Commission Says 'men In Black' May Have Got Cooperation From Red Shirts

[nurofiend]

so what is your 'most likely conclusion' of how it came about, was basically what i was asking?

and i'm not talking about the disbandment of ppp part of it, you know what i'm talking about.

i'm just not crystal clear in what you are actually saying in that quote.

I'm saying that the army were actively involved in banging certain heads together and encouraging certain sides to work together. Matchmakers if you will. I don't believe that those politicians had no choice in the sense of their lives being in mortal danger, as perhaps they (and some people here) would like us believe, i think they simply shifted sides because they could see which one had butter on... and it was the army that put the butter there.

Having the army involved in the formation of a coalition government is obviously not what most would consider democracy in action. I oppose it.

I do recognise though that most coalition governments being formed involve murky back room horse-trading and power sharing deals that are also not really democratic, so we either declare all the resulting coalition governments as illegitimate and make drastic changes to the parliamentary system in these situations, or we begrudgingly accept them all. We can't cherry pick.

we either declare all the resulting coalition governments as illegitimate and make drastic changes to the parliamentary system in these situations, or we begrudgingly accept them all. We can't cherry pick.

i disagree with that sentiment.

there's a big difference between military involvement in influencing decisions of the formation of coalition governments, than when the military aren't involved in influencing the decisions of the formation of coalition governments.

[rixalex]

there's a big difference between military involvement in influencing decisions of the formation of coalition governments, than when the military aren't involved in influencing the decisions of the formation of coalition governments.

If someone is unelected they are unelected. Doesn't make much difference whether they are wearing fatigues or wearing a suit. Do you seriously think other coalition governments haven't involved various unelected person's/groups?

Aren't we straying though from the original point? That being, your question as to my acceptance of obvious theories. You were wondering if in the same fashion as i accept that the MIB were led and funded from the red camp, do i also accept that the military were involved in the formation of the Abhisit coalition government. I think you have your answer.

Edited September 20, 2012 by rixalex

[473geo]

The men in black appeared to be intially involved to 'protect' the protestors, there is photographic evidence of such activity by unarmed 'men in black'

I guess they were also there as a deterent to the RTA turning up and dispersing the peaceful protest camp. It would appear that the RTA and Abhisit were not deterred and turned up surrouding the camp......thus escalating the violence

peaceful protest camp

men in black = 'protectors'

You overlooked

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Source WiKi)

Edited September 20, 2012 by 473geo

[nurofiend]

there's a big difference between military involvement in influencing decisions of the formation of coalition governments, than when the military aren't involved in influencing the decisions of the formation of coalition governments.

If someone is unelected they are unelected. Doesn't make much different whether they are wearing fatigues or wearing a suit. Do you seriously think other coalition governments haven't involved various unelected person's/groups?

Aren't we straying though from the original point? That being, your question as to my acceptance of obvious theories. You were wondering if in the same fashion as i accept that the MIB were led and funded from the red camp, do i also accept that the military were involved in the formation of the Abhisit coalition government. I think you have your answer.

i think what i pointed out does make a difference in legitimacy.

but yes, fair enough, you've given me my answer to the situation i put forward.

[AleG]

men in black = 'protectors'

You overlooked

"On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Source WiKi)

Yes, wonderful act of protection, starting a firefight with the MiB on one side,, the Army on the other and a mass of Red Shirts in the crossfire in the middle.

The arguments get more idiotic by the day.

[jayboy]

What has "their own people" got to do with it? Do you think authorities should act differently dependant on whether suspects are foreign? Go easy on locals?

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

In the case of the Thai army it has of course no genuine interest in protecting the country against foreign enemies (there aren't any anyway).It is an agency of internal repression to serve the interests of the unelected elites and of course the business interests of its senior officer class.This isn't to diminish the sterling virtues of many enlisted men and junior officers.Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.This is a big worry to the corrupt elites for it means they can never rest easy.In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

[rixalex]

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

Let's not even start to go down the route of making daft comparisons. We'll be here all day with that line of argument. Let's stick to the Thai army in 2010. They were asked to step up and do the job that would usually fall on the police. That became their role.

"The military turning its guns on its own people" line is therefore deliberately misleading and deliberately evocative of totally different situations in which militaries are not trying to restore order, as was the case here, but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens.

