Pheu Thai fully cooperating with govt, former MP assures Prayuth

[SheungWan]

Try to keep up, the reason we are in a coup situation is because of PT's failure.

You forgot to mention that Thaksin and his proxy parties have been repeatedly banned for election fraud.

Again we see the continued silliness of calling anyone who does not subscribe to their party yellow.

I suppose those who feel they have to belong to a grouping find it difficult to understand that there are others who have no need to be part of any group and can function as individuals without cheerleaders or others guide them.

It must also be difficult after so many years of having the thinking done for them (Thaksin thinks.............) to actually have independent thoughts of their own.

1. Wrong, on too many counts to list.

2. Banned by who? Corrupted yellow courts. Doesn't count, the same way the upcoming conviction of the two Koh Tao scapegoats doesn't count.

3. This conflict is black and white, there is no grey. One either believes in democracy (Red) or one doesn't (Yellow). All else is secondary.

4. Those that function as individuals don't swallow whole ridiculous fallacies and propaganda - you clearly don't fit this bill.

5. See item 4 above

Presumably that would be the corrupted courts which Thaksin's lawyers failed to bribe with lunch boxes filled with cash for the judges.

If there is one thing as certain as the original Robespierre going to the guillotine it is the fantasies of the latter-day wannabe sans-culottes endlessly parading on Thaksin's motorcade.

That would be the democracy motorcade all us good folk are endlessly parading on.

It is as well to remember the historical origins of those who prattle on about democracy but hide their true intentions or in this case hardly deign to do so. Robespierre was an elected deputy in France post-1789 but increasingly used the sans-culottes to both intimidate those who he opposed (ring any bells in Thailand?) and eventually overthrow the Girondins in favour of the Jacobin who Robespierre led. What came afterwards was the Great Terror and undermining of state institutions which resisted the Jacobin onslaught and throwing of opponents to the guillotine. Now fast forward to the C20 and one finds that a number of Jacobin Societies are just Stalinist front organisations for the defence of Stalin (and Stalinist Russia) justified as necessary equivalents to that of Robespierre et al. It is no secret that the remnants of the old Thailand CP hitched their wagon to Thaksin and subsumed themselves into the red movement. The quaint term is political liquidationism. So when next time someone takes on the mantle of Robespierre and straps themselves to the front of Thaksin's bus, know where they politically are coming from. It ain't pretty and what they have in mind for Thailand is distinctly ugly whatever fake democratic mask they are wearing.

Edited October 26, 2014 by SheungWan

[AleG]

Now you provide an example of the typical dishonesty and disconnection with reality of a Thaksin/Red Shirt apologist.

As you put it yourself "3. This conflict is black and white, there is no grey. One either believes in democracy (Red) or one doesn't (Yellow)." You can't face reality with all its nuances, so you retreat into a self satisfying fantasy dividing things into a neat binary system.

Since I showed something that proves the lie of Thaksin and his political party as a motor for Democracy you simply assume I'm a Yellow Shirt sympathizer, no need to think, just knee-jerk reaction and back to the comfort of your bubble.

You know, whenever I have to show to people the moral bankruptcy of Thaksin's parties and his Red Shirt movement I only need to point to things people like you say and do, it's a fantastic way of discrediting them, no need to resort (as you do) to fallacies and propaganda. Keep up the good work!

What is more important, restoring democracy or cleaning up a few beaches?

If democracy is not restored, in swift order, the people will once again take to the streets and there will be more economic difficulties and unnecessary deaths in this land.

If the beaches are not cleaned up, life will go on as it always has.

Your nuances are in fact mere obfuscations to avoid the real issue - democracy or the lack thereof.

Ditto for the absurd demonisation of Thaksin on so many ridiculous fronts - obfuscations and misdirections.

Make as many excuses as you wish, misdirect the debate as much as you want, it all just shows the lack of a solid, factual basis for the yellow anti-democratic position that you support!

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

Decent folk say it's not, you on the other hand think it is.

Decent folk say it's not, you on the other hand think it is.

