chooka Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Yes, Geriatric Kid !! A lot of us foreigners love to harp on about democracy whilst blasting YingLuk. These people tend to forget that it was YingLuk's party that won the democratic election. Abhisit's party represents a minority group of people in Thailand, that's why they've never won an election in living memory, and indeed, they probably never will !!! Still trying to rewrite Thai history Abhist and his supporters along with other people represent 53% of the population. Maybe you have trouble but that is 6% more of the population than Yingluck represents. The number of seats the PT has is far out of proportion to the amount of people they represent, Who was it that was trying to say Abhist was elected because of the army. They conveniently over look there was two governments between them and the army and all three had been elected the same way. By legal means as defined in the laws of Thailand. The sad part about these poor losers is they will probably successfully rewrite real history and deprive the future generations of the truth. In the process most of them will gain personal nothing except the smug sick satisfaction that they put some thing over on others. A poor looser is someone who sees, how elections are held in Thailand (with all the vote buying from either side, with corruption, politicians who should not be there, threats of coups and fascist regimes...) and who know the system, that is equal for all sides and then start making up non- sensical equasions about how many people IN REALITY did not vote for the current PM. By the system in Thai- elections, SHE WON, because she got the majority of necessary votes! Get over it! SHE didn't win... The the party she belongs to won after getting the other coalition parties to join to get the required majority . out of 66 million Thai's about 15 million voted Phua Thai and the other coalition and about 12 million voted for the Democrats. (the minority party, as i think you put it) Just like the Australian election, the current government didn't win but we have to accept it as that is the system and democracy. Wait until the next election then you can vote against Yingluk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow well that puts things in perspective! Also looks to me like tear gas was fired from both sides? This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chooka Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Is that razor wire or barbed wire? A bit over board for a protest where nothing has happened, it is not like they have taken a city hostage and burnt it down --snip-- Prevention is better than cure. Would you prefer to wait until the take over the city? The airport blockade hasn't been forgotten and if they had these measures in place then, the yellow shirts would not have disrupted tourism. bUT THE REDS DID AS WELL..BUT thats ok???? No. But mum Johnnie is throwing stones too..... So why can't I? Edited November 24, 2012 by Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Based on videos showing protectors as aggressors, firing tear gas into the police and the death threat to Yungluck, this should be treated as a national security issue warranting use of force. Bad situation and I think police showed great restraint. Their conduct makes the current government appear as the reasonable ones. If the rhetoric on stage is true, this is a crazy situation. It is definitely not going to end peacefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The problem here is you wish to pick and chose when it is ok to not wait for elections and storm the streets, and when it is ok. And the problem with that is everyone can have a different opinion on what constitutes reasonable grounds for not waiting and storming and what doesn't. You might think for example that Abhisit's lack of a mandate provided reasonable grounds, whilst others might think that Yingluck being instructed on how to run the country by someone not only banned from politics, but on the run from crime, also provides reasonable grounds. It's subjective. With that being the case, you either must respect democratic process and abide by it at all times, or you don't respect it and abide by, and in doing so, accept that you lose the right to demand anyone else respect it or abide by it either. The reds didn't respect or abide by democratic process in 2010, but now demand that others do. To repeat, complete and utter hypocrisy. The premise of your argument is that the appointment of Abhisit as PM was the result of a fair election. As you may recall, the military was heavily inolved in providing the conditions that allowed Abhisit to cobble together some support from factions to ascend to his coveted PM position. Once his military protectors were forced to withdraw and the people of Thailand allowed to vote, Abhisit was rejected by the electorate. The issue today is what is for all intents and purposes a politically motivated attempt to attack a democratically elected government. In any case, put aside the reds vs. yellows vs. the polka dots politics for a minute. Why oh why, do these protests always sem to reach a head right before peak tourist season. What does being a democratically elected govt. have to do with with wishing their removal due to corruption, malfeasance and being a prxy of a banned fugitive. Winning an election is to a functional democracy what knocking a girl up is to good fatherhood. One cant't assume the latter is predicated on the former. Killing the bad father doesn't undo the "knocking up". Over-throwing the (dis)functional democracy doesn't undo the election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiamaster Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Democracy is more than just elections - it is acceptance for the principles of equity, participation, transparency and accountability. It is respect for human rights and the rule of law. Yes, Geriatric Kid !! A lot of us foreigners love to harp on about democracy whilst blasting YingLuk. These people tend to forget that it was YingLuk's party that won the democratic election. Abhisit's party represents a minority group of people in Thailand, that's why they've never won an election in living memory, and indeed, they probably never will !!! Still trying to rewrite Thai history Abhist and his supporters along with other people represent 53% of the population. Maybe you have trouble but that is 6% more of the population than Yingluck represents. The number of seats the PT has is far out of proportion to the amount of people they represent, Who was it that was trying to say Abhist was elected because of the army. They conveniently over look there was two governments between them and the army and all three had been elected the same way. By legal means as defined in the laws of Thailand. The