Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[rubl]

Would you like to point it out or is that comment just "one for the boys". I'd be grateful to you if you could point out just where you disagree and why?

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

In the 'illustrating story'. Mind you I missed colours and a real illustration, but never mind.

Independent of a weak or strong point, to condemn with a fairy tale spinned together seems one of the finer debating techniques here on TV.

Now spin along, I've got other things to do

[473geo]

Would you like to point it out or is that comment just "one for the boys". I'd be grateful to you if you could point out just where you disagree and why?

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

In the 'illustrating story'. Mind you I missed colours and a real illustration, but never mind.

Independent of a weak or strong point, to condemn with a fairy tale spinned together seems one of the finer debating techniques here on TV.

Now spin along, I've got other things to do

Really 'uncle Rubl' a rather harsh dismissive reaction are you unwell today?

[Ricardo]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

Only if time flows backwards in Red-Land !

[rubl]

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

In the 'illustrating story'. Mind you I missed colours and a real illustration, but never mind.

Independent of a weak or strong point, to condemn with a fairy tale spinned together seems one of the finer debating techniques here on TV.

Now spin along, I've got other things to do

Really 'uncle Rubl' a rather harsh dismissive reaction are you unwell today?

I was being my usual friendly Dutch uncle, dear geo. I just gave permission to continue spinning) as I'm a wee bit busy with other things.

[Pi Sek]

Wow. I haven't been on this forum for almost a year, very little has changed... anything past page 2 is not worth reading as it just winds you up and draws you into an argument!

Well, I'm on holiday so I can waste time doing the same...

I see the argument of which PMs were rightfully appointed still rolls on. The fact is that Yinglak, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and even Surayudh all won elections. Some won elections that weren't seen as fair by the other side, and some won universally-accepted elections using non-universally-accepted methods. But they all ended up as PM in the democratic nation of Thailand. How democratic is another question. Is "democratic" even a quantitative measure, or qualitative? (For the record, if it is quantitative, I would have to rate Thaksin's first election and Yinglak's one last year as the "most" democratic.)

Back on topic, a lot of posters are praising this lady for winning by getting her hands dirty and helping out in her constituency. I would agree with that, but one would do well to remember that she probably did her fair share of bad-mouthing, political positioning and what-have-you to get where she is. It's her job to win constituencies, not to help people out. Helping people out is just one of an array of methods that different politicians use in different ratios, but they have to use them all to get their job done properly.

[473geo]

Wow. I haven't been on this forum for almost a year, very little has changed... anything past page 2 is not worth reading as it just winds you up and draws you into an argument!

Well, I'm on holiday so I can waste time doing the same...

I see the argument of which PMs were rightfully appointed still rolls on. The fact is that Yinglak, Abhisit, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai and even Surayudh all won elections. Some won elections that weren't seen as fair by the other side, and some won universally-accepted elections using non-universally-accepted methods. But they all ended up as PM in the democratic nation of Thailand. How democratic is another question. Is "democratic" even a quantitative measure, or qualitative? (For the record, if it is quantitative, I would have to rate Thaksin's first election and Yinglak's one last year as the "most" democratic.)

Back on topic, a lot of posters are praising this lady for winning by getting her hands dirty and helping out in her constituency. I would agree with that, but one would do well to remember that she probably did her fair share of bad-mouthing, political positioning and what-have-you to get where she is. It's her job to win constituencies, not to help people out. Helping people out is just one of an array of methods that different politicians use in different ratios, but they have to use them all to get their job done properly.

No, no,....... you must have it wrong......there are those here who believe politicians mean what they say, and say what they mean.........then continue to accuse a huge element of the Thai electorate of being "politically naive"

[OzMick]

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy............

What would you suggest I do if my elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches?

I'll tell you some of the things I wouldn't do. I won't go to the capital armed with military weapons or molotov cocktails; I wouldn't go to their house and pour blood over the place; I wouldn't murder any security officers; I wouldn't invade a hospital; and I wouldn't start firing grenades at random, or RPGs at a church or a fuel tank farm

I might write a critical letter. But when it was ignored, I wouldn't set fire to buildings or vehicles, or start planting bombs.