Two words come to mind: Moral Onanism.

Just as likely to engender anything as the physical one.

Edited October 26, 2014 by AleG

[AleG]

It is as well to remember the historical origins of those who prattle on about democracy but hide their true intentions or in this case hardly deign to do so. Robespierre was an elected deputy in France post-1789 but increasingly used the sans-culottes to both intimidate those who he opposed (ring any bells in Thailand?) and eventually overthrow the Girondins in favour of the Jacobin who Robespierre led. What came afterwards was the Great Terror and undermining of state institutions which resisted the Jacobin onslaught and throwing of opponents to the guillotine. Now fast forward to the C20 and one finds that a number of Jacobin Societies are just Stalinist front organisations for the defence of Stalin (and Stalinist Russia) justified as necessary equivalents to that of Robespierre et al. It is no secret that the remnants of the old Thailand CP hitched their wagon to Thaksin and subsumed themselves into the red movement. The quaint term is political liquidationism. So when next time someone takes on the mantle of Robespierre and straps themselves to the front of Thaksin's bus, know where they politically are coming from. It ain't pretty and what they have in mind for Thailand is distinctly ugly whatever fake democratic mask they are wearing.

You may want to add to your analysis that he used the username Torkmada before (misspelling historical names seems to be his thing).

[Robespiere]

Now you provide an example of the typical dishonesty and disconnection with reality of a Thaksin/Red Shirt apologist.

As you put it yourself "3. This conflict is black and white, there is no grey. One either believes in democracy (Red) or one doesn't (Yellow)." You can't face reality with all its nuances, so you retreat into a self satisfying fantasy dividing things into a neat binary system.

Since I showed something that proves the lie of Thaksin and his political party as a motor for Democracy you simply assume I'm a Yellow Shirt sympathizer, no need to think, just knee-jerk reaction and back to the comfort of your bubble.

You know, whenever I have to show to people the moral bankruptcy of Thaksin's parties and his Red Shirt movement I only need to point to things people like you say and do, it's a fantastic way of discrediting them, no need to resort (as you do) to fallacies and propaganda. Keep up the good work!

What is more important, restoring democracy or cleaning up a few beaches?

If democracy is not restored, in swift order, the people will once again take to the streets and there will be more economic difficulties and unnecessary deaths in this land.

If the beaches are not cleaned up, life will go on as it always has.

Your nuances are in fact mere obfuscations to avoid the real issue - democracy or the lack thereof.

Ditto for the absurd demonisation of Thaksin on so many ridiculous fronts - obfuscations and misdirections.

Make as many excuses as you wish, misdirect the debate as much as you want, it all just shows the lack of a solid, factual basis for the yellow anti-democratic position that you support!

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

Decent folk say it's not, you on the other hand think it is.

Decent folk say it's not, you on the other hand think it is.

Two words come to mind: Moral Onanism.

Just as likely to engender anything as the physical one.

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

[AleG]

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

[Robespiere]

It is as well to remember the historical origins of those who prattle on about democracy but hide their true intentions or in this case hardly deign to do so. Robespierre was an elected deputy in France post-1789 but increasingly used the sans-culottes to both intimidate those who he opposed (ring any bells in Thailand?) and eventually overthrow the Girondins in favour of the Jacobin who Robespierre led. What came afterwards was the Great Terror and undermining of state institutions which resisted the Jacobin onslaught and throwing of opponents to the guillotine. Now fast forward to the C20 and one finds that a number of Jacobin Societies are just Stalinist front organisations for the defence of Stalin (and Stalinist Russia) justified as necessary equivalents to that of Robespierre et al. It is no secret that the remnants of the old Thailand CP hitched their wagon to Thaksin and subsumed themselves into the red movement. The quaint term is political liquidationism. So when next time someone takes on the mantle of Robespierre and straps themselves to the front of Thaksin's bus, know where they politically are coming from. It ain't pretty and what they have in mind for Thailand is distinctly ugly whatever fake democratic mask they are wearing.

....prattle on about democracy.....

