No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[Moruya]

Phiphidon, over 2 years of learning how to be nice in posting on the forum, reading BS, bullocks, and worse every day, now there is something wrong when I use it to call a spade a spade?

Funny, I guess the (any color but) red shirt supporting, (not) paid to protest, (un)thug (not)mob/grenade-tossing/kwai, (not)ignorant, (never)vote-buying, (un)corrupt, (anti-)Hitler/Mao/Stalin (why does Lenin never get brought up?) / Pol Pot KJII, (un)educated TVF posters have the golden right to tell others what is what.

Maybe that is a sh*t stirring view??

My dear man,

rule number one on here is to never lose your sense of humour

rule number two is that deep down the vast majority of westerners hate the red shirt leaders as much as they hate their equivalents in the jaundiced camp

rule number 3 is that we all really want Thailand's politics to grow up, act for the whole country and bring the nation forward

rule number 4 is that until rule number 3 happens we reserve the right to take the P155 out of any coloured shirts that we see fit

can rule number 5 be admitting when you were wrong?

I always do.

[Yunla]

I haven't lost my sense of humor on the forum, but about a month ago I lost my patience.

For rule 2, there are not many opportunities to voice concerns here about the UDD or the PTP as it tends to get buried in the one-sided posting. People here certainly think (as posted in this thread even) that I am a Thaksin fan, although I have often stated my opinions about Thaksin as a PM (no integrity, not honest, and not good for Thai politics) with the reasoning behind it as well.

I agree with rule # 3 - for Thailand of course, but also for my home country where politics is seemingly going backwards as if to meet up with Thailand at some point.

Cheers

I think the problem is that if you make statements about Abhisit such as in context of (paraphrased from last page) 'Abhisit is undemocratic and power-hungry' which was your proposition, you then say ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

Then when I point out that Thaksin had 2500 people killed, he embraces mass-murdering mass-torturing tyrants as friends, is accused of nepotistic larceny of a suspected 30% of Thai state funds, you immediately changed stance and said basically that you don't like or support either Abhisit or Thaksin. But that is not what you said, you said that this mass-murdering convicted criminal is just as admirable and respectable as Abhisit, who has committed no serious crimes and in his short time in office he put through reformist bills to address infrastructure and rural poverty.

Thaksin had five years to fix things and in that time a lot of people died, and a lot of money that should have improved Thailand went into his family's pockets. Abhisit had by contrast half the time in office and spent three months of that dealing with Bangkok shutdown by redmob, even governing from barracks. Obviously those three months he was unable to act as PM in his reformist bills etc. because he was trying to deal with the redmob. So in effect he had little over two years, during which time he put through bills for helping the rural poor and infrastructure development. Abhisit didn't order the executions of over 2500 people nor did he overspend by 400bn much of it into his family businesses.

My problem with your post is that you said Abhisit is no more respectable or admirable than Thaksin and I don't see how you can say that unless you have a different definition of 'admirable' and 'respectable' than the one in the dictionary. When I confronted you on this, you blanked it by saying you 'don't like either of those men and don't support Thaksin.' Your non-support of Thaksin doesn't make it okay for you to slander Abhisit who has not committed the large-scale crimes that Thaksin has committed. Just because Abhisit is not perfect does not make it okay to compare him to a grand-larcenist, nepotistic mass-murderer.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Yunla

[animatic]

It seems discussing other posters is far more important than the topic,

by several pages, even after deletions.

Nothing to see here people. Move along, stop blocking the street.

ha, the ironing is delicious.

are you not discussing other posters rather than the topic?

No actually, I was discussing the topic being missing.

And you were discussing me.

I am sure your ironing will taste better with Woolite sprinkled on it.

Edited June 30, 2012 by animatic

[Moruya]

it's what i get paid for

Somebody pays you?

[binjalin]

Didn't take long for your case to be proved, binjalin................

nope - they nailed it! yet AGAIN...!

Yep, you can't out dumb dumb.

Can you play the banjo by any chance?

it must be comforting to always think you are right... very comforting... everyone is 'dumb' who doesn't agree with you right?

[tlansford]

I haven't lost my sense of humor on the forum, but about a month ago I lost my patience.

