My Speech In Mongolia Summed Up Lessons Learnt, Yingluck Says

[jayboy]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

[MikeOboe57]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

[jayboy]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

The first step would be to be entirely certain any accusation is correct.If as in this case it is not, the consequences could be severe.These days it is prudent not to make accusations in a forum like this which are slanderous.It is a maxim I follow myself and would commend to others.

[AleG]

Utterly pathetic...

[MikeOboe57]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

The first step would be to be entirely certain any accusation is correct.If as in this case it is not, the consequences could be severe.These days it is prudent not to make accusations in a forum like this which are slanderous.It is a maxim I follow myself and would commend to others.

"An elected government which won two elections with a majority was

overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a

decade to regain their democratic freedom.

Many of you here know

that the government I am talking about was the one with my brother,

Thaksin Shinawatra, as the rightfully elected Prime Minister."

I count two big fat lies. And these are just 3 sentences of her speech.

But the most despicable aspect is that she was on an official mission as the PM of Thailand and spoke like a propaganda loudmouth of a radical red shirt faction. And I think this is more deplorable than her clumsy attempt of rewriting the history of the Shinawatra clan.

[rubl]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

The first step would be to be entirely certain any accusation is correct.If as in this case it is not, the consequences could be severe.These days it is prudent not to make accusations in a forum like this which are slanderous.It is a maxim I follow myself and would commend to others.

The first step is to make absolutely certain that any statement has the stamp of approval of the current government. This not to put extra censorship but to make sure that only approved information will be published. Furthermore we love democracy and hope you also learned a lesson today, especially k. Chai.

[waza]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

So what label would be appropriate for a lying PM? History Rewriter, History Updater, Fact Corrector?

The first step would be to be entirely certain any accusation is correct.If as in this case it is not, the consequences could be severe.These days it is prudent not to make accusations in a forum like this which are slanderous.It is a maxim I follow myself and would commend to others.

Trouble is Thaksin himself makes you both look like liars...

"I'm retreating and not accepting the post of prime minister, but I will stay as caretaker as requested by the Constitution until the day the selection of the prime minister in the House is completed,'' Thaksin said. ``I will do my best and try to ensure reconciliation.''(April 4, 2006)

"Thailand’s prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, will be replaced by his chief deputy, Chidchai Vanasathidya.................CHOKING on his words, at times close to tears: when Thaksin Shinawatra went on television on Tuesday April 4th to announce his resignation as Thailand's prime minister,"

After an audience with the deeply revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej the beleaguered and drained-looking leader announced he would "not accept the premier post" for the sake of national unity but would stay as caretaker prime minister until parliament selects his successor. "We have no time to quarrel," he said, struggling to hold back tears. "I want to see Thai people unite and forget what has happened."

Edited May 11, 2013 by waza

[OzMick]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

After she stated in court that some of Thaksin's assets belonged to her, and the court decided they were not, it was amply demonstrated that she is prepared to lie, to the extent of committing perjury, to protect the family's interests. If her pet pig Tarit had not decided to informally change the definition of perjury, at least as it applied to Shinawatras, she would be facing that charge. Her speech in Mongolia contained demonstrable lies, so calling her liar would be quite accurate, even if still defamatory in Thailand.

[jayboy]

I count two big fat lies. And these are just 3 sentences of her speech.

But the most despicable aspect is that she was on an official mission as the PM of Thailand and spoke like a propaganda loudmouth of a radical red shirt faction. And I think this is more deplorable than her clumsy attempt of rewriting the history of the Shinawatra clan.

The comments made by the PM are agreed by millions of Thais and indeed most intelligent people - not just radical redshirts.As to "the most despicable aspect" similar comments were made by the reactionary right in the US about President Obama traducing his country abroad.He had the last laugh when the American people saw through this meretricious nonsense at the last election.I expect the Thai people will deliver a similar rebuff to similar nonsensical and politically partisan bile. Edited May 11, 2013 by jayboy

[whybother]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

OMFG. What is this thread about? It's not about justification for the the coup. Ofcourse the coup was to remove Thaksin. Where have I said it wasn't.

This thread is about Yingluck lying in her speech, and this discussion is about Thaksin's position at the time of the coup.

You're going to so much effort to change the subject because it seems you're too weak to actually admit that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred.

Why should I be circumspect about calling Yingluck a liar. It is on record that she is a liar. She lied in court. And, the topic of this discussion, she lied when she said that Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Now, can you answer the question I asked in my previous post, or are you going to avoid it again?

Sent from my Phone.

[OzMick]

I count two big fat lies. And these are just 3 sentences of her speech.

But the most despicable aspect is that she was on an official mission as the PM of Thailand and spoke like a propaganda loudmouth of a radical red shirt faction. And I think this is more deplorable than her clumsy attempt of rewriting the history of the Shinawatra clan.