sad part about these poor losers is they will probably successfully rewrite real history and deprive the future generations of the truth. In the process most of them will gain personal nothing except the smug sick satisfaction that they put some thing over on others. A poor looser is someone who sees, how elections are held in Thailand (with all the vote buying from either side, with corruption, politicians who should not be there, threats of coups and fascist regimes...) and who know the system, that is equal for all sides and then start making up non- sensical equasions about how many people IN REALITY did not vote for the current PM. By the system in Thai- elections, SHE WON, because she got the majority of necessary votes! Get over it! SHE didn't win... The the party she belongs to won after getting the other coalition parties to join to get the required majority . out of 66 million Thai's about 15 million voted Phua Thai and the other coalition and about 12 million voted for the Democrats. (the minority party, as i think you put it) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterdog Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It will be interesting to compare how this govt deals with protests vs how Abhisit dealt with the 2010 shindig. It should be obvious already, just from this video. The police did next to nothing to stop the red's violence. Images of motorcylists bringing old tires to burn and the police waving them on comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Based on videos showing protectors as aggressors, firing tear gas into the police and the death threat to Yungluck, this should be treated as a national security issue warranting use of force. Bad situation and I think police showed great restraint. Their conduct makes the current government appear as the reasonable ones. "protectors as aggressors" - the police?? The protesters cut the wire. That was their aggression. Did that require tear gas to be fired by the police? Why do they have batons and shields? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow well that puts things in perspective! Also looks to me like tear gas was fired from both sides? This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Yes. The protesters were just being polite. They even offered to repair the barbed wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttelise Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow well that puts things in perspective! Also looks to me like tear gas was fired from both sides? This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Possible, but they were still clearly the aggressors and lucky for them cops only lobbed tear gas. That bs would warrant a nice beat down and a few days in jail if US. These protestors have absolutely no respect for cops, authority or government. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Fascism, pure fascism. When the police disperse protesters it is fascism and when the army disperses the democratically elected government (again) what is that called? When TV cameramen are arrested and the footage seized - that's fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmac Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Oh dear, somehow the truth has come out on video plain for all to see.........the first teargas cannisters were fired from the crowd into the police, who only then responded with like for like. Now how are the Kindergarden Kids going to turn that into "police brutality", etc., etc.? It's clear that whether it's driving a truck right up to the police line, or firing tear gas at them, there is an element in this crowd absolutely determined to cause mayhem. They have to do this, as unless there is widescale violence and a total breakdown in law and order, how else can that senile old general call out the army to stage his dreamed-of coup? He knows full well that the rest of the World won't tolerate the overthrow of this elected Government just because he (and his cronies on TV!) happen not to like it! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 She ran for PM and got the votes.....hahahahahahaha...........really. Not that the owner of the political party decided that his sister would be PM...so she was.. she won get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocN Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 She ran for PM and got the votes.....hahahahahahaha...........really. Not that the owner of the political party decided that his sister would be PM...so she was.. Aaaaaah...no way out, so bring the "puppet"- point! What you are saying (again) is invalid! She ran (whoever got her there) for PM and she won! End of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Just like the Australian election, the current government didn't win but we have to accept it as that is the system and democracy. Wait until the next election then you can vote against Yingluk. this is the point WAIT until the next election and vote her out but that ain't going to happen as I think PT will win again - that's the system and she won end of story. violence, on either side, should be condemned and deplored. how that general is not facing a charge of treason I'll never know 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 She ran for PM and got the votes.....hahahahahahaha...........really. Not that the owner of the political party decided that his sister would be PM...so she was.. she won get over it Phua thai won.....SHE can be changed at any time.. with no election.... Understand it. They didn't do so well when they tried to change PMs midstream last time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binjalin Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 She ran for PM and got the votes.....hahahahahahaha...........really. Not that the owner of the political party decided that his sister would be PM...so she was.. she won get over it Phua thai won.....SHE can be changed at any time.. with no election.... Understand it. she led the party that won don't be so unashamedly biased. yes she can be changed and......... what? the PT won and that gave them the right to form the government no-one has the right to stage a coup as the general you support proposes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocN Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Fascism, pure fascism. When the police disperse protesters it is fascism and when the army disperses the democratically elected government (again) what is that called? When TV cameramen are arrested and the footage seized - that's fascism. Are you sometimes reading your own comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Yes, Geriatric Kid !! A lot of us foreigners love to harp on about democracy whilst blasting YingLuk. These people tend to forget that it was YingLuk's party that won the democratic