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

[Reasonableman]

besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... "

With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report?

http://www.gavingough.com/2010/03/bangkok-red-shirt-protests-day-three/

Sadly, two M79 grenades, reportedly launched from a pick-up truck, were fired into the First Infantry Regiment compound on Vibhabadi Rangsit road, wounding two soldiers – the first casualties of the protests and, I sincerely hope, the last.

[tlansford]

besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... "

With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report?

http://www.gavingoug...ests-day-three/

Sadly, two M79 grenades, reportedly launched from a pick-up truck, were fired into the First Infantry Regiment compound on Vibhabadi Rangsit road, wounding two soldiers – the first casualties of the protests and, I sincerely hope, the last.

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

[scorecard]

-

tlansford, my god, how many times do the facts have to be explained to you:

- Regardless of what happens in other countries, the process by which abhisit became PM is on the statute books of Thailand and has been there for a long time. Ultimately what other counties do if not relevant to Thailand. It was NOT a 'back-room' deal breaking any law.

- There needs to be such a legal process, in case a certain set of circumstances prevail. As said, ultimately what other counties do is not relevant to Thailand.

- Somcahi became PM through the same process. So how about some comment from you criticizing him in this regard, ou believe that abhisit became the PM through a 'back room' deal, then please be fair and make the statement that somchai became PM through a 'back room' deal which is unacceptable.

- Clearly, you, the reds and the paymaster now want these provisions in the electoral laws removed. How opportune, but somehow it was all OK for somchai to become PM through the same process.

- The protests of 2009 and 2010 are a smokescreen for the amnesty of one man and nothing more. Seems strange that thit item was not discussed and lablled as a 'back room' deal until people like amsterdam appeared on the scene.

- If the paymaster and the reds and the udd and the pt want to somehow cancel the 2006 coup and return Thailand to it's situation before the 2006 coup, then the paymaster and his followers should be fair and sincere and demand that Thailand be returned to it's situation prior to any coup.

Edited June 28, 2012 by scorecard

[whybother]

funny how Abhisit didn't wait for the next election...

Abhisit didn't need to wait until the next election. The PPP decided to have a parliamentary election for PM, as they did when Samak was forced to step down and Somchai elected PM.

Shouldn't the PPP have called an election to see who the people wanted to be the PM? They decided not to go to the people ... and lost.

read post to nurofiend

"do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people?"

if it were in their own country, the answer would likely be "no"

It is OK however, since it is here and not in England, Oz, USA, etc. Which is the sign that there is no point taking issue with the squirming by posters who wish to justify the judicial coup and the back-room deal rise of the Abhisit gov't, its lack of mandate, and the subsequent, logically resulting protests against it in 2009 and 2010.

The difference being, in those countries, if the PM was forced to stand down, the ruling party would call an election ... as happened with Gough Whitlam in Aus in 1975.

There are many cases in Aus where the ruling party changes leader during a term, and they need to go through the process of being "elected" PM. There is often a back lash because the new leader "wasn't elected by the people". But the people have to wait until the next election for the chance to show their "will". The only difference with Thailand, is that they don't put a new leader up for parliamentary election for PM if they think they're going to lose.

Back room deals are how coalitions are formed, whether it's immediately after an election, or mid term. The current Aus government could collapse tomorrow if the independents in the government coalition decide that they don't want to support the governing party. If the governing party decided that they wanted to elect a new PM at that point, then it could easily mean that the opposition could get into power.

Just because that is most likely not going to happen, doesn't mean that it can't happen or that it is undemocratic.

[whybother]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

[Thaddeus]

besides, since the first casualty was a UDD protester, it seems pretty clear who shot first. Ooops, not supposed to mention that on the Abhisit fan-forum... er, ooops, especially on the thread about "no order to ... "

With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report?

http://www.gavingoug...ests-day-three/

Sadly, two M79 grenades, reportedly launched from a pick-up truck, were fired into the First Infantry Regiment compound on Vibhabadi Rangsit road, wounding two soldiers – the first casualties of the protests and, I sincerely hope, the last.

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

That's so funny, so the first shot only counts as the first shot if it actually kills someone?

[ballpoint]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

Truth was the first casualty.

[tlansford]

-

tlansford, my god, how many times do the facts have to be explained to you:

- Regardless of what happens in other countries, the process by which abhisit became PM is on the statute books of Thailand and has been there for a long time. Ultimately what other counties do if not relevant to Thailand. It was NOT a 'back-room' deal breaking any law.

