Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit

[rixalex]

I have been in Thailand on and off since 1994 and in total for around 13 years. My Thai language skills are excellent, I can easily understand Thai parliament, documentaries, talk shows, newspapers and books.

I live in central Bangkok and have a wide range of Thai friends ranging from one with a PHD in Thai literature to others with limited formal education.

I remember gauging opinion on the street during the protests. Each evening I would walk around the nearby market and down the street to talk to the local vendors. Overwhelmingly they were red supporters. They were also vitriolic in their hatred for Abhisit, Suthep and Prem. I regularly heard them referring to AV as the "animal" and "murderer". I heard others saying they wanted to personally kill him. Doesn't sound like 'apathy' as you put it. From what I have garnered from the average Thai on the street they are disgusted by AV's role in the perversion of democracy (Anupong's coalition, etc) and even moreso for his excessive use of force in 2010.

Obviously I heard similar hatred towards TS from other Thais, but in every case they were rich, educated, and disenfranchised by Thaksin's populist policies.

Having said all of this, I don't contend any of this to hold any significance to anyone. This was written in direct response to Rivalex's conjecture about me. Any one person's personal experience is not representative of any general truths.

Personal experience should be significant. There are far too many these days who read a few bits and bobs on the internet, and think they know exactly what is going on in a place miles away from them, in a culture they know nothing about and a language they don't understand. I place significance on both what i have experienced and what you have experienced. The only difference is my experiences i know to be true, and yours, i have no idea. Of course that goes both ways.

Anyway, with that said, and taking you at your word...i can't say i'm terribly surprised with the general reaction you say you got from street vendors in Bangkok. Many of them, along with many in service industry in Bangkok, do tend to hark from North East Thailand. If many of them happened to hark from Southern Thailand, or hark from Bangkok itself, perhaps you would have got a completely different reaction.

When i talk about the opinion of people on the street in Thailand, i don't mean it in such a literal sense. Getting feedback from vendors on the streets of Bangkok is a bit like getting feedback from cabbies in London, ie not necessarily representative of the general over-riding view.... which in my experience was, these protests are bloody annoying and i wish the protesters would fig off back home. That over-riding view i hasten to add, i found present during both yellow and red protests.

[Moruya]

I travel up and down the country, have been living here well over a decade, and am able to converse with locals in their own language, and i think you are plain wrong about people hating Abhisit. Hate for the Dems? Yes certainly, in certain parts of the country. More often than not though, the over-riding impression i get about how people feel about both the Dems and Abhisit, is more along the lines of apathy. They feel like the Dems are slow and dithering and to some extent stuck in the past. They feel like Abhisit is a nice guy but question his ability to get things done. There is also a growing sense of sympathy for the way he was stuck in between a rock and a hard place whilst he was in power, and sympathy for the way he is now at the centre of the most blatant and ridiculous hatchet job. That's not to say they want him back in power - recent election results bear that out - but they don't think he deserves what is happening.

And whereas Abhisit illicits little in the way of strong emotion, Thaksin is the polar opposite. I have yet to meet one single Thai person who is on the fence about him. Have you? They either love him with a passion, or they despise his very being. I put it to you that he is likely the single most divisive person in modern day Thai history.

Of course i can only go on what i have heard, what i have seen, and other people may have different experiences. You for one obviously have. I can't help wondering though, for you to have the impression of Thai people despising "toffee nose", as you call him, just how deep within red heartland you are residing? My guess is very deep, and perhaps surrounded by red fanatical in-laws. It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me. It's either that or I, by some freak occurrence, and happening upon Thai people who are completely unrepresentative of all other Thais.

I have been in Thailand on and off since 1994 and in total for around 13 years. My Thai language skills are excellent, I can easily understand Thai parliament, documentaries, talk shows, newspapers and books.

I live in central Bangkok and have a wide range of Thai friends ranging from one with a PHD in Thai literature to others with limited formal education.