For rule 2, there are not many opportunities to voice concerns here about the UDD or the PTP as it tends to get buried in the one-sided posting. People here certainly think (as posted in this thread even) that I am a Thaksin fan, although I have often stated my opinions about Thaksin as a PM (no integrity, not honest, and not good for Thai politics) with the reasoning behind it as well.

I agree with rule # 3 - for Thailand of course, but also for my home country where politics is seemingly going backwards as if to meet up with Thailand at some point.

Cheers

I think the problem is that if you make statements about Abhisit such as in context of (paraphrased from last page) 'Abhisit is undemocratic and power-hungry' which was your proposition, you then say ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

Then when I point out that Thaksin had 2500 people killed, he embraces mass-murdering mass-torturing tyrants as friends, is accused of nepotistic larceny of a suspected 30% of Thai state funds, you immediately changed stance and said basically that you don't like or support either Abhisit or Thaksin. But that is not what you said, you said that this mass-murdering convicted criminal is just as admirable and respectable as Abhisit, who has committed no serious crimes and in his short time in office he put through reformist bills to address infrastructure and rural poverty.

Thaksin had five years to fix things and in that time a lot of people died, and a lot of money that should have improved Thailand went into his family's pockets. Abhisit had by contrast half the time in office and spent three months of that dealing with Bangkok shutdown by redmob, even governing from barracks. Obviously those three months he was unable to act as PM in his reformist bills etc. because he was trying to deal with the redmob. So in effect he had little over two years, during which time he put through bills for helping the rural poor and infrastructure development. Abhisit didn't order the executions of over 2500 people nor did he overspend by 400bn much of it into his family businesses.

My problem with your post is that you said Abhisit is no more respectable or admirable than Thaksin and I don't see how you can say that unless you have a different definition of 'admirable' and 'respectable' than the one in the dictionary. When I confronted you on this, you blanked it by saying you 'don't like either of those men and don't support Thaksin.' Your non-support of Thaksin doesn't make it okay for you to slander Abhisit who has not committed the large-scale crimes that Thaksin has committed. Just because Abhisit is not perfect does not make it okay to compare him to a grand-larcenist, nepotistic mass-murderer.

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

Additionally, I do not care what you think about Thaksin and Abhisit. You've stated it several times. It is one-sided and biased. Everything Thaksin ever did which you point out here is bad, and Abhisit, well if you ever admitted that he did something wrong, then I apologize to you in advance because I missed it.

We could perhaps someday in the future have a reasonable debate, but that would have to be after you stopped putting words in my mouth. I've learned to cut conversations short on TVF when that starts to happen.

[Thaddeus]

I haven't lost my sense of humor on the forum, but about a month ago I lost my patience.

For rule 2, there are not many opportunities to voice concerns here about the UDD or the PTP as it tends to get buried in the one-sided posting. People here certainly think (as posted in this thread even) that I am a Thaksin fan, although I have often stated my opinions about Thaksin as a PM (no integrity, not honest, and not good for Thai politics) with the reasoning behind it as well.

I agree with rule # 3 - for Thailand of course, but also for my home country where politics is seemingly going backwards as if to meet up with Thailand at some point.

Cheers

I think the problem is that if you make statements about Abhisit such as in context of (paraphrased from last page) 'Abhisit is undemocratic and power-hungry' which was your proposition, you then say ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

Then when I point out that Thaksin had 2500 people killed, he embraces mass-murdering mass-torturing tyrants as friends, is accused of nepotistic larceny of a suspected 30% of Thai state funds, you immediately changed stance and said basically that you don't like or support either Abhisit or Thaksin. But that is not what you said, you said that this mass-murdering convicted criminal is just as admirable and respectable as Abhisit, who has committed no serious crimes and in his short time in office he put through reformist bills to address infrastructure and rural poverty.

Thaksin had five years to fix things and in that time a lot of people died, and a lot of money that should have improved Thailand went into his family's pockets. Abhisit had by contrast half the time in office and spent three months of that dealing with Bangkok shutdown by redmob, even governing from barracks. Obviously those three months he was unable to act as PM in his reformist bills etc. because he was trying to deal with the redmob. So in effect he had little over two years, during which time he put through bills for helping the rural poor and infrastructure development. Abhisit didn't order the executions of over 2500 people nor did he overspend by 400bn much of it into his family businesses.

My problem with your post is that you said Abhisit is no more respectable or admirable than Thaksin and I don't see how you can say that unless you have a different definition of 'admirable' and 'respectable' than the one in the dictionary. When I confronted you on this, you blanked it by saying you 'don't like either of those men and don't support Thaksin.' Your non-support of Thaksin doesn't make it okay for you to slander Abhisit who has not committed the large-scale crimes that Thaksin has committed. Just because Abhisit is not perfect does not make it okay to compare him to a grand-larcenist, nepotistic mass-murderer.

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

You've got a bloody funny way of showing that then.

[Yunla]

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

Additionally, I do not care what you think about Thaksin and Abhisit. You've stated it several times. It is one-sided and biased. Everything Thaksin ever did which you point out here is bad, and Abhisit, well if you ever admitted that he did something wrong, then I apologize to you in advance because I missed it.

We could perhaps someday in the future have a reasonable debate, but that would have to be after you stopped putting words in my mouth. I've learned to cut conversations short on TVF when that starts to happen.

As a matter of fact I have often said Abhisit is not perfect but he is the 'best option on the table at this time'. I have never said he is the best man for the job, only that he is better than Yingluck, and that unlike Thaksin he is not a dangerous fleeing criminal with the ghosts of people he's murdered visiting him during his sleeping hours.

Actually I was pointing out that you said originally, and outrageously ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

When I raised this with you, instead of explaining the reasons why Abhisit is no more admirable or respectable than Thaksin, i.e. to support and defend your slanderous proposition, you turned tail and fled like Roadrunner. You changed the above quote to the far less specific ; 'I don't like either of them they are both scumbags, I'm not a Thaksin supporter' etc. I was in fact answering your first proposition, I laid out reasons why Thaksin, the dangerous fleeing criminal, is far less admirable and respectable than Abhisit, a serving politician with no serious criminal record inside or outside office.

Its okay if you don't want to stand by your original statement and defend it, I wouldn't blame you for that at all because it is indefensible. But you should say that and perhaps "I'm sorry" too.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Yunla

[Buchholz]

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

You've got a bloody funny way of showing that then.

It's encountered so many times, it's become cliche'

"I'm no fan of Thaksin, but..."

.

[tlansford]

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

Additionally, I do not care what you think about Thaksin and Abhisit. You've stated it several times. It is one-sided and biased. Everything Thaksin ever did which you point out here is bad, and Abhisit, well if you ever admitted that he did something wrong, then I apologize to you in advance because I missed it.

We could perhaps someday in the future have a reasonable debate, but that would have to be after you stopped putting words in my mouth. I've learned to cut conversations short on TVF when that starts to happen.

As a matter of fact I have often said Abhisit is not perfect but he is the 'best option on the table at this time'. I have never said he is the best man for the job, only that he is better than Yingluck, and that unlike Thaksin he is not a dangerous fleeing criminal with the ghosts of people he's murdered visiting him during his sleeping hours.

Actually I was pointing out that you said originally, and outrageously ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

When I raised this with you, instead of explaining the reasons why Abhisit is no more admirable or respectable than Thaksin, i.e. to support and defend your slanderous proposition, you turned tail and fled like Roadrunner. You changed the above quote to the far less specific ; 'I don't like either of them they are both scumbags, I'm not a Thaksin supporter' etc. I was in fact answering your first proposition, I laid out reasons why Thaksin, the dangerous fleeing criminal, is far less admirable and respectable than Abhisit, a serving politician with no serious criminal record inside or outside office.

Its okay if you don't want to stand by your original statement and defend it, I wouldn't blame you for that at all because it is indefensible. But you should say that and perhaps "I'm sorry" too.

I understand that your English is excellent, so I would expect you to understand that if I were to say, using a common TVF comparison, that I don't view Abhisit as any more respectable than Hitler, would you immediately take that as a statement that I find Hitler respectable? Of course not. This is basic English.

So not only do I stand by my statement, there is no need to defend it either.

I don't stand by your misconstrued version of my statement.

I hope that is clear.

If I were to say

[binjalin]

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

You've got a bloody funny way of showing that then.

It's encountered so many times, it's become cliche'

"I'm no fan of Thaksin, but..."

.

yea same as

Thaksin is same as Hitler etc.

you don't seem to understand that you can dislike Abhisit and also dislike Thaksin - that you can sympathize more with the reds but it doesn't mean you want Thaksin back!

