2010 crackdown: NACC gets new evidence

[Baerboxer]

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

[rubl]

You got it. Just having a bit oh fun.

There was no need to say that, that was obvious my dear chap. Mind you, you can sleep soundly, I don't think tbthailand will accuse you of trolling.

it's baiting , not trolling...

I'm surprised you don't see the difference.

Forum rule #9 throws it all together

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Of course, this rule now prevents me from posting a link to the clip out of the Blues Brothers movie, "Can you see the light". Pity really, good music.

[Basil B]

My guess is the new evidence is how the government of 2011-14 fabricated evidence to frame Mark.

If true could see YL and a lot of Uncle T's cronies facing some very serious charges, and a long time inside.

[graft]

Around 20 security officers were killed by red/blackshirts in 2010.

The protestors had rocket launchers, hand grenades. M-16's, AK47's, shot guns, hand guns, knifes, long sharp sticks and home made bombs to name a few. They also tried to violently steal a tank from soldiers. I realize that I owe you some images. Please be patient you will get them when I'm behind a pc.

Whilst all casualties are to be abhorred it doesn't help to bandy around figures that bear no resemblance to reality. In total 9 "security officers" were killed, one of those deaths being the result of a "blue on blue" incident i.e shot and killed by his fellow troops.

Thank you for confirming that troops were killed by red/black shirts. Now the circle is complete. Your figures are wrong but we can leave it there.

Killed by fellow troops? Yeah that would never happen with those well trained armed protestors.. They know exactly what they are shooting at...

Did I? I don't believe I made any comment about who was responsible for the deaths of military personnel apart from the one army chap unfortunately being killed by his colleagues.

My figures are wrong are they? Here are the details of the 9 soldiers killed in 2010 (10, if you count the renegade Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol who was killed by a sniper whilst being interviewed by a reporter from the New York Times);

Col. Romklao Thuwatham, 43, Right neck torn, both legs smashed 10 April

Puriwat Praphan, 25, Died from a wound to the head 10 April

Anupong Muangraphan, 21, Died from bruised chest, both legs were torn 10 April

Singha Onthrong Died from wounds to chest and thigh 10 April

Anupong Hommalee, 22, Head hit by a bomb blast, died in hospital. 10 April

Narong Ritthisara Died during crackdown at the National Memorial 28 April

Karnnuphat Lertchanphen, 38, Shot in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Silom Road 7 May

Wittaya Promsari, 35, Died from a bomb blast during the crackdown at gate 4, Lumpini Park 8 May

Chatchai Chalao, 25, Died from wounds to neck during the crackdown at Lumpini Park 13 May

Edit: 2 other Soldiers killed on the 15th May at Lumpini Park

Pongchalit Thippanontakarn Shot in the head. A sergeant, aged 31.

Anusit Chansanto, 44 Died on the spot. A sergeant

Total 11 Soldiers killed.

I await your detailed list of "around 20". I could give you a list of all the civilians killed in the 2010 "Crackdown" but that's a lot longer list.

Edited June 13, 2015 by graft

[rubl]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

[Robby nz]

Around 20 security officers were killed by red/blackshirts in 2010.

The protestors had rocket launchers, hand grenades. M-16's, AK47's, shot guns, hand guns, knifes, long sharp sticks and home made bombs to name a few. They also tried to violently steal a tank from soldiers. I realize that I owe you some images. Please be patient you will get them when I'm behind a pc.

Whilst all casualties are to be abhorred it doesn't help to bandy around figures that bear no resemblance to reality. In total 9 "security officers" were killed, one of those deaths being the result of a "blue on blue" incident i.e shot and killed by his fellow troops.

Thank you for confirming that troops were killed by red/black shirts. Now the circle is complete. Your figures are wrong but we can leave it there.

Killed by fellow troops? Yeah that would never happen with those well trained armed protestors.. They know exactly what they are shooting at...

Did I? I don't believe I made any comment about who was responsible for the deaths of military personnel apart from the one army chap unfortunately being killed by his colleagues.

My figures are wrong are they? Here are the details of the 9 soldiers killed in 2010 (10, if you count the renegade Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol who was killed by a sniper whilst being interviewed by a reporter from the New York Times);

Col. Romklao Thuwatham, 43, Right neck torn, both legs smashed 10 April

Puriwat Praphan, 25, Died from a wound to the head 10 April

Anupong Muangraphan, 21, Died from bruised chest, both legs were torn 10 April

Singha Onthrong Died from wounds to chest and thigh 10 April

Anupong Hommalee, 22, Head hit by a bomb blast, died in hospital. 10 April

Narong Ritthisara Died during crackdown at the National Memorial 28 April

Karnnuphat Lertchanphen, 38, Shot in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Silom Road 7 May

Wittaya Promsari, 35, Died from a bomb blast during the crackdown at gate 4, Lumpini Park 8 May

Chatchai Chalao, 25, Died from wounds to neck during the crackdown at Lumpini Park 13 May

Edit: 2 other Soldiers killed on the 15th May at Lumpini Park

Pongchalit Thippanontakarn Shot in the head. A sergeant, aged 31.

Anusit Chansanto, 44 Died on the spot. A sergeant

Total 11 Soldiers killed.