I remember gauging opinion on the street during the protests. Each evening I would walk around the nearby market and down the street to talk to the local vendors. Overwhelmingly they were red supporters. They were also vitriolic in their hatred for Abhisit, Suthep and Prem. I regularly heard them referring to AV as the "animal" and "murderer". I heard others saying they wanted to personally kill him. Doesn't sound like 'apathy' as you put it. From what I have garnered from the average Thai on the street they are disgusted by AV's role in the perversion of democracy (Anupong's coalition, etc) and even moreso for his excessive use of force in 2010.

Obviously I heard similar hatred towards TS from other Thais, but in every case they were rich, educated, and disenfranchised by Thaksin's populist policies.

Having said all of this, I don't contend any of this to hold any significance to anyone. This was written in direct response to Rivalex's conjecture about me. Any one person's personal experience is not representative of any general truths.

For somebody so astute in all things Thai, I find it amazing that you have been a member of TVF for only 2 months.

Out yonder is a vast array of opulent pedagogues, so immense that it extends way beyond our conception and thinking. Keystroke mercenaries at the behest of Beelzebub himself

[metisdead]

Discussions of members being possibly returned banned members have been removed. In case some members are not aware:

26) Not to create multiple accounts. Any member found to have more than one account on the ThaiVisa Forum will be suspended. Suspended or banned members found creating additional accounts will be banned immediately.

[righteous]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

H... of a Post F. I haven't been over in this thread, but reading some of the Posts here, like this one, I should have been. Great way to show the agenized caricature being touted in the Opposition Camp. Equally amazing, is how many buy into this spin. This Post is worth saving considering its creativity, and I will do so.

Edited December 21, 2012 by righteous

[Ferangled]

For somebody so astute in all things Thai, I find it amazing that you have been a member of TVF for only 2 months.

Not wishing to offend anyone that has become a tad too embroiled in their online persona, Thai Visa Forum is an anonymous internet forum, not a qualification in proficiency of all things Thai...

[Ferangled]

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

"It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life." Substantiate this BS.

Comparing Abhisit and Hitler is disingenuous, yet you do it.

Later on you wrote that the end justified the means, more than 90 people dead to justify early elections. What a morally bankrupt stance. Nothing else to say.

Well done, completely stripped out of context and even the cheek to call me disingenuous when your post is deliberately so. Unbelievable. Please try not to edit the cr@p out of my posts when quoting them. This is your post to which my remarks were specifically aimed, as you well know.

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections.

Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then?

Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

[rubl]

It's amusing to see that some are so easily distracted, even with a topic like "Abhist/Suhep may face more than 700 charges". Hitler, dictators, and more nonsense.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I can only say one thing here:

[whybother]

Apparently in Argentina, the army have been sent in to control rioting and looting. And there I was thinking that democracies didn't use their army internally. R Amsterdam is going to have a field day.

[rubl]

Apparently in Argentina, the army have been sent in to control rioting and looting. And there I was thinking that democracies didn't use their army internally. R Amsterdam is going to have a field day.

Don't think so, too busy with the very clear case of massacres in Bangkok with the army gunning down unarmed protesters.

From the 12th this month:

"The Wall Street Journal Asia edition has published my letter to the editor responding to their coverage of the murder charges filed against former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. The full text is below:

...

In 2010, Messrs. Abhisit and Suthep presided over a military crackdown that resulted in the deadliest in a long series of massacres of pro-democracy demonstrators. The operation turned parts of Bangkok into “live fire zones” where scores of unarmed demonstrators were gunned down by the authorities."

http://robertamsterd...murder-charges/

Edited December 21, 2012 by rubl

[maidu]

My bias is based on my actual experiences with the Udonthani reds, local government and policing ( lack of in the case of the latter two. )

Good to see your admission of bias. Also, a person's personal experience is insufficient to base an opinion. To have a respected, informed knowledge of the events in question you must be more well rounded by researching every available source.

Wrong. Personal experience is one of the best ways to form an opinion. As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument. If I say 'water is wet,' and someone (who wants to disagree) wants to disprove that opinion, they will come back and say: 'show me every research paper that's been published which asserts 'water is wet.' Then, if I accept the challenge, I spend the next score of weeks googling 'water' and 'wet' so I can amass the research to prove my point. Of course, even a truckload of scholarly papers won't sway the other person who is fixated to believe water is not wet. We have the same sorts of devolved discussions regarding 'global warming' and such on other threads.

