Jim, how is it helping your case calling these people who are interested enough to reply to your post thick? It’s a bit condescending. I don’t really see where they’re not reading between the lines with what you’ve written, and are just asking questions. Why get vicious if everything is factual? Why keep responding if they want it all on a silver plate? Why give them the silver plate? At this rate your head is the only thing that’s on that silver plate.
Are you some kind of renegade like Thomas Blemming?
When will the fat lady sing? Questions, questions…
There are many problems relating to the current political crisis in Thailand. However this blog seems to attack the members of the Royal family, which is unfair and judgmental.
When Democracy itself is corrupted, it is only sensible for people to intervene. We are not prepared to go down and let the country be destroyed for the sake of democracy.
We are challenged to think critically and look behind statements. Sure we should do that. However, it means rejecting the onvuiously flawed. When someone suggests/hints that hundreds have been shot dead by the military we look for evidence:
1. Pictures or video – none
2. Credible neutral witnesses who corroborate each other – none
3. If hundreds killed by bullets we look for the thousands of wounded that there would be (any combat veteran or military historian knows about theese ratios) and we look for hospitals packed with bullet injured victims – we dont see this
4. We look for the mass of blood stained pavements, pock mjarked buildings and pieces of shot off flesh and limb – we see none of this
5. We look for the containment of local and foreign journalists while it was all happening including a clean up period that would have taken days at least – journalists were following ther military as they moved and there was live footage.
Therefore, we conclude the claim that hundreds were killed is logically a falacious claim and likely propoganda. That it is put forward by an academic is worrying as either he has lost his ability to think critically, he has become a dyed in the wool propoganda operative or he has had some form of breakdown. All of these are sad. However, the saddest thing is that the ordinary red shirts have some good points and demands related to democracy. That these get undermined by spurious and ridiculous claims is the saddest point of all.
I would have thought this topic would have come to an end by now. If it were an ISOC unsubstantiated claim it would Iam sure. The OP is doing exactly what ISOC stand accused of. Will those that efend the OP also defend the right of ISOC to make unsubstantiated claims as that would be a logical step however bizarre it all seems to this reader.
Attacks on individual posters as being part of some cabal of government propogandists is equally bizarre. Does asking for evidence now make one unelnlightened. What is balack has become white and vice versa in this crazy world of what if good for one person is not good for another.
Surely the OP could just say: “the reds claim, unsubstantiated claims, I am a red supporter and I believe….”. Being an academic does not give ones claims any higher credence than another persons withotu some form of backing to them.
And I thought the article on “subplot” might finally talk about the long standing and loudly rumored divisions, subplots in the plural, within the group of possible heirs to the throne. With the combinations and permutations of the Queen, the Crown Prince, and the various Princesses, only Shakespeare could do the this Palace’s intrigues justice.
Thank you for your honest reply. I very much appreciate it.
Regarding your main post and story:
The security guard at my building, I overheard them complaining about the protests (it affects their livelihood). They know I’m into politics, and they like to discuss politics with me.
Anyways, I had sent them the link of your Red Shirt report in Thai. One of them said that he liked your post very much, that it provided him with a great story and said that you are ‘klaa haarn’ (brave).
He also asked me to communicate this to you (I had told him that I comment on your story and that you reply to posts), he asked that I not provide his name, so it is omitted.
He is from Nang Lerng area, and he was one of those who took arms against the ‘outsiders’. He said that they took guns and shot in the air, and through loudspeakers told both soldiers and red shirts that they were not welcome into the area. He also said that the 2 dead were on ‘guard’ duty at the time, and that he said its not clear cut the killing was done by red shirts (as purported by the government), as it was done very professionally.
In particular he said that he didn’t like that you referred to them as PAD. He hates the PAD and is a Thaksin TRT/PPP supporter. He said that it wasn’t “fair” for everyone to be labeled as PAD but that their community decided to keep all outsiders out, regardless of political affiliation.