I wouldn't do those those things because of the rightful apprehension that I might be considered to be insane, or at least terminally stupid, and shot dead.

And in 4 years time, or less, I would vote for somebody else.

Now you tell me what they do on your planet.

[OzMick]

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

Pointing out how things actually work in the real world is not arguing from a weak position. There is nothing in parliamentary law that says a politician has to support a particular party whether he campaigned under their banner or not.

Let us say that Party X has decided to put a toxic waste dump in a certain electorate where the local MP is a member of party X. Should he vote the party line or look after the interests of his electorate at risk of expulsion from the party?

Don't bother answering because it is his choice. And if a majority of the electors don't agree with his choice, ALL they can do (with regard to the MP) is vote for somebody else next election.

[phiphidon]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.

Do I?

[phiphidon]

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

Pointing out how things actually work in the real world is not arguing from a weak position. There is nothing in parliamentary law that says a politician has to support a particular party whether he campaigned under their banner or not.

Let us say that Party X has decided to put a toxic waste dump in a certain electorate where the local MP is a member of party X. Should he vote the party line or look after the interests of his electorate at risk of expulsion from the party?

Don't bother answering because it is his choice. And if a majority of the electors don't agree with his choice, ALL they can do (with regard to the MP) is vote for somebody else next election.

That may well be one of the reasons why the Dems fail to get re-elected if they think like you.

[OzMick]

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

Pointing out how things actually work in the real world is not arguing from a weak position. There is nothing in parliamentary law that says a politician has to support a particular party whether he campaigned under their banner or not.

Let us say that Party X has decided to put a toxic waste dump in a certain electorate where the local MP is a member of party X. Should he vote the party line or look after the interests of his electorate at risk of expulsion from the party?

Don't bother answering because it is his choice. And if a majority of the electors don't agree with his choice, ALL they can do (with regard to the MP) is vote for somebody else next election.

That may well be one of the reasons why the Dems fail to get re-elected if they think like you.

It also explains how a criminal conspiracy gets elected by people who think like you. Another cup of Kool-Aid?

[phiphidon]

You have stated that you are willing to learn, and prove exactly the opposite. <deleted> voters elect a representative. That representative has the right to vote in any way, or support any law, or even change parties, if he wishes to do so. The voters have the right, in 4 years time or when an election is called earlier, to change their representative - nothing else.

That is how it is in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That makes all your previous and subsequent arguments a load of uneducated codswallop.

yes mr ozmick, the voters elect a representative, we all know this, but that's more of a decision based on the party they represent other than anything else.

so you can cut the suggestion that voting isn't party based in the electorates mind.

the only argument that's codswallop, is that the abhisit led government was wanted by the electorate....they snuck in the back door and it wasn't long before they were kicked back out on their backsides by the electorate.

they were never wanted, and the only way they can gain power is when it's not the public vote that decides it.

My point precisely. I wonder if thats what Ozmick does when he goes home and votes.

"There you go, thats my vote, now I've got a representative. Oh, yes, I know I normally support "X" Party because they look after further education but if you want to defect to "Y" Party and put them in power that's alright by me even if they do want to cut the education budget back by 50 % and spend the rest on their mates road construction company in a new mega project.

Do what you like with my vote, I'm just happy to have a representative?"

Sheesh, the spin in this place makes me dizzy............

What would you suggest I do if my elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches?

I'll tell you some of the things I wouldn't do. I won't go to the capital armed with military weapons or molotov cocktails; I wouldn't go to their house and pour blood over the place; I wouldn't murder any security officers; I wouldn't invade a hospital; and I wouldn't start firing grenades at random, or RPGs at a church or a fuel tank farm

I might write a critical letter. But when it was ignored, I wouldn't set fire to buildings or vehicles, or start planting bombs.