- There needs to be such a legal process, in case a certain set of circumstances prevail. As said, ultimately what other counties do is not relevant to Thailand.

- Somcahi became PM through the same process. So how about some comment from you criticizing him in this regard, ou believe that abhisit became the PM through a 'back room' deal, then please be fair and make the statement that somchai became PM through a 'back room' deal which is unacceptable.

- Clearly, you, the reds and the paymaster now want these provisions in the electoral laws removed. How opportune, but somehow it was all OK for somchai to become PM through the same process.

- The protests of 2009 and 2010 are a smokescreen for the amnesty of one man and nothing more. Seems strange that thit item was not discussed and lablled as a 'back room' deal until people like amsterdam appeared on the scene.

- If the paymaster and the reds and the udd and the pt want to somehow cancel the 2006 coup and return Thailand to it's situation before the 2006 coup, then the paymaster and his followers should be fair and sincere and demand that Thailand be returned to it's situation prior to any coup.

yeah, right...

This is a perfect example of why I don't waste time repeating the facts to this forum. Even though repetition is the key to learning, most posters here aren't interested in learning.

Live in your fantasy world - it's all yours.

[tlansford]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

[tlansford]

- deleted due to quote limits -

With all the information I've read, I didn't realise the first casualty was a protester. Is that in the HRW report?

http://www.gavingoug...ests-day-three/

Sadly, two M79 grenades, reportedly launched from a pick-up truck, were fired into the First Infantry Regiment compound on Vibhabadi Rangsit road, wounding two soldiers – the first casualties of the protests and, I sincerely hope, the last.

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

That's so funny, so the first shot only counts as the first shot if it actually kills someone?

or if it was actually at the protest, ...

funny that ...

[whybother]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

Is that how it works ... I'll have to remember that.

[Reasonableman]

Grenades hit Thai barracks amid protests

Four Thai soldiers were wounded Sunday when grenades were fired into the army barracks which has served as the government's base during two weeks of street demonstrations, police said.The explosions were the latest in a series of more than a dozen to hit since the protests began on March 14, including attacks on two television stations and the customs department on Saturday which left eight others wounded.

http://www.bullfax.c...amid-protests-0

Edited June 28, 2012 by Reasonableman

[thaihome]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

From all accounts I have seen the first people killed at the protest sites were soldiers at Khok Wua intersection on the evening of April 10th.

If you have other links to a UDD protestor, please give them. Just saying they it has been posted on TV and go find them gives you no credibility.

TH

Page 62 of Human Rights Watch's "Descent into Chaos (.pdf)" report stated:

"As the army attempted to move on the camp, they were confronted by well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at them, particularly at the Khok Wua intersection on Rajdamnoen Road. They also fired grenades from M79s and threw M67 hand grenades at the soldiers. News footage and videos taken by protesters and tourists show several soldiers lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground, as well as armed men operating with a high degree of coordination and military skills."

[tlansford]

Thank you for the link, but when I talk about casualty, I don't mean wounded, I mean killed. I don't mean at some military compound, I mean at the actual protest site.

So you must have a link stating that a protester was the first casualty then.

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

Is that how it works ... I'll have to remember that.

as your alias states, ... why bother, it isn't going to change your mind anyway, ... but if you are really interested, then you will find it. I don't need to spoon feed you.

[whybother]

Is that how it works ... I'll have to remember that.

as your alias states, ... why bother, it isn't going to change your mind anyway, ... but if you are really interested, then you will find it. I don't need to spoon feed you.

I looked. I can't find anything. You are certainly not going to change my mind if you can't provide any evidence.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Slip]

As usual Tlansford is being disingenuous. Many people have asked, if the links are there, post them.

There are some entertaining and thoughtful reds on here. I urge everyone to pay attention to them them instead.

[Buchholz]

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

Is that how it works ... I'll have to remember that.

Quite similar to geriatrickid's earlier evasiveness to a simple request for documentation, it's a lowering of the forum's long-standing protocol and standard operating procedure.

it was posted here on TVF - please feel free to find it.

From all accounts I have seen the first people killed at the protest sites were soldiers at Khok Wua intersection on the evening of April 10th.

If you have other links to a UDD protestor, please give them. Just saying they it has been posted on TV and go find them gives you no credibility.