Anyways, I promised him that I would communicate it to you, and I have.
read my #38, then go rereaed my post that you are commenting, and please recognize sarcasm and snark when it is being said.
Also Antipadshit, I am bkkeater from Bangkokpundit. You’ll note that philosophically we share a lot of same goals. There are many times I agree wholly with your posts, and sometimes where I point out details where I disagree. But these things are normal in a healthy democratic environment. Unfortunately in Thailand, with harsh laws protecting some political players, neither you nor me are able to fully point out all the political players and state honestly what we think is going on. I’m sure you agree with me that that is sad, and one of the main reasons behind the misinformation campaings purported by both sides.
I’m sympathetic to your nickname cuz I hate PAD myself. But I’m not behind ‘red shirt’ either. I never liked Thaksin. Actually, I’m so bored of the wars between the elite players in Thailand that I’m a Chuvit Kamolvisit supporter π
Ajarn Somsark (who I still give lots of respect to) likes to compare criticisms of Thaksin with lack of criticism of a major political player from 1976 and doesn’t accept that one should criticize Thaksin without criticizing the other. It is a position I disagree with because my own personal philosophy is to define each scenario as a case by case basis. However, I can understand his point and respect him for it. I have never seen Ajarn Somsak ever give blatant disinformation; and as such earns his respect and position. And given his controversial opinions and his ability to come out with his own name into these posts only builds his reputation.
However, Jim Taylor in his post here, and his defences hence, attacking me constantly without even once going through the substance of my posts, what am I to think? I would like to ask you honestly Antipadshit, as someone who criticised my post (but whose point I have also explained) am I purposely purporting misinformation here?
Jim Taylor #50: These people you say are my ‘mates’ I’ve never met them, have no idea who they are, and couldn’t be bothered either.
There is a difference between you and me Jim. You’re an ‘academic’. I put that in quotes now, because I read and reread, and read your post 3 times, and can’t believe that you wrote this.
It isn’t about bias or where you sympathies might lie. I think you should read snarls #51. This isn’t about ‘goodies’ or ‘badies’ or whatever. Maybe you should keep rereading my posts either. Where have I even said I am on the side of the government?
I’m so tired of repeating myself, but by automatically doubting your word as ‘fact’, I’m automatically a right-wing bigot? Seriously? I ask again, seriously?
My own conclusions from this political conflict is that this is a battle of 2 sets of elites who hold themselves above the law.
A popular mandate is no excuse for autocracy, as Thaksin has practiced. And how can ‘rule of law’ exist, when the PAD won’t even go to jail for 1. Government house, 2. Airport, 3. Blocking Parliament, etc. etc. etc.
“If he [abhisit] has taken at least some action with regards to the PAD…”
well, in reality… Abhisit gov was the _first_… to put pressure to enhance speed of judicial processes ag pad. don’t believe me; it’s public knowledge, just some research footwork na π
uiiih… now you’ll say…. “BUT BUT he was so fast to act ag udd…”
a) what do you want? a pm that directs judges to act due to public pressures?
b) cases ag pad did not come under “soe”.
c) cases ag pad did not even come while abhisit was pm.
again you just go along with some traits in your mind to generate systems & meaning out of the mere chaos of phenomena.
this very same method you apply here… linking people together who have nothing in common besides being critical of you…
— don’t you think that says a lot about the way your mind works in whatever kind of assertion about “facts”, “truth”, “reality”?
*…
& you go on, again:
“maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too …”
personally, dear Jim, i take that as an insult. as what you propose to do… i do.
*…
i cut it short, this time. there was an intial post on ISOC in cm that was widely well received. it were your very own follow-ups that allowed us “insights”, Jim. i can’t speak for any of your students or your fellow “academic” professionals — i guess i’ve met as many corrupt ph.d’s as politicians, artists, journalists. actually, after all these years… plain business people seem to be most inclined to root out this gift to weaknesses of human character na.
you showed flaws in argumentation as well as in judgement. that’s all. you’ve to live with it.