election. Abhisit's party represents a minority group of people in Thailand, that's why they've never won an election in living memory, and indeed, they probably never will !!! Still trying to rewrite Thai history Abhist and his supporters along with other people represent 53% of the population. Maybe you have trouble but that is 6% more of the population than Yingluck represents. The number of seats the PT has is far out of proportion to the amount of people they represent, Who was it that was trying to say Abhist was elected because of the army. They conveniently over look there was two governments between them and the army and all three had been elected the same way. By legal means as defined in the laws of Thailand. The sad part about these poor losers is they will probably successfully rewrite real history and deprive the future generations of the truth. In the process most of them will gain personal nothing except the smug sick satisfaction that they put some thing over on others. A poor looser is someone who sees, how elections are held in Thailand (with all the vote buying from either side, with corruption, politicians who should not be there, threats of coups and fascist regimes...) and who know the system, that is equal for all sides and then start making up non- sensical equasions about how many people IN REALITY did not vote for the current PM. By the system in Thai- elections, SHE WON, because she got the majority of necessary votes! Get over it! You obviously know nothing she got the necessary amount of votes from a group of people that had the necessary votes to elect her. They themselves did not have the necessary amount of votes to represent the majority of the people. Which is what a government should do accept that is not the case here in Thailand. You on the other hand fall into the category of rewriting it to suit some sort of sick need and deprive future generations of the truth.Lets face it we both know it was not Yingluck the majority of her votes were for it was her brother that many of them wanted and he had run the campaign on the grounds that his sister thought just like him in fact she was his clone, By the way I have this bridge that spans all the swamp land in Arizona I could let you have it very cheap, Isn't that how constitutional monarchies work in other countries? Speaking of clones, didn't the south settle for Abhisit, as long as Suthep was close by? Edited November 24, 2012 by rijb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lormaak Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow well that puts things in perspective! Also looks to me like tear gas was fired from both sides? This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Yes, it is possible. The police claim otherwise, however. In a recent news conference the police claimed that protesters used a different type of gas canister (which has an expiry date of May 2012). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow, that dude has epic comb over. Donald Somchai? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ttelise..Can YOU tell us 3 good things that she has done....Thanks Her performance evaluation is not due until the next election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Fascism, pure fascism. When the police disperse protesters it is fascism and when the army disperses the democratically elected government (again) what is that called? When TV cameramen are arrested and the footage seized - that's fascism. Are you sometimes reading your own comments? I prefer them to yours - that's a fact. Even if they are repeats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retarius Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I just love this...the howls of protest on this board from the yellow shirt trolls...look at the video my friends....you will see the barbed wire barrier is removed by the mob...you then see rockets being fired from the mob into the police ranks...then, and only then, do you see the tear gas come out... I understand the blind partisanship, but really can't you come up with some comments better than thess? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catmac Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow, that dude has epic comb over. Donald Somchai? Thank you for your fascinating erudite comment on the political crisis facing Thailand at this time. Better pop back into the Kindergarten before nurse finds you missing! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow well that puts things in perspective! Also looks to me like tear gas was fired from both sides? This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Yes, it is possible. The police claim otherwise, however. In a recent news conference the police claimed that protesters used a different type of gas canister (which has an expiry date of May 2012). The green canister is in amazingly good condition compared to the silver canister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I just love this...the howls of protest on this board from the yellow shirt trolls...look at the video my friends....you will see the barbed wire barrier is removed by the mob...you then see rockets being fired from the mob into the police ranks...then, and only then, do you see the tear gas come out... I understand the blind partisanship, but really can't you come up with some comments better than thess? The "rockets being fired from the mob" come after they have been fired from the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOODLOVER Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Wow, that dude has epic comb over. Donald Somchai? Thank you for your fascinating erudite comment on the political crisis facing Thailand at this time. Better pop back into the Kindergarten before nurse finds you missing! But it's huge! And so obvious! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) What I find amazing is in 2006 the TRP didnt have gas masks, fast forwards to 2012 and still the RTP dont have gas masks. Seem they never learn, how bizzar. Edited November 24, 2012 by waza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) This too. Gas canisters from both directions. Fired towards the police first (in the footage at least). Is it possible that the protesters were just throwing the canisters back? Yes, it is possible. The police claim otherwise, however. In a recent news conference the police claimed that protesters used a different type of gas canister (which has an expiry date of May 2012). The green canister is in amazingly good condition compared to the silver canister. Well, we all should be convinced, now. Everybody realizes just how high the standard of equipment maintenance is in Thailand, and that the police of course would never use CS after its expiry date. Edited November 24, 2012 by Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts