Abhisit Pens Account Of 2010 Red-Shirt Riots

[Thai at Heart]

None whatsoever, the funny thing is though, as I mentioned further up the thread, he claims

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant, as he wanted to reveal the truth about what happened during the red-shirt riots.

Now if you are naive enough to believe this one, coming from any politician, anywhere in the world, particularly one who was absolutely in the middle of a massive national crisis, you really have to be very naive. I await the detailed discussion that he had with the army, I await the detailed discussion that he must have been having with Suthep through the whole thing.

The world is littered with massive political moments, which are covered in biographies years after the event, say, the Cuban missile crisis, or to a lesser extent the miners strike in the UK, or for an Asian version, lets say Tianenman. Yes, great, you read the book, of one's person view of the events, but their character ALWAYS sways to what they believe is the right way of doing things. So, of course, you need to read the opposition view to get some balance. To claim, that Abhisit's will be without political slant would be nice, but pretty much impossible to achieve. Sometimes, politicians have to take terrible decisions for the greater good. Let's see how he views his own decision making of this event in his book.

I wonder if he will have ONE word to discuss the rights and wrongs about how the army acted during the whole event? Now that would be political dynamite, but to coin a phrase "We/They/You can't handle the truth".

You seem to be making a strawman argument. Nobody has said they believe this book will be totally unbiased or will reveal everything that went on, no holds barred. People have just said he has a right to express his side of things, and people should judge the book by what is inside it, not what they think is inside it, and try to keep something of an open mind.

That's exactly what abhisit is quoted as saying. No political bias, only the truth. I look forward to this

[khunken]

I just love the expert 'reviewers' who condemn a book that they haven't read.

There was a very apt comment from a writer on a Hardtalk program some months ago. Asked if he read the book he panned, he replied: 'No, I always criticise from a position of ignorance'.

[Dap]

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant, as he wanted to reveal the truth about what happened during the red-shirt riots. He said he believed national reconciliation could only be achieved by acknowledging the truth of what happened during the incident.

I really thought Abhisit had more brains than this. Seems he is just as patronizing as any other pooyai towards the people.

Amen, to that , brother

Copious apologies for moving off topic, but ... just need to give a major AMEN to your stunning avatar Om85

Ps. I may have a comment or two concerning Abhisit's offering if it ever becomes available to read in English, but until then I figure it's just too difficult to praise or condemn without reading what he has to say, no matter how much I might side with the man otherwise.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Dap

[Moruya]

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant

i haven't read it but......

If you're thinking of applying to Mensa, save the stamp.

[khunken]

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant

i haven't read it but......

If you're thinking of applying to Mensa, save the stamp.

Yes, hilarious laughter at your own comment rather points in the other direction.

[nurofiend]

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant

i haven't read it but......

If you're thinking of applying to Mensa, save the stamp.

Yes, hilarious laughter at your own comment rather points in the other direction.

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

[Dr Robert]

A shame there is no "I" in pens...would be a more interesting read

[EvilDrSomkid]

I just love the expert 'reviewers' who condemn a book that they haven't read.

There was a very apt comment from a writer on a Hardtalk program some months ago. Asked if he read the book he panned, he replied: 'No, I always criticise from a position of ignorance'.

[hellodolly]

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant, as he wanted to reveal the truth about what happened during the red-shirt riots. He said he believed national reconciliation could only be achieved by acknowledging the truth of what happened during the incident.

I really thought Abhisit had more brains than this. Seems he is just as patronizing as any other pooyai towards the people.

Amen, to that , brother

Interesting you say that. What is in the book to make you draw that conclusion, or is it a preconceived idea ?

The odds that this book contains, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are absolutely zero. There are thousands of issues that will be classified secret that he can't even touch upon. Anyone reckon he is going to get into the minutiae of the operations of the CRES? Harldy. Will he able to criticise the army in any way shape or form? I will wait and see, because since the birth of time, Thai PM's dare not to criticise the army. Not to say, that in many ways the army was wrong in their actions, but it is basically impossible to say that the army were perfect in their actions.

Beyond that, if he was PM still, would he write such a book? No. It will be his abridged version of events, which by definition cannot ever represent the "truth" of the issue. Providing completely unbiased truth from one side of the fence is virtually impossible.

This isn't accusing him of anything underhand, it is just the responsibility that Prime Ministers have. Thus, to say that this book will represent the truth of the matter, is beyond the limits of credibility.

Nice to see some one approach a book in such a unbiased manner.

[nurofiend]

None whatsoever, the funny thing is though, as I mentioned further up the thread, he claims

Abhisit said he wrote the book without adding any political slant, as he wanted to reveal the truth about what happened during the red-shirt riots.

Now if you are naive enough to believe this one, coming from any politician, anywhere in the world, particularly one who was absolutely in the middle of a massive national crisis, you really have to be very naive. I await the detailed discussion that he had with the army, I await the detailed discussion that he must have been having with Suthep through the whole thing.

The world is littered with massive political moments, which are covered in biographies years after the event, say, the Cuban missile crisis, or to a lesser extent the miners strike in the UK, or for an Asian version, lets say Tianenman. Yes, great, you read the book, of one's person view of the events, but their character ALWAYS sways to what they believe is the right way of doing things. So, of course, you need to read the opposition view to get some balance. To claim, that Abhisit's will be without political slant would be nice, but pretty much impossible to achieve. Sometimes, politicians have to take terrible decisions for the greater good. Let's see how he views his own decision making of this event in his book.

I wonder if he will have ONE word to discuss the rights and wrongs about how the army acted during the whole event? Now that would be political dynamite, but to coin a phrase "We/They/You can't handle the truth".

You seem to be making a strawman argument. Nobody has said they believe this book will be totally unbiased or will reveal everything that went on, no holds barred. People have just said he has a right to express his side of things, and people should judge the book by what is inside it, not what they think is inside it, and try to keep something of an open mind.

Nobody has said they believe this book will be totally unbiased

well that means you don't believe what abhisit has said about it then.

without any political slant, means unbiased...

Edited October 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[Throatwobbler]

If you're thinking of applying to Mensa, save the stamp.

Yes, hilarious laughter at your own comment rather points in the other direction.

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

I think most of us feel the same way about you Nurofiend.

[metisdead]

A libellous/defamatory post has been removed as well as the replies.

[Moruya]

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

Reality is commenting on a book you've yet to read?

[nurofiend]

If you're thinking of applying to Mensa, save the stamp.

Yes, hilarious laughter at your own comment rather points in the other direction.

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

I think most of us feel the same way about you Nurofiend.

'us'

oh do ye? i take it you're the spokesman for 'the group' (?)

anyway i'm truly devastated... i really worry about what else ye say in yere little sewing circles....

thanks for the giggles.

[nurofiend]

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

Reality is commenting on a book you've yet to read?

reality is realising that it's ridiculous to think that abhisit has wrote a book without any political slant.

if you don't realise the ridiculousness of his statement, then you don't acknowledge an obvious reality.

but why would you? it's abhisit afterall.

[Thai at Heart]

To Dolly

It's akin to reading a book by Maggie Thatcher claiming to tell the unbiased truth of the miners strike. would make a read, but would it represent the complete unbiased truth? Of course not.

Knowing the bias of the writer on political subject is a necessary . Or does Amsterdams truth the truth? Of course not.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Cardiff1963]

40, that's a good turn out

[MAJIC]

how confusing for the book shops, will they display this in the fiction or non fiction section? My guess it will be in the fiction section

If you want to see some real mendacious Fiction,then just wait until Thaksin brings out his version!

Edited October 18, 2012 by MAJIC

[TruthEyes]

Hmm , abisit brings out a book !

Well , is that what the rachaprasong massacre was all about, copies?

[Moruya]

actually the laughter is not at my own comment, it's his comment i laughed at.

so maybe you and that other guy you quoted should take a walk together in that 'other direction' and take a good dose each of reality while ye're at it.

Reality is commenting on a book you've yet to read?

reality is realising that it's ridiculous to think that abhisit has wrote a book without any political slant.

if you don't realise the ridiculousness of his statement, then you don't acknowledge an obvious reality.

but why would you? it's abhisit afterall.

I'll wager his English is superior to yours!

[carra]

how confusing for the book shops, will they display this in the fiction or non fiction section? My guess it will be in the fiction section

Only the illiterate judge books by their covers.

Who mentioned the cover?

I simply asked is it fiction or non fiction, but nice try and trying to completely alter what I said to try and flame me, oh no wait, it wasn't even a nice try

[whybother]

how confusing for the book shops, will they display this in the fiction or non fiction section? My guess it will be in the fiction section

Only the illiterate judge books by their covers.

Who mentioned the cover?

I simply asked is it fiction or non fiction, but nice try and trying to completely alter what I said to try and flame me, oh no wait, it wasn't even a nice try

You're not judging by the cover, you're judging by the author, regardless of what's written.

[carra]

how confusing for the book shops, will they display this in the fiction or non fiction section? My guess it will be in the fiction section

If you want to see some real mendacious Fiction,then just wait until Thaksin brings out his version!

then i am sure there will be a thread for that f it ever happens, but this thread is about abhisit and his book, do you have any opinion on that rather than trying to divert attention elsewhere?

[carra]

how confusing for the book shops, will they display this in the fiction or non fiction section? My guess it will be in the fiction section

Only the illiterate judge books by their covers.

Who mentioned the cover?

I simply asked is it fiction or non fiction, but nice try and trying to completely alter what I said to try and flame me, oh no wait, it wasn't even a nice try

You're not judging by the cover, you're judging by the author, regardless of what's written.

Not at all, another person that seems to have no idea and wants to score brownie points. My comment is based on the statement that a book by a former PM that was PM during the events that he has written about has no political bias.

So do you think it will be fiction or non fiction?

[Ricardo]

http://en.wikipedia....uthoritarianism

LOS isn't a democratic country, rather authorian. Power belong to the selected group with apparent display of "democracy". However instead of having just one group. here we have 2 competing groups

Love it, to use 'authorian' rather than 'authoritarian', given that the OP is about someone writing a book !

If you want to see some real mendacious Fiction,then just wait until Thaksin brings out his version!

Does the hamster's PR-consultancy 'do' ghost-writing of books, one might wonder ?

If all the stammering & changes-of-topic were edited-out, from the original interviews, just what might remain to be printed ?

[whybother]

Not at all, another person that seems to have no idea and wants to score brownie points. My comment is based on the statement that a book by a former PM that was PM during the events that he has written about has no political bias.

So do you think it will be fiction or non fiction?

Why would it need to have political bias just because he was PM at the time? It will be about what happened at the time from his point of view.

We don't even know if there will be any discussion on possibilities of why red shirts did what they did, which is where any political bias would be likely to come into it.

[carra]

Not at all, another person that seems to have no idea and wants to score brownie points. My comment is based on the statement that a book by a former PM that was PM during the events that he has written about has no political bias.

So do you think it will be fiction or non fiction?

Why would it need to have political bias just because he was PM at the time? It will be about what happened at the time from his point of view.

We don't even know if there will be any discussion on possibilities of why red shirts did what they did, which is where any political bias would be likely to come into it.

How can a PM at the time of an event give anything other than a political view when he was PM at the time, he can not go back in time and remove himself from this position, he held this position so therefore his view HAS to be from this position, or is he writing this as an outsider looking in?

whether the book discusses the red shirts or not is irrelevant as long as he is giving his views on the events, and he has no option but to give his views as the PM at the time because that is what he experienced at that time, he can't suddenly give his views as someone that was sitting in a bar on soi 11 listening to gunfire in the distance.

the book is in my opinion ill advised considering there are still legal processes in progress in relation these matters with abhisit himself being a suspect. Does he think the authorities will now pick up his book and say 'oh, we got it all wrong, he has put everything down in a book so he must be telling the truth'.

On the other hand maybe someone will read the book and discover that abhsit was in fact not actually running the country at the time, he was being given orders, he was living in an army base after all, maybe he has finally come out and say he had no control whatsoever over anything that happened. Maybe he will tell the truth to absolve himself and point the finger at others, or maybe he will finally stand up and say 'I was the PM, I made ALL the decisions, I gave ALL the orders'.

Who knows? but personally given his track record with the truth and his desire to hide facts (British citizenship, army record etc) I doubt very much that this book will be gospel and will be on the whole a work of fiction.

[rixalex]

You seem to be making a strawman argument. Nobody has said they believe this book will be totally unbiased or will reveal everything that went on, no holds barred. People have just said he has a right to express his side of things, and people should judge the book by what is inside it, not what they think is inside it, and try to keep something of an open mind.

Nobody has said they believe this book will be totally unbiased

well that means you don't believe what abhisit has said about it then.

without any political slant, means unbiased...

When did i ever claim to believe what Abhisit has written? Haven't mentioned anything about believing or not believing. I have mentioned my scepticism that it will be totally without bias, as he claims, but until such time as i have read the book, i really don't know... as nor do you or your red chums who have shown on this thread with your closed-mind attitudes why Abhisit is probably largely wasting his time, because no matter how much truth the book does or doesn't contain, it is being written off before even the first page has been read.

[whybother]

How can a PM at the time of an event give anything other than a political view when he was PM at the time, he can not go back in time and remove himself from this position, he held this position so therefore his view HAS to be from this position, or is he writing this as an outsider looking in?

whether the book discusses the red shirts or not is irrelevant as long as he is giving his views on the events, and he has no option but to give his views as the PM at the time because that is what he experienced at that time, he can't suddenly give his views as someone that was sitting in a bar on soi 11 listening to gunfire in the distance.

the book is in my opinion ill advised considering there are still legal processes in progress in relation these matters with abhisit himself being a suspect. Does he think the authorities will now pick up his book and say 'oh, we got it all wrong, he has put everything down in a book so he must be telling the truth'.

On the other hand maybe someone will read the book and discover that abhsit was in fact not actually running the country at the time, he was being given orders, he was living in an army base after all, maybe he has finally come out and say he had no control whatsoever over anything that happened. Maybe he will tell the truth to absolve himself and point the finger at others, or maybe he will finally stand up and say 'I was the PM, I made ALL the decisions, I gave ALL the orders'.

Who knows? but personally given his track record with the truth and his desire to hide facts (British citizenship, army record etc) I doubt very much that this book will be gospel and will be on the whole a work of fiction.

Why would it need to be a political view?

Even if it's biased, it doesn't mean it is a political view.

From what you're saying, if he described walking down the stairs, it would have to have a political bias just because he was PM at the time.

[carra]

How can a PM at the time of an event give anything other than a political view when he was PM at the time, he can not go back in time and remove himself from this position, he held this position so therefore his view HAS to be from this position, or is he writing this as an outsider looking in?

whether the book discusses the red shirts or not is irrelevant as long as he is giving his views on the events, and he has no option but to give his views as the PM at the time because that is what he experienced at that time, he can't suddenly give his views as someone that was sitting in a bar on soi 11 listening to gunfire in the distance.

the book is in my opinion ill advised considering there are still legal processes in progress in relation these matters with abhisit himself being a suspect. Does he think the authorities will now pick up his book and say 'oh, we got it all wrong, he has put everything down in a book so he must be telling the truth'.

On the other hand maybe someone will read the book and discover that abhsit was in fact not actually running the country at the time, he was being given orders, he was living in an army base after all, maybe he has finally come out and say he had no control whatsoever over anything that happened. Maybe he will tell the truth to absolve himself and point the finger at others, or maybe he will finally stand up and say 'I was the PM, I made ALL the decisions, I gave ALL the orders'.

Who knows? but personally given his track record with the truth and his desire to hide facts (British citizenship, army record etc) I doubt very much that this book will be gospel and will be on the whole a work of fiction.

Why would it need to be a political view?

Even if it's biased, it doesn't mean it is a political view.

From what you're saying, if he described walking down the stairs, it would have to have a political bias just because he was PM at the time.

Walking down the stairs is not something that you need to be a PM to do, however the situation we are discussing, ie the situation in 2010, is something that he was closely involved with as PM, and as PM he was giving orders (or was he?).

Are you expecting us to believe his personal thoughts on the matter will be different than his thoughts as PM? This is something he can not separate, or did he go against his personal feelings, or did he follow his personal feelings and act on them as PM? The guy was PM at the time so any personal feelings he has on the subject must be tainted with his feelings as a PM, of course they must be.

please don't try and insult peoples intelligence with nonsense such as walking down stairs, it does neither of us any favours,

Explain to me, how the PM at the time of an event that he was involved with could have anything other than a political view on what was a political crisis. In fact I think it would be very hard to not have a political view on a political situation.