“Shortly after the state of emergency was announced, a group of anti-government protesters led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) stormed into the Interior Ministry compounds where Mr. Abhisit made the announcement.
Gunshots were heard while UDD protesters looked for Mr. Abhisit. However, the prime minister later managed to escape from the ministry by car.”
I’ll reiterate my view that if the PM had not of of declared a SOE none of this would have happened.
He used the blocking of the Criminal court as part of an excuse but “HELLO Mark” it was Sunday during a National holiday and the court was CLOSED, the protesters were not rowdy and they kept the road open, even directing traffic.
The government wanted to work fast because they knew that once Sonkran was over the UDD numbers would swell with their returning members from the provinces and they may well get ousted from power. In other words the Democrats used the military to consolidate power, very democratic Democrats. The SOE was ordered for expediency and not to restore order.
I can’t say about who those “red shirts” at Interior Ministry actually were.
however I can provide you with evidence that both Abhisit and Nation are lying now that Abhisit was in that car :
“Several police and protesters were injured during a riot inside the Interior Ministry when red-shirted protesters tried to attack a motorcade leaving the compound on suspicion that the prime minister was inside one of the cars, Thai PBS reported.
The station confirmed that both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban were not in any car of the motorcade.
The station said Abhisit and Suthep left the Interior Ministry before the red-shirted protesters managed to block the entrance of the compound and ran inside and rioted.
Thick or what? What more facts do you want? in relation to the missing/dead 156 or so persons, I gave the following information:
1. Student Association of Thailand public announcement to tens of thousands of people a week or so back at a merit-making ceremony at Din Daeng for those reputedly killed by the army and those still reported missing (check that out with those present at this event)
2. Credible Thai web site links (where these are not blocked by the government) such as those listed in βthaienews.blogspot.comβ
3. Posting of reported missing to DSI (check with them)
4. Notification made at two well known welfare orgs: Duangprateep Foundation and House # 111 Foundation (check with them)
What more do you want? delivered on a silver plate? investigate for yourselves…
#55 Jim Taylor. If Jim as he now admits, in this post (even though it is quite ovious throughout his postings- but now he’s said it)supports the UDD/Red side,I presume he would also be prepared to help- if he were/is called on ?
As I said in an earlier post – perhaps a little too sarcastically – being an “arjarn”, provides him with an excellent opportunity to do some good, for the cause he supports. Being an “academic” – even if he is not Thai – the “authority” that goes with the role, will make it much easier to get the message across, to a receptive Thai audience.
If I was him, I wouldn’t be wasting my time on sites like this.
I would be out there doing it.
Yes, I know, easier said than done. It might not be safe, either.
But, if he believes in this “cause”, he has a great opportunity to particpate and not just barrack from the stands, like so many of us on this forum do.
He indicates, he does attend many events – so, maybe he does this already, without making an issue of it ?
There is of course, one important thing : he should always base his work with the Thai supporters, on the “truth”and “real facts”…..something which has been at issue, in this post.
Otherwise, he will do little, to help bring about the changes, so badly needed in this country.
He cannot vote; he must be careful, but he can help change.
Colum Graham #54:”What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.”
If you are refering to his leading post, that seems to be about reinforcing his strong belief, there is a “conspiracy” taking place, but some people are not buying into it.
He then continued on with some fairly emotional and not very factual rants, in defence of his theories.
I am not about point scoring. I am jst asking for some objectivity and maybe some proof, that things are, or are not, as Jim claims.
It is sad, this whole mess is fast bringing Thailand down to the level of a “failed state”.
But, it is not going to get better, if people like Jim (who by his occupation, certainly has more power ,than someone like me) use flimsy heresay as reality.
Isn’t that after all, part of what is wrong in this country, where the mass media are either lazy, ill-informed, or just playing a certain line, fed to them by their various patrons?