So nice and considerate of you to be so flippant and dismissive when discussing the rights and freedoms as well as the hopes and futures of an entire nations citizens.

BTW - Thaksinomics is about as far from communism as one can get.

[Robespiere]

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Then why support anti-democrats?

Fascinating how the yellow case wilts in the face of direct questioning.

As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the definitions of facts and propaganda muddled up

[AleG]

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Then why support anti-democrats?

Fascinating how the yellow case wilts in the face of direct questioning.

As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the definitions of facts and propaganda muddled up

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

[JOC]

The junta's action in taking absolute power was illegal under the existing Constitution and a number of articles under the Criminal Code. Is Pheu Thai now conceding that its performance as the legitimate government of Thailand was so bad that it justified the coup and that they are now repenting on the creation of a situation in which treason was in some way a legitimate response?

i dont care nor does my Thai family or many Thai friends if it keeps vile Shins out and head of pile of @##$%#@# Taksin out. Believe me for a lot here hatred of Reds and shins far outweighs if not in bought support supporters of Reds and Taksin

Then why are you so afraid of the ballot-box??

As for the votebuying, the backers of the yellows are far more wealthy than Thaksin!!

[Robespiere]

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Then why support anti-democrats?

Fascinating how the yellow case wilts in the face of direct questioning.

As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the definitions of facts and propaganda muddled up

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Don't understand what?

There is no real, valid reason Thailand can't immediately go to the polls and let the people elect a new government now, is there?

Explain to me why there is this as yet undetermined delay and how this denial of franchise to everyday Thais is just.

Free me from the bubble, I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

[AleG]

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Don't understand what?

There is no real, valid reason Thailand can't immediately go to the polls and let the people elect a new government now, is there?

Explain to me why there is this as yet undetermined delay and how this denial of franchise to everyday Thais is just.

Free me from the bubble, I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

I'm not your Thread Derailing toy, go fetch a ball or something.

[JOC]

Repeat....

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

It's a yes or no question (it is also an incredibly simple question for decent folks to answer)

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Then why support anti-democrats?

Fascinating how the yellow case wilts in the face of direct questioning.

As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the definitions of facts and propaganda muddled up

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Just proving how little you know about the real powerstructure within Thai society!!

[AleG]

No, it is not.

It's also not morally right to be a propaganda peddler for someone like Thaksin, so really, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't understand.

Then why support anti-democrats?

Fascinating how the yellow case wilts in the face of direct questioning.

As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the definitions of facts and propaganda muddled up

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Just proving how little you know about the real powerstructure within Thai society!!

Oh... another mind reader; pray tell, how and what do you infer I know or do not know about the power structures in Thai society from my post?

[SheungWan]

It is as well to remember the historical origins of those who prattle on about democracy but hide their true intentions or in this case hardly deign to do so. Robespierre was an elected deputy in France post-1789 but increasingly used the sans-culottes to both intimidate those who he opposed (ring any bells in Thailand?) and eventually overthrow the Girondins in favour of the Jacobin who Robespierre led. What came afterwards was the Great Terror and undermining of state institutions which resisted the Jacobin onslaught and throwing of opponents to the guillotine. Now fast forward to the C20 and one finds that a number of Jacobin Societies are just Stalinist front organisations for the defence of Stalin (and Stalinist Russia) justified as necessary equivalents to that of Robespierre et al. It is no secret that the remnants of the old Thailand CP hitched their wagon to Thaksin and subsumed themselves into the red movement. The quaint term is political liquidationism. So when next time someone takes on the mantle of Robespierre and straps themselves to the front of Thaksin's bus, know where they politically are coming from. It ain't pretty and what they have in mind for Thailand is distinctly ugly whatever fake democratic mask they are wearing.

....prattle on about democracy.....

So nice and considerate of you to be so flippant and dismissive when discussing the rights and freedoms as well as the hopes and futures of an entire nations citizens.

BTW - Thaksinomics is about as far from communism as one can get.