Edited December 22, 2012 by metisdead
: 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[maidu]

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections. Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then? Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

The instigators of the protest and the violence have the blood of every single person that died in their hands. They aim with the protests was to discredit Abhisit's government, if they managed to overthrew it all the better, but they must had been uncorking the champagne as people started dying on the streets, such powerful electoral campaign material!

Right on. I agree totally. The elections were scheduled even before the 2010 demonstration started. Ringmaster Thaksin and everyone else knew that. Thaksin wanted to play one-upmanship with Abhisit (who, btw, gained the PM chair democratically). Thaksin and his Red rowdies won, and the proof is his sister in the PM's chair. Abhisit, if defeated, would have gracefully stepped aside, which he did later. Even when Abhisit essentially agreed to the Red's demand (on two publicized occassions) there were frantic phone calls from Dubai telling the Red negotiators to not agree. How many noticed that, near the end of one televised discussion (between Abhisit and the Reds), a Red spokesman was hesitating (about making a decision) and then he got a call on his mobile. Immediatly after that, he grinned and declared the Reds would not agree to the very reasonable deal being offered at that moment.

[whybother]

This explanation is interesting:

Criminal Code's Section 84: "Anyone who is the cause of others to commit crimes either by asking, forcing, hiring, duping or any other means is deemed to be the master of the one who commits a crime, and is punishable as if he is the criminal himself."

Have they charged any soldiers with committing any crimes?

[Rich teacher]

My bias is based on my actual experiences with the Udonthani reds, local government and policing ( lack of in the case of the latter two. )

Good to see your admission of bias. Also, a person's personal experience is insufficient to base an opinion. To have a respected, informed knowledge of the events in question you must be more well rounded by researching every available source.

Wrong. Personal experience is one of the best ways to form an opinion. As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument. If I say 'water is wet,' and someone (who wants to disagree) wants to disprove that opinion, they will come back and say: 'show me every research paper that's been published which asserts 'water is wet.' Then, if I accept the challenge, I spend the next score of weeks googling 'water' and 'wet' so I can amass the research to prove my point. Of course, even a truckload of scholarly papers won't sway the other person who is fixated to believe water is not wet. We have the same sorts of devolved discussions regarding 'global warming' and such on other threads.

Oh well, stick your head further in the sand and go on being an ill-informed bigot.

[Ferangled]

My bias is based on my actual experiences with the Udonthani reds, local government and policing ( lack of in the case of the latter two. )

Good to see your admission of bias. Also, a person's personal experience is insufficient to base an opinion. To have a respected, informed knowledge of the events in question you must be more well rounded by researching every available source.

Wrong. Personal experience is one of the best ways to form an opinion. As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument.

Talk about putting words into people's mouths. Surely the best way to form a balanced opinion is to combine personal experiences and an informed knowledge of the events in question... is that even debatable?!

If one were seeking advice about a particular subject and you had the choice of A. An advisor with personal experience of the subject but no factual knowledge of the events or B. An advisor with an informed knowledge of the events but no personal experience or C. An advisor with both personal experience and an informed knowledge of the events, which would be the best qualified to advise you? It's rather obvious isn't it?

Personal experiences can be very misleading if relied on solely to form one's opinions. This is often the recourse of bigots and racists eg. I met a black guy once and he tried to rob me, so clearly all blacks are criminals.

Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument? That must be one of the most bizarre statements I've read on TV... on second thoughts

Edited December 22, 2012 by Ferangled

[rubl]

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

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

[Rich teacher]

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

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

Yes. There are 2 types of opinions. Informed & ill-informed. Stop arguing for the sake of it. It's pathetic.

[Tatsujin]

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

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

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

[smutcakes]

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

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

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

[rubl]

"In general, an opinion is a belief about matters commonly considered to be subjective, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

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

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

Uh, really?

[AleG]

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

What? Both of them?