[Yunla]

I understand that your English is excellent, so I would expect you to understand that if I were to say, using a common TVF comparison, that I don't view Abhisit as any more respectable than Hitler, would you immediately take that as a statement that I find Hitler respectable? Of course not. This is basic English.

So not only do I stand by my statement, there is no need to defend it either.

I don't stand by your misconstrued version of my statement.

I hope that is clear.

If I were to say

OK I'm going to drop it and desist from further posts on this. I originally had a problem with your phrase;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

and the reason I felt that this statement had to be challenged, and certainly on-topic to the 'did he give orders to fire' subject, is that to my mind Abhisit while not the greatest leader in history, is in a different category entirely to Thaksin, in terms of corruption and violent crimes and nepotism annd soforth. I accept you don't like either of them and that is not contentious at all, what I disputed was that they are both equally lacking in the qualities of respectability and admirableness.

However I don't want to derail the thread topic itself, I had hoped for a one post reply outlining why you place the two men neck-and-neck in these characteristics. I was not intending to pick a fight or anything, just genuinely was surprised and intrigued by the above statement and hoped to get an answer why you felt it was true - aside from the original context you used which was (paraphrased) 'despite Abhisits UK education he has no concept of democracy etc.'. I felt there must be more to it than that, to make such a comparison with somebody who is after all a convicted criminal with a whole list of crimes he has still to face prosecution for when he eventually stops being on-the-run.

I did not get my answer and I suspect I will not and I do not wish to derail the thread with this one point, however I felt that to leave such a contentious claim unchallenged, would be bad form.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Yunla

[Skywalker69]

I haven't lost my sense of humor on the forum, but about a month ago I lost my patience.

For rule 2, there are not many opportunities to voice concerns here about the UDD or the PTP as it tends to get buried in the one-sided posting. People here certainly think (as posted in this thread even) that I am a Thaksin fan, although I have often stated my opinions about Thaksin as a PM (no integrity, not honest, and not good for Thai politics) with the reasoning behind it as well.

I agree with rule # 3 - for Thailand of course, but also for my home country where politics is seemingly going backwards as if to meet up with Thailand at some point.

Cheers

I think the problem is that if you make statements about Abhisit such as in context of (paraphrased from last page) 'Abhisit is undemocratic and power-hungry' which was your proposition, you then say ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

Then when I point out that Thaksin had 2500 people killed, he embraces mass-murdering mass-torturing tyrants as friends, is accused of nepotistic larceny of a suspected 30% of Thai state funds, you immediately changed stance and said basically that you don't like or support either Abhisit or Thaksin. But that is not what you said, you said that this mass-murdering convicted criminal is just as admirable and respectable as Abhisit, who has committed no serious crimes and in his short time in office he put through reformist bills to address infrastructure and rural poverty.

Thaksin had five years to fix things and in that time a lot of people died, and a lot of money that should have improved Thailand went into his family's pockets. Abhisit had by contrast half the time in office and spent three months of that dealing with Bangkok shutdown by redmob, even governing from barracks. Obviously those three months he was unable to act as PM in his reformist bills etc. because he was trying to deal with the redmob. So in effect he had little over two years, during which time he put through bills for helping the rural poor and infrastructure development. Abhisit didn't order the executions of over 2500 people nor did he overspend by 400bn much of it into his family businesses.

My problem with your post is that you said Abhisit is no more respectable or admirable than Thaksin and I don't see how you can say that unless you have a different definition of 'admirable' and 'respectable' than the one in the dictionary. When I confronted you on this, you blanked it by saying you 'don't like either of those men and don't support Thaksin.' Your non-support of Thaksin doesn't make it okay for you to slander Abhisit who has not committed the large-scale crimes that Thaksin has committed. Just because Abhisit is not perfect does not make it okay to compare him to a grand-larcenist, nepotistic mass-murderer.

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

Additionally, I do not care what you think about Thaksin and Abhisit. You've stated it several times. It is one-sided and biased. Everything Thaksin ever did which you point out here is bad, and Abhisit, well if you ever admitted that he did something wrong, then I apologize to you in advance because I missed it.

