Thai Democrats Ordered Use Of Snipers: Korkaew

[rixalex]

If you can prove that I have refused to acknowledge Arisman's "burn video" I will ban myself from the forum forever.I can be fairly confident you would find this difficult because not only have I never heard of the video, I am actually barely aware of who Arisman is.Nor do I have any idea about Red TV whatever that is - certainly never watched it.

I am frankly flabbergasted that someone who clearly has been following the political situation in Thailand closely, and is intimate with the details of recent major events, could possibly have not seen Arisman's speech, or know who he is. His speech was a central part of the whole 2010 red protest, and was discussed and debated pretty much everywhere. Utterly bizarre for you to say what you have in the above.

[Pimay1]

If you can prove that I have refused to acknowledge Arisman's "burn video" I will ban myself from the forum forever.I can be fairly confident you would find this difficult because not only have I never heard of the video, I am actually barely aware of who Arisman is.Nor do I have any idea about Red TV whatever that is - certainly never watched it.

I am frankly flabbergasted that someone who clearly has been following the political situation in Thailand closely, and is intimate with the details of recent major events, could possibly have not seen Arisman's speech, or know who he is. His speech was a central part of the whole 2010 red protest, and was discussed and debated pretty much everywhere. Utterly bizarre for you to say what you have in the above.

Spot on. jayboy reminds me of a guy I used to work with. He was always telling us about his bad experiences in Vietnam. One day a guy transferred into our department who served in Veitnam. Come to find out the first guy had never been there and was full of it just to impress everyone else.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h1qo2PTcp8w

[jayboy]

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

Edited October 26, 2012 by jayboy

[OzMick]

Yet further proof of how Mr. "I'm through with politics" is continuing to divide the country.

Thing is , its the existing historical divide of pro and anti-democracy supporters.

And until the dems realise and accept they are allied with the dark forces of thailand, it will remain so

You should realise that claiming to be pro-democracy does not necessarily make it so, and an examination of deeds and attitudes is much more revealing than long-winded names claiming the democratic high ground. A trip to any "Democratic Republic of" or worse still "people's Democratic Republic of" will drive the point home.

There is no reason why a constitutional monarchy cannot be a true democracy - in fact nearly all of the highest ranked democracies are.

You seem to suggest that the red shirts are a true move to real democracy in Thailand. Their actions suggest otherwise, dancing to the tune of a would-be dictator. Who votes for a red-shirt leader? When the Democrat government offered early elections, why was it rejected after a telephone call, rather than a ballot of the protesters? Even an informal show of hands would have suggested some democratic pretensions - instead we have a autocratic command structure pretending to make decisions.

[rixalex]

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

Thanks, although the question i posed to you that you quoted above, you still don't answer. Why were the deaths in 2010 so incomparable with the deaths during the war on drugs? All you've given me so far is few people objected to the war on drugs and it has simply been used by Thaksin's enemies to get at him. Well, precisely the same could be said of the 2010 deaths. When the clampdown finally happened, most Thais seemed to be of the belief that things had gone on too long and that the authorities needed to stop dithering and take affirmative action to clear the streets. I think Thais understood that doing so would inevitably involve injury and possible death. And when it all ended, i think most Thais were if anything relieved and a bit surprised that the body count was as low as it was. None of this i hasten to add clears anyone of wrongdoing, but just to make the point that in terms of popularity, for all that it is worth (in my opinion pretty much nothing) both acts could be described as being popular. So let's stop talking about what was popular and what wasn't, and you just tell me why the deaths in 2010 were incomparable to those deaths under Thaksin's watch.

As for discussing fascism, i understand what you say but i still think that when you are using it to label people, you should at least be prepared to offer a brief description of what the term means in your eyes. As i have said before, personally i think the term is used much too liberally and casually, and perhaps just for dramatic effect.