Who me, aligned with Reds? sure I do from what I have heard, seen and felt in recent years: But to come to that conclusion I had to first listen to both sides and then I make my own judgement. In terms of some kind of fuzzy middle ground neutrality?? I cannot see any of this in the present institutionalised environment of spin, cunning and untruths that is justified in order to establish a status quo ante. If readers wish to investigate further on my reflections that is fine: If not, that is fine too…
Indeed Regular Reader, you wont know till he shows proof. But the point is, it’s a reflection. I could reflect on lucid memories where the actuality is distorted, but that doesn’t make them any less reflective. Sure Dickie Simpkins points are valid. I never said they weren’t, I did imply that challenging him with these points is pointless. Good you’ve caught a fish with some semantic barbs, but to then try to knock off his head with “would this stand up in an Adelaide court?” is petulant and only makes yourself and Dickie look desperate to be right, rather than being right about something with a little more substance. Good you’ve got him, he’s full of it. Now what? What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.
Haha, I said earlier I am paying him patronage because he pays for me to catch the train into Adelaide with his tax. I catch the train into Adelaide to worship the Napier building and skip down North Terrace pleased that my karma is balanced.
It doesn’t offend me that people eat dogs and cats, any more than it offends me for them to eat cows, and pigs (which they eat in my country). I honor and feel respect for vegetarians.
The great issue of concern is the torturing of the animals. Debate is good, because it promotes thought, possibly leading to action. Just remember that the ultimate objective for this and any issue, is results. While speaking out against cruelty and torturing of animals, be sure to add exactly what the readers/listeners can do about it. (Try to add at least one non-financial option for those who can’t afford.) And make sure that your information on the subject is accurate, and any instructions, if followed, are or can be effective, at least in some degree. In other words, do your research from reliable sources. (I’m sorry I don’t, myself, know of any specific suggestions of what to do about this.)
Also, think of any given country/place as you would your own. Different people in that country believe different from each other. Be careful not to judge as a whole…
And if you, yourself, are intentionally contributing to, or allowing the torture or abuse of an animal for any reason, and you have any choice otherwise, please know that you can’t feel the pain they’re in. They can. Torture can be more intensely painful than you can imagine. And even mild abuse can breed fear, distrust and misery.
Colum Graham #48 you said :
“I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! ”
It would seem to me, you might be suffering the very common complaint here in Thailand, of paying “respect” to the “arjarn”(Jim Taylor) ,at all times – even when you might not agree with what he, or she says.
It sounds like you are saying, “they are an “arjarn” – therefore, they must know more”.
All we “mere mortals” are doing here (on this post), is not falling into the “Thai patronage trap”. Instead, we are questioning the “arjarn”.
He might be right – but unless we ask him to show us proof, how will we really know?
Colum Graham #48, I don’t think it makes any difference whether or not Jim Taylor is an academic, or hides behind a pseudonym (as most of us do).
The problem with him, unlike Nick is that he is stating “he said, she said” type of hear-say, as fact. Nick is much more careful about what he says.
He admits he has sympathy for the UDD/Red cause and how they have generally gone about their business.
He does have more “hard” evidence (his photos) than Jim. (And, yes, we all know “photos can lie”).He was also from his accounts, “there” during a lot of the big incidents.
But, he is also honest enough, to say, for example, he was not at the location of the Din Deang Tankers and so, can only relay what he was told.
On the other hand, Jim continually turns hear-say into fact.
Maybe he doesn’t mean to. Maybe it’s just his was of expressing himself.
But as Dickie, correctly points out, this would have a very hard time, standing up in a court in his home town – Adelaide.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Jim, how is it helping your case calling these people who are interested enough to reply to your post thick? It’s a bit condescending. I don’t really see where they’re not reading between the lines with what you’ve written, and are just asking questions. Why get vicious if everything is factual? Why keep responding if they want it all on a silver plate? Why give them the silver plate? At this rate your head is the only thing that’s on that silver plate.
Are you some kind of renegade like Thomas Blemming?
When will the fat lady sing? Questions, questions…
“Just leave him alone”
There are many problems relating to the current political crisis in Thailand. However this blog seems to attack the members of the Royal family, which is unfair and judgmental.