We could perhaps someday in the future have a reasonable debate, but that would have to be after you stopped putting words in my mouth. I've learned to cut conversations short on TVF when that starts to happen.

It is one-sided and biased

[tlansford]

I understand that your English is excellent, so I would expect you to understand that if I were to say, using a common TVF comparison, that I don't view Abhisit as any more respectable than Hitler, would you immediately take that as a statement that I find Hitler respectable? Of course not. This is basic English.

So not only do I stand by my statement, there is no need to defend it either.

I don't stand by your misconstrued version of my statement.

I hope that is clear.

If I were to say

OK I'm going to drop it and desist from further posts on this. I originally had a problem with your phrase;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

and the reason I felt that this statement had to be challenged, and certainly on-topic to the 'did he give orders to fire' subject, is that to my mind Abhisit while not the greatest leader in history, is in a different category entirely to Thaksin, in terms of corruption and violent crimes and nepotism annd soforth. I accept you don't like either of them and that is not contentious at all, what I disputed was that they are both equally lacking in the qualities of respectability and admirableness.

However I don't want to derail the thread topic itself, I had hoped for a one post reply outlining why you place the two men neck-and-neck in these characteristics. I was not intending to pick a fight or anything, just genuinely was surprised and intrigued by the above statement and hoped to get an answer why you felt it was true - aside from the original context you used which was (paraphrased) 'despite Abhisits UK education he has no concept of democracy etc.'. I felt there must be more to it than that, to make such a comparison with somebody who is after all a convicted criminal with a whole list of crimes he has still to face prosecution for when he eventually stops being on-the-run.

I did not get my answer and I suspect I will not and I do not wish to derail the thread with this one point, however I felt that to leave such a contentious claim unchallenged, would be bad form.

OK, thanks. I suspect that we can take up the conversation again later in an appropriate thread.

cheers

[Buchholz]

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

You've got a bloody funny way of showing that then.

It's encountered so many times, it's become cliche'

"I'm no fan of Thaksin, but..."

.

yea same as

Thaksin is same as Hitler etc.

you don't seem to understand that you can dislike Abhisit and also dislike Thaksin - that you can sympathize more with the reds but it doesn't mean you want Thaksin back!

He's not, although there's also no shortage of Abhisit is same as Hitler etc. nonsense, as well, that gets posted.

I understand very well that people can dislike Abhisit and Thaksin... problem is, there have been so many posters who have disingenuously stated versions of that sentiment, but whose postings don't reflect that concept at all, that the cliche' has arisen.

They completely invalidate their purported claims of neutrality with these deceitful proclamations they make while at the same time hammering out post after post downplaying one and exaggerating another to implausible extremes.

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible, invalidated disconnect. Until such time as they completely disassociate from one another, they are so inextricably bound to one another to such a degree that favoring one means favoring the other.

.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Buchholz

[backtonormal]

Lets just consider three deaths, some on April 10th and some later. The japanese journalist shot while taking pictures on April 10th, I believe standing on the back of a pick up (not likely to be a stray one at that height..more likely targetted. Bad press coverage not on the agenda). The other journalist shot in the back (accounts from the journalist fleeing with him) then having his flak jacket searched for the empty shell by an anonymous man. What about the nurse killed in the temple, no one can call that self defense.

On the other side what evidence have the army or Dems produced to identify any other death specificly that they feel died as a result of army personnel coming under serious threat (and they,ve had 2 years to prepare that case). They just cloud the issue with generalities. The only army personnel killed were in a grenade blast and the perpatrator is still in doubt. Amsterdam provided a military expert who found that the missile could have not been thrown from the distance between the reds and the troops, conclusion was it was dropped in close by (possible by other army personel) to escalate the response to justify killing protestors. The army has had, again 2 years to produce their account of this incident and we have heard nothing.

Too many on here just talk in generalities, cloud facts and ask for links to all your postings. It should be remembered that most posters on here just pop on and off and unlike some others do not have a library of links to support other posts.

The questions are the same and until these are answered all opinions, mine included are worthless.

What were the orders?

Who gave the orders?

Were the orders followed?

If they were not followed, who disobeyed them

While we are waiting for the answers can pro coup and army list one death that was a result of an imminent death threat and stop generalising. Please do not continue with stories about mobs, terrorists, burning Bangkok etc as these words and phrases appear design to influence unknowlegdable readers of this forum. No more stories of the devil Khun Thaksin give us some specific facts about individual incidents, no more stories about running amok thru hospitals, please supply the facts.