If you think the actions of the Thai soldiers in 2010 were an attempt to stamp out free speech and general dissent (a la Tianmen Square), and not to put an end to the mayhem of violence and destruction that had ensued and taken over the capital city, well then i think you are in the uncomprehending group to which you refer above.

Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.

A great example of something we see a lot of here. Pluck out of the air something you happen to believe, and run with it as if it is a well established fact. It is not. Yes there is no doubt that there are some serving men who have the sympathies you mention, but a majority?

I have my doubts, and i also have my doubts, that whatever sympathies they might hold, they would support the actions that led to fellow officers being dragged out of vehicles and beaten, fellow officers being fired upon by an assortment of weaponry, fellow officers being killed.

In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

I find referring to the thankless job the army had to do in which their lives were in danger, not yours or mine, as a killing spree, a really disgusting twisting of reality.

[Buchholz]

Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.

A great example of something we see a lot of here. Pluck out of the air something you happen to believe, and run with it as if it is a well established fact. It is not. Yes there is no doubt that there are some serving men who have the sympathies you mention, but a majority?

I have my doubts, and i also have my doubts, that whatever sympathies they might hold, they would support the actions that led to fellow officers being dragged out of vehicles and beaten, fellow officers being fired upon by an assortment of weaponry, fellow officers being killed.

the jayboy poll

.

[jayboy]

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

Let's not even start to go down the route of making daft comparisons. We'll be here all day with that line of argument. Let's stick to the Thai army in 2010. They were asked to step up and do the job that would usually fall on the police. That became their role.

"The military turning its guns on its own people" line is therefore deliberately misleading and deliberately evocative of totally different situations in which militaries are not trying to restore order, as was the case here, but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens.

If you think the actions of the Thai soldiers in 2010 were an attempt to stamp out free speech and general dissent (a la Tianmen Square), and not to put an end to the mayhem of violence and destruction that had ensued and taken over the capital city, well then i think you are in the uncomprehending group to which you refer above.

Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.

A great example of something we see a lot of here. Pluck out of the air something you happen to believe, and run with it as if it is a well established fact. It is not. Yes there is no doubt that there are some serving men who have the sympathies you mention, but a majority?

I have my doubts, and i also have my doubts, that whatever sympathies they might hold, they would support the actions that led to fellow officers being dragged out of vehicles and beaten, fellow officers being fired upon by an assortment of weaponry, fellow officers being killed.

In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

I find referring to the thankless job the army had to do in which their lives were in danger, not yours or mine, as a killing spree, a really disgusting twisting of reality.

You simply reconfirm your prejudices.And "killing spree' is perfectly legitimate if graphic way of describing the murders of unarmed civilians.

Where do most army conscripts come from? What politics in general do ordinary working class people in these regions espouse? Figure it out.

You come up with a prescriptive definition on Tianmen Square.I wasn't making the point you suggest, simply exposing your foolishness in making an irrelevent distinction between an army firing on locals and foreigners (I admire your gall in talking about daft comparisons)

[Siripon]

Thaksin figured out that no Thai government would survive deaths of civilians during its tenure.

October 6th, 14th Black May were precedents.

But Apisit survived Ratchaprasong comfortably because a large percentage of Bangkokians in particular saw the violence of the red shirts first hand and knew the army had no choice but to go in after the police proved to be hopelessly ineffective.

[rixalex]

Where do most army conscripts come from? What politics in general do ordinary working class people in these regions espouse? Figure it out.

What you consider figuring out, i consider making a lot of assumptions, cobbling them together, and tossing out the end product as an undisputed fact.

You come up with a prescriptive definition on Tianmen Square.I wasn't making the point you suggest, simply exposing your foolishness in making an irrelevent distinction between an army firing on locals and foreigners (I admire your gall in talking about daft comparisons)

I wasn't making an irrelevant distinction.

If you asked people in the western civilisation, should the army fire on its own people, i think most would answer categorically no. If you then asked them, should the police fire on its own people, i think the answer would more likely be "ideally no, but yes when necessary".

The Thai army in 2010 were to all intents and purposes, acting as the police. Expressing disgust at them, as soldiers, firing on their own people, is therefore deliberately misleading, because it ignores the fact that their role had been forced to change.

Edited September 21, 2012 by rixalex

[jayboy]

Thaksin figured out that no Thai government would survive deaths of civilians during its tenure.