Edited to add: i see you have just edited your post to include your answer on the matter of those deaths. I have to say i find it wholly unsatisfactory and really can't fathom where you are coming from. Most of those red protesters who were killed at least were given a chance to save themselves. They were repeatedly warned of the danger they were in. Some of those innocents killed in the war on drugs were on the other hand, simply gunned down out of the blue whilst stepping outside of their houses, or walking along the street. Watch chance did they have to save themselves? None at all. But in your eyes, their death is somehow less significant. Sorry but i don't get it.

Edited October 26, 2012 by rixalex

[jayboy]

My response on the drugs war point was subsequently added to my reply

[Robby nz]

The real questions that need to be asked are:

Did Thaksin order the men in black to fire into the army and elsewhere as Sae Deang said he did?

Did Thaksin order the firing of grenades at the sky train station, Don Muang fuel tank, and all the other targets?.

Did Thaksin order his snipers to fire into the temple that had been declared a safe area by the Govt and Army but not the reds?

[rixalex]

My response on the drugs war point was subsequently added to my reply

My reply edited to reflect.

[OzMick]

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

I disagree completely with point 4/. The war on drugs was a political decision (based on a knee-jerk reaction to a personal situation) that gave state-employed officers the right and the orders to kill to alter an undesirable situation. There was nothing inherently dangerous or inevitable (leaving aside overdose) such as there is in operating moving vehicles and presence of dangerous animals.

However, in the case of the drug deaths, there is no shown violence emanating from many of the victims who actually had no connection with the drug scene. People were killed on ill-founded suspicion, and that is truly deplorable. this was not a spontaneous outbreak of police violence, it was initiated from the top, and there was no remonstration or orders to cease and desist, which places the blame squarely on Thaksin, the initiator.

Though both cases involve killing by state officials on a political decision, the difference must be made clear. Clearing the red shirts was a legitimate decision to end their violence, whereas extrajudicial murder to solve a social problem has absolutely no legitimacy.

[yoshiwara]

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

Sure. And you hardly know who Arisman is either. Somebody? anybody believe you?

It sure is a lot of effort not only to deny seeing a video lasting less than 2 minutes, the link for which is has put under your nose several times in this thread.

Now why are you going to extra-ordinary lengths to deny seeing it?

Because you know what is in it and that it blows your red-supporting contributions to smithereens.

ie that the reds did not prepare for violence in 2010.

Without the denial of seeing the video and knowledge of Arisman as a key figure in the reds, the position which you hold is toast.

So much for intellectual integrity. Kaput.

[jayboy]

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

Sure. And you hardly know who Arisman is either. Somebody? anybody believe you?

It sure is a lot of effort not only to deny seeing a video lasting less than 2 minutes, the link for which is has put under your nose several times in this thread.

Now why are you going to extra-ordinary lengths to deny seeing it?

Because you know what is in it and that it blows your red-supporting contributions to smithereens.

ie that the reds did not prepare for violence in 2010.

Without the denial of seeing the video and knowledge of Arisman as a key figure in the reds, the position which you hold is toast.

So much for intellectual integrity. Kaput.

Actually I have seen the video now following my exchanges with Rixalex, nothing very unusual given the circumstances. Whether you like it or not, whether it reflects badly on me or not I hadn't seen it until today.People may not like my political views but I do my best to be honest.

I had admittedly a rather highly strung exchange yesterday with you simply because you lied about my posting record, puzzling even those who share your reactionary views, and then compounded your dishonesty by refusing to apologise when called to account.

[rixalex]

Actually I have seen the video now following my exchanges with Rixalex, nothing very unusual given the circumstances. Whether you like it or not, whether it reflects badly on me or not I hadn't seen it until today.People may not like my political views but I do my best to be honest.

I had admittedly a rather highly strung exchange yesterday with you simply because you lied about my posting record, puzzling even those who share your reactionary views, and then compounded your dishonesty by refusing to apologise when called to account.

"He saids, she saids" to one side, perhaps the time has come to get on with it and give your opinion on the video. I know i would appreciate hearing it.

[yoshiwara]

Actually I have seen the video now following my exchanges with Rixalex, nothing very unusual given the circumstances. Whether you like it or not, whether it reflects badly on me or not I hadn't seen it until today.People may not like my political views but I do my best to be honest.