When Democracy itself is corrupted, it is only sensible for people to intervene. We are not prepared to go down and let the country be destroyed for the sake of democracy.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
We are challenged to think critically and look behind statements. Sure we should do that. However, it means rejecting the onvuiously flawed. When someone suggests/hints that hundreds have been shot dead by the military we look for evidence:
1. Pictures or video – none
2. Credible neutral witnesses who corroborate each other – none
3. If hundreds killed by bullets we look for the thousands of wounded that there would be (any combat veteran or military historian knows about theese ratios) and we look for hospitals packed with bullet injured victims – we dont see this
4. We look for the mass of blood stained pavements, pock mjarked buildings and pieces of shot off flesh and limb – we see none of this
5. We look for the containment of local and foreign journalists while it was all happening including a clean up period that would have taken days at least – journalists were following ther military as they moved and there was live footage.
Therefore, we conclude the claim that hundreds were killed is logically a falacious claim and likely propoganda. That it is put forward by an academic is worrying as either he has lost his ability to think critically, he has become a dyed in the wool propoganda operative or he has had some form of breakdown. All of these are sad. However, the saddest thing is that the ordinary red shirts have some good points and demands related to democracy. That these get undermined by spurious and ridiculous claims is the saddest point of all.
I would have thought this topic would have come to an end by now. If it were an ISOC unsubstantiated claim it would Iam sure. The OP is doing exactly what ISOC stand accused of. Will those that efend the OP also defend the right of ISOC to make unsubstantiated claims as that would be a logical step however bizarre it all seems to this reader.
Attacks on individual posters as being part of some cabal of government propogandists is equally bizarre. Does asking for evidence now make one unelnlightened. What is balack has become white and vice versa in this crazy world of what if good for one person is not good for another.
Surely the OP could just say: “the reds claim, unsubstantiated claims, I am a red supporter and I believe….”. Being an academic does not give ones claims any higher credence than another persons withotu some form of backing to them.
Thailand’s royal sub-plot thickens
And I thought the article on “subplot” might finally talk about the long standing and loudly rumored divisions, subplots in the plural, within the group of possible heirs to the throne. With the combinations and permutations of the Queen, the Crown Prince, and the various Princesses, only Shakespeare could do the this Palace’s intrigues justice.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Nick #177,
Thank you for your honest reply. I very much appreciate it.
Regarding your main post and story:
The security guard at my building, I overheard them complaining about the protests (it affects their livelihood). They know I’m into politics, and they like to discuss politics with me.
Anyways, I had sent them the link of your Red Shirt report in Thai. One of them said that he liked your post very much, that it provided him with a great story and said that you are ‘klaa haarn’ (brave).
He also asked me to communicate this to you (I had told him that I comment on your story and that you reply to posts), he asked that I not provide his name, so it is omitted.
He is from Nang Lerng area, and he was one of those who took arms against the ‘outsiders’. He said that they took guns and shot in the air, and through loudspeakers told both soldiers and red shirts that they were not welcome into the area. He also said that the 2 dead were on ‘guard’ duty at the time, and that he said its not clear cut the killing was done by red shirts (as purported by the government), as it was done very professionally.
In particular he said that he didn’t like that you referred to them as PAD. He hates the PAD and is a Thaksin TRT/PPP supporter. He said that it wasn’t “fair” for everyone to be labeled as PAD but that their community decided to keep all outsiders out, regardless of political affiliation.
Anyways, I promised him that I would communicate it to you, and I have.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Antipadshit #48
read my #38, then go rereaed my post that you are commenting, and please recognize sarcasm and snark when it is being said.
Also Antipadshit, I am bkkeater from Bangkokpundit. You’ll note that philosophically we share a lot of same goals. There are many times I agree wholly with your posts, and sometimes where I point out details where I disagree. But these things are normal in a healthy democratic environment. Unfortunately in Thailand, with harsh laws protecting some political players, neither you nor me are able to fully point out all the political players and state honestly what we think is going on. I’m sure you agree with me that that is sad, and one of the main reasons behind the misinformation campaings purported by both sides.