October 6th, 14th Black May were precedents.

But Apisit survived Ratchaprasong comfortably because a large percentage of Bangkokians in particular saw the violence of the red shirts first hand and knew the army had no choice but to go in after the police proved to be hopelessly ineffective.

It's possible and I agree quite plausible that Thaksin figured this out.But it's just an assumption albeit a credible one.

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

When you say a large percentage of Bangkokians I assume you don't mean a majority.(You would be mistaken if this was the case anyway).If you mean a large number of Bangkokian middle class identified with the forces of repression, you would be right - as I think we all knew anyway.

Having said that I think the government was right to break up the redshirt encampment.I was a difficult task and to some extent it was professionsally undertaken.The devil as always in the detail, and there is prima facie evidence of criminality on both sides.We haven't yet had a proper investigation.The recent Commission was a step in the right direction though flawed.

[rixalex]

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

Whatever you think about Abhisit's culpability, to suggest that those 90 odd lives could be the reason why he will never again hold high office, seems a little odd when considering how relatively unhindered Thaksin has been by all the thousands of suspicious deaths that occurred on his watch.

[philw]

Where do most army conscripts come from? What politics in general do ordinary working class people in these regions espouse? Figure it out.

What you consider figuring out, i consider making a lot of assumptions, cobbling them together, and tossing out the end product as an undisputed fact.

You come up with a prescriptive definition on Tianmen Square.I wasn't making the point you suggest, simply exposing your foolishness in making an irrelevent distinction between an army firing on locals and foreigners (I admire your gall in talking about daft comparisons)

I wasn't making an irrelevant distinction.

If you asked people in the western civilisation, should the army fire on its own people, i think most would answer categorically no. If you then asked them, should the police fire on its own people, i think the answer would more likely be "ideally no, but yes when necessary".

The Thai army in 2010 were to all intents and purposes, acting as the police. Expressing disgust at them, as soldiers, firing on their own people, is therefore deliberately misleading, because it ignores the fact that their role had been forced to change.

The army is the army.

The police are the police.

Making an SOE does not magically change the army into coppers.

They are still the army.

And disgust at shooting nurses and unarmed people is entirely appropriate.

[jayboy]

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

Whatever you think about Abhisit's culpability, to suggest that those 90 odd lives could be the reason why he will never again hold high office, seems a little odd when considering how relatively unhindered Thaksin has been by all the thousands of suspicious deaths that occurred on his watch.

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

[AleG]

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

Pardon me, a little question.

Have you ever characterized the Red Shirt protests as violent and provocative?

[rixalex]

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

Out of interest, why are you referring to me in the third person? Can you be respectful enough to address me, rather than playing to your like-minded audience?

When did i state anything about letting Abhisit off the hook? Point i was making, was that the Thai public doesn't always judge so harshly on alleged acts of human rights abuses, demonstrated by the way the war on drugs did not seem to affect Thaksin's political prospects. And contrary to what you (and PTP/the reds) think, i really don't believe the majority of Thais think that Abhisit dealt with the protests that badly. I do agree though that Abhisit will quite likely have difficulty getting back into high office, but i don't think it will be for his handling of the violent mob in 2010.

As for Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands?! OK, and you think i have lost it....

[Buchholz]

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

Pardon me, a little question.

Have you ever characterized the Red Shirt protests as violent and provocative?

Nevermind the falsehood of Thaksin's administration facing violent PAD rallies. They weren't in 2006 and that explains why they grew quickly and had much popular support, including those there weren't his pigeon-holed middle-class.

.

.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

Having said that I think the government was right to break up the redshirt encampment.I was a difficult task and to some extent it was professionsally undertaken.

"A difficult task, to some extent professionally undertaken", not of course withstanding the "killing spree" they went on.

A bit like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was a model citizen, not withstanding his penchant for killing people and eating their remains.

[Pi Sek]

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

Whatever you think about Abhisit's culpability, to suggest that those 90 odd lives could be the reason why he will never again hold high office, seems a little odd when considering how relatively unhindered Thaksin has been by all the thousands of suspicious deaths that occurred on his watch.

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

Out of interest, why are you referring to me in the third person? Can you be respectful enough to address me, rather than playing to your like-minded audience?

