This topic is locked
Anyone, absolutely anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. I've tried several times to tell the facts about the Tiger Temple and my additions seem to disappear shortly after I put them up. I'm not rude in my additions, just want to question the motives and treatment of the tigers. Someone obviously feels otherwise about the place.
I don't doubt for one moment that Samak was responsible for the killing of many student protestors... in fact, I consider him to be very evil and potentially very dangerous, but the fact remains, Wikipedia is a weak source of objective information.
0
People's Alliance For Democracy To Renew MovementPAD lists four main issues
Started by sriracha john, 2008-02-25 16:27
#102
Star Member Posted 2008-03-03 18:16:40
The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources.
"Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw. "You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies. "Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense. #103
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-03 18:26:44
The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources. "Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw. "You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies. "Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense. Ahhh yes, sure. If you say so. 
#104
Titanium Member Posted 2008-03-03 19:57:53
The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources. "Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw. "You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies. "Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense. Chownah #105
Star Member Posted 2008-03-04 10:47:57
".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners.
If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms. #106
Titanium Member Posted 2008-03-04 12:11:52
".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners. If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms. I'll repeat myself here as it seems that you didn't read this the first time around as it directly addresses what you have posted here: Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination. You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong. I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this. Chownah #107
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 12:52:24
".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners. If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms. I'll repeat myself here as it seems that you didn't read this the first time around as it directly addresses what you have posted here: Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination. You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong. I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this. Chownah Why do you insist on going way off topic with your fixation on samak and his cheering ? It has really nothing to do with this topic and certainly not worth the stubborn diversion you have engaged in. I'll try and make it simple... and I would ask that you open your mind just a little before responding. Cheering means "to encourage with shouts". It doesn't necessarily need to have a positive, joyous or pom pom clad meaning. Now, i'll let you do the next bit. Try and fit this definition with the reports of what samak was doing at the time. If you have an open mind (which you have assured everyone you do have ), you will find that this definition fits! If you can't or won't get it to fit.... well.... please just forget about it then, and put it down as a misunderstanding or a mental block or something.... AND MOVE ON. Finally, at least consider from the angle of how your post has relevance to the topic, keeping in mind you initiated this diversion and have kept it going with your closed, defensive fixation. Edited by traveller5000, 2008-03-04 13:11:44. #108
Star Member Posted 2008-03-04 13:26:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background
Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy. Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak. It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others. #109
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 13:37:19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy. Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak. It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others. And you were where at the time this was happening? How well did you understand Samak's Thai when he was instigating this? Could you tell us teh exact words he used- I assume on the TV or radio. #110
Star Member Posted 2008-03-04 14:00:47
As with any other historical event we rely on witnesses and historical accounts.
In this case they are all in agreement about Samak's role. If you want to revise the history - YOU need to come with evidence to the contrary. #111
Advanced Member Posted 2008-03-04 14:36:50
I think we can all agree that Samak's role at the time was not on the side of the good guys.
#112
Super Member Posted 2008-03-04 14:44:17
As with any other historical event we rely on witnesses and historical accounts. In this case they are all in agreement about Samak's role. If you want to revise the history - YOU need to come with evidence to the contrary. I don't disagree with any of this on Samak's role but he was essentially a bit player.If there was to be a full and transparent national enquiry into the 1976 events -there never has been (take a wild guess why not) - the results would be dynamite, with Samak's role paling into insignificance. #113
Star Member Posted 2008-03-04 14:52:18
Yes, but he is the one sticking his neck out. It's natural he gets all the flack, at least at the moment.
He was awarded an Interior Minister post for his contributions, they must have been more than trivial. #114
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 14:52:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy. Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak. It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others. And you were where at the time this was happening? How well did you understand Samak's Thai when he was instigating this? Could you tell us teh exact words he used- I assume on the TV or radio. another wanna be lawyer... #115
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 15:14:35
Yes, but he is the one sticking his neck out. It's natural he gets all the flack, at least at the moment. He was awarded an Interior Minister post for his contributions, they must have been more than trivial. And the man that was rewarded with the prime ministership at the time - Tanin Kraivixien, whose excesses of violence are still memorable, has been later rewarded with a seat in the privy council, which he still occupies. He also came out recently with speeches showing strong support for the latest coup. Several other members of the leadership of Navapol, a former semisecret extreme rightwing group and the main culprit and instigator of '76 next to the Kratingdaeng, the Village Scouts and the Border Police, are still sitting in the privy council. If you want to learn more about Samak's role in the '76 massaker, i would suggest reading 'Rituals of National Loyalty' (google the book - available on amazon.com). It is clearly spelled out, supported by unrefutable footnotes, whose close adviser Samak was during that period. There are also spelled out many of the names that are still familiar, photos shown of who else sponsored the right wing organizations responsible for the massaker (and previois and subsequent atrocities). The facts are there for all to see, but nobody will allow an open debate and investigation on that era here in Thailand. The more people like you limiting the debate on the '76 massker and Samak's role, the more ridiculous you sound as you so openly avoid a full debate on the background of what happened in those days, and therefore fail to see the parallells to this era we are in now. #116
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 15:27:19
And where we are just at it...
Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence. Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here. #117
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 15:48:41
^^ I've just read the first page of that book you recommended with the amazon reader. Stories in the 70s of penis shrinking potions distributed by the vietnamese to permanently halt the Thai birth rates, blood sucking vampires resembling students running around that store and give blood for transfusion for the communists..... wow. strange times indeed.