I had admittedly a rather highly strung exchange yesterday with you simply because you lied about my posting record, puzzling even those who share your reactionary views, and then compounded your dishonesty by refusing to apologise when called to account.

Like drawing blood out of a stone. While watching the video did you exclaim 'Oh! So that's who Arisman is. I wondered who he was! Nice shirt!'

We are mightily impressed that you think the call from a leading member of the reds to organise to burn down Bangkok was 'nothing very unusual given the circumstances'

A new swerve in evasive tactics for our amusement.

[jayboy]

Like drawing blood out of a stone. While watching the video did you exclaim 'Oh! So that's who Arisman is. I wondered who he was! Nice shirt!'

We are mightily impressed that you think the call from a leading member of the reds to organise to burn down Bangkok was 'nothing very unusual given the circumstances'

A new swerve in evasive tactics for our amusement.

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

As mentioned earlier I had barely heard of Arisman and had never seen the video.It only registered when you told a bare faced lie about my posting record (followed by a stream of bad tempered posts when your dishonesty was exposed).Having seen it I don't really give it the significance you accord it.Of course there are extremists in Thai politics and Arisman may well be one, but the record of violence and bloodshed is almost entirely on the military backed side.

[rixalex]

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

Citing what has been said on social media is a bit of a silly comparison if you don't mind me saying. All sorts of crap gets posted by anonymous people within that arena and few take it very seriously, or would take a view from there as being representative of what a large group of people, such as the middle classes, actually think (middle class Thais i don't believe wanted red shirt blood, but they did want the government to take control, and understood what that may entail should the protesters ignore all the pleas given to go home).

Standing up on a stage as a leader of a movement before a large crowd, urging violence, destruction and potential death in the manner that Arisman did, and having those views applauded and cheered, is quite a different matter in my view. Any red protester claiming to have peaceful intentions would surely have packed their bags and left upon hearing this sort of hate filled rhetoric.

[jayboy]

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

Citing what has been said on social media is a bit of a silly comparison if you don't mind me saying. All sorts of crap gets posted by anonymous people within that arena and few take it very seriously, or would take a view from there as being representative of what a large group of people, such as the middle classes, actually think (middle class Thais i don't believe wanted red shirt blood, but they did want the government to take control, and understood what that may entail should the protesters ignore all the pleas given to go home).

Standing up on a stage as a leader of a movement before a large crowd, urging violence, destruction and potential death in the manner that Arisman did, and having those views applauded and cheered, is quite a different matter in my view. Any red protester claiming to have peaceful intentions would surely have packed their bags and left upon hearing this sort of hate filled rhetoric.

Sounds reasonable though not sure about your last sentence.I have no brief for Arisman (won't bore you again with how I became immersed in the subject recently!) and he would certainly need to explain himself.

As to the social media aspect I completely disagree with you.A great many natural conservatives - by which I mean well educated people attached to the status quo, both foreigners and Thais, were disgusted by the torrent of disgusting and bloodthirsty language about redshirts from mainly middle class Bangkok residents on Facebook and other social media.Surprisingly little of it was anonymous by the way.The North Korean style hysteria was absolutely appalling.

[rixalex]

Sounds reasonable though not sure about your last sentence.I have no brief for Arisman (won't bore you again with how I became immersed in the subject recently!) and he would certainly need to explain himself.

What exactly is there for him to explain? He expressed himself perfectly clearly, and the support amongst those sat before him for those views was plain to see.

As to the social media aspect I completely disagree with you.A great many natural conservatives - by which I mean well educated people attached to the status quo, both foreigners and Thais, were disgusted by the torrent of disgusting and bloodthirsty language about redshirts from mainly middle class Bangkok residents on Facebook and other social media.Surprisingly little of it was anonymous by the way.The North Korean style hysteria was absolutely appalling.

You obviously have a good take on all that was happening in cyber space at that time. Perhaps more of your attention might have been merited on what was actually happening on the streets though. Seems a more significant aspect of what was happening to my thinking anyway.

