Democrats Surprise With Victory In Pheu Thai Stronghold

[phiphidon]

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(BP link, which seems no longer valid, so maybe can post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

So you confirmed what I had already said. Well done. It wasn't a peace loving protester that fired the grenades , it was Bundit. He's in jail because of it.

[phiphidon]

RE elected?

You've been on TVF too long

I think they won an election in '92, fair's fair. Oh , no I didn't mean abhisits mob being re-elected, of course not

[whybother]

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

it's just an idiotic stance.

Similarly with people who want to ignore the acts of a few that are supported by so many.

[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.

Similarly with people who want to ignore the acts of a few that are supported by so many.

but that's not a stance that we see on here is it? do people deny proven acts?

also who is the many that's supported these acts?

[whybother]

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

it's just an idiotic stance.

Similarly with people who want to ignore the acts of a few that are supported by so many.

but that's not a stance that we see on here is it? do people deny proven acts?

also who is the many that's supported these acts?

The "red shirts" supported, and continue to support those acts. The fact that you seem to be denying that proves my point.

[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.

Similarly with people who want to ignore the acts of a few that are supported by so many.

but that's not a stance that we see on here is it? do people deny proven acts?

also who is the many that's supported these acts?

The "red shirts" supported, and continue to support those acts. The fact that you seem to be denying that proves my point.

no you've just proved exactly my point.

and i just asked you a question, i made no point.

[whybother]

no you've just proved exactly my point.

and i just asked you a question, i made no point.

Since you're being picky, I didn't say you made a point. But you did prove mine.

You brush aside the acts of a few because there were a lot of of peaceful protesters. But those peaceful protesters supported, and continue to support, those violent acts.

Similarly, do you brush aside the airport protest because that wasn't all the yellow shirts?

The violence of the red shirt protests wasn't just a couple of isolated incidents. They were pretty constant for several weeks, and they involved thousands of the protesters. Were they fake red shirts? Did they become non-red shirts?

[nurofiend]

no you've just proved exactly my point.

and i just asked you a question, i made no point.

Since you're being picky, I didn't say you made a point. But you did prove mine.

You brush aside the acts of a few because there were a lot of of peaceful protesters. But those peaceful protesters supported, and continue to support, those violent acts.

Similarly, do you brush aside the airport protest because that wasn't all the yellow shirts?

The violence of the red shirt protests wasn't just a couple of isolated incidents. They were pretty constant for several weeks, and they involved thousands of the protesters. Were they fake red shirts? Did they become non-red shirts?

"You brush aside the acts of a few because there were a lot of of peaceful protesters"

no, i don't brush aside anything, where is the evidence of that accusation?

i do like to remind people of the second part because it tends to get left out a lot when people start ranting.

"But those peaceful protesters supported, and continue to support, those violent acts."

it's blanket statements like this that leads me to not take your argument seriously.

"Similarly, do you brush aside the airport protest because that wasn't all the yellow shirts?"

first show me what exactly i am brushing aside please.

you've proven my point that you lump them all in with the acts of a few, thanks.

[whybother]

"You brush aside the acts of a few because there were a lot of of peaceful protesters"

no, i don't brush aside anything, where is the evidence of that accusation?

i do like to remind people of the second part because it tends to get left out a lot when people start ranting.

"But those peaceful protesters supported, and continue to support, those violent acts."

it's blanket statements like this that leads me to not take your argument seriously.

"Similarly, do you brush aside the airport protest because that wasn't all the yellow shirts?"

first show me what exactly i am brushing aside please.

you've proven my point that you lump them all in with the acts of a few, thanks.

Until we get any red shirts condemning the violence by red shirts (or even someone saying they were bad), they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name.

[nurofiend]

"You brush aside the acts of a few because there were a lot of of peaceful protesters"

no, i don't brush aside anything, where is the evidence of that accusation?

i do like to remind people of the second part because it tends to get left out a lot when people start ranting.