The comments made by the PM are agreed by millions of Thais and indeed most intelligent people - not just radical redshirts.As to "the most despicable aspect" similar comments were made by the reactionary right in the US about President Obama traducing his country abroad.He had the last laugh when the American people saw through this meretricious nonsense at the last election.I expect the Thai people will deliver a similar rebuff to similar nonsensical and politically partisan bile.

Some time back, millions of people and indeed most intelligent people believed that the earth was flat and that the sun rotated about it, and superficially that seemed true. The similarity to the current situation is that those people were uneducated and ignorant of the facts, and believed what they were told.

Of course it would have been a massive loss of face for those most intelligent people to admit they were wrong, to the point that they would slander and even kill those professing the truth.

For you, admitting that PTP and the PM regularly lie to suit their cause, and that many of their supporters are ignorant of the truth, is equally unpalatable and inconvenient. Tough TIT.

[jayboy]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

OMFG. What is this thread about? It's not about justification for the the coup. Ofcourse the coup was to remove Thaksin. Where have I said it wasn't.

This thread is about Yingluck lying in her speech, and this discussion is about Thaksin's position at the time of the coup.

You're going to so much effort to change the subject because it seems you're too weak to actually admit that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred.

Why should I be circumspect about calling Yingluck a liar. It is on record that she is a liar. She lied in court. And, the topic of this discussion, she lied when she said that Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Now, can you answer the question I asked in my previous post, or are you going to avoid it again?

Sent from my Phone.

The thread is about Khun Yingluck's speech in Mongolia, not your personal take on it.

Repetition of some tangential point is a classic device to avoid the substance of an issue.In your case the diversionary factor seized on is Thaksin's constitutional position at the time of the coup, slightly foolish because nobody disputes it.

You have already conceded the coup's objective was to remove Thaksin, the last elected leader of Thailand at the time.This fully justifies Yingluck's comments on the subject.Naturally the Thailand tea party equivalent rages and squirms.They will however have their chance at the next election to express therir opinion (although really want they want is some miltary or judicial intervention to prevent a popular verdict).

[whybother]

 

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

 

OMFG. What is this thread about? It's not about justification for the the coup. Ofcourse the coup was to remove Thaksin. Where have I said it wasn't.

This thread is about Yingluck lying in her speech, and this discussion is about Thaksin's position at the time of the coup.

You're going to so much effort to change the subject because it seems you're too weak to actually admit that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred.

Why should I be circumspect about calling Yingluck a liar. It is on record that she is a liar. She lied in court. And, the topic of this discussion, she lied when she said that Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Now, can you answer the question I asked in my previous post, or are you going to avoid it again?

Sent from my Phone.

 

The thread is about Khun Yingluck's speech in Mongolia, not your personal take on it.

 

Repetition of some tangential point is a classic device to avoid the substance of an issue.In your case the diversionary factor seized on is Thaksin's constitutional position at the time of the coup, slightly foolish because nobody disputes it.

 

You have already conceded the coup's objective was to remove Thaksin, the last elected leader of Thailand at the time.This fully justifies Yingluck's comments on the subject.Naturally the Thailand tea party equivalent rages and squirms.They will however have their chance at the next election to express therir opinion (although really want they want is some miltary or judicial intervention to prevent a popular verdict).

"the last elected leader at the time" but to "THE elected leader at the time".

Sent from my Phone.

[yoshiwara]

Where did I say that the coup wasn't to remove Thaksin. The only thing I have said, which you can't actually accept, was that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

In your opinion, was he the elected PM at the time of the coup or not? It's a simple question which you avoid answering.

Sent from my Phone.

Ah so the purpose of the coup was to remove Thaksin after all.There, it wasn't so difficult to admit it it, was it? Might have saved time if you had admitted that from the outset and thus avoided being so defensive.That's the only point I was making.

As to the constitutional position of Thaksin I'm as well aware as you are are - but it's not relevant to the main issue( however much you would lie it to be for face saving purposes).

Incidentally as a polite suggestion you should be more circumspect in a forum like this in labelling the Prime Minister a liar.

OMFG. What is this thread about? It's not about justification for the the coup. Ofcourse the coup was to remove Thaksin. Where have I said it wasn't.

This thread is about Yingluck lying in her speech, and this discussion is about Thaksin's position at the time of the coup.

You're going to so much effort to change the subject because it seems you're too weak to actually admit that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM when the coup occurred.

Why should I be circumspect about calling Yingluck a liar. It is on record that she is a liar. She lied in court. And, the topic of this discussion, she lied when she said that Thaksin was the elected PM at the time of the coup.

Now, can you answer the question I asked in my previous post, or are you going to avoid it again?

Sent from my Phone.

The thread is about Khun Yingluck's speech in Mongolia, not your personal take on it.