[whybother]

Amsterdam provided a military expert who found that the missile could have not been thrown from the distance between the reds and the troops, conclusion was it was dropped in close by (possible by other army personel) to escalate the response to justify killing protestors.

Have you never heard of a grenade launcher?

[animatic]

Whom is the boss in this question fest?

[AleG]

Lets just consider three deaths, some on April 10th and some later. The japanese journalist shot while taking pictures on April 10th, I believe standing on the back of a pick up (not likely to be a stray one at that height..more likely targetted. Bad press coverage not on the agenda). The other journalist shot in the back (accounts from the journalist fleeing with him) then having his flak jacket searched for the empty shell by an anonymous man.

...

It's a well known fact that stray bullets prefer to stay close to the ground, so as not to draw too much attention to themselves. Stray bullets are very self conscious.

Also it's a well known fact that fired bullets carry the cartridge shells with them, they just can't bear the sense of separation.

[longway]

you don't understand anything. basic practice in reading comprehension is called for.

Would it help if I just said Abhisit and Thaksin are both scumbags?

At the risk of being repetitive - I do not admire Abhisit. I do not admire Thaksin.

Additionally, I do not care what you think about Thaksin and Abhisit. You've stated it several times. It is one-sided and biased. Everything Thaksin ever did which you point out here is bad, and Abhisit, well if you ever admitted that he did something wrong, then I apologize to you in advance because I missed it.

We could perhaps someday in the future have a reasonable debate, but that would have to be after you stopped putting words in my mouth. I've learned to cut conversations short on TVF when that starts to happen.

As a matter of fact I have often said Abhisit is not perfect but he is the 'best option on the table at this time'. I have never said he is the best man for the job, only that he is better than Yingluck, and that unlike Thaksin he is not a dangerous fleeing criminal with the ghosts of people he's murdered visiting him during his sleeping hours.

Actually I was pointing out that you said originally, and outrageously ;

It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

When I raised this with you, instead of explaining the reasons why Abhisit is no more admirable or respectable than Thaksin, i.e. to support and defend your slanderous proposition, you turned tail and fled like Roadrunner. You changed the above quote to the far less specific ; 'I don't like either of them they are both scumbags, I'm not a Thaksin supporter' etc. I was in fact answering your first proposition, I laid out reasons why Thaksin, the dangerous fleeing criminal, is far less admirable and respectable than Abhisit, a serving politician with no serious criminal record inside or outside office.

Its okay if you don't want to stand by your original statement and defend it, I wouldn't blame you for that at all because it is indefensible. But you should say that and perhaps "I'm sorry" too.

I've got to disagree with you here. Abhisit is not an option as his party and those that could work with him in a coalition dont have enough votes, and even if he had, he still not a good option. I dont live in lala land and consider him as in the same light as I would consider Thaksin, but he is just too weak to be the PM amd he is just too tainted now, I think undeservedly, but thats the way it is.

I would actually in many ways prefer Thaksin over him, as he would at least be able to manage a government with some effectiveness, but he also comes with alot of baggage and is an extremely flawed character, not to mention he has made too many enemies, so he is where he deserves to be, unless he can clean up the mess he helped create, then he can take his place as PM again, as he will probably pick up enough votes to do so.

Finally there us Yingluck, I think she has done a good job, I dont see her as much of a leader, or that her government is a good one, but for the circumstances, she is the best option. So far she has managed to do an extremely difficult balancing act, and stayed on good terms with the army and somewhat controlled the goons and idiots of the UDD, and held her brother off enough. So for now there is a stability of sorts and if this can go on for a few years, Thailand may finally get back on track.

Of the 3 I think she is the best option.

[Yunla]

I've got to disagree with you here. Abhisit is not an option as his party and those that could work with him in a coalition dont have enough votes, and even if he had, he still not a good option. I dont live in lala land and consider him as in the same light as I would consider Thaksin, but he is just too weak to be the PM amd he is just too tainted now, I think undeservedly, but thats the way it is.