I wouldn't do those those things because of the rightful apprehension that I might be considered to be insane, or at least terminally stupid, and shot dead.

And in 4 years time, or less, I would vote for somebody else.

Now you tell me what they do on your planet.

The rhetoric gets more hyperbolic by the retelling . This time it includes RPG's at a church. I swear one of these days I'm going to read on here that Jatuporn and Arisman bitch raped Mark in an APC in a live fire zone...............

[OzMick]

What would you suggest I do if my elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches?

I'll tell you some of the things I wouldn't do. I won't go to the capital armed with military weapons or molotov cocktails; I wouldn't go to their house and pour blood over the place; I wouldn't murder any security officers; I wouldn't invade a hospital; and I wouldn't start firing grenades at random, or RPGs at a church or a fuel tank farm

I might write a critical letter. But when it was ignored, I wouldn't set fire to buildings or vehicles, or start planting bombs.

I wouldn't do those those things because of the rightful apprehension that I might be considered to be insane, or at least terminally stupid, and shot dead.

And in 4 years time, or less, I would vote for somebody else.

Now you tell me what they do on your planet.

The rhetoric gets more hyperbolic by the retelling . This time it includes RPG's at a church. I swear one of these days I'm going to read on here that Jatuporn and Arisman bitch raped Mark in an APC in a live fire zone...............

I used "church" because we do not have wats or temples (as in emerald Buddha) where I live. Or have you forgotten (conveniently) that attack which a red shirt has confessed to before conviction.

Are you prepared to answer the question, or (conveniently) label it too stupid to answer? To repeat, what would you do if your MP decided to change parties?

BTW you confirm my suspicions about Jatuporn and Arisman

Edited September 8, 2012 by OzMick

[phiphidon]

I used "church" because we do not have wats or temples (as in emerald Buddha) where I live. Or have you forgotten (conveniently) that attack which a red shirt has confessed to before conviction.

Are you prepared to answer the question, or (conveniently) label it too stupid to answer? To repeat, what would you do if your MP decided to change parties?

BTW you confirm my suspicions about Jatuporn and Arisman

No Wats or temples where you live? I thought you lived in Thailand?

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

If you think your version of the events of 2010 you so "eloquently" described above was due to an "elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches" or variations on that theme, you're right, I'd deem it too stupid to answer.

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

Now I do understand the level of insight in Thai politics

[rubl]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.

It's a literary genre, "alternative history" aka history as some might have liked to have seen it.

I can recommend Harry Turtledove and some collaborations under Eric Flint

http://en.wikipedia....ternate_history

[whybother]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.

Do I?

Yes.

[OzMick]

I used "church" because we do not have wats or temples (as in emerald Buddha) where I live. Or have you forgotten (conveniently) that attack which a red shirt has confessed to before conviction.

Are you prepared to answer the question, or (conveniently) label it too stupid to answer? To repeat, what would you do if your MP decided to change parties?

BTW you confirm my suspicions about Jatuporn and Arisman

No Wats or temples where you live? I thought you lived in Thailand?

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

If you think your version of the events of 2010 you so "eloquently" described above was due to an "elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches" or variations on that theme, you're right, I'd deem it too stupid to answer.

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

My home, I have 2, where I vote.

As usual, when you run out of BS you resort to avoiding questions. You ask me what I would do where I vote - but for you the scenario is completely different.

You remember the RPG attack on the emerald Buddha Temple though? Simple terrorism.

[phiphidon]

I used "church" because we do not have wats or temples (as in emerald Buddha) where I live. Or have you forgotten (conveniently) that attack which a red shirt has confessed to before conviction.

Are you prepared to answer the question, or (conveniently) label it too stupid to answer? To repeat, what would you do if your MP decided to change parties?

BTW you confirm my suspicions about Jatuporn and Arisman

No Wats or temples where you live? I thought you lived in Thailand?

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

If you think your version of the events of 2010 you so "eloquently" described above was due to an "elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches" or variations on that theme, you're right, I'd deem it too stupid to answer.