Page 62 of Human Rights Watch's "Descent into Chaos (.pdf)" report stated:

"As the army attempted to move on the camp, they were confronted by well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at them, particularly at the Khok Wua intersection on Rajdamnoen Road. They also fired grenades from M79s and threw M67 hand grenades at the soldiers. News footage and videos taken by protesters and tourists show several soldiers lying unconscious and bleeding on the ground, as well as armed men operating with a high degree of coordination and military skills."

Thank you for the quote and link.

As for disingenuous-ness and credibility, see above.

.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Buchholz

[Reasonableman]

A reminder for those who need it.

Forum Rule 15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

[rubl]

^378 Reasonableman

Reliable sources which I cannot name because of forum rules have it that the 'open fire' issue was a tremendous misunderstanding all along.

The order was to open fire for the free BBQ's with so many outside Bangkok visitors who had been promised free food, drink and music. A very unfortunate misunderstanding, the more so as it should be clear and obvious that all know Thai people like food, drink and music with their freebe trip.

Mind you with Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm having gone on record with "amnesty for all, but Abhisit and Suthep of course" one may be excused to think that any Thai could just put a gun at someone's head and shoot without an explicit order, even if a brute stepped on some toes he shouldn't step on.

[tlansford]

Is that how it works ... I'll have to remember that.

as your alias states, ... why bother, it isn't going to change your mind anyway, ... but if you are really interested, then you will find it. I don't need to spoon feed you.

I looked. I can't find anything. You are certainly not going to change my mind if you can't provide any evidence.

Sent from my shoe phone

I'm not going to change your mind with evidence, either.

[tlansford]

As usual Tlansford is being disingenuous. Many people have asked, if the links are there, post them.

There are some entertaining and thoughtful reds on here. I urge everyone to pay attention to them them instead.

As usual ?? Really?

For years, posters get spoon-fed information and go on repeating the same nonsense anyway. That is disingenuous and lazy to boot. The information is right here on TVF - most of the posters complaining have probably even read the same thread. There posters who are very capable of finding anything on TVF who now claim to be helpless - come on, that's BS.

When I want to learn, I search for information. If I need help, I ask.

If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM.

[hyperdimension]

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, it is also incorrect, nor would I know how you could possibly know my where-abouts at the time.

If you were in Bangkok during the mayhem then you would have stated that and posted some of your first-hand observations in your many posts on the topic. Saying that your location is irrelevant may indicate that you were not in Bangkok and more likely far away. So where were you? As you are a diving instructor, were you in Koh Tao in April and May 2010?

Edited June 29, 2012 by hyperdimension

[tlansford]

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, it is also incorrect, nor would I know how you could possibly know my where-abouts at the time.

If you were in Bangkok during the mayhem then you would have stated that and posted some of your first-hand observations in your many posts on the topic. Saying that your location is irrelevant may indicate that you were not in Bangkok and more likely far away. So where were you? As you are a diving instructor, were you in Koh Tao in April and May 2010?

with all due respect, it is none of your business.

Your assumption that I would have told the forum where I was during the protests is not correct. If it were relevant, then I would mention it. It is not, so I don't.

As for your other comments, I am also an accomplished musician, so what?

[phiphidon]

do you think it would have been fairer for democracy if abhisit was voted in by a public, election or not?

do you think it's acceptable for the ruling of a government to be changed, to the opposition party now ruling it, without the say of the people?

Abhisit was voted in by the public in an election. He was elected PM when the sitting PM (Somchai) was forced out and elected MPs decided not support the current government. That was much the same as how Somchai became PM himself.

The PPP didn't have a majority of MPs after the 2007 election when Samak was elected PM. They didn't have a majority of MPs when Somchai was elected PM. The didn't have the majority of MPs when Abhisit was PM. What they all had when they were elected was majority support of elected MPs.

You keep going back to the say or will "of the people". But the people had their say. They elected MPs. Then it was up to the MPs to decide who is PM and who forms government. For many reasons, a majority of MPs decided that they wanted Abhisit to form government.

The will of the people? - I presume that includes Military Leaders (and others) as well?

A key leader of one of the former coalition parties said most parties had moved to the Democrat camp due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted..............

........................On the evening of December 5, Democrat Party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban and MP Niphon Promphan met with key leaders of former coalition parties. The leaders included Sanan Kachornprasart and Somsak Prissanananthakul from the disbanded Chart Thai party, Pradit Pattaraprasit and Suwat Liptapanlop from the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana Party, Pinij Jarusombat and Preecha Laohapongchana from the Puea Pandin Party, Newin Chidchob and the now defunct People Power Party's Sora-at Klinprathum.

In the initial stages of this meeting, the Democrats promised that the three parties and Newin's faction would be given the same ministerial quota they had under the previous government.

However, the decision-making had to be hastened when the ex-wife of fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Pojaman Damapong, suddenly jetted in to Bangkok later that night.

The Democrats called for a press conference at 5pm the very next day.

But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.

This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government.

http://www.nationmul...--30090626.html

Abhisits take on this? An extract from his facebook page published just before the election:

I had no idea who was in talks with the military, but I never personally contacted any military officer. And I was sure no MPs were under anyone’s command.

The Democrat Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban, who coordinated party affairs, asked for my opinion on the issue. I said it was up to Parliament. I thought to myself that we could just say it had nothing to do with us. But as opposition leader, I felt I needed to show responsibility. We did not grab power from anyone. And if I became Prime Minister, I would not just think about serving my interests. But everything had to go through the legal process. My premiership had to be constituted by votes in Parliament and the voting had to be done in the open.

Switching sides is a common phenomenon in any country with this system.

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2573

Well that's allright then...................

Edited June 29, 2012 by phiphidon

[mca]

But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.

This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

As an aside can you imagine being in the PTT's 7-11 waiting for your Smokey Bite to be microwaved and that little lot wandered in and started grabbing up the snacks and sarnies?

[tlansford]

- deleted --

Abhisit was voted in by the public in an election. He was elected PM when the sitting PM (Somchai) was forced out and elected MPs decided not support the current government. That was much the same as how Somchai became PM himself.

The PPP didn't have a majority of MPs after the 2007 election when Samak was elected PM. They didn't have a majority of MPs when Somchai was elected PM. The didn't have the majority of MPs when Abhisit was PM. What they all had when they were elected was majority support of elected MPs.

You keep going back to the say or will "of the people". But the people had their say. They elected MPs. Then it was up to the MPs to decide who is PM and who forms government. For many reasons, a majority of MPs decided that they wanted Abhisit to form government.

The will of the people? - I presume that includes Military Leaders (and others) as well?

A key leader of one of the former coalition parties said most parties had moved to the Democrat camp due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted..............

........................On the evening of December 5, Democrat Party secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban and MP Niphon Promphan met with key leaders of former coalition parties. The leaders included Sanan Kachornprasart and Somsak Prissanananthakul from the disbanded Chart Thai party, Pradit Pattaraprasit and Suwat Liptapanlop from the Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana Party, Pinij Jarusombat and Preecha Laohapongchana from the Puea Pandin Party, Newin Chidchob and the now defunct People Power Party's Sora-at Klinprathum.

In the initial stages of this meeting, the Democrats promised that the three parties and Newin's faction would be given the same ministerial quota they had under the previous government.

However, the decision-making had to be hastened when the ex-wife of fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Pojaman Damapong, suddenly jetted in to Bangkok later that night.

The Democrats called for a press conference at 5pm the very next day.

But before they met the press, key Democrat leaders namely Suthep and Niphon, along with their supporters namely Pradit, Somsak, Suchat Tanchareon from Puea Pandin, Somsak Thepsuthin from the disbanded Matchima Thipataya, and some MPs from Newin's group met Army Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda at his residence. The only parties not invited were Pheu Thai and Pracharaj.

This meeting would have been secret if the politicians hadn't got lost. So a soldier was sent to meet them at a PTT petrol station, then escort them on a motorbike to the Army chief's house.

Former army chief Gen Pravit Wongsuwan and army chief-of-staff Prayuth Chanocha were also at the meeting.

A source said the politicians met Anupong to ask his advice about forming a Democrat-led coalition. The Army chief told them all parties should put the country first, because if the next coalition was the same as the previous one, Thailand would plunge even deeper into turmoil.

The meeting lasted three hours. After that leaders of the Democrats and the four minor parties met the press - two hours late - at the Sukhothai Hotel, and declared their agreement to form the next government.

http://www.nationmul...--30090626.html

Abhisits take on this? An extract from his facebook page published just before the election:

I had no idea who was in talks with the military, but I never personally contacted any military officer. And I was sure no MPs were under anyone’s command.

The Democrat Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban, who coordinated party affairs, asked for my opinion on the issue. I said it was up to Parliament. I thought to myself that we could just say it had nothing to do with us. But as opposition leader, I felt I needed to show responsibility. We did not grab power from anyone. And if I became Prime Minister, I would not just think about serving my interests. But everything had to go through the legal process. My premiership had to be constituted by votes in Parliament and the voting had to be done in the open.