[rixalex]

Even when Abhisit essentially agreed to the Red's demand (on two publicized occassions) there were frantic phone calls from Dubai telling the Red negotiators to not agree. How many noticed that, near the end of one televised discussion (between Abhisit and the Reds), a Red spokesman was hesitating (about making a decision) and then he got a call on his mobile. Immediatly after that, he grinned and declared the Reds would not agree to the very reasonable deal being offered at that moment.

Can just imagine how that might have gone:

Jatuporn: Hey boss, you know those early elections we were demanding.... you'll never guess what, the barstewards have only gone and offered them!!

Thaksin: Bugger! Darn it!

Jatuporn: What do we do now boss?

Thaksin: Lets leave it a few days and then we'll refuse it and tag on some silly extra demands. Who says we can't change the goal posts...last thing we need is this thing ending peacefully. Dead bodies wearing red shirts on the front of all the worlds press is what we need to bury this government for good. Make it happen!

Jatuporn: Aye aye sir!

[Moruya]

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

What? Both of them?

I challenge the red underpants brigade to find 5 pro-yellow shirt posts on this forum from current members.

Shouldn't be hard as there is apparently an overabundance of them.

[maidu]

This explanation is interesting:

Criminal Code's Section 84: "Anyone who is the cause of others to commit crimes either by asking, forcing, hiring, duping or any other means is deemed to be the master of the one who commits a crime, and is punishable as if he is the criminal himself."

Have they charged any soldiers with committing any crimes?

Soldiers follow orders. They're trained to kill and destroy. Cops are trained differently. Cops didn't do their jobs at the 2010 Red Shirt riots. Their top brass should be busted for dereliction of duty. If there is one over-riding culprit/instigator of the Red riots in 2010 (and 2009) look no farther than the paymanster and chief inciter - you know who he is. He's the one who fits Criminal Code's Section 84 to a T

Talk about putting words into people's mouths. Surely the best way to form a balanced opinion is to combine personal experiences and an informed knowledge of the events in question... is that even debatable?! If one were seeking advice about a particular subject and you had the choice of A. An advisor with personal experience of the subject but no factual knowledge of the events or B. An advisor with an informed knowledge of the events but no personal experience or C. An advisor with both personal experience and an informed knowledge of the events, which would be the best qualified to advise you? It's rather obvious isn't it?

Personal experiences can be very misleading if relied on solely to form one's opinions. This is often the recourse of bigots and racists eg. I met a black guy once and he tried to rob me, so clearly all blacks are criminals.

Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument? That must be one of the most bizarre statements I've read on TV... on second thoughts

I didn't say personal experience is the ONLY way to gauge a situation. I said it was one of the best. Hand in hand are personal observations. The residents, students, hospital patients/staff, and shopworkers at the commandeered site vicinity in downtown Bkk (during the Red occupation of 2010) - their personal observations and chronicles carry more weight than 2nd or 3rd party references from political propagandists (including T and his lawyers). Go research some of those 1st hand experiences and tell me what you find.

Here's a little tidbit that Red apologists won't want to hear: During the Red riots of 2009, Thaksin was interviewed on a major news station (he was hundreds of miles from Thailand) and asserted that many Red shirts had been killed/disapperared. Of course none of that happened, and we never heard reference to that afterwards.

Edited December 22, 2012 by maidu

[maidu]

Even when Abhisit essentially agreed to the Red's demand (on two publicized occassions) there were frantic phone calls from Dubai telling the Red negotiators to not agree. How many noticed that, near the end of one televised discussion (between Abhisit and the Reds), a Red spokesman was hesitating (about making a decision) and then he got a call on his mobile. Immediatly after that, he grinned and declared the Reds would not agree to the very reasonable deal being offered at that moment.

Can just imagine how that might have gone:

Jatuporn: Hey boss, you know those early elections we were demanding.... you'll never guess what, the barstewards have only gone and offered them!!

Thaksin: Bugger! Darn it!

Jatuporn: What do we do now boss?

Thaksin: Lets leave it a few days and then we'll refuse it and tag on some silly extra demands. Who says we can't change the goal posts...last thing we need is this thing ending peacefully. Dead bodies wearing red shirts on the front of all the worlds press is what we need to bury this government for good. Make it happen!