[Insight]

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

The red shirts left behind a trail of destruction after giving up Ratchaprasong, which went way beyond the boundaries of their camp, made throughout the night of the 19th-20th May. It was far more than "a few department stores" being burnt down. The next morning the smell of smoke from burning tires lingered in the air throughout the city. 7-11 shops and bank branches were destroyed and phone boxes smashed, right down Sukhumvit Road to Bang Na. According to a friend of mine in the area and another poster on this forum, Arisman personally oversaw the fire being lit at Thailand SET, along with the live rounds fired at the fire service approaching to put out the fire.

When asking the motorbike boys at the end of our soi who they thought responsible for the damage in our area the following morning, they replied with "Tahan sua daeng". A pro-red market stall seller in the local market cackled with glee at the damage done, saying something to the effect of "this is the power Thaksin can unleash when you cross him!", much to the dismay of other market stall sellers and customers listening to her.

Downplay the damage done all you wish and continue to play down the role of those who were clearly responsible for coordinating it. Many ordinary Bangkok civilians felt very uneasy and deeply concerned at the scale of the devastation they observed that morning.

[Fuschia]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

Edited October 26, 2012 by Fuschia

[siampolee]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies the Red Shirt leadership espouse.

Methinks the literary style of Fuschia seems somewhat reminiscent of a recently departed poster.

[Pimay1]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies the Red Shirt leadership espouse.

Methinks the literary style of Fuschia seems somewhat reminiscent of a recently departed poster.

Methinks the same as you thinks.

[sysardman]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

You can't win when some idiot quotes this can you!!! --- When asking the motorbike boys at the end of our soi who they thought responsible for the damage in our area the following morning, they replied with "Tahan sua daeng". A pro-red market stall seller in the local market cackled with glee at the damage done, saying something to the effect of "this is the power Thaksin can unleash when you cross him!", much to the dismay of other market stall sellers and customers listening to her.

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

[siampolee]

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

Well it does show that the person concerned mixes with the ordinary people and doesn't live in an ivory tower.

These are the very people you claim to support

Affordable principles,, the going gets tough here and you and your kind (Thaksin) are away on an airplane spouting inane rhetoric as you depart.

Edited October 26, 2012 by siampolee

[TomTao]

Earlier in this thread I posted a question for Jayboy seekinh some clarification regarding his understanding of what a fascist is, just incase he didn't see the question here it is again, hopefully I will be afforded the courtesy of an answer.

Jayboy, I have been reading your posts with a growing sense of confusion concerning what you would consider to be a fascist, from what I remember from my schooling and various documentaries as well as seeing some fascist ragimes in power in recent history (Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind), many of them stared out on a platform of popularist policies, and once elected cemented the people's loyalty by implimenting some of those policies, that is before letting thier true character show by repressing the people and ruthlessly eliminating any who opposed them, please tell me how this equades to the PAD, as far as I am aware there is only one colour here in Thailand that garners the people's loyalty with popularist policies, and they are not yellow shirts. Please share your view of what a fascist is, in a logical manner please, not in a idealogical rant. Thank you.

[sysardman]

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

Well it does show that the person concerned mixes with the ordinary people and doesn't live in an ivory tower.

These are the very people you claim to support

Affordable principles,, the going gets tough here and you and your kind (Thaksin) are away on an airplane spouting inane rhetoric as you depart.

I'd love to show you my ivory tower someday - where did you get that. I live among the heart of the Red country and I've yet to meet a terrorist. These people are the ones that grow the food that goes in your over exercised mouths and when the reckoning comes matey boys I'll be eating real food while you guys are snacking on your ipods and blackberrys.

[jayboy]

Earlier in this thread I posted a question for Jayboy seekinh some clarification regarding his understanding of what a fascist is, just incase he didn't see the question here it is again, hopefully I will be afforded the courtesy of an answer.

