they were able to get the support of the other parties. It doesn't matter who gets the most votes (or specifically, the most seats) if it's not more than 50% (ie a majority). The most votes or most seats doesn't get you into government. A majority does. The PPP didn't get a majority. They did get the most votes and the most seats. They were able to form government, but only with a coalition. (read my signature for definitions of 'majority') you don't need to explain to me what majority means you've just proven the exact point i was making, thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 you don't need to explain to me what majority means you've just proven the exact point i was making, thanks for that. OK. Then we're in agreement. The PPP didn't get a majority and Abhisit made election promises. Now, does anyone know what those election promises were and did he (try to) keep them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 you don't need to explain to me what majority means you've just proven the exact point i was making, thanks for that. OK. Then we're in agreement. The PPP didn't get a majority and Abhisit made election promises. Now, does anyone know what those election promises were and did he (try to) keep them? exactly.... as i stated, they got the majority of votes for one party and yeah, i guess he made election promises to the public, but that's not what got him the job as PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) exactly.... as i stated, they got the majority of votes for one party and yeah, i guess he made election promises to the public, but that's not what got him the job as PM. Actually, the PPP got ALL of the votes for one party (the PPP). They didn't get a Majority of votes of all parties. They did get a Plularity (or "Relative Majority") of votes of all parties. WHY or HOW Abhisit became PM was never being discussed. Edited January 13, 2012 by whybother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 exactly.... as i stated, they got the majority of votes for one party and yeah, i guess he made election promises to the public, but that's not what got him the job as PM. Actually, the PPP got ALL of the votes for one party (the PPP). They didn't get a Majority of votes of all parties. They did get a Plularity (or "Relative Majority") of votes of all parties. WHY or HOW Abhisit became PM was never being discussed. yes, i know what relative majority/plurality is it's exactly what i was saying... they got the majority of votes compared to other parties i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave... i didn't think i'd have to explain to you that i meant relative majority, when saying they got the majority of votes compared to other parties... i thought you would have understood that....without this back and forth and the troll type references to your sig abhisit's election promises came up... so "WHY or HOW Abhisit became PM" was bound to come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 abhisit's election promises came up... so "WHY or HOW Abhisit became PM" was bound to come up. So the next time I ask what Abhisit's election promises were, I should expect a response along the lines of "But he came to power through a judicial / military coup"??? <deleted>? What do his election promises have to do with him even coming to power? What were Chuwit's election promises? - "But Chuwit isn't PM" What sort of answer is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 yes, i know what relative majority/plurality is it's exactly what i was saying... they got the majority of votes compared to other parties i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave... i didn't think i'd have to explain to you that i meant relative majority, when saying they got the majority of votes compared to other parties... i thought you would have understood that....without this back and forth and the troll type references to your sig You're obviously not reading the definitions. They didn't get an absolute majority. That leaves majority and plurality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You're obviously not reading the definitions. They didn't get an absolute majority. That leaves majority and plurality. I don't really want to get involved in this rather tedious discussion.Clearly my boredom threshold is rather low by some standards. The short answer however is that Abhisit's government was legitimate under a parliamentary system but it was put together in the barracks with money and coercion. That's why there was almost universal relief when the current government assumed office with real legitimacy. However my main point in commenting now is to question your definition of absolute majority which would not be accepted by most constitutional authorities.The convention is that absolute majority refers to electors who voted not those eligible to vote.Still I'm aware that among those who hate democracy there will always be those who invent definitions to suit themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 <snipped stuff that wasn't being discussed> However my main point in commenting now is to question your definition of absolute majority which would not be accepted by most constitutional authorities.The convention is that absolute majority refers to electors who voted not those eligible to vote.Still I'm aware that among those who hate democracy there will always be those who invent definitions to suit themselves. (wiki) "an absolute majority is a majority of all electors, not just those who voted" "An absolute majority or majority of the entire membership is a voting basis that requires that more than half of all the members of a body (including those absent and those present but not voting) to vote in favour" A "majority" is greater than 50% of votes. A "relative majority" is the largest proportion of votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 yes, i know what relative majority/plurality is it's exactly what i was saying... they got the majority of votes compared to other parties i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave... i didn't think i'd have to explain to you that i meant relative majority, when saying they got the majority of votes compared to other parties... i thought you would have understood that....without this back and forth and the troll type references to your sig You're obviously not reading the definitions. They didn't get an absolute majority. That leaves majority and plurality. would you like me to put it in bold in future? i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority there... same sentence taken from the post you replied to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 abhisit's election promises came up... so "WHY or HOW Abhisit became PM" was bound to come up. So the next time I ask what Abhisit's election promises were, I should expect a response along the lines of "But he came to power through a judicial / military coup"??? <deleted>? What do his election promises have to do with him even coming to power? What were Chuwit's election promises? - "But Chuwit isn't PM" What sort of answer is that? So the next time I ask what Abhisit's election promises were, I should expect a response along the lines of "But he came to power through a judicial / military coup"??? <deleted>? yes, and rightly so. What do his election promises have to do with him even coming to power? exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 would you like me to put it in bold in future? i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority there... same sentence taken from the post you replied to. i clearly stated it wasn't an absolute majority, so what does that leave... ... That leaves majority and plurality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You're obviously not reading the definitions. They didn't get an absolute majority. That leaves majority and plurality. I don't really want to get involved in this rather tedious discussion.Clearly my boredom threshold is rather low by some standards. The short answer however is that Abhisit's government was legitimate under a parliamentary system but it was put together in the barracks with money and coercion. That's why there was almost universal relief when the current government assumed office with real legitimacy. However my main point in commenting now is to question your definition of absolute majority which would not be accepted by most constitutional authorities.The convention is that absolute majority refers to electors who voted not those eligible to vote.Still I'm aware that among those who hate democracy there will always be those who invent definitions to suit themselves. "I don't really want to get involved in this rather tedious discussion.Clearly my boredom threshold is rather low by some standards." well don't then, seeing as you seem to think you're above it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now