I wondered whether we had an old Tankie (or wannabe) on our hands and so it seems. Now lets deal with the Thaksonomics Vs Communism attempted distraction. Its as well to realise that we aren't dealing here with the abstracts of communism or even the laughable so-called principles of Thaksonomics. No, we are confronting the real politic of old-style Stalinism which though decisively defeated in the West in 1989 continues to survive not only in pockets in the West (often renamed The Democratic Party, ha!) but also in individuals travelling abroad. Thailand not only has its sexpats but also washed-up left-wing politicos looking for a little frisson in the LOS. Whatever the dynamics of Thaksin, our new friends can slot easily into kissing his nether regions under the umbrella of Popular Frontism. One might have recommended that someone looking for a French Revolutionary hero might look more towards a name such as Marat. But he had a little trouble in the bathroom. And it wasn't Pattaya style slipping on the bathmat and being pixellated in a news report.

Edited October 26, 2014 by SheungWan

[Robespiere]

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Don't understand what?

There is no real, valid reason Thailand can't immediately go to the polls and let the people elect a new government now, is there?

Explain to me why there is this as yet undetermined delay and how this denial of franchise to everyday Thais is just.

Free me from the bubble, I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

I'm not your Thread Derailing toy, go fetch a ball or something.

Tail between legs, disappearing off into the distance.

Farewell.

[tbthailand]

First the definition:

Ah yes, the one with Thaksin "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal" Shinawatra driving at the front, thank you for providing a perfect example of the Cognitive Dissonance I was referring to.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

In order to support a faction that has continued to do all it can to eliminate democracy: from military and judicial coups to rigged constitutions and courts to the extreme of slaughtering nearly 100 citizens in the streets, you give as an example of the oppositions flaws a mere anti-democratic quote.

Of all the arguments to be made against Thaksin by yellow sympathisers, the anti-democrat one has to be the most absurd, illogical and ridiculous.

If you believe that Thaksin is bad because he (winner of the last 6 election and organiser of 0 of the last 19 coups) is not democratic enough, do tell me what does this mean for your opinion of the current, unelected Premier.

Cognitive Dissonance - your self diagnosis does indeed appear to be spot on. Well done!

Now you provide an example of the typical dishonesty and disconnection with reality of a Thaksin/Red Shirt apologist.

As you put it yourself "3. This conflict is black and white, there is no grey. One either believes in democracy (Red) or one doesn't (Yellow)." You can't face reality with all its nuances, so you retreat into a self satisfying fantasy dividing things into a neat binary system.

Since I showed something that proves the lie of Thaksin and his political party as a motor for Democracy you simply assume I'm a Yellow Shirt sympathizer, no need to think, just knee-jerk reaction and back to the comfort of your bubble.

You know, whenever I have to show to people the moral bankruptcy of Thaksin's parties and his Red Shirt movement I only need to point to things people like you say and do, it's a fantastic way of discrediting them, no need to resort (as you do) to fallacies and propaganda. Keep up the good work!

What is more important, restoring democracy or cleaning up a few beaches?

If democracy is not restored, in swift order, the people will once again take to the streets and there will be more economic difficulties and unnecessary deaths in this land.

If the beaches are not cleaned up, life will go on as it always has.

Your nuances are in fact mere obfuscations to avoid the real issue - democracy or the lack thereof.

Ditto for the absurd demonisation of Thaksin on so many ridiculous fronts - obfuscations and misdirections.

Make as many excuses as you wish, misdirect the debate as much as you want, it all just shows the lack of a solid, factual basis for the yellow anti-democratic position that you support!

Is it morally right to deny the citizens of a country the right to select their own government?

Decent folk say it's not, you on the other hand think it is.

the elite / military in Thailand have always felt that it is their right to withhold democracy from the Thai people.

And they fight like He44 to do that.

[MaxLee]

In the end, to put it simple, it's a race about, which party will convert Thailand into China Jr. aka North Korea Jr. first...

[AleG]

You see, this: Then why support anti-democrats? is all in your head, understand? It's fairy tales you invent to make yourself look good; need another Kleenex?