I’m sympathetic to your nickname cuz I hate PAD myself. But I’m not behind ‘red shirt’ either. I never liked Thaksin. Actually, I’m so bored of the wars between the elite players in Thailand that I’m a Chuvit Kamolvisit supporter π
Ajarn Somsark (who I still give lots of respect to) likes to compare criticisms of Thaksin with lack of criticism of a major political player from 1976 and doesn’t accept that one should criticize Thaksin without criticizing the other. It is a position I disagree with because my own personal philosophy is to define each scenario as a case by case basis. However, I can understand his point and respect him for it. I have never seen Ajarn Somsak ever give blatant disinformation; and as such earns his respect and position. And given his controversial opinions and his ability to come out with his own name into these posts only builds his reputation.
However, Jim Taylor in his post here, and his defences hence, attacking me constantly without even once going through the substance of my posts, what am I to think? I would like to ask you honestly Antipadshit, as someone who criticised my post (but whose point I have also explained) am I purposely purporting misinformation here?
Jim Taylor #50: These people you say are my ‘mates’ I’ve never met them, have no idea who they are, and couldn’t be bothered either.
There is a difference between you and me Jim. You’re an ‘academic’. I put that in quotes now, because I read and reread, and read your post 3 times, and can’t believe that you wrote this.
It isn’t about bias or where you sympathies might lie. I think you should read snarls #51. This isn’t about ‘goodies’ or ‘badies’ or whatever. Maybe you should keep rereading my posts either. Where have I even said I am on the side of the government?
I’m so tired of repeating myself, but by automatically doubting your word as ‘fact’, I’m automatically a right-wing bigot? Seriously? I ask again, seriously?
My own conclusions from this political conflict is that this is a battle of 2 sets of elites who hold themselves above the law.
A popular mandate is no excuse for autocracy, as Thaksin has practiced. And how can ‘rule of law’ exist, when the PAD won’t even go to jail for 1. Government house, 2. Airport, 3. Blocking Parliament, etc. etc. etc.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
@ hclau, c.162:
“If he [abhisit] has taken at least some action with regards to the PAD…”
well, in reality… Abhisit gov was the _first_… to put pressure to enhance speed of judicial processes ag pad. don’t believe me; it’s public knowledge, just some research footwork na π
uiiih… now you’ll say…. “BUT BUT he was so fast to act ag udd…”
a) what do you want? a pm that directs judges to act due to public pressures?
b) cases ag pad did not come under “soe”.
c) cases ag pad did not even come while abhisit was pm.
whatever… i guess it doesn’t matter to say it
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
@ Jim Taylor, c.50:
u did it again, right?
“To Dickie and his mates…”
again you just go along with some traits in your mind to generate systems & meaning out of the mere chaos of phenomena.
this very same method you apply here… linking people together who have nothing in common besides being critical of you…
— don’t you think that says a lot about the way your mind works in whatever kind of assertion about “facts”, “truth”, “reality”?
*…
& you go on, again:
“maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too …”
personally, dear Jim, i take that as an insult. as what you propose to do… i do.
*…
i cut it short, this time. there was an intial post on ISOC in cm that was widely well received. it were your very own follow-ups that allowed us “insights”, Jim. i can’t speak for any of your students or your fellow “academic” professionals — i guess i’ve met as many corrupt ph.d’s as politicians, artists, journalists. actually, after all these years… plain business people seem to be most inclined to root out this gift to weaknesses of human character na.
you showed flaws in argumentation as well as in judgement. that’s all. you’ve to live with it.
i will just wait what’s next, tomorrow.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
antipadshist
MCOT news also reported on it at the time.
“Shortly after the state of emergency was announced, a group of anti-government protesters led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) stormed into the Interior Ministry compounds where Mr. Abhisit made the announcement.