"But those peaceful protesters supported, and continue to support, those violent acts."

it's blanket statements like this that leads me to not take your argument seriously.

"Similarly, do you brush aside the airport protest because that wasn't all the yellow shirts?"

first show me what exactly i am brushing aside please.

you've proven my point that you lump them all in with the acts of a few, thanks.

Until we get any red shirts condemning the violence by red shirts (or even someone saying they were bad), they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name.

"they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name."

so do you say the same thing about catholics in northern ireland when speaking about the IRA?

are they, as a group, responsible for the violence that was done in their name?

[whybother]

Until we get any red shirts condemning the violence by red shirts (or even someone saying they were bad), they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name.

"they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name."

so do you say the same thing about catholics in northern ireland when speaking about the IRA?

are they, as a group, responsible for the violence that was done in their name?

I would say that IRA supporters would be responsible for the violence that was done in the IRA's name.

[nurofiend]

Until we get any red shirts condemning the violence by red shirts (or even someone saying they were bad), they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name.

"they, as a group, are responsible for the violence that was done in their name."

so do you say the same thing about catholics in northern ireland when speaking about the IRA?

are they, as a group, responsible for the violence that was done in their name?

I would say that IRA supporters would be responsible for the violence that was done in the IRA's name.

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

[whybother]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

[nurofiend]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

so you're just proving my original point, that you blanket judge an entire section of society by the acts of a few.

Edited September 9, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

so you're just proving my original point, that you blanket judge an entire section of society by the acts of a few.

They were red shirts. They were supported by red shirts. They continue to be supported by red shirts.

How do you separate them?

[nurofiend]

so you obviously don't say that Irish people are responsible for the violence that was carried out in their name, because that's who's name the IRA cited as their cause

yet when some commit violent acts and cite the red shirt people as their cause, you say the red shirt people are responsible?

When they're committing those violent acts as part of the red shirt protests; When they're building barricades around the protest areas; When the leaders are congratulating them, and the actual peaceful protesters are clapping that; When they're leaders are using their positions to get them bail; then I say that the red shirt people are responsible.

so you're just proving my original point, that you blanket judge an entire section of society by the acts of a few.

They were red shirts. They were supported by red shirts. They continue to be supported by red shirts.

How do you separate them?

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

[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

So you confirmed what I had already said. Well done. It wasn't a peace loving protester that fired the grenades , it was Bundit. He's in jail because of it.

It was Bundit, not a peace-loving red-shirt, he might have been a fake shirt for all we know. Maybe it was the government, k. Suthep personally having given the M79 launchers with grenades to this non-peace-loving chap. Obviously no relation to 'peaceful protesters'. Red-shirts have shown a peaceful attitude and respect for other peoples lives over and over again. Unfortunately this peaceful organisation seems to attract militant elements, some vocal like UDD leaders, some heavily armed. Nothing to do with red-shirts, don't blame us and certainly don't blame phiphidon, he's farang, he doesn't count (at least not past nine)

So a council seat taken by a Democrat, which seat is next ?

[whybother]

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

[maidu]

From the OP: "Meanwhile, Karun said Pheu Thai Party would study the result to fix what they missed. But he said they must work harder to promote what the party had done for people".

What has the PT party done for the people? Most of its calories have been expended on trying to get the Big Scoundrel back to Thailand untarnished (when they're not playing golf or serviceing their mia noi). PT has given the scoundrel a passport (to add to the dozen he already has). PT has tried to change the Constitution in order to absolve him of his prior misdeeds. Of course, that's not what Karun wants the little people to dwell upon. PT instated a rice buy-back program which has impoverished small scale farmers and made Chinese-Thai brokers richer. PT has deftly kept property taxes off any agenda, so their rich buddies can comfortably get richer. And what has PT done for to help the environment or hill tribers or libraries or education or overfishing or those getting extorted daily by jet ski thugs? Nothing. Maybe PT has given a bit of thought to helping the little people, but I haven't seen any indications to that effect, have you?