When did i state anything about letting Abhisit off the hook? Point i was making, was that the Thai public doesn't always judge so harshly on alleged acts of human rights abuses, demonstrated by the way the war on drugs did not seem to affect Thaksin's political prospects. And contrary to what you (and PTP/the reds) think, i really don't believe the majority of Thais think that Abhisit dealt with the protests that badly. I do agree though that Abhisit will quite likely have difficulty getting back into high office, but i don't think it will be for his handling of the violent mob in 2010.

As for Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands?! OK, and you think i have lost it....

jayboy's a clever chappy so I'm sure he realises that his point is a strawman... you were questioning why perception of blood on Abhisit's hands might affect his chances in future politics as it didn't affect Thaksin's, and he misunderstood that you were trying to justify the body count from the Abhisit government's clearance operation by pointing it out that the Thaksin regime's body count was much higher. In my opinion, most likely a result of hasty typing.

However, in my opinion, I agree that the suggestion that Thaksin's administration has no blood on its hands is a little far-fetched.

[otherstuff1957]

I suspect that we will actually hear little more of this report. It will be referred to a committee and will simply never be heard from again.This report is, quite simply, to even handed. The army certainly won't be enthusiastic about it and the Redshirts/Government don't want to hear that they were anything less than 100% pure and innocent. Quite frankly, an honest and thorough investigation would probably show up incompetence (at least) on the parts of the police and the army and almost certainly the MIB would be traced back to funding from Taksin.

No-one in power, either now or then would win if this report or the UN reaction to it were given credence.

Although the forum Reds largely welcome it, the hypocrites that lead the Redshirts and PT are having an entirely different reaction.

Edited September 21, 2012 by otherstuff1957

[tlansford]

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

Let's not even start to go down the route of making daft comparisons. We'll be here all day with that line of argument. Let's stick to the Thai army in 2010. They were asked to step up and do the job that would usually fall on the police. That became their role.

"The military turning its guns on its own people" line is therefore deliberately misleading and deliberately evocative of totally different situations in which militaries are not trying to restore order, as was the case here, but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens.

If you think the actions of the Thai soldiers in 2010 were an attempt to stamp out free speech and general dissent (a la Tianmen Square), and not to put an end to the mayhem of violence and destruction that had ensued and taken over the capital city, well then i think you are in the uncomprehending group to which you refer above.

Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.

A great example of something we see a lot of here. Pluck out of the air something you happen to believe, and run with it as if it is a well established fact. It is not. Yes there is no doubt that there are some serving men who have the sympathies you mention, but a majority?

I have my doubts, and i also have my doubts, that whatever sympathies they might hold, they would support the actions that led to fellow officers being dragged out of vehicles and beaten, fellow officers being fired upon by an assortment of weaponry, fellow officers being killed.

In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

I find referring to the thankless job the army had to do in which their lives were in danger, not yours or mine, as a killing spree, a really disgusting twisting of reality.

"but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens."

While it is a dramatic over-simplification, the people who elected the post-coup PPP government and then watched as it was canned by the PAD/Dem/Military, would actually view it that way.

It is almost funny that we all focus on the violence in 2010 - and there was violence from both sides - but I was reminded the other day that the 100,000++ who showed up were in fact peaceful, happy people who wanted to take a stand against those who had taken away a democratically elected government. Sure they were asking for immediate elections - no wonder since they did not accept the legitimacy of the Abhisit government. But unlike the PAD and contrary to the rhetoric here, they were not calling for the overthrown of democratic rule, but the reinstatement of democratic rule.

[Thaddeus]

"but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens."

While it is a dramatic over-simplification, the people who elected the post-coup PPP government and then watched as it was canned by the PAD/Dem/Military, would actually view it that way.

It is almost funny that we all focus on the violence in 2010 - and there was violence from both sides - but I was reminded the other day that the 100,000++ who showed up were in fact peaceful, happy people who wanted to take a stand against those who had taken away a democratically elected government. Sure they were asking for immediate elections - no wonder since they did not accept the legitimacy of the Abhisit government. But unlike the PAD and contrary to the rhetoric here, they were not calling for the overthrown of democratic rule, but the reinstatement of democratic rule.

Do you get paid by the word Tom?

They asked for elections, that was promised, they still didn't leave, not only did they not leave, they escalated the violence.

Why?

I am getting so tired of your sycophantic BS, and I expect some others are too, rue the day they come for you whilst sitting with your G&T several thousand miles away from the country that you claim to love and the people that you claim to support.

You haven't got any idea about the people that I and several others involved in these topics have met, because you have never met them, just stay in your 5 star holiday destination, read the Daily Express, watch Fox News, let them make your mind up for you, and just stop bothering normal people.

[473geo]

It is my understanding Thaddeus the failed 'crackdown' at Phan Fah resulting in 24 deaths and 800 injuries had already taken place before the"election" offer, you see the government had already escalated the violence, so your response contains misleading information in your poor attempt to insult Thansford.

Edited September 21, 2012 by 473geo

[tlansford]

"but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens."

While it is a dramatic over-simplification, the people who elected the post-coup PPP government and then watched as it was canned by the PAD/Dem/Military, would actually view it that way.

It is almost funny that we all focus on the violence in 2010 - and there was violence from both sides - but I was reminded the other day that the 100,000++ who showed up were in fact peaceful, happy people who wanted to take a stand against those who had taken away a democratically elected government. Sure they were asking for immediate elections - no wonder since they did not accept the legitimacy of the Abhisit government. But unlike the PAD and contrary to the rhetoric here, they were not calling for the overthrown of democratic rule, but the reinstatement of democratic rule.

Do you get paid by the word Tom?

They asked for elections, that was promised, they still didn't leave, not only did they not leave, they escalated the violence.

Why?

I am getting so tired of your sycophantic BS, and I expect some others are too, rue the day they come for you whilst sitting with your G&T several thousand miles away from the country that you claim to love and the people that you claim to support.

You haven't got any idea about the people that I and several others involved in these topics have met, because you have never met them, just stay in your 5 star holiday destination, read the Daily Express, watch Fox News, let them make your mind up for you, and just stop bothering normal people.

besides insulting me, what is the point(y member) of your post? Is this supposed to be intelligent?

BTW, after the rejection of Abhisit's early election offer (the insincerity of that can be debated), it was not the red shirts who escalated the violence, but it was the military which began the final assault on the protest site. You might imagine the "starting gun" as it were being the shot to Seh Daeng's head.

Your post is despicable on so many levels, but I'm happy to have read the personal attacks and see your stupid assumptions about my person, my whereabouts, and my feelings as if you had the slightest idea at all. I invite you to visit your avatar.

[473geo]

Oh and just one more point Thaddeus while you and your friends are calling those..... out of the country........

Perhaps you so clued up on Thai people, posters ,can tell me how you would feel if your Thai sons are placed in the Army and have to turn on and shoot their own citizens....well I can tell you I would not want that for my son......so how many of you have family that could end up in the Thai army?

Because from my standpoint as a father of a Thai child, I would prefer elected governments, removed by the voters if necessary....do your Thai friends not think the same?

Edited September 21, 2012 by 473geo

[Thaddeus]

Well. the chuckle brothers are out in force,,,,,, well done.

[Thaddeus]

Because from my standpoint as a father of a Thai child, I would prefer elected governments, removed by the voters if necessary....do your Thai friends not think the same?

And would you like your Thai child to be shot in the head from a distance of six inches while being held down by a supporter of a cause, the cause being 'I'm rich, I can do what I want'

No, my Thai friends do not think the same, do yours?

[473geo]

Because from my standpoint as a father of a Thai child, I would prefer elected governments, removed by the voters if necessary....do your Thai friends not think the same?

And would you like your Thai child to be shot in the head from a distance of six inches while being held down by a supporter of a cause, the cause being 'I'm rich, I can do what I want'

No, my Thai friends do not think the same, do yours?

I doubt you have a son, because only a complete imbecile would suggest that a father could 'like' his son being shot in any way at all.....

[Thaddeus]

Because from my standpoint as a father of a Thai child, I would prefer elected governments, removed by the voters if necessary....do your Thai friends not think the same?

And would you like your Thai child to be shot in the head from a distance of six inches while being held down by a supporter of a cause, the cause being 'I'm rich, I can do what I want'

No, my Thai friends do not think the same, do yours?

I doubt you have a son, because only a complete imbecile would suggest that a father could 'like' his son being shot in any way at all.....

So, why did you ask the question then.

Question mark intentionally omitted.