I await your detailed list of "around 20". I could give you a list of all the civilians killed in the 2010 "Crackdown" but that's a lot longer list.

You forgot to mention that Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol (Sae Daeng) was killed on orders of either Thaksin or the red leadership after he had come out and said the had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had made him the leader of the reds, sacking the previous leaders for agreeing to disperse in exchange for elections (which they had been demanding).

This was doing 4 things ; 1/ It was exposing Thaksin as the true leader of the riots for it was saying he had the power to hire and fire the leadership, something that had been denied.

2/ Whether true or not it was a huge loss of face for the red leaders an if true a loss of paid position as well.

3/ It was pitting Sae Daeng (and his MIB) against the red leaders and setting up an internal power struggle.

4/ It was causing disruption in the red ranks as the rank and file were not to know if it was true.

All these things played into the hands of the Govt and the military so they had every reason to want Sae Daeng alive at that time to continue to disrupt.

On the other hand Thaksin and the red leaders had ample reason to want him silenced.

I would not be surprised if proof of this was included in the new evidence or the evidence already presented by Abhisit and Suthep.

[phutoie2]

You forgot to mention that Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol (Sae Daeng) was killed on orders of either Thaksin or the red leadership after he had come out and said the had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had made him the leader of the reds, sacking the previous leaders for agreeing to disperse in exchange for elections (which they had been demanding).

This was doing 4 things ; 1/ It was exposing Thaksin as the true leader of the riots for it was saying he had the power to hire and fire the leadership, something that had been denied.

2/ Whether true or not it was a huge loss of face for the red leaders an if true a loss of paid position as well.

3/ It was pitting Sae Daeng (and his MIB) against the red leaders and setting up an internal power struggle.

4/ It was causing disruption in the red ranks as the rank and file were not to know if it was true.

All these things played into the hands of the Govt and the military so they had every reason to want Sae Daeng alive at that time to continue to disrupt.

On the other hand Thaksin and the red leaders had ample reason to want him silenced.

I would not be surprised if proof of this was included in the new evidence or the evidence already presented by Abhisit and Suthep.

He has mentioned Sae Daeng was killed. Though on orders on Thaksin is pure conjecture on your part once again. The rest of your post is pure garbage too. One day those yellow spectacles will fall off your head and you will see Thailand for what it is. Talk about throwing my coffee over the keyboard after reading this piffle -Jeez.

[graft]

Did I? I don't believe I made any comment about who was responsible for the deaths of military personnel apart from the one army chap unfortunately being killed by his colleagues.

My figures are wrong are they? Here are the details of the 9 soldiers killed in 2010 (10, if you count the renegade Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol who was killed by a sniper whilst being interviewed by a reporter from the New York Times);

Col. Romklao Thuwatham, 43, Right neck torn, both legs smashed 10 April

Puriwat Praphan, 25, Died from a wound to the head 10 April

Anupong Muangraphan, 21, Died from bruised chest, both legs were torn 10 April

Singha Onthrong Died from wounds to chest and thigh 10 April

Anupong Hommalee, 22, Head hit by a bomb blast, died in hospital. 10 April

Narong Ritthisara Died during crackdown at the National Memorial 28 April

Karnnuphat Lertchanphen, 38, Shot in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Silom Road 7 May

Wittaya Promsari, 35, Died from a bomb blast during the crackdown at gate 4, Lumpini Park 8 May

Chatchai Chalao, 25, Died from wounds to neck during the crackdown at Lumpini Park 13 May

Edit: 2 other Soldiers killed on the 15th May at Lumpini Park

Pongchalit Thippanontakarn Shot in the head. A sergeant, aged 31.

Anusit Chansanto, 44 Died on the spot. A sergeant

Total 11 Soldiers killed.

I await your detailed list of "around 20". I could give you a list of all the civilians killed in the 2010 "Crackdown" but that's a lot longer list.

You forgot to mention that Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol (Sae Daeng) was killed on orders of either Thaksin or the red leadership after he had come out and said the had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had made him the leader of the reds, sacking the previous leaders for agreeing to disperse in exchange for elections (which they had been demanding).

This was doing 4 things ; 1/ It was exposing Thaksin as the true leader of the riots for it was saying he had the power to hire and fire the leadership, something that had been denied.

2/ Whether true or not it was a huge loss of face for the red leaders an if true a loss of paid position as well.

3/ It was pitting Sae Daeng (and his MIB) against the red leaders and setting up an internal power struggle.

4/ It was causing disruption in the red ranks as the rank and file were not to know if it was true.

All these things played into the hands of the Govt and the military so they had every reason to want Sae Daeng alive at that time to continue to disrupt.

On the other hand Thaksin and the red leaders had ample reason to want him silenced.

I would not be surprised if proof of this was included in the new evidence or the evidence already presented by Abhisit and Suthep.

I didn't mention it because

1) I (or you) do not know who killed him

2) I do not subscribe to convoluted hypothetical conspiracy theories

Any luck with your evidence that my figures were wrong (as you stated) and that your figure of "around 20" was correct? Or was the above conspiracy theory just an attempt at deflection in the hope that I (and others) would forget about your statement?

Edited June 14, 2015 by graft

[graft]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

and by extension, the army had more "democratic fun"/ What a fatuous, offensive remark.