I would actually in many ways prefer Thaksin over him, as he would at least be able to manage a government with some effectiveness, but he also comes with alot of baggage and is an extremely flawed character, not to mention he has made too many enemies, so he is where he deserves to be, unless he can clean up the mess he helped create, then he can take his place as PM again, as he will probably pick up enough votes to do so.

Finally there us Yingluck, I think she has done a good job, I dont see her as much of a leader, or that her government is a good one, but for the circumstances, she is the best option. So far she has managed to do an extremely difficult balancing act, and stayed on good terms with the army and somewhat controlled the goons and idiots of the UDD, and held her brother off enough. So for now there is a stability of sorts and if this can go on for a few years, Thailand may finally get back on track.

Of the 3 I think she is the best option.

I agree that Abhisit is not the strongest leader in the world, but I also think he hasn't had long enough to be judged by history. He can be judged on two traumatic years with global economic crash and redmob in the capital. Given five years without such traumas, who knows he might be a great leader, we don't know yet. I agree though that he isn't perfect and doesn't appeal to everyone.

Option two. Thaksin is wanted by the police as a fugitive from justice, so he is not ideal Prime Minister material. I wouldn't trust him to sweep the floor.

Option three. Yingluck is like a simpler, prettier Joseph Stalin.

That is the problem, there are two choices, Abhisit is not very showbusiness and doesn't appeal to a lot of people and he is relatively untested (two troubled years). And the other option is a sort of right-wing Barbie Doll. Of the choices I choose Abhisit but its not really a very broad selection of alternatives on offer.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Yunla

[longway]

^ Yingluck comes at a steep price too, I suspect it takes the rice mortgage scam to help maintain support for her from the puu yais thaksin needs in the provinces, and part of the severity of the floods stemmed from a poor decsion by the Agriculture minster I think, to try for a 3rd rice crop, it could well have been motivated by petty greed based on what he could skim from this scam and then Thailand had to put up with poor management in the flood, but sadly, it really is the best that Thaiiland can manage right now.

But at least we have democracy and a few students got some free tablet computers.

Edited July 1, 2012 by longway

[nurofiend]

He's not, although there's also no shortage of Abhisit is same as Hitler etc. nonsense, as well, that gets posted.

I understand very well that people can dislike Abhisit and Thaksin... problem is, there have been so many posters who have disingenuously stated versions of that sentiment, but whose postings don't reflect that concept at all, that the cliche' has arisen.

They completely invalidate their purported claims of neutrality with these deceitful proclamations they make while at the same time hammering out post after post downplaying one and exaggerating another to implausible extremes.

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible, invalidated disconnect. Until such time as they completely disassociate from one another, they are so inextricably bound to one another to such a degree that favoring one means favoring the other.

.

"As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible, invalidated disconnect. Until such time as they completely disassociate from one another, they are so inextricably bound to one another to such a degree that favoring one means favoring the other."

absolute bs

that's like, no that is saying you can't care about a large number of people because of one guy, one person.

that is saying that you have to like thaksin in order to have any sympathy and understanding for the red shirts, while they are still linked with eachother.

clearly you are so rigid in your views that you just can't actually get your head around this phenomenon, you lack the ability to understand this quite reasonable viewpoint that some people do have.

i mean, you find it implausible!!

[Buchholz]

He's not, although there's also no shortage of Abhisit is same as Hitler etc. nonsense, as well, that gets posted.

I understand very well that people can dislike Abhisit and Thaksin... problem is, there have been so many posters who have disingenuously stated versions of that sentiment, but whose postings don't reflect that concept at all, that the cliche' has arisen.

They completely invalidate their purported claims of neutrality with these deceitful proclamations they make while at the same time hammering out post after post downplaying one and exaggerating another to implausible extremes.

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible, invalidated disconnect. Until such time as they completely disassociate from one another, they are so inextricably bound to one another to such a degree that favoring one means favoring the other.

.

"As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible, invalidated disconnect. Until such time as they completely disassociate from one another, they are so inextricably bound to one another to such a degree that favoring one means favoring the other."

< FLAME SNIPPED >

that's like, no that is saying you can't care about a large number of people because of one guy, one person.

If a group wishes to splinter off and completely disassociate from Thaksin's absolute control, then you can like that group. As is, the Red Shirts are controlled by the same Leaders who do his bidding and have for years now.

