why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

So when you said that Arisman got in trouble for telling the truth you actually meant what?

I think he was referring to the RED version of the truth, which differs somewhat from the historical record.

truth as in

not this echo chamber

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

I'm intrigued with this "robbing power" malarky.

How was it stolen? Did a policeman come to arrest Aphisit? Was there a bag with "Thai Power" embroidered on it?

intrigued my ...

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

I'm intrigued with this "robbing power" malarky.

How was it stolen? Did a policeman come to arrest Aphisit? Was there a bag with "Thai Power" embroidered on it?

intrigued my ...

What eloquence. Obviously a Shakespearian.

Explain how "power was stolen"

truth as in

not this echo chamber

So you've got nothing then, just repeating baseless lies.

i see the nutters arecircling the wagons

dont let reality ruin your day

i see the nutters arecircling the wagons

dont let reality ruin your day

Funny how you don't support your reality with facts or a coherent argument, why is that?

i see the nutters arecircling the wagons

dont let reality ruin your day

Funny how you don't support your reality with facts or a coherent argument, why is that?

unless you are capable of substantiating your statements the your "reality" is just something that exists between your ears

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

Presumably that would be the Arisman who was taped urging the redshirts to burn down Bangkok.

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

Presumably that would be the Arisman who was taped urging the redshirts to burn down Bangkok.

The very same.

The one who led a mob to Abhisit's house to throw AIDS infected blood and human faeces into his family's personal abode

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

Presumably that would be the Arisman who was taped urging the redshirts to burn down Bangkok.

The very same.

The one who led a mob to Abhisit's house to throw AIDS infected blood and human faeces into his family's personal abode

Yes sir ladies and gentlemen this person, and I refrain from using the word man, is a real pillar of the community. A excellent role model for not only his own children but for every child in Thailand.

Now before I get all these nasty responses guys this is satire. It's a shame I have to explain that.

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

Presumably that would be the Arisman who was taped urging the redshirts to burn down Bangkok.

The very same.

The one who led a mob to Abhisit's house to throw AIDS infected blood and human faeces into his family's personal abode

Yes sir ladies and gentlemen this person, and I refrain from using the word man, is a real pillar of the community. A excellent role model for not only his own children but for every child in Thailand.

Now before I get all these nasty responses guys this is satire. It's a shame I have to explain that.

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Since he has yet to comment on the content of Arisman's video and had to be dragged towards even reluctantly acknowledging its existence, then defending Arisman by kicking up some sand would be about par for the course.

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Lies, lies ???]

How is it lies ???

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Lies, lies ???]

How is it lies ???

Can you prove that this is not a lie?

Some here always come back with the same stuff, without any substantiate evidences.

Reds have invaded the center of Bangkok, set up an encampment, provoked officials continuously, spilled human and pig infected blood, dressed barricades, launched grenades, drew the first blood by killing officials who were doing the job that everyone would expect them to do, and you guys always come back with this "Abhisit used snipers for crowd control" crap.....What crowd? You mean the group of armed terrorists that was breaking ALL the laws and was threatening to kill more officials and to burn Bangkok?

Now if reds did not do all the above and more, there would not be even no reason to talk about it!

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Lies, lies ???]

How is it lies ???

Can you prove that this is not a lie?

Some here always come back with the same stuff, without any substantiate evidences.

Reds have invaded the center of Bangkok, set up an encampment, provoked officials continuously, spilled human and pig infected blood, dressed barricades, launched grenades, drew the first blood by killing officials who were doing the job that everyone would expect them to do, and you guys always come back with this "Abhisit used snipers for crowd control" crap.....What crowd? You mean the group of armed terrorists that was breaking ALL the laws and was threatening to kill more officials and to burn Bangkok?

Now if reds did not do all the above and more, there would not be even no reason to talk about it!

I think the double negative in your last sentence indicates your tacit admission that the government of the day DID use snipers to murder Thai citizens.

Wouldn't you agree ?????

Presumably you are talking about ex prime minister AV and his use of snipers for crowd control.

That is literally spilling blood..............

Talking about lies, you expect that if you repeat that often enough it will become true?

Lies, lies ???]

How is it lies ???

Snipers where used to counteract armed terrorists within the Red Shirt protesters. I was there when Red Shirt crowds began to protest and guess what, snipers were not shooting at people to keep them under control. An armed response from the government only happened when war weapons were used from within the Red Shirt ranks.

You are, of course, free to provide evidence that Abhisit deployed snipers with orders to shoot indiscriminately into crowds of protesters.

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

4th stage, shoot them in the head..................

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

I believe history shows that some former TRT factions moved to support to the democrats.

Is that "robbing"?

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

4th stage, shoot them in the head..................

You and your porky pies. Sure you don't work for the government?

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

4th stage, shoot them in the head..................

You and your porky pies. Sure you don't work for the government?

porky pie must be something you brits understand

we call em big fat lies

in this case, its not

i think even your favorite yellow rag dared to publish the news on the government snipers in 2010

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

I believe history shows that some former TRT factions moved to support to the democrats.

Is that "robbing"?

wow

so the obvious is out. you know what happened and just pretend it wasn't slithering into power

see, youre all tranparent as water

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

4th stage, shoot them in the head..................

You and your porky pies. Sure you don't work for the government?

Full of denial and other malodorous stuff...............

No kidding, the government didn't use snipers.......

Well, what can be said? Red Shirt History is a tale full of sound and fury...

Well, what can be said? Red Shirt History is a tale full of sound and fury...

Better than the yellow fiction here.....................???

Well, what can be said? Red Shirt History is a tale full of sound and fury...

Better than the yellow fiction here.....................???

Obviously Shakespeare goes right over some people's head...

And what would be that fiction you are talking about?

While you are at it you may want to substantiate anything you say.

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Abhisit came to power through some deal making.

Samak came to power through some deal making.

The only difference between the two was that Samak came to power directly after a general election, and Abhisit came to power when PTP didn't call an election.

Both of them were elected PM by MPs that were elected by the people.

Samak was elected by MPs that said they wouldn't support PPP during campaigning.

Abhisit was elected by MPs that decided that they didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party.

Both of them were elected PM by MPs that were elected by the people.

If people don't like what their MPs did then they shouldn't vote for them ... which is what happened in some cases in 2011. In other cases, they voted for the same people, as they always do regardless of who the MP decides to support that time around.

Full of denial and other malodorous stuff...............

No kidding, the government didn't use snipers.......

I don't believe they used snipers for crowd control, which is what the statement was.