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

My home, I have 2, where I vote.

As usual, when you run out of BS you resort to avoiding questions. You ask me what I would do where I vote - but for you the scenario is completely different.

You remember the RPG attack on the emerald Buddha Temple though? Simple terrorism.

I didn't ask you what you would do about voting?? - I was just confused that you said you didn't have wats or temples where you lived because you maintain you live in Thailand?

You remember the RPG attack on the emerald Buddha Temple though? Simple terrorism.

Simple propaganda. The grenade was fired at the Defence Ministry - that was what Bundit was jailed for 38 years for. You and your mate buchholz can swop the one article from the nation that gives the only version that states the target was the emerald buddha all you like.

[Thaddeus]

I used "church" because we do not have wats or temples (as in emerald Buddha) where I live. Or have you forgotten (conveniently) that attack which a red shirt has confessed to before conviction.

Are you prepared to answer the question, or (conveniently) label it too stupid to answer? To repeat, what would you do if your MP decided to change parties?

BTW you confirm my suspicions about Jatuporn and Arisman

No Wats or temples where you live? I thought you lived in Thailand?

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

If you think your version of the events of 2010 you so "eloquently" described above was due to an "elected representative (whether I voted for him/her personally or not) decides to change parties, or takes a position contrary to his/her election speeches" or variations on that theme, you're right, I'd deem it too stupid to answer.

What I would or wouldn't do if my MP changed parties is irrelevant as in the last place I lived that I had voting rights in, is a completely different scenario to Thai politics.

My home, I have 2, where I vote.

As usual, when you run out of BS you resort to avoiding questions. You ask me what I would do where I vote - but for you the scenario is completely different.

You remember the RPG attack on the emerald Buddha Temple though? Simple terrorism.

I didn't ask you what you would do about voting??

Correct, he asked you, did you answer yet?

[rubl]

I didn't ask you what you would do about voting?? - I was just confused that you said you didn't have wats or temples where you lived because you maintain you live in Thailand?

You remember the RPG attack on the emerald Buddha Temple though? Simple terrorism.

Simple propaganda. The grenade was fired at the Defence Ministry - that was what Bundit was jailed for 38 years for. You and your mate buchholz can swop the one article from the nation that gives the only version that states the target was the emerald buddha all you like.

It was a silly mistake, sorry. We only fired at the MoD, not at the temple. Only because the army would fire at us again a few weeks later, we knew, so we already retaliated. Basicly we are all peaceful protesters, all know this to be true

http://www.buddhistc...52,9128,0,0,1,0

http://www.foxnews.c...ent-protesters/

http://www.nationmul...--30124702.html

http://www.nationmul...k-30128411.html

(BP link, which seems no longer valid, so maybe can post

http://www.bangkokpo...ew-was-targeted)

http://www.wereldwij...ad.php?t=101115

Not related:

http://seattletimes....ndpolitics.html

http://lifestyle.in....=4209438&page=2

Edited September 8, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

well let me break it down simply for you rubl because your nonsense is growing tiresome.

no, they weren't in power because the electorate chose them to be... the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008.

it's not so hard but i'll leave you to ponder it and try to actually understand how easy it is to answer with a yes or no... though i get the strong feeling that you know this already.

"the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008."

exactly the point which will never be conceded by supporters of Abhisit/Dems on this forum, because to do so acknowledges the lack of mandate, and tacitly acknowledges the military's role in the change of power.

It wasn't a military coup with tanks. The tools were different, but that is why the 2008 change is referred to as a judicial coup.

Because "the electorate didn't have a say in the change of power in 2008" - is the reason why the Abhisit government was confronted by Thai citizens who recognized this fact and were not willing to let the status quo stand.

If the military and other power-brokers in my country could sit in the background and decide whether a government elected by the people should be "dissolved and replaced" by something more to the liking of those elite, then, frankly, I would be protesting too.