I have no doubt there are those in the Red Shirts who dislike this intensely. Good. Let them splinter off and disavow the sort of terrorism and Thaksin-controlled activities that has permanently tarnished the title Red Shirt.

Until such time as "a large number of people" undertake that sort of change, they are inseparable, and unsupportable without being directly connected to Thaksin.

.

[Buchholz]

yep, they are directly connected.

still doesn't mean you have to like thaksin.

the red shirts are a very large group of thai people and i don't agree in the slightest that in order to have any sympathy for their views, i have to like thaksin.

it's an unsound theory that you put forward.

The only one who has said you have to like Thaksin...is you.

Probably why it is "unsound"

.

ok so you don't have to be a 'fan' of or 'favour' him, your words.. makes your case worse tbh.

good of you to go back at what someone actually wrote instead of what you thought they wrote... something you just got through whining about in the other thread when they did it to you.

Favor Thaksin.... as in support Thaksin.

You can't support the Red Shirts in their current permanently tainted form... without supporting Thaksin at the same time.

You don't have to like Thaksin to be supporting him through his Red Shirts.

Find another group if you don't want to support Thaksin. Let me know when you do.

.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

yep, they are directly connected.

still doesn't mean you have to like thaksin.

the red shirts are a very large group of thai people and i don't agree in the slightest that in order to have any sympathy for their views, i have to like thaksin.

it's an unsound theory that you put forward.

The only one who has said you have to like Thaksin...is you.

Probably why it is "unsound"

.

ok so you don't have to be a 'fan' of or 'favour' him, your words.. makes your case worse tbh.

good of you to go back at what someone actually wrote instead of what you thought they wrote... something you just got through whining about in the other thread.

Favor Thaksin.... as in support Thaksin.

You can't support the Red Shirts in their current permanently tainted form... without supporting Thaksin at the same time.

You don't have to like Thaksin to be supporting him through the Red Shirts.

.

see, it's fine for you to say i'm 'whining'.. twice i might add.

but that's not flaming at all, is it now.

difference is, that i can handle the deep blow to my very soul...

anyway, enough of this silly procrastinating.

nobody said 'support the red shirts'... it was 'sympathize'... a hugely important difference.

just because you sympathize with a group, doesn't mean therefore you are a hardline supporter and agree with everything that they want. seriously, there are other colours than black and white.

Edited July 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[metisdead]

Several nonsense bickering and trolling posts have been removed.

[chotthee]

<snip...>

What evidence?

Rubber bullets were found that the scene. That is good evidence.

How so, did they have a time and date stamp on them?

No need date stamp.

It show that the army were using rubber bullets to hurt, and not to kill.

Mark order to open fire at crowds? YES. But with RUBBER bullets.

Edited July 2, 2012 by chotthee

[binjalin]

yep, they are directly connected.

still doesn't mean you have to like thaksin.

the red shirts are a very large group of thai people and i don't agree in the slightest that in order to have any sympathy for their views, i have to like thaksin.

it's an unsound theory that you put forward.

The only one who has said you have to like Thaksin...is you.

Probably why it is "unsound"

.

ok so you don't have to be a 'fan' of or 'favour' him, your words.. makes your case worse tbh.

good of you to go back at what someone actually wrote instead of what you thought they wrote... something you just got through whining about in the other thread when they did it to you.

Favor Thaksin.... as in support Thaksin.

You can't support the Red Shirts in their current permanently tainted form... without supporting Thaksin at the same time.

You don't have to like Thaksin to be supporting him through his Red Shirts.

Find another group if you don't want to support Thaksin. Let me know when you do.

.

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

[AleG]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

I don't remember the Yellow Shirts wearing Abhisit T-Shirts en masse, or Abhisit giving speeches on their stages, or phone ins, or the Yellow Shirts pushing for legislation to favour Abhisit, or Yellow Shirt leaders expressing their love to Abhisit and running to visit him every possible opportunity, or Yellow Shirt publications waxing poetic about Abhisit, also I don't remember the Red Shirts campaigning to vote against Thaksin (and his proxie) as the Yellow Shirts did against the Democrats, furthermore I'm going out on a limb and say that, were Abhisit be hit by lightning today, the Yellow Shirt movement would continue ticking along just the same without him. Not quite the same bloody thing, is it?

Edited July 3, 2012 by AleG