#118
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 15:52:35
And where we are just at it... Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence. Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here. of course, and it's clear he was not alone. but the problem is that he distorted history and kept insisting that only one (1) died in the incident and was just an unlucky guy. it would have been better if he just accepted the fact and apologised to the general public and that the incident was unavoidable and that the clashed between the army and students thus had casualties of 46 dead. NOT ONLY ONE KHUN SAMAK! Edited by LuckyFive8888, 2008-03-04 15:53:06. #119
Mistress Whiplash Posted 2008-03-04 16:00:08
And where we are just at it... Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence. Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here. Aren't you mistaking him for Chainarong Noonpakdi who was, I believe, the one actually in charge of the crackdown on protesters? I have never read anything anywhere that suggest Surayudh was in charge of the troops during that crackdown but rather recall reading in Asiaweek, that Surayudh was not in Bangkok. Do you have any proof to back up these allegations? #120
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 16:01:39
of course, and it's clear he was not alone. but the problem is that he distorted history and kept insisting that only one (1) died in the incident and was just an unlucky guy. it would have been better if he just accepted the fact and apologised to the general public and that the incident was unavoidable and that the clashed between the army and students thus had casualties of 46 dead. NOT ONLY ONE KHUN SAMAK! Absolutely. The problem though is that both Samak, and most of his accusers position have the same result - avoidance of a full investigation and an open debate on events that still haunt Thailand. The massaker is trivilalized and insrumentalised for short term political gains. #121
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 16:07:55
And where we are just at it... Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence. Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here. Aren't you mistaking him for Chainarong Noonpakdi who was, I believe, the one actually in charge of the crackdown on protesters? I have never read anything anywhere that suggest Surayudh was in charge of the troops during that crackdown but rather recall reading in Asiaweek, that Surayudh was not in Bangkok. Do you have any proof to back up these allegations? No mistake. There are conflicting versions of Surayudh himself. He has repeatedly stated that he has never given the shooting order (which is rather strange as he was in command of Special Warfare Command, and the shooting lasted for days). Nevertheless, in one recently banned book by Giles Ungpakorn the accusation is made, supported by a footnote of an interview with Surayudh published in, i believe the Siam Rath, in which Surayudh himself has admitted to his personal appearance there. In addition to that, and a purely personal experience, i do know several Special Warfare Command officers, one of them at the time as a young soldier was part of Surayudh's bodyguard, and has given me a very interesting personal account of what happened from his position at that time. He blamed his actions of that day on the stress factor, somewhat expressed regret in a limited way. #122
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 16:09:34
^^ I've just read the first page of that book you recommended with the amazon reader. Stories in the 70s of penis shrinking potions distributed by the vietnamese to permanently halt the Thai birth rates, blood sucking vampires resembling students running around that store and give blood for transfusion for the communists..... wow. strange times indeed. And we are still living in strange times. Today we have again a increase in extreme nationalist militias. Some of the names have changed - the game stays the same. Edited by bannedagain, 2008-03-04 16:11:50. #123
Senior Member Posted 2008-03-04 16:12:18
yikes! not the shrinking potion, no way...
#124
Newbie Posted 2008-03-04 16:16:52
yikes! not the shrinking potion, no way... As far as i know the initiations are not anymore made with such a mystical ritual as in those days. It's a more straightforward ceremony of an oath of loyalty, the handing out of weapons after a two day to a week training course. Don't underestimate it - the potential danger of at least a hundred thousand armed civilians only in the three southern provinces (and many more in the other border provinces) is no laughing matter. Something is set into motion here that may well get out of hand at some point in the future. Read the last International Crises Group report on this subject - a sobering read. Edited by bannedagain, 2008-03-04 16:17:58. #125
Titanium Member Posted 2008-03-04 16:36:13
".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners. If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms. I'll repeat myself here as it seems that you didn't read this the first time around as it directly addresses what you have posted here: Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination. You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong. I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this. Chownah Why do you insist on going way off topic with your fixation on samak and his cheering ? It has really nothing to do with this topic and certainly not worth the stubborn diversion you have engaged in. I'll try and make it simple... and I would ask that you open your mind just a little before responding. Cheering means "to encourage with shouts". It doesn't necessarily need to have a positive, joyous or pom pom clad meaning. Now, i'll let you do the next bit. Try and fit this definition with the reports of what samak was doing at the time. If you have an open mind (which you have assured everyone you do have ), you will find that this definition fits! If you can't or won't get it to fit.... well.... please just forget about it then, and put it down as a misunderstanding or a mental block or something.... AND MOVE ON. Finally, at least consider from the angle of how your post has relevance to the topic, keeping in mind you initiated this diversion and have kept it going with your closed, defensive fixation. It's just that simple....Plus introduced this topic by making his accusation that Samak cheered the massacre....and even now he maintains this position and does so without bringing any evidence to support it....he talks as if it was fact and if it is fact then I want to see the evidence. Personally I think it is opinion and Plus is not able to tell the difference between fact and opinion in this matter. I have yet to see any evidence to indicate that Samak cheered the massacre...none...zip...nada....I'm perfectly willing to accept such evidence but so far none has been brought forward by anyone. It is clear that Samak supported the right wing...to what degree I don't know...no one seems to have any evidence...and any evidence that I have seen does not come with an explanation of the bias of the author which is a CRUCIAL matter when discussing political happenings in Thailand. Maybe you take it lightly that someone is accused of cheering wholesale slaughter of demonstrating students...I don't know...I don't take such accusations lightly.....if anyone claims such a thing openly as being fact I will challenge them to show some evidence.....which is what I did....and no evidence has been forthcoming....so far the evidence only supports that Samak supported the right wing political movement...no evidence has been brought forward that indicates that he cheered murder. Just wondering about relevance to the topic...if this topic is irrelevant then please ask Plus why he brought it up in the first place. Chownah Edited by chownah, 2008-03-04 16:38:21. |
Sponsored by ... |
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