Nah, you don't understand, understanding would break the bubble you live in and then you would have to face reality and facts.

Don't understand what?

There is no real, valid reason Thailand can't immediately go to the polls and let the people elect a new government now, is there?

Explain to me why there is this as yet undetermined delay and how this denial of franchise to everyday Thais is just.

Free me from the bubble, I'm waiting in eager anticipation.

I'm not your Thread Derailing toy, go fetch a ball or something.

Tail between legs, disappearing off into the distance.

Farewell.

No, not at all, it's just that I consider it a waste of time to argue with dishonest people.

But hey, you seems absolutely desperate to pat yourself in the back at any and all (imagined) victories, knock yourself out.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Try to keep up, the reason we are in a coup situation is because of PT's failure.

You forgot to mention that Thaksin and his proxy parties have been repeatedly banned for election fraud.

Again we see the continued silliness of calling anyone who does not subscribe to their party yellow.

I suppose those who feel they have to belong to a grouping find it difficult to understand that there are others who have no need to be part of any group and can function as individuals without cheerleaders or others guide them.

It must also be difficult after so many years of having the thinking done for them (Thaksin thinks.............) to actually have independent thoughts of their own.

1. Wrong, on too many counts to list.

2. Banned by who? Corrupted yellow courts. Doesn't count, the same way the upcoming conviction of the two Koh Tao scapegoats doesn't count.

3. This conflict is black and white, there is no grey. One either believes in democracy (Red) or one doesn't (Yellow). All else is secondary.

4. Those that function as individuals don't swallow whole ridiculous fallacies and propaganda - you clearly don't fit this bill.

5. See item 4 above

Nah,, to repeat your own words,,,, wrong on too many counts.

Quote from you: "One either believes in democracy (Red) .........."

not only wrong but very dishonest and deliberately misleading.

[visionchaser45]

I think the question should not be who participated in the armed conflict as much as who fired the first shot. I think we can easily establish that the protests were quite peaceful until the military started shooting people. I agree that it was a mistake to shoot back because Ghandi proved that peaceful resistance is more effective against a more powerful and ruthless foe. I believe they have learned from that experience, which is why they have taken their current path of not resisting.

If by "quite peaceful" you mean, among other things, threatening to burn down Bangkok and a long list of other targets, nearly daily grenade and bomb attacks throughout the city, the storming of ThaiCom and Parliament, an M-79 attack on army barracks injuring three, the spilling of liters of blood at Parliament and Abhisit's home, and of course the violence of the 2009 protests and other previous acts (ranging from lynching political opponents down) by Red Shirts then you have a very convenient definition of "quite peaceful".

Of course now the Cognitive Dissonance will kick in and you'll find a way to rationalize everything so that you don't have to change your mindset.

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

[AleG]

I think the question should not be who participated in the armed conflict as much as who fired the first shot. I think we can easily establish that the protests were quite peaceful until the military started shooting people. I agree that it was a mistake to shoot back because Ghandi proved that peaceful resistance is more effective against a more powerful and ruthless foe. I believe they have learned from that experience, which is why they have taken their current path of not resisting.

If by "quite peaceful" you mean, among other things, threatening to burn down Bangkok and a long list of other targets, nearly daily grenade and bomb attacks throughout the city, the storming of ThaiCom and Parliament, an M-79 attack on army barracks injuring three, the spilling of liters of blood at Parliament and Abhisit's home, and of course the violence of the 2009 protests and other previous acts (ranging from lynching political opponents down) by Red Shirts then you have a very convenient definition of "quite peaceful".

Of course now the Cognitive Dissonance will kick in and you'll find a way to rationalize everything so that you don't have to change your mindset.

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

By "PDRC's list of complete nonsense" you refer to the facts I listed and cited?

Thank you for proving my point.

[tbthailand]

I think the question should not be who participated in the armed conflict as much as who fired the first shot. I think we can easily establish that the protests were quite peaceful until the military started shooting people. I agree that it was a mistake to shoot back because Ghandi proved that peaceful resistance is more effective against a more powerful and ruthless foe. I believe they have learned from that experience, which is why they have taken their current path of not resisting.