[Baerboxer]

Did I? I don't believe I made any comment about who was responsible for the deaths of military personnel apart from the one army chap unfortunately being killed by his colleagues.

My figures are wrong are they? Here are the details of the 9 soldiers killed in 2010 (10, if you count the renegade Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol who was killed by a sniper whilst being interviewed by a reporter from the New York Times);

Col. Romklao Thuwatham, 43, Right neck torn, both legs smashed 10 April

Puriwat Praphan, 25, Died from a wound to the head 10 April

Anupong Muangraphan, 21, Died from bruised chest, both legs were torn 10 April

Singha Onthrong Died from wounds to chest and thigh 10 April

Anupong Hommalee, 22, Head hit by a bomb blast, died in hospital. 10 April

Narong Ritthisara Died during crackdown at the National Memorial 28 April

Karnnuphat Lertchanphen, 38, Shot in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Silom Road 7 May

Wittaya Promsari, 35, Died from a bomb blast during the crackdown at gate 4, Lumpini Park 8 May

Chatchai Chalao, 25, Died from wounds to neck during the crackdown at Lumpini Park 13 May

Edit: 2 other Soldiers killed on the 15th May at Lumpini Park

Pongchalit Thippanontakarn Shot in the head. A sergeant, aged 31.

Anusit Chansanto, 44 Died on the spot. A sergeant

Total 11 Soldiers killed.

I await your detailed list of "around 20". I could give you a list of all the civilians killed in the 2010 "Crackdown" but that's a lot longer list.

You forgot to mention that Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol (Sae Daeng) was killed on orders of either Thaksin or the red leadership after he had come out and said the had talked to Thaksin and Thaksin had made him the leader of the reds, sacking the previous leaders for agreeing to disperse in exchange for elections (which they had been demanding).

This was doing 4 things ; 1/ It was exposing Thaksin as the true leader of the riots for it was saying he had the power to hire and fire the leadership, something that had been denied.

2/ Whether true or not it was a huge loss of face for the red leaders an if true a loss of paid position as well.

3/ It was pitting Sae Daeng (and his MIB) against the red leaders and setting up an internal power struggle.

4/ It was causing disruption in the red ranks as the rank and file were not to know if it was true.

All these things played into the hands of the Govt and the military so they had every reason to want Sae Daeng alive at that time to continue to disrupt.

On the other hand Thaksin and the red leaders had ample reason to want him silenced.

I would not be surprised if proof of this was included in the new evidence or the evidence already presented by Abhisit and Suthep.

I didn't mention it because

1) I (or you) do not know who killed him

2) I do not subscribe to convoluted hypothetical conspiracy theories

Any luck with your evidence that my figures were wrong (as you stated) and that your figure of "around 20" was correct? Or was the above conspiracy theory just an attempt at deflection in the hope that I (and others) would forget about your statement?

Yes - not been proven who killed him. Not just who pulled the trigger but who gave the order and financed it.

But isn't this a forum for discussion? Some posters suggest, very strongly, he was murdered by the army. Someone else suggests it was on the orders of Thaksin and / or his red shirt leaders. No one knows - no evidence has been made public. Therefore all is speculation.

As for not supporting conspiracy theories - good for you. You won't subscribe to all those conspiracy theorists who like to post that the daily attacks, shootings, bombings and murders on the anti-whitewash Thaksin protesters were really false flag self attacks then? Or those that claim all the criminal charges against any Shiniwattra must be politically motivated witch hunt conspiracy?

[tbthailand]

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

well, well, well,

There you go again making stuff up...

I am not 'proclaiming anything other than "please do not make up stuff that you thought that I wrote and then reply to that...."

Got it?

Judicial coup - hmmm, I certainly was not the first to use that term nor the first to comment on it... You call it "partisan" where as others call it "accurate" ... in fact that is why the term is used... by such "partisan" entities like: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation...

As for the PTP being democratic or not, you really don't want to go down that road do you? I realize some posters think that having Thaksin involved in the government of his sister is somehow not democratic, but you are the one, through accusation, claiming that they were not democratic, so please feel free to justify that claim.

You should, but apparently do not realize, that the Thai courts have not been set up to enforce democracy but rather to undermine it. The judiciary and the "independent" organizations, broadly speaking, function as levers which the current folks in power can pull. There is little debate about that out in the real world.

As for intimidating courts and judges, or anyone else for that matter, ... as with violence and killing Thai people, the military are still the champions in that class... I personally don't think that intimidation is acceptable in any case, be it courts, the press, activists, etc... But it obviously happens often in Thailand and I don't support it - odd that I should even feel the need to state the obvious, but around this forum if you don't denounce something, the the next poster accuses you of supporting it, so there you go.

Now, I did point out that people have looked at and analyzed the negotiations and the failure of the negotiations in 2010. I don't try to explain it. The situation was rather clear. On one side you have Mark & Co, proposing to do something 5 months later and on the other side, you both moderate and extreme elements trying to agree on what to do. I accept the analysis of academics who write that the moderate elements of the UDD wanted to accept the agreement and the radical elements wanted to reject it. It was clearly rejected.

I think a good question to ask is: why didn't Abhisit dissolve parliament and call for elections? There was not a reason to wait 5 months. That would have been in line with the constitution at the time. It is what your non-democratic PTP government did in reaction to protests by the people in 2013. He could have put the whole thing to bed with one move.

Another question, hypothetical, is would he have held elections in 5 months? Personally, I think not. That's just my opinion. It is possible that Abhisit would have tried to have kept his word, but I think his backers, the folks now in the drivers seat, would not have allowed elections to take place on the promised timeline and that probably the elections would have been delayed. Just my opinion...

Finally, here is one very interesting point you make about my perspective...

hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control

hate is too strong a word for how I feel, but yes, I do not appreciate "those who propagate the old elite feudal elite (sic) control". I thought that was fairly obvious.

[rubl]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

and by extension, the army had more "democratic fun"/ What a fatuous, offensive remark.

You state 'by extension' and therefore you condemn me for what you state?

No, no fun. The army was dealt the black peter. Cleanup with heavily armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters who "see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing" is bound to lead to 'collateral damage' and protests from TVF posters.

[rubl]

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

well, well, well,

There you go again making stuff up...

I am not 'proclaiming anything other than "please do not make up stuff that you thought that I wrote and then reply to that...."

Got it?

Judicial coup - hmmm, I certainly was not the first to use that term nor the first to comment on it... You call it "partisan" where as others call it "accurate" ... in fact that is why the term is used... by such "partisan" entities like: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation...

As for the PTP being democratic or not, you really don't want to go down that road do you? I realize some posters think that having Thaksin involved in the government of his sister is somehow not democratic, but you are the one, through accusation, claiming that they were not democratic, so please feel free to justify that claim.

You should, but apparently do not realize, that the Thai courts have not been set up to enforce democracy but rather to undermine it. The judiciary and the "independent" organizations, broadly speaking, function as levers which the current folks in power can pull. There is little debate about that out in the real world.

As for intimidating courts and judges, or anyone else for that matter, ... as with violence and killing Thai people, the military are still the champions in that class... I personally don't think that intimidation is acceptable in any case, be it courts, the press, activists, etc... But it obviously happens often in Thailand and I don't support it - odd that I should even feel the need to state the obvious, but around this forum if you don't denounce something, the the next poster accuses you of supporting it, so there you go.

Now, I did point out that people have looked at and analyzed the negotiations and the failure of the negotiations in 2010. I don't try to explain it. The situation was rather clear. On one side you have Mark & Co, proposing to do something 5 months later and on the other side, you both moderate and extreme elements trying to agree on what to do. I accept the analysis of academics who write that the moderate elements of the UDD wanted to accept the agreement and the radical elements wanted to reject it. It was clearly rejected.

I think a good question to ask is: why didn't Abhisit dissolve parliament and call for elections? There was not a reason to wait 5 months. That would have been in line with the constitution at the time. It is what your non-democratic PTP government did in reaction to protests by the people in 2013. He could have put the whole thing to bed with one move.

Another question, hypothetical, is would he have held elections in 5 months? Personally, I think not. That's just my opinion. It is possible that Abhisit would have tried to have kept his word, but I think his backers, the folks now in the drivers seat, would not have allowed elections to take place on the promised timeline and that probably the elections would have been delayed. Just my opinion...

Finally, here is one very interesting point you make about my perspective...

hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control

hate is too strong a word for how I feel, but yes, I do not appreciate "those who propagate the old elite feudal elite (sic) control". I thought that was fairly obvious.

For someone who doesn't state much you talk a lot. Almost a parrot.

BTW call for election? Why because a bunch of terrorists demand it? Because a bunch of terrorists even demand Abhisit / Suthep put themselves in police custody awaiting trial? But then you didn't say this, you only repeat.

[Linky]

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

well, well, well,

There you go again making stuff up...

I am not 'proclaiming anything other than "please do not make up stuff that you thought that I wrote and then reply to that...."

Got it?

Judicial coup - hmmm, I certainly was not the first to use that term nor the first to comment on it... You call it "partisan" where as others call it "accurate" ... in fact that is why the term is used... by such "partisan" entities like: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation...

As for the PTP being democratic or not, you really don't want to go down that road do you? I realize some posters think that having Thaksin involved in the government of his sister is somehow not democratic, but you are the one, through accusation, claiming that they were not democratic, so please feel free to justify that claim.

You should, but apparently do not realize, that the Thai courts have not been set up to enforce democracy but rather to undermine it. The judiciary and the "independent" organizations, broadly speaking, function as levers which the current folks in power can pull. There is little debate about that out in the real world.

As for intimidating courts and judges, or anyone else for that matter, ... as with violence and killing Thai people, the military are still the champions in that class... I personally don't think that intimidation is acceptable in any case, be it courts, the press, activists, etc... But it obviously happens often in Thailand and I don't support it - odd that I should even feel the need to state the obvious, but around this forum if you don't denounce something, the the next poster accuses you of supporting it, so there you go.

Now, I did point out that people have looked at and analyzed the negotiations and the failure of the negotiations in 2010. I don't try to explain it. The situation was rather clear. On one side you have Mark & Co, proposing to do something 5 months later and on the other side, you both moderate and extreme elements trying to agree on what to do. I accept the analysis of academics who write that the moderate elements of the UDD wanted to accept the agreement and the radical elements wanted to reject it. It was clearly rejected.

I think a good question to ask is: why didn't Abhisit dissolve parliament and call for elections? There was not a reason to wait 5 months. That would have been in line with the constitution at the time. It is what your non-democratic PTP government did in reaction to protests by the people in 2013. He could have put the whole thing to bed with one move.

Another question, hypothetical, is would he have held elections in 5 months? Personally, I think not. That's just my opinion. It is possible that Abhisit would have tried to have kept his word, but I think his backers, the folks now in the drivers seat, would not have allowed elections to take place on the promised timeline and that probably the elections would have been delayed. Just my opinion...

Finally, here is one very interesting point you make about my perspective...

hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control

hate is too strong a word for how I feel, but yes, I do not appreciate "those who propagate the old elite feudal elite (sic) control". I thought that was fairly obvious.

For someone who doesn't state much you talk a lot. Almost a parrot.

BTW call for election? Why because a bunch of terrorists demand it? Because a bunch of terrorists even demand Abhisit / Suthep put themselves in police custody awaiting trial? But then you didn't say this, you only repeat.

WOW, just WOW

[graft]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

and by extension, the army had more "democratic fun"/ What a fatuous, offensive remark.

You state 'by extension' and therefore you condemn me for what you state?

No, no fun. The army was dealt the black peter. Cleanup with heavily armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters who "see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing" is bound to lead to 'collateral damage' and protests from TVF posters.

I "condemned" you because you made a fatuous offensive remark about the deaths - in case you didn't realise what you said was offensive I extrapolated your remark to point it out to you. Obviously you don't understand what is meant by offensive as your use of the phrase "collateral damage" in your second post shows, or, more likely, you are being deliberately controversial to provoke a reaction. Trolling is another word for it.

OK, you got your reaction, satisfied?

Edited June 14, 2015 by graft

[Baerboxer]

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

well, well, well,

There you go again making stuff up...

I am not 'proclaiming anything other than "please do not make up stuff that you thought that I wrote and then reply to that...."

Got it?

Judicial coup - hmmm, I certainly was not the first to use that term nor the first to comment on it... You call it "partisan" where as others call it "accurate" ... in fact that is why the term is used... by such "partisan" entities like: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation...

As for the PTP being democratic or not, you really don't want to go down that road do you? I realize some posters think that having Thaksin involved in the government of his sister is somehow not democratic, but you are the one, through accusation, claiming that they were not democratic, so please feel free to justify that claim.

You should, but apparently do not realize, that the Thai courts have not been set up to enforce democracy but rather to undermine it. The judiciary and the "independent" organizations, broadly speaking, function as levers which the current folks in power can pull. There is little debate about that out in the real world.

As for intimidating courts and judges, or anyone else for that matter, ... as with violence and killing Thai people, the military are still the champions in that class... I personally don't think that intimidation is acceptable in any case, be it courts, the press, activists, etc... But it obviously happens often in Thailand and I don't support it - odd that I should even feel the need to state the obvious, but around this forum if you don't denounce something, the the next poster accuses you of supporting it, so there you go.

Now, I did point out that people have looked at and analyzed the negotiations and the failure of the negotiations in 2010. I don't try to explain it. The situation was rather clear. On one side you have Mark & Co, proposing to do something 5 months later and on the other side, you both moderate and extreme elements trying to agree on what to do. I accept the analysis of academics who write that the moderate elements of the UDD wanted to accept the agreement and the radical elements wanted to reject it. It was clearly rejected.

I think a good question to ask is: why didn't Abhisit dissolve parliament and call for elections? There was not a reason to wait 5 months. That would have been in line with the constitution at the time. It is what your non-democratic PTP government did in reaction to protests by the people in 2013. He could have put the whole thing to bed with one move.

Another question, hypothetical, is would he have held elections in 5 months? Personally, I think not. That's just my opinion. It is possible that Abhisit would have tried to have kept his word, but I think his backers, the folks now in the drivers seat, would not have allowed elections to take place on the promised timeline and that probably the elections would have been delayed. Just my opinion...

Finally, here is one very interesting point you make about my perspective...

hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control

hate is too strong a word for how I feel, but yes, I do not appreciate "those who propagate the old elite feudal elite (sic) control". I thought that was fairly obvious.

The more you write, the more you show your true colors.

Take that any way you like - but re-read all your posts first.

I couldn't care less if you support the Shins, PTP and the red shirt leaders. But at least admit it. Rather than this continuous twisting of facts, denials of reality and pretense.

So many who support the Shins want to say democracy is an election. The elected government can then do what they want and if people don't like it, they can vote them out. Mugabe and Hun Set would be proud of that view.

Courts undermining democracy - or removing corrupt politicians who broke the law and expected to be let off. The judge who admitted he thought Thaksin was totally guilty of concealing his assets (you remember the honest mistake of hiding assets in your servants' name - a good socialist having servants), but voted to acquit him because he'd just won an election must rue the day he didn't do his job.

Will you answer a direct question: Is it democratic and acceptable for an elected government to hand over power and decision making to a non elected billionaire fugitive criminal who pays them all a salary, hires them, fires them and promotes or demotes them?

[Baerboxer]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

and by extension, the army had more "democratic fun"/ What a fatuous, offensive remark.

You state 'by extension' and therefore you condemn me for what you state?

No, no fun. The army was dealt the black peter. Cleanup with heavily armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters who "see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing" is bound to lead to 'collateral damage' and protests from TVF posters.

Somebody was spoiling for a fight. And, given the amount of time taken before they reacted it wasn't the Army or the Abhisit government.

Interesting Uncle Rubl. Mister Graft has been a member less than a week; and such an expert on events in 2010. Yet in all the previous discussions on this subject he never felt like posting.

[rubl]

Well, thanks to graft for the short list of casualties. It would seem that the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' did have a bit for democratic fun.

and by extension, the army had more "democratic fun"/ What a fatuous, offensive remark.

You state 'by extension' and therefore you condemn me for what you state?

No, no fun. The army was dealt the black peter. Cleanup with heavily armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters who "see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing" is bound to lead to 'collateral damage' and protests from TVF posters.

I "condemned" you because you made a fatuous offensive remark about the deaths - in case you didn't realise what you said was offensive I extrapolated your remark to point it out to you. Obviously you don't understand what is meant by offensive as your use of the phrase "collateral damage" in your second post shows, or, more likely, you are being deliberately controversial to provoke a reaction. Trolling is another word for it.

OK, you got your reaction, satisfied?

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

[tbthailand]

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Who are you to proclaim that just because you have a different view yours is the only truth and must be universally accepted? Delusions of grandeur as well as intelligence.

I read your previous posts. Clear as crystal you don't give a hoot about Thaksin and clan. You just happen to see everything from their point of view, use terminology that is somewhat partisan (Judicial Coup in 2006 - 5555) and believe the Shin PTP regime was democratic - and you call others dim! Pathetic.

So what is you explanation for the non elected somehow appointed red shirt leaders agreeing a peaceful solution with Abhisit and then breaking the agreement without any explanation?

Derail democracy - do you mean an election process? Or are you talking about PTP's blatant refusals to follow the law and abide by courts rulings. Red shirt intimidation of judges and those involved in cases concerning the Shins - you better consider "the right" verdict or else suffer the consequences. How very democratic.

But you'll never understand that. Whether that's due to low intelligence, hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control or other reasons - who knows and quite frankly who cares.

well, well, well,

There you go again making stuff up...

I am not 'proclaiming anything other than "please do not make up stuff that you thought that I wrote and then reply to that...."

Got it?

Judicial coup - hmmm, I certainly was not the first to use that term nor the first to comment on it... You call it "partisan" where as others call it "accurate" ... in fact that is why the term is used... by such "partisan" entities like: The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Nation...

As for the PTP being democratic or not, you really don't want to go down that road do you? I realize some posters think that having Thaksin involved in the government of his sister is somehow not democratic, but you are the one, through accusation, claiming that they were not democratic, so please feel free to justify that claim.

You should, but apparently do not realize, that the Thai courts have not been set up to enforce democracy but rather to undermine it. The judiciary and the "independent" organizations, broadly speaking, function as levers which the current folks in power can pull. There is little debate about that out in the real world.

As for intimidating courts and judges, or anyone else for that matter, ... as with violence and killing Thai people, the military are still the champions in that class... I personally don't think that intimidation is acceptable in any case, be it courts, the press, activists, etc... But it obviously happens often in Thailand and I don't support it - odd that I should even feel the need to state the obvious, but around this forum if you don't denounce something, the the next poster accuses you of supporting it, so there you go.

Now, I did point out that people have looked at and analyzed the negotiations and the failure of the negotiations in 2010. I don't try to explain it. The situation was rather clear. On one side you have Mark & Co, proposing to do something 5 months later and on the other side, you both moderate and extreme elements trying to agree on what to do. I accept the analysis of academics who write that the moderate elements of the UDD wanted to accept the agreement and the radical elements wanted to reject it. It was clearly rejected.

I think a good question to ask is: why didn't Abhisit dissolve parliament and call for elections? There was not a reason to wait 5 months. That would have been in line with the constitution at the time. It is what your non-democratic PTP government did in reaction to protests by the people in 2013. He could have put the whole thing to bed with one move.

Another question, hypothetical, is would he have held elections in 5 months? Personally, I think not. That's just my opinion. It is possible that Abhisit would have tried to have kept his word, but I think his backers, the folks now in the drivers seat, would not have allowed elections to take place on the promised timeline and that probably the elections would have been delayed. Just my opinion...

Finally, here is one very interesting point you make about my perspective...

hatred for those who propagate the old elite feudal elite control

hate is too strong a word for how I feel, but yes, I do not appreciate "those who propagate the old elite feudal elite (sic) control". I thought that was fairly obvious.

The more you write, the more you show your true colors.

Take that any way you like - but re-read all your posts first.

I couldn't care less if you support the Shins, PTP and the red shirt leaders. But at least admit it. Rather than this continuous twisting of facts, denials of reality and pretense.

So many who support the Shins want to say democracy is an election. The elected government can then do what they want and if people don't like it, they can vote them out. Mugabe and Hun Set would be proud of that view.

Courts undermining democracy - or removing corrupt politicians who broke the law and expected to be let off. The judge who admitted he thought Thaksin was totally guilty of concealing his assets (you remember the honest mistake of hiding assets in your servants' name - a good socialist having servants), but voted to acquit him because he'd just won an election must rue the day he didn't do his job.

Will you answer a direct question: Is it democratic and acceptable for an elected government to hand over power and decision making to a non elected billionaire fugitive criminal who pays them all a salary, hires them, fires them and promotes or demotes them?

Will you answer a direct question: Is it democratic and acceptable for an elected government to hand over power and decision making to a non elected billionaire fugitive criminal who pays them all a salary, hires them, fires them and promotes or demotes them?

You seem to be looking for a yes/no answer, which it is not.

But yes, I will answer that - are you talking about the Koch Brothers? No, you are not... but the comparison can be useful. The Koch Brothers use their fortune - 100x greater than Thaksin's, to buy candidates and run them for office at the county, state and national level. I find the perversion of money = free speech abhorrent and very undemocratic. And the influence of the Koch Brothers is kept in the dark as much as possible.

To compare it with Thaksin, he is the founder of the party, he spoke openly about his sister and the PTP before the election. It was clear that if you voted for the PTP, you knew what you were voting for.

That is more "democratic" than the Koch Brothers.

I feel that elected politicians should be accountable and responsive to the people they represent. From this perspective, Thaksin's influence hinders that connection to the voters. That doesn't make the process undemocratic, that makes the representatives who listen to Thaksin and not their electorate poor representatives. This clearly happened with the amnesty bill, didn't it?

But you are comparing actions, which can be bad governance, with structures and practices, which can be democratic or not.

Take another example of gerrymandering districts in the US. The republicans in many states redrew the voting districts to specifically guarantee majorities in congress. That is structural and clearly undemocratic.

Now, none of the examples - from Thailand or from the USA - are illegal. That doesn't make them "right" but they are not illegal. That means each one should be dealt with appropriately. In the case of Thailand, politicians who do not represent their constituents well should be voted out and replaced. That is democratic. Of course the voters may continue to elect them - that is up to the voters. ... it is not up to the generals.

which reminds me to come back to this part...

So many who support the Shins want to say democracy is an election. The elected government can then do what they want and if people don't like it, they can vote them out. Mugabe and Hun Set would be proud of that view.

Really, ... Mugabe and Hun, there you are just blathering again. ....

Finally, let me acknowledge that after this, you will be able to raise the victory flag of endurance, and so I will end simply with this point about support or non-support of the PTP - and let's take a really disgusting choice - I don't care if the Thai people elect Charlem or Suthep to lead their country as long as it is the Thai people who make that choice and not the generals and that Forbes list of the 50 wealthiest Thais...

[In Town]

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

I find it interesting that both you and Baerboxer both seem to believe that number of posts on TVF correlates with expertise on the events of 2010. Graft seems to have a very good grasp of those events, and a lot of facts at his fingertips, but has only been on TVF for a week. Perhaps there is a negative correlation between number of posts and actual knowledge. After all, those who spend all their time posting have little time for research or even regular work.

[In Town]

So many who support the Shins want to say democracy is an election. The elected government can then do what they want and if people don't like it, they can vote them out. Mugabe and Hun Set would be proud of that view.

Really, ... Mugabe and Hun, there you are just blathering again. ....

Finally, let me acknowledge that after this, you will be able to raise the victory flag of endurance, and so I will end simply with this point about support or non-support of the PTP - and let's take a really disgusting choice - I don't care if the Thai people elect Charlem or Suthep to lead their country as long as it is the Thai people who make that choice and not the generals and that Forbes list of the 50 wealthiest Thais...

+1 (and I'm a Republican!)

[graft]

I "condemned" you because you made a fatuous offensive remark about the deaths - in case you didn't realise what you said was offensive I extrapolated your remark to point it out to you. Obviously you don't understand what is meant by offensive as your use of the phrase "collateral damage" in your second post shows, or, more likely, you are being deliberately controversial to provoke a reaction. Trolling is another word for it.

OK, you got your reaction, satisfied?

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

Please explain the "BS" in my posts in this OP. On second thoughts don't bother, I'll just accept that you'll claim "BS" with anyone who disagrees with you and/or when a cogent argument doesn't come to mind.

[graft]

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

I find it interesting that both you and Baerboxer both seem to believe that number of posts on TVF correlates with expertise on the events of 2010. Graft seems to have a very good grasp of those events, and a lot of facts at his fingertips, but has only been on TVF for a week. Perhaps there is a negative correlation between number of posts and actual knowledge. After all, those who spend all their time posting have little time for research or even regular work.

"The truth is out there" - well it is, if a bit of savvy is applied to a basic internet search. The fact is, this information is available to everyone no matter how many posts one has under their belt.

[Baerboxer]

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

I find it interesting that both you and Baerboxer both seem to believe that number of posts on TVF correlates with expertise on the events of 2010. Graft seems to have a very good grasp of those events, and a lot of facts at his fingertips, but has only been on TVF for a week. Perhaps there is a negative correlation between number of posts and actual knowledge. After all, those who spend all their time posting have little time for research or even regular work.

"The truth is out there" - well it is, if a bit of savvy is applied to a basic internet search. The fact is, this information is available to everyone no matter how many posts one has under their belt.

Yes, it is. Which makes the coincidence of lots of "newbies" coming on praising the Shins and ignoring the truth even more remarkable.

Information - like that on Mr. Amsterdam's site you mean?

Every so often a little clutch of posters come on an all spout the same things as previously little clutches of disappeared posters. Interesting phenomenon.

[baboon]

The Shin lovers do have a point. Why keep mentioning Thaksin when the guy will never come back to Thailand. Soon Yingluck will do a Thaksin and she will be gone too. Only thing we have to keep doing is kill stories created by their paid propaganda puppets like Robert Amsterdam.

But I also agree that we should never forget the damage Thaksin has done to Thailand.

Difficult one in fact.

The use of the word 'we' implies you are part of an organisation. Is this the case, or are you a Thai citizen?

[Baerboxer]

So many who support the Shins want to say democracy is an election. The elected government can then do what they want and if people don't like it, they can vote them out. Mugabe and Hun Set would be proud of that view.

Really, ... Mugabe and Hun, there you are just blathering again. ....

Finally, let me acknowledge that after this, you will be able to raise the victory flag of endurance, and so I will end simply with this point about support or non-support of the PTP - and let's take a really disgusting choice - I don't care if the Thai people elect Charlem or Suthep to lead their country as long as it is the Thai people who make that choice and not the generals and that Forbes list of the 50 wealthiest Thais...

+1 (and I'm a Republican!)

Well done boys.

It's not right for those with money to corrupt democracy by buying politicians and instructing them how to vote. But it is ok for a non elected billionaire criminal fugitive to do exactly that. In fact, not just a few but he bought the whole government!

There you have it - democracy a la Shins.

[In Town]

A group of posters here seem to condemn the army while trying to explain why it could happen that peaceful protesters might be a wee bit violent at times. That seems to ignore the presence of terrorists in the midst of the peaceful protesters. It also explains (but not justify without further investigation) the many innocent deaths.

I find comments which try to talk down the UDD involvement in violence as deliberately controversial as you might find my remarks. Mind you, I've been having thse discussions two or three dozen times with every time a newbie popping up again writing the same level of BS. It doesn't help to make me feel more friendly and forgiving.

If you now faint to feel provoked, you may want to look up hypocracy.

Conclusion, the same old non-info in a topic saying new evidence has been submitted, but not made public yet.

I find it interesting that both you and Baerboxer both seem to believe that number of posts on TVF correlates with expertise on the events of 2010. Graft seems to have a very good grasp of those events, and a lot of facts at his fingertips, but has only been on TVF for a week. Perhaps there is a negative correlation between number of posts and actual knowledge. After all, those who spend all their time posting have little time for research or even regular work.

"The truth is out there" - well it is, if a bit of savvy is applied to a basic internet search. The fact is, this information is available to everyone no matter how many posts one has under their belt.

Yes, it is. Which makes the coincidence of lots of "newbies" coming on praising the Shins and ignoring the truth even more remarkable.

Information - like that on Mr. Amsterdam's site you mean?

Every so often a little clutch of posters come on an all spout the same things as previously little clutches of disappeared posters. Interesting phenomenon.

You seem to think that Thaksin or Robert Amsterdam would find it useful to pay people to post on TVF. The truth is that this site has absolutely zero political influence, and the proof of that is that it has not been shut down. But hey, if someone would pay me, I would be happy!

[Nickymaster]

The Shin lovers do have a point. Why keep mentioning Thaksin when the guy will never come back to Thailand. Soon Yingluck will do a Thaksin and she will be gone too. Only thing we have to keep doing is kill stories created by their paid propaganda puppets like Robert Amsterdam.

But I also agree that we should never forget the damage Thaksin has done to Thailand.

Difficult one in fact.

The use of the word 'we' implies you are part of an organisation. Is this the case, or are you a Thai citizen?

The word we could also imply you and me. Edited June 14, 2015 by Nickymaster

[Baerboxer]

Yes, it is. Which makes the coincidence of lots of "newbies" coming on praising the Shins and ignoring the truth even more remarkable.

Information - like that on Mr. Amsterdam's site you mean?

Every so often a little clutch of posters come on an all spout the same things as previously little clutches of disappeared posters. Interesting phenomenon.

You seem to think that Thaksin or Robert Amsterdam would find it useful to pay people to post on TVF. The truth is that this site has absolutely zero political influence, and the proof of that is that it has not been shut down. But hey, if someone would pay me, I would be happy!

You seem to be replying to what you thought rather than what I wrote.

I just pointed out an interesting phenomenon.

[Baerboxer]

tbthailand " I find the perversion of money = free speech abhorrent and very undemocratic"

But that is exactly what Thaksin does. He pays PTP MP's a salary to do what they're told. And they know the consequences if they don't.

I don't believe all the people who voted for PTP thought they were voting for a Thaksin dictatorship - but that's what they got. He picked the cabinet, he made all the decisions, he was trying hard to remove check & balances and too put himself, his family and his political allies above the law.

He is a billionaire, elite hiso Sino-Chinese who has enriched himself at the expense of the Thai people. He's on Forbes list too.

You don't really think he's some sort of self made working class hero, do you?