If an elected government only whitewashes and enriches its own friends, family and Red "warriors", frankly, I would be protesting too.

Isn't Thaksin an elite....

when a government is that corrupt, then I'd be protesting too. In fact, besides not agreeing with the ideology of the PAD, the one thing which I would hold against the group is that they weren't protesting for the above reason (IMO, anyway) when they protested against Thaksin. The other thing I would hold against them was that they called for a coup (and got it, ... twice) rather than elections or some other democratic process against Thaksin.

[tlansford]

Of course it maybe I'm wrong, but it seems you wonder and then start to spin a tale. I must admit OzMick might have confided in you what he does back home

It is not to be taking literally rubl, it's a writing device call "illustrating the point', an analogy if you prefer, or making it obvious for the hard of thinking - but of course you already knew that and are just trying to divert attention from the fact that Ozmick is arguing from a weak position.

Now about your previous comment, just where did you think the spin was?

Pointing out how things actually work in the real world is not arguing from a weak position. There is nothing in parliamentary law that says a politician has to support a particular party whether he campaigned under their banner or not.

Let us say that Party X has decided to put a toxic waste dump in a certain electorate where the local MP is a member of party X. Should he vote the party line or look after the interests of his electorate at risk of expulsion from the party?

Don't bother answering because it is his choice. And if a majority of the electors don't agree with his choice, ALL they can do (with regard to the MP) is vote for somebody else next election.

That may well be one of the reasons why the Dems fail to get re-elected if they think like you.

RE elected?

You've been on TVF too long

[tlansford]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.

Do I?

I wonder the sense of arguing (one cannot call it debating!) with those who believe that the history of the red shirt movement began with grenade launchers in BKK.

Timeline options :

- bloody Songkran never happened, or

- it wasn't in 2009, or

- the blue shirts weren't really Thai military personnel, or

- the first fatality in 2010 wasn't a protester, or

- there was no SOE declared an a military attack on the protesters, or

- there weren't some 20-odd people killed on April 10th 2010, or ...

...

I'm sure the list of things that didn't happen can get longer ...

Unlike the candidate in the OP, who won a real election, the Abhisit government carried the baggage of its own illegitimacy throughout its tenure.

[whybother]

It could be said that the "insurrection" as you call it was a result of the democrats being responsible for the murder of their own citizens.

I think you have your time lines mixed up.

Do I?

I wonder the sense of arguing (one cannot call it debating!) with those who believe that the history of the red shirt movement began with grenade launchers in BKK.

Timeline options :

- bloody Songkran never happened, or

- it wasn't in 2009, or

- the blue shirts weren't really Thai military personnel, or

- the first fatality in 2010 wasn't a protester, or

- there was no SOE declared an a military attack on the protesters, or

- there weren't some 20-odd people killed on April 10th 2010, or ...

...

I'm sure the list of things that didn't happen can get longer ...

Unlike the candidate in the OP, who won a real election, the Abhisit government carried the baggage of its own illegitimacy throughout its tenure.

Were there deaths in 2009?

Did the "insurrection" start after April 10?

Was the first fatality caused by the military?

Wasn't the military attack on the protesters actually a gun fight between the military and the red shirts well armed militia?

Weren't there 5 military personnel killed on April 10th?

I'm sure you can come with a long list of things that doesn't show that the "insurrection" was a result of the military killing protesters, when the "insurrection" started before the military killed any protesters.

[rubl]

I wonder the sense of arguing (one cannot call it debating!) with those who believe that the history of the red shirt movement began with grenade launchers in BKK.

Timeline options :

- bloody Songkran never happened, or

- it wasn't in 2009, or

- the blue shirts weren't really Thai military personnel, or

- the first fatality in 2010 wasn't a protester, or

- there was no SOE declared an a military attack on the protesters, or

- there weren't some 20-odd people killed on April 10th 2010, or ...

I'm sure the list of things that didn't happen can get longer ...

Unlike the candidate in the OP, who won a real election, the Abhisit government carried the baggage of its own illegitimacy throughout its tenure.