Gunshots were heard while UDD protesters looked for Mr. Abhisit. However, the prime minister later managed to escape from the ministry by car.”
http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9466&t=2
I’ll reiterate my view that if the PM had not of of declared a SOE none of this would have happened.
He used the blocking of the Criminal court as part of an excuse but “HELLO Mark” it was Sunday during a National holiday and the court was CLOSED, the protesters were not rowdy and they kept the road open, even directing traffic.
The government wanted to work fast because they knew that once Sonkran was over the UDD numbers would swell with their returning members from the provinces and they may well get ousted from power. In other words the Democrats used the military to consolidate power, very democratic Democrats. The SOE was ordered for expediency and not to restore order.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Anyone wanting to find out some real (first hand) truths should turn up at ΡβΠ·ΡββΡβΠ€Ρβ£ΠΡβΠ¬Ρβ£ΠΡβ£ΠΡβΠΡββ‘ΡβΠ²ΡβΠ· ΡβΠ€ΡβΠ½ΡβΠ©Ρβ£ΠΡβΠ±ΡββΡβΠ½ΡβΠ tomorrow (10 May) at 1600 hours…
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Paul Thavat #179
I can’t say about who those “red shirts” at Interior Ministry actually were.
however I can provide you with evidence that both Abhisit and Nation are lying now that Abhisit was in that car :
“Several police and protesters were injured during a riot inside the Interior Ministry when red-shirted protesters tried to attack a motorcade leaving the compound on suspicion that the prime minister was inside one of the cars, Thai PBS reported.
The station confirmed that both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban were not in any car of the motorcade.
The station said Abhisit and Suthep left the Interior Ministry before the red-shirted protesters managed to block the entrance of the compound and ran inside and rioted.
The Nation”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30100329
any thoughts ? π
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Thanks for this article. Very complete and with lots of pictures.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Thick or what? What more facts do you want? in relation to the missing/dead 156 or so persons, I gave the following information:
1. Student Association of Thailand public announcement to tens of thousands of people a week or so back at a merit-making ceremony at Din Daeng for those reputedly killed by the army and those still reported missing (check that out with those present at this event)
2. Credible Thai web site links (where these are not blocked by the government) such as those listed in βthaienews.blogspot.comβ
3. Posting of reported missing to DSI (check with them)
4. Notification made at two well known welfare orgs: Duangprateep Foundation and House # 111 Foundation (check with them)
What more do you want? delivered on a silver plate? investigate for yourselves…
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
#55 Jim Taylor. If Jim as he now admits, in this post (even though it is quite ovious throughout his postings- but now he’s said it)supports the UDD/Red side,I presume he would also be prepared to help- if he were/is called on ?
As I said in an earlier post – perhaps a little too sarcastically – being an “arjarn”, provides him with an excellent opportunity to do some good, for the cause he supports. Being an “academic” – even if he is not Thai – the “authority” that goes with the role, will make it much easier to get the message across, to a receptive Thai audience.
If I was him, I wouldn’t be wasting my time on sites like this.
I would be out there doing it.
Yes, I know, easier said than done. It might not be safe, either.
But, if he believes in this “cause”, he has a great opportunity to particpate and not just barrack from the stands, like so many of us on this forum do.
He indicates, he does attend many events – so, maybe he does this already, without making an issue of it ?
There is of course, one important thing : he should always base his work with the Thai supporters, on the “truth”and “real facts”…..something which has been at issue, in this post.
Otherwise, he will do little, to help bring about the changes, so badly needed in this country.
He cannot vote; he must be careful, but he can help change.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Colum Graham #54:”What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.”
If you are refering to his leading post, that seems to be about reinforcing his strong belief, there is a “conspiracy” taking place, but some people are not buying into it.
He then continued on with some fairly emotional and not very factual rants, in defence of his theories.
I am not about point scoring. I am jst asking for some objectivity and maybe some proof, that things are, or are not, as Jim claims.
It is sad, this whole mess is fast bringing Thailand down to the level of a “failed state”.
But, it is not going to get better, if people like Jim (who by his occupation, certainly has more power ,than someone like me) use flimsy heresay as reality.
Isn’t that after all, part of what is wrong in this country, where the mass media are either lazy, ill-informed, or just playing a certain line, fed to them by their various patrons?
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Who me, aligned with Reds? sure I do from what I have heard, seen and felt in recent years: But to come to that conclusion I had to first listen to both sides and then I make my own judgement. In terms of some kind of fuzzy middle ground neutrality?? I cannot see any of this in the present institutionalised environment of spin, cunning and untruths that is justified in order to establish a status quo ante. If readers wish to investigate further on my reflections that is fine: If not, that is fine too…
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Indeed Regular Reader, you wont know till he shows proof. But the point is, it’s a reflection. I could reflect on lucid memories where the actuality is distorted, but that doesn’t make them any less reflective. Sure Dickie Simpkins points are valid. I never said they weren’t, I did imply that challenging him with these points is pointless. Good you’ve caught a fish with some semantic barbs, but to then try to knock off his head with “would this stand up in an Adelaide court?” is petulant and only makes yourself and Dickie look desperate to be right, rather than being right about something with a little more substance. Good you’ve got him, he’s full of it. Now what? What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.
Haha, I said earlier I am paying him patronage because he pays for me to catch the train into Adelaide with his tax. I catch the train into Adelaide to worship the Napier building and skip down North Terrace pleased that my karma is balanced.
Lunch?
It doesn’t offend me that people eat dogs and cats, any more than it offends me for them to eat cows, and pigs (which they eat in my country). I honor and feel respect for vegetarians.
The great issue of concern is the torturing of the animals. Debate is good, because it promotes thought, possibly leading to action. Just remember that the ultimate objective for this and any issue, is results. While speaking out against cruelty and torturing of animals, be sure to add exactly what the readers/listeners can do about it. (Try to add at least one non-financial option for those who can’t afford.) And make sure that your information on the subject is accurate, and any instructions, if followed, are or can be effective, at least in some degree. In other words, do your research from reliable sources. (I’m sorry I don’t, myself, know of any specific suggestions of what to do about this.)
Also, think of any given country/place as you would your own. Different people in that country believe different from each other. Be careful not to judge as a whole…
And if you, yourself, are intentionally contributing to, or allowing the torture or abuse of an animal for any reason, and you have any choice otherwise, please know that you can’t feel the pain they’re in. They can. Torture can be more intensely painful than you can imagine. And even mild abuse can breed fear, distrust and misery.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Colum Graham #48 you said :
“I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! ”
It would seem to me, you might be suffering the very common complaint here in Thailand, of paying “respect” to the “arjarn”(Jim Taylor) ,at all times – even when you might not agree with what he, or she says.
It sounds like you are saying, “they are an “arjarn” – therefore, they must know more”.
All we “mere mortals” are doing here (on this post), is not falling into the “Thai patronage trap”. Instead, we are questioning the “arjarn”.
He might be right – but unless we ask him to show us proof, how will we really know?
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Colum Graham #48, I don’t think it makes any difference whether or not Jim Taylor is an academic, or hides behind a pseudonym (as most of us do).
The problem with him, unlike Nick is that he is stating “he said, she said” type of hear-say, as fact. Nick is much more careful about what he says.
He admits he has sympathy for the UDD/Red cause and how they have generally gone about their business.
He does have more “hard” evidence (his photos) than Jim. (And, yes, we all know “photos can lie”).He was also from his accounts, “there” during a lot of the big incidents.
But, he is also honest enough, to say, for example, he was not at the location of the Din Deang Tankers and so, can only relay what he was told.
On the other hand, Jim continually turns hear-say into fact.
Maybe he doesn’t mean to. Maybe it’s just his was of expressing himself.
But as Dickie, correctly points out, this would have a very hard time, standing up in a court in his home town – Adelaide.