Jatuporn: Aye aye sir!

It would be so juicy to be able to get recordings or transcripts of those phone calls. Of course, even if there were incriminating proofs, Reds would automatically deny everything.

I predict the International Criminal Court will put Thaksin on the hot seat, in the tradition of former-Yugoslavian thugs they got in recent years. I can't say when, but it will happen. There's just too much blood in Thaksin's footprints. No amount of witch-hunting against Abhisit will sway the justices in Europe.

[Ferangled]

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

What? Both of them?

I challenge the red underpants brigade to find 5 pro-yellow shirt posts on this forum from current members.

Shouldn't be hard as there is apparently an overabundance of them.

I return your challenge and would ask you to identify 5 pro-red shirt posts on this forum. Similarly I'd ask Tatsujin, our resident troll, to stop making smarmy comments about other members and actually start contributing to these threads constructively.

You throw around the terms red apologists, red sympathisers etc with absolutely no basis. It's just a childish way at avoiding tackling the actual points raised. I actually believe that many on here sympathise with no political party in Thailand but recognise the hypocrisy on both sides and simply support the ideals of democracy.

[maidu]

Ferangled asks me, "Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument?"

Maidu responds; No. The sentence you misquoted stated, "As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument."

Dear Ferangled, next time you draw a conclusion about what I write, try to at least get the words right.

The sentence was a response to an assertion by Rich Teacher which stated, "researching every available source." ......as required (by him) to back up an opinion.

Lawyers commonly do that. When they have a losing argument, they resort to requesting truckloads of documents from their adversaries. In other words, making them work their tails off for weeks, and delaying due process.

Edited December 22, 2012 by maidu

[Ferangled]

I didn't say personal experience is the ONLY way to gauge a situation. I said it was one of the best. Hand in hand are personal observations. The residents, students, hospital patients/staff, and shopworkers at the commandeered site vicinity in downtown Bkk (during the Red occupation of 2010) - their personal observations and chronicles carry more weight than 2nd or 3rd party references from political propagandists (including T and his lawyers). Go research some of those 1st hand experiences and tell me what you find.

Here's a little tidbit that Red apologists won't want to hear: During the Red riots of 2009, Thaksin was interviewed on a major news station (he was hundreds of miles away) and asserted that many Red shirts had been killed/disapperared. Of course none of that happened, and we never heard reference to that afterwards.

You seem to be getting confused Maidu. Witness accounts that others gave are not your personal experiences, indeed to reference them one would have to research the evidence at hand! Didn't you just assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument? To even be aware of others accounts means you are combining your personal experiences with those of others ie. informing yourself of the events by researching the evidence at hand.

This must be one of the most bizarre little sub arguments I've ever encountered on a TV thread. You are really going to dig your heels in and try to defend what was clearly a nonsensical statement? I believe you have been immersed in Thai life too long because clearly the notion of face and the inability to admit your own mistakes has consumed you. We are all human Maidu and sometimes we write stupid things...

"research is only the recourse of those losing an argument" is one of those times, never mind, happens to us all, move on...

[smutcakes]

Don't bother rubl, i posted that yesterday and the 2 posters who think anyone's "opinion" other than theirs are wrong are never going to change their minds.

On TV there are people on both side of the political opinion that this can apply to. Actually probably more on the yellow shirt sympathizer side.

What? Both of them?

I challenge the red underpants brigade to find 5 pro-yellow shirt posts on this forum from current members.

Shouldn't be hard as there is apparently an overabundance of them.

You for a start. H090, Buchholz, Nickymaster, Pimay1 and thats without thinking.

[Ferangled]

Ferangled asks me, "Did you really assert that research is only the recourse of those losing an argument?"

Maidu responds; No. The sentence you misquoted stated, "As for 'researching every available resource' - that's the refuge of someone who is losing an argument."

nice try Ferangled, but no cigar,

Hint: When you start to talk about yourself in the 3rd person it's time to start worrying!

[maidu]

I return your challenge and would ask you to identify 5 pro-red shirt posts on this forum.

there you go again, asking someone do a bunch of research.