Insight

nurofiend, on 2012-05-25 08:32:32, said:

Yes charity as a fob for PR/Advertising, but I have never seen a compensation cheque for a dead daughter given in such a shamelessly self promoting way

bigbamboo, on 2012-05-26 21:28:11, said:

while similar...


this is very, very different...


the latter Big Brother doesn't have mustache.

,

Reasonableman, on 2012-05-26 14:11:18, said:

I guess that without a sound effects machine in the background they thought he was being serious!

ballpoint, on 2012-05-26 10:46:08, said:

The other paper's article today has quotes much more pointed.


.

I think many are missing the real message he was giving

Quote

A reminder, and a veiled warning.

To mr. nickn.....

You mention 'baseless speculation'.  You might like to remember that in most countries in the world (maybe all) the law allows for prosecution on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

This premise can be applied to many things and I suspect that there's a healthy number of folks who have, for themselves, defined the paymasters role very clearly based on 'beyond reasonable doubt', and more.

IMHO there are plenty of incidents, plenty of speeches etc., from the paymaster, plus plenty of other 'items' which can contribute to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' opinion that the paymaster is/was the mastermind.

You of course, mr.nickn ...  would try to take a stance that your writings etc., are all based on fact.

We all have personal bias, it's basically impossible to escape, and I cannot accept that your writings have no content which is either your opinion and/or based on your personal bias.

Lastly, you are of course fully entitled to have your opinion, and I am entitled to have mine, we disagree, that's healthy.

The struggle continues comrades, and no I wouldn't want the reds to become some rabidly communist movement either, although it is obvious that many of their leaders are very left of centre.

I really wish them good luck, this country actually needs a group with some kind of principle, socially and economically, beyond getting pork for their locality and skimming 30% for themselves.  Politics needs balance to move with the swings and situations present in a country at any time, and maybe the reds can develop to become  the balance to the other parties over time.  

It is good that over time Thaksin does become just a stepping stone in the history of the country.

nicknostitz, on 2012-05-23 20:16:17, said:

Actually Giles is a avowed communist though he claims to "come from a different tradition to the communist parties that people know about".  He stated such last year in an interview with Mark Teufel

Mark Teufel interviews Ji Ungpakorn

Yes, sure... As far as Marxists like me are concerned, there are two kinds of Marxism or Socialism, if you like. One is what we call “Socialism from above” imposed either by Stalinist regimes like those that used to exist in Eastern Europe or Russia or China, or even a kind of socialism that ... is claimed by a few Members of Parliament in a capitalist parliamentary democracy. That’s what we would call “Socialism from above,” but as Marxists we would argue that, really, Socialism has to be the act of the majority of ordinary working people. So we are in favour of “Socialism from below.” I am a Trotskyist, because Trotsky had a consistent opposition to Stalinism and the dictatorship that occurred around the communist world. I come from a different tradition to the communist parties that people know about, really.

Instead of coming out and saying he is a radical Marxist red shirt activist, you try and portray him a just progressive, giving the impression he is just in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies when in fact he is a lot more than that.
TH

To Nick:
The ethics of a "war photographer" is to take photos of conflicts in the world as documentary.
Interpretations are outside. You don't have journalist  certification (even proud of this).
You speak  unfavorable about Crispin, who has more knowledge about Thai culture and Politics.
Try to acquire this knowledge, then you can open your mouth.

hyperdimension, on 2012-05-24 13:32:39, said:

You'll find most red sympathisers are generally much less happy discussing Thaksin and his role in all of this, than they used to be, back in those heady days when they were still defending him. Still remain a few stragglers who take it upon themselves to argue against the rising tide of contradicting information and evidence, but they are in the minority. The rest have come to the sorry realisation that that particular fight is a lost cause. Talking about him can only weaken their argument. The strategy now is to avoid discussions of him at all cost, and to pretend that he is no longer relevant or important, despite the fact that at every red gathering, his face and name can be seen everywhere you turn.

Despite rumblings of discontent, he still remains massively popular with the vast majority of red shirts, and you'll see this should he ever pluck up the courage to return as he will receive a heroes welcome, even from those who now express some dissent. Almost to a man, they'll fall dutifully back in line in fear that to not do so, might mean missing out on whatever rewards he dishes out, or even worse, be on the receiving end of some punishment.

philw, on 2012-05-23 17:32:45, said:

Disingenuous, provocative nonsense is what started this whole travesty in the first place.

The age-old problem - what to with the useful idiots when they are no longer useful?

I suppose educating them is out of question.

Thida Thawornseth, UDD chairwoman said Thaksin "was just playing his role" in his video link.




And what role would that be?.....asshol_e of the century?

gand, on 2012-05-20 14:26:24, said:

As well as this, before the riots Abhisit held a live televised sit down meeting with 3 of the red shirt leaders to try and find a resolution before it escalated - regardless of the talks offered the same red shirt leaders started the riots the next day. They were not forced into starting the riots when they did but they had already bused in thousands of peasants from all over the country to be a paid flock of sheep to send to the slaughter for them.

Before the clampdown the red shirts were offered their demands and they were offered elections within 6 months (which is what they said they were rioting for) - they immediately changed their demands so the riots and subsequent clampdown could continue and intensify. There was never going to be any negotiation or early end to the riots, the plan all along was to burn Bangkok and kill as many people from both sides as possible and try to blame it all on the other side, which is why they were as provocative and offensive as they were while the army were holding back.

Proof of intent of the riots shown in these two videos filmed 4 months before them;



The red shirt leaders encouraged all the rioters to fight until death and they said they all intended to die there too, but as soon as the army got within shooting distance of them they threw up their hands and surrendered like the cowards they really were. If the red supporters were really there for the movement why do they still support these red shirt leaders who blatantly lied and sacrificed them all during the riots? It's probably because the only thing they actually care about is getting paid to turn up and going to a party with free food and drink.

Corrupt thugs and liars, that's all they really are. It was never (and still isn't) anything to do with any democracy or trying to help any underprivileged Thais. It's all about the cause of one man who would sacrifice his own people and burn down his own country just to get his way.

How anybody, let alone supposedly non-biased non-naive expats, cannot see what really happened is beyond me.

Protest all they want - just don't BURN DOWN ANY DAMNED BUILDINGS