Switching sides is a common phenomenon in any country with this system.

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2573

Well that's allright then...................

Thanks for the post (again !!)

This came after Abhisit was personally involved in supporting and encouraging the PAD protesters, interrupting the in-progress, up to that point peaceful and successful dispersal of the PAD in the Gov't House, the continuation of which eventually was to lead to the court's decision to ban the PPP and what made the above back-room dealing possible.

This is a key point at which I see that Abhisit, despite his UK roots, has no respect for democracy and this is a key reason why IMO his actions as PM were oriented towards maintaining power rather than doing the right thing for Thailand. It is the reason that I don't view him as any more admirable or respectable than I do Thaksin.

Since leaving office last year, Abhisit and the democrats in general have not demonstrated a higher level of integrity than any other party or group of politicians, yet this might be exactly the element needed to revive their hopes at the ballot box.

In the meantime, it looks like business as usual.

[Yunla]

This is a key point at which I see that Abhisit, despite his UK roots, has no respect for democracy and this is a key reason why IMO his actions as PM were oriented towards maintaining power rather than doing the right thing for Thailand.

Yes, allowing his opponents 10+ weeks of free protest in the capital city, and then he called early elections to allow himself to be voted out, and stepping down gracefully and wishing PTP best wishes during their time in office, are the actions of a man who will never let go of power.

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

I wonder if the families of the 2500+ people Thaksin had extrajudicially killed, would feel the same way as you do about his admirable respectability. Or for that matter, Thaksin giving big hugs to a Cambodian mass-murdering and mass-torturing tyrant. Abhisit can't compete with that level of admirable respectability, its such a hard act to follow isn't it.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Yunla

[weka]

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, it is also incorrect, nor would I know how you could possibly know my where-abouts at the time.

If you were in Bangkok during the mayhem then you would have stated that and posted some of your first-hand observations in your many posts on the topic. Saying that your location is irrelevant may indicate that you were not in Bangkok and more likely far away. So where were you? As you are a diving instructor, were you in Koh Tao in April and May 2010?

with all due respect, it is none of your business.

Your assumption that I would have told the forum where I was during the protests is not correct. If it were relevant, then I would mention it. It is not, so I don't.

As for your other comments, I am also an accomplished musician, so what?

He wasn't there. He couldn't get down from the ivory tower and the high horse had ridden off.

It doesn't worry him though, he just picks and chooses the segments of Thai and Western society to fit his agenda. He puts western spin on elections and army shooting protesters when it suits and Thai spin - education better under Taksin etc when that suits him.

Most posters try to make sense of things in Thailand to help them cope better with understanding, whilst using western experience as a reference

Posters like TL and PPD just cherry pick which societies standards suit their opinion for the day.

They'll tell you that election results and parliamentary behaviour is how it's done in Thailand and that's how it's always been that way and ultimately it's the Thai way

Then they'll go all "west" and admonish the Army's response to the riots, never once accepting the same rationale that's how it's always been that way and ultimately it's the Thai way.,

or they'll just write "BS" on anything that doesn't subscribe to their shit stirring views

[ginjag]

Tiansford, Why are you obsessed with anti Abhisit material, A new elected government with all it's major problems, you never seem to want to show dissagreement to the happenings now -why ???? O.K. the topic is an Abhisit one but the constant kicking out at him, ??? speaking your bit about some doubt about who did what is one thing but look at your posts -you have the knack of biting anything to do with the ex P.M.---I love music and a singer--but it doesn't make me kick Abhisit in the balls near every post. The day you are fair, and BASH when needed to anyone out of order, 'that'le be the day' music Buddy Holly

[Moruya]

How does it seem that I was not here? Besides being irrelevant, it is also incorrect, nor would I know how you could possibly know my where-abouts at the time.

If you were in Bangkok during the mayhem then you would have stated that and posted some of your first-hand observations in your many posts on the topic. Saying that your location is irrelevant may indicate that you were not in Bangkok and more likely far away. So where were you? As you are a diving instructor, were you in Koh Tao in April and May 2010?

with all due respect, it is none of your business.

Your assumption that I would have told the forum where I was during the protests is not correct. If it were relevant, then I would mention it. It is not, so I don't.

As for your other comments, I am also an accomplished musician, so what?

What do you play Mr. Lansford?