If by "quite peaceful" you mean, among other things, threatening to burn down Bangkok and a long list of other targets, nearly daily grenade and bomb attacks throughout the city, the storming of ThaiCom and Parliament, an M-79 attack on army barracks injuring three, the spilling of liters of blood at Parliament and Abhisit's home, and of course the violence of the 2009 protests and other previous acts (ranging from lynching political opponents down) by Red Shirts then you have a very convenient definition of "quite peaceful".

Of course now the Cognitive Dissonance will kick in and you'll find a way to rationalize everything so that you don't have to change your mindset.

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

By "PDRC's list of complete nonsense" you refer to the facts I listed and cited?

Thank you for proving my point.

you're trolling posters in 2014 with your 2010 blathering.

[AleG]

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

By "PDRC's list of complete nonsense" you refer to the facts I listed and cited?

Thank you for proving my point.

you're trolling posters in 2014 with your 2010 blathering.

By blathering you mean the facts I listed and cited in response to visionchaser45 comments about 2010?

Thank you too for proving my point.

[visionchaser45]

I think the question should not be who participated in the armed conflict as much as who fired the first shot. I think we can easily establish that the protests were quite peaceful until the military started shooting people. I agree that it was a mistake to shoot back because Ghandi proved that peaceful resistance is more effective against a more powerful and ruthless foe. I believe they have learned from that experience, which is why they have taken their current path of not resisting.

If by "quite peaceful" you mean, among other things, threatening to burn down Bangkok and a long list of other targets, nearly daily grenade and bomb attacks throughout the city, the storming of ThaiCom and Parliament, an M-79 attack on army barracks injuring three, the spilling of liters of blood at Parliament and Abhisit's home, and of course the violence of the 2009 protests and other previous acts (ranging from lynching political opponents down) by Red Shirts then you have a very convenient definition of "quite peaceful".

Of course now the Cognitive Dissonance will kick in and you'll find a way to rationalize everything so that you don't have to change your mindset.

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

By "PDRC's list of complete nonsense" you refer to the facts I listed and cited?

Thank you for proving my point.

"Facts" are an interesting thing. One man's facts are another man's bullshit. Once you come to the realization that your "facts" are simply a product of the information you glean from various sources you choose to consult being passed through your own cognitive filters, then you will understand that your facts boil down to opinions. I do not share your opinions.

[AleG]

If by "quite peaceful" you mean, among other things, threatening to burn down Bangkok and a long list of other targets, nearly daily grenade and bomb attacks throughout the city, the storming of ThaiCom and Parliament, an M-79 attack on army barracks injuring three, the spilling of liters of blood at Parliament and Abhisit's home, and of course the violence of the 2009 protests and other previous acts (ranging from lynching political opponents down) by Red Shirts then you have a very convenient definition of "quite peaceful".

Of course now the Cognitive Dissonance will kick in and you'll find a way to rationalize everything so that you don't have to change your mindset.

I experience no cognitive dissonance, simply because you choose to believe differently. I am only surprised that someone who is seemingly educated enough to use the term "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence actually believes the PDRC's line of complete nonsense. You are correct, however, that I have no intention to change my "mindset."

By "PDRC's list of complete nonsense" you refer to the facts I listed and cited?

Thank you for proving my point.

"Facts" are an interesting thing. One man's facts are another man's bullshit. Once you come to the realization that your "facts" are simply a product of the information you glean from various sources you choose to consult being passed through your own cognitive filters, then you will understand that your facts boil down to opinions. I do not share your opinions.

So, what you are saying is the things I listed and cited didn't happen?

Thank you again for proving my point. You are firmly stuck in the ignore/deny state of Cognitive Dissonance.

[metisdead]

Trolling nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

[longway]

^ he had some good policies for sure, but was fortuitous in his timing. The last outing was not so stellar, they just seemed to be on a massive thieving binge, like thry knew it was not going to last; and how right they were