The storming of the ASEAN April 2009 never happened and if it did it was an act of self-defence, the political fugitive k. Jakkraphob Bhenkair said so.

The Abhisit government had to fight against UDD propaganda which to this day keeps on hammering "baggage of its own illegitimacy". Only a few more times and all here may finally believe it. Oh and don't forget the tape with k. Abhisit saying 'kill me a few red-shirts'.

BTW Thaksin's trial was obviously, blatantly political and therefor doesn't count.

So back to the topic of Democrat candidate, borrowed from Pheu Thai, wins the day

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Do I?

I wonder the sense of arguing (one cannot call it debating!) with those who believe that the history of the red shirt movement began with grenade launchers in BKK.

Timeline options :

- bloody Songkran never happened, or

- it wasn't in 2009, or

- the blue shirts weren't really Thai military personnel, or

- the first fatality in 2010 wasn't a protester, or

- there was no SOE declared an a military attack on the protesters, or

- there weren't some 20-odd people killed on April 10th 2010, or ...

...

I'm sure the list of things that didn't happen can get longer ...

Unlike the candidate in the OP, who won a real election, the Abhisit government carried the baggage of its own illegitimacy throughout its tenure.

Were there deaths in 2009?

Did the "insurrection" start after April 10?

Was the first fatality caused by the military?

Wasn't the military attack on the protesters actually a gun fight between the military and the red shirts well armed militia?

Weren't there 5 military personnel killed on April 10th?

I'm sure you can come with a long list of things that doesn't show that the "insurrection" was a result of the military killing protesters, when the "insurrection" started before the military killed any protesters.

As far as I can tell, you just like to pose questions - as if that were enough to make a point. None the less, here is a go at it for you...

- yes

- I don't call it an insurrection, that is a term used by another to whom Phiphidon replied, but for the purposes of this thread, yes

- unknown, but it was a protester

- no

- maybe, ... doesn't change the number of dead protesters however

[whybother]

Were there deaths in 2009?

Did the "insurrection" start after April 10?

Was the first fatality caused by the military?

Wasn't the military attack on the protesters actually a gun fight between the military and the red shirts well armed militia?

Weren't there 5 military personnel killed on April 10th?

I'm sure you can come with a long list of things that doesn't show that the "insurrection" was a result of the military killing protesters, when the "insurrection" started before the military killed any protesters.

As far as I can tell, you just like to pose questions - as if that were enough to make a point. None the less, here is a go at it for you...

- yes

- I don't call it an insurrection, that is a term used by another to whom Phiphidon replied, but for the purposes of this thread, yes

- unknown, but it was a protester

- no

- maybe, ... doesn't change the number of dead protesters however

"Were there deaths in 2009? " ... I suppose I should rephrase this question to "Were there deaths caused by the army in 2009?" since there were deaths of locals caused by red shirts, and there were 2 bodies found in a canal, but police didn't attribute them to the protests.

Do you mean "for the purpose of your spin"? The protests started before there were any deaths. The take over of Ratchaprasong started before there were any deaths. Just what point exactly would you class the start of the "insurrection"?

Now you're saying that there were no armed red shirts on April 10? No armed red shirts shooting at the army?

The dead military personnel doesn't change the number of dead protesters, but it does put the "peaceful protester" crap in the rubbish where it belongs.

[OzMick]

As far as I can tell, you just like to pose questions - as if that were enough to make a point. None the less, here is a go at it for you...

- yes

- I don't call it an insurrection, that is a term used by another to whom Phiphidon replied, but for the purposes of this thread, yes

- unknown, but it was a protester

- no

- maybe, ... doesn't change the number of dead protesters however

Insurrection? What do you call firing an RPG at either a temple or the MoD (BTW March 30th) - peaceful protest?

Edited September 9, 2012 by OzMick

[nurofiend]

there's no way to reason with people who define so many by the acts of so few.

it's just an idiotic stance.