Repetition of some tangential point is a classic device to avoid the substance of an issue.In your case the diversionary factor seized on is Thaksin's constitutional position at the time of the coup, slightly foolish because nobody disputes it.

You have already conceded the coup's objective was to remove Thaksin, the last elected leader of Thailand at the time.This fully justifies Yingluck's comments on the subject.Naturally the Thailand tea party equivalent rages and squirms.They will however have their chance at the next election to express therir opinion (although really want they want is some miltary or judicial intervention to prevent a popular verdict).

The interesting question is why this contributor refuses to acknowledge either that Thaksin was not the elcted prime minister at the time of the coup and also with the content of Arisman's video. It is not an accident in either case. It is straight out of the style of Thida and her old style Stalinist methodology. There are no doubt one or two old CPers and Broad Left activists who think they have found a new home... So on to the significance of our historical evidence and why our friend is prepared to point blank avoid dealing with them. The first concerns Thaksin's status at the time of the coup. Put very simply if he was not the elected PM at the time of the coup then this not only changes the nature of the thing but removes a key foundation stone of the red demands which is that Thaksin should be returned and restored to the position of PM. The second re Arisman's video is that it demolishes the lie that the red occupation of Bangkok was led as a peaceful objective. Our friend is reading directly from the Thaksin song book despite any protestations to the contrary. However isn't it sad that Yingluck has been corralled into peddling the same untruths on behalf of her brother. The man has no shame. And neither has the forum contributor who wants to line up with such nonsense. Such members of the CP who behaved as such in the past were called hacks. Thida, give that man a medal!

[metisdead]

Posters are reminded to stay on topic and to refrain from comments concerning the character of other posters. Posts have been removed.

Removed a post that claimed others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

[rubl]

This topic is indeed on the lesson Ms. Yingluck said she'd learned, allegedly learned with emphasize on truth, democracy and 'my poor brother'. That was in reference to (part of ) her speech in Mongolia.

The part some here seem to be in doubt about:

""It was not to be. An elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.

Many of you here know that the government I am talking about was the one with my brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, as the rightfully elected Prime Minister.""
http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

PS Sept 2006 - July 2011 = 'almost a decade' in Thailand

Edited May 12, 2013 by rubl

[brd199]

This topic is indeed on the lesson Ms. Yingluck said she'd learned, allegedly learned with emphasize on truth, democracy and 'my poor brother'. That was in reference to (part of ) her speech in Mongolia.

The part some here seem to be in doubt about:

""It was not to be. An elected government which won two elections with a majority was overthrown in 2006. Thailand lost track and the people spent almost a decade to regain their democratic freedom.

Many of you here know that the government I am talking about was the one with my brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, as the rightfully elected Prime Minister.""

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/category/thaksin-shinawatra/

PS Sept 2006 - July 2011 = 'almost a decade' in Thailand

PSS Sept 19, 2006 - January 28, 2008 = "almost a decade" in Yingluck's Thailand. It equals 1 year, 4 months in the non-Yingluck world.

[rubl]

The amount of critisism a girl can get by not lying, but with suggestively putting disjunct pieces of truth together. The PM in her speech did 'not say' a lot. A.O.:

she didn't say Thaksin was rightfully PM at the time of coup.
she didn't mention the last general election before the coup, the April 2006 one
she didn't mention the start date of the 'almost a decade' wait
she didn't mention the end date of the 'almost a decade' wait

Reading the OP again the lesson learned seems to have been the speech. That would include the 'not saying' I guess?

[sbk]

The amount of critisism a girl can get by not lying, but with suggestively putting disjunct pieces of truth together. The PM in her speech did 'not say' a lot. A.O.:

she didn't say Thaksin was rightfully PM at the time of coup.

she didn't mention the last general election before the coup, the April 2006 one

she didn't mention the start date of the 'almost a decade' wait

she didn't mention the end date of the 'almost a decade' wait

Reading the OP again the lesson learned seems to have been the speech. That would include the 'not saying' I guess?

Well good on Yingluck if shes still a girl at her age, that means I get to be one too.

[rubl]

The amount of critisism a girl can get by not lying, but with suggestively putting disjunct pieces of truth together. The PM in her speech did 'not say' a lot. A.O.:

she didn't say Thaksin was rightfully PM at the time of coup.

she didn't mention the last general election before the coup, the April 2006 one

she didn't mention the start date of the 'almost a decade' wait

she didn't mention the end date of the 'almost a decade' wait

Reading the OP again the lesson learned seems to have been the speech. That would include the 'not saying' I guess?

Well good on Yingluck if shes still a girl at her age, that means I get to be one too.

Since you still carry that whiplash I don't like to displease you, but next time you write something like "play nice, boys" I'll be tempted to reply "yes mother"

[mikemac]

In case you hadn't noticed the people of Thailand have endorsed political parties associated with him again and again.

The voters would endorse Daffy Duck if he threw enough loot at them !