Jayboy, I have been reading your posts with a growing sense of confusion concerning what you would consider to be a fascist, from what I remember from my schooling and various documentaries as well as seeing some fascist ragimes in power in recent history (Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind), many of them stared out on a platform of popularist policies, and once elected cemented the people's loyalty by implimenting some of those policies, that is before letting thier true character show by repressing the people and ruthlessly eliminating any who opposed them, please tell me how this equades to the PAD, as far as I am aware there is only one colour here in Thailand that garners the people's loyalty with popularist policies, and they are not yellow shirts. Please share your view of what a fascist is, in a logical manner please, not in a idealogical rant. Thank you.

I did see your post but decided to ignore it.The discussion of the details of fascism are never productive on this forum.If you are serious I recommend Richard Evans' trilogy on Germany as an excellent introduction.Also if you do not mind me saying so the knowledge (neither Mugabe nor Amin were fascists) and thought processes shown in your post did not encourage me to participate in a dialogue.

[TomTao]

Earlier in this thread I posted a question for Jayboy seekinh some clarification regarding his understanding of what a fascist is, just incase he didn't see the question here it is again, hopefully I will be afforded the courtesy of an answer.

Jayboy, I have been reading your posts with a growing sense of confusion concerning what you would consider to be a fascist, from what I remember from my schooling and various documentaries as well as seeing some fascist ragimes in power in recent history (Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind), many of them stared out on a platform of popularist policies, and once elected cemented the people's loyalty by implimenting some of those policies, that is before letting thier true character show by repressing the people and ruthlessly eliminating any who opposed them, please tell me how this equades to the PAD, as far as I am aware there is only one colour here in Thailand that garners the people's loyalty with popularist policies, and they are not yellow shirts. Please share your view of what a fascist is, in a logical manner please, not in a idealogical rant. Thank you.

I did see your post but decided to ignore it.The discussion of the details of fascism are never productive on this forum.If you are serious I recommend Richard Evans' trilogy on Germany as an excellent introduction.Also if you do not mind me saying so the knowledge (neither Mugabe nor Amin were fascists) and thought processes shown in your post did not encourage me to participate in a dialogue.

The only reason I asked was because you were throwing the word 'fascist' around very freely when talking about the yellow shirts, a term I don't believe is apt, unless you wish to ascribe it to elements within both sides of the political divide, it could afterall be ascribed to various elements to politics globally in today's world. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

[rubl]

Not that it's part of the topic, but wiki has a nice page on fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Totally beside the topic at hand which is about a Pheu Thai party list MP and (former) red-shirt leader who has been told by reliable people that the others are bad, guilty and anything they say is political motivated and null and void.

BTW the secretary of the party has said that the verdict clearly shows the bias of the judges. He said the judges were clearly out to get him. I'm of course talking about the verdict against Silvio Berlusconi the former Premier of Italy. Luckily a law from the period he was Premier say any convict older than 70 years will not be jailed, but gets house arrest.

http://www.reuters.c...E89P0PZ20121026

[OzMick]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

You can't win when some idiot quotes this can you!!! --- When asking the motorbike boys at the end of our soi who they thought responsible for the damage in our area the following morning, they replied with "Tahan sua daeng". A pro-red market stall seller in the local market cackled with glee at the damage done, saying something to the effect of "this is the power Thaksin can unleash when you cross him!", much to the dismay of other market stall sellers and customers listening to her.

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

Personally I would take the word of people at the site (aka witnesses) waaay before some remotely located and obviously biased sycophant.

[TruthEyes]

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

You can't win when some idiot quotes this can you!!! --- When asking the motorbike boys at the end of our soi who they thought responsible for the damage in our area the following morning, they replied with "Tahan sua daeng". A pro-red market stall seller in the local market cackled with glee at the damage done, saying something to the effect of "this is the power Thaksin can unleash when you cross him!", much to the dismay of other market stall sellers and customers listening to her.

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

Personally I would take the word of people at the site (aka witnesses) waaay before some remotely located and obviously biased sycophant.

Indeed you should.

And it just so happens that Robert Amsterdams dossier contains numerous eyewitness evidence statements of "people at the site".

I'm sure that , like you, the war crimes committee in the Hague , will also take the word of the people at the site (aka witnesses)