[nurofiend]

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

"They weren't all violent"... most of them weren't violent.

i disagree with the blanket simplistic statement that the red shirt people were responsible for the violence because it's a deceitful statement.

[jayboy]

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

I supported them. Should I be in jail? The political party associated with the redshirts trounced the opposition in a general election.Should the many millions of Thais who voted PTP be in jail? On the whole probably not.

Should the generals and politicians who connived at a criminal coup and later authorised the murder of protesting civilians be in jail? Probably.

[phiphidon]

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?

"Insurrection? What do you call firing an RPG at either a temple or the MoD"

Well if you're a government propagandist, you'd say it was a near miss.......

[phiphidon]

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

So you confirmed what I had already said. Well done. It wasn't a peace loving protester that fired the grenades , it was Bundit. He's in jail because of it.

It was Bundit, not a peace-loving red-shirt, he might have been a fake shirt for all we know. Maybe it was the government, k. Suthep personally having given the M79 launchers with grenades to this non-peace-loving chap. Obviously no relation to 'peaceful protesters'. Red-shirts have shown a peaceful attitude and respect for other peoples lives over and over again. Unfortunately this peaceful organisation seems to attract militant elements, some vocal like UDD leaders, some heavily armed. Nothing to do with red-shirts, don't blame us and certainly don't blame phiphidon, he's farang, he doesn't count (at least not past nine)

So a council seat taken by a Democrat, which seat is next ?

It was Bundit - He is not a peaceful protester. He has been jailed as the result of his actions. That's that - what the point of the rest of your diatribe is, who knows.

[Skywalker69]

#86

Amazing Thaivisa rolls trolls on...

[nurofiend]

#86

Amazing Thaivisa rolls trolls on...

[473geo]

#86

Amazing Thaivisa rolls trolls on...

[Thaddeus]

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?

"Insurrection? What do you call firing an RPG at either a temple or the MoD"

Well if you're a government propagandist, you'd say it was a near miss.......

So, back to the old 'we dun nofink rong' argument then ..... keep that spin up and with any luck you will end up doing an Ouroboros.

[rubl]

So you confirmed what I had already said. Well done. It wasn't a peace loving protester that fired the grenades , it was Bundit. He's in jail because of it.

It was Bundit, not a peace-loving red-shirt, he might have been a fake shirt for all we know. Maybe it was the government, k. Suthep personally having given the M79 launchers with grenades to this non-peace-loving chap. Obviously no relation to 'peaceful protesters'. Red-shirts have shown a peaceful attitude and respect for other peoples lives over and over again. Unfortunately this peaceful organisation seems to attract militant elements, some vocal like UDD leaders, some heavily armed. Nothing to do with red-shirts, don't blame us and certainly don't blame phiphidon, he's farang, he doesn't count (at least not past nine)

So a council seat taken by a Democrat, which seat is next ?

It was Bundit - He is not a peaceful protester. He has been jailed as the result of his actions. That's that - what the point of the rest of your diatribe is, who knows.

Any which way to really avoid any possible link to us red-shirts in general and us peaceful red-shirts in particular. It was Bundit, a non-red-shirt related figure. We red-shirts are peaceful. We red-shirts are so peaceful we wouldn't even know what violence is if it hit us in the face, unless it was the Abhisit government of course.

Welcome to phiphidon's world of selective peacefulness

[Buchholz]

i separate the people responsible for the violence by those who committed the violence and those who didn't.

do you think all the red shirt people should be in jail then? if not, why?

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

I supported them. Should I be in jail?

[whybother]

No. They shouldn't all be in jail. They weren't all violent. But some of them were, and a hell of a lot more supported them.

I supported them. Should I be in jail? The political party associated with the redshirts trounced the opposition in a general election.Should the many millions of Thais who voted PTP be in jail? On the whole probably not.

Should the generals and politicians who connived at a criminal coup and later authorised the murder of protesting civilians be in jail? Probably.

"No. They shouldn't all be in jail."

Sent from my HTC phone.