ThaiHome Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 cannot say this is untrue If you have done any research on Samak, you would easily realize he was in fact the antitheses of every left wing liberal philosophy you seem to believe in. You seem to be blinded by the fact that for a very short time he acted as Thaksin’s nominee in the twilight of his political career. His active role in the 1976 Massacre is uncertain, and nobody today can be sure it was him on Army radio station shouting “kill them, kill them†just before the Red Guars and Village Scouts attacked the university, but it is certain he was fully aligned with forces behind the attack and was not the least bit remorseful for what happened. What is also certain is that as Interior Minister during Thanin Kraivixien’s administration in the year after the massacre, he personally directed the strict censorship of news, the arrest of numerous alleged left-wing activists, communist sympathizers and progressive students, as well as purging all civil servants that had even the slightest left wing leanings. Books were burned and banned, political meeting outlawed and they announced it would 12 years before democracy returned. This regime is acknowledged to be the most repressive government Thailand has ever had and eventually even the military had enough and got rid of it. And this is the guy that was chosen to lead your populist party and you seem to agree that he was “one of the better politicians LoS has known...certainly "smak-daddy" was a lot more up-to-date than the dreary bunch we now have in office...†I give my condolences to his family, but let’s not get carried away and not forget what he actually believed in and stood for. It certainly was not any form of any liberal political policies. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 My colleagues and I were amazed that so many university students said they were going to vote for Samak for gov of Bangkok. They didn't seem the least interested in his actions in 1976, saying they happened long ago. Of course, how many people remember the Bangkok Post's role in stirring up the mobs before the Thammasat Massacre either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted November 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 I agree - I always wondered how he ended up at PPP - go back before the election and you'll my comments then - many people preferred Abhisit over samak - but voted PPP before Democrat. I find it odd they are giving him so much coverage - and rights etc. Very odd - deaper meaning I am sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Thaksin personally picked Samak. Probable reasons: 1) Samak always wanted to be PM and would do as he was told if he got the job. 2) Mr T had been accused by Sondhi of wanted to end the monarchy and make himself president of a republic. Samak was a staunch royalist and picking him would help counter the charge. 3) Samak had no following and would pose no challenge to Thaksin's absolute control of his party (aka the Borg). The government may be going overboard on Samak's funeral to demonstrate they are not biased against Mr T's people - just against Mr Square Face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted November 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 good points - agree with them all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 All this sweet talk about him reminds me ... Nobody ever talks about the GOOD things that Hitler did. Really, you just had to get to know him better. Sure, he had some sharp words, spoke his mind and had his own agenda, but man... get him in the kitchen and he could whip up a mean wiener schnitzel. Wasn't he the fuck who claimed only 1 person died in the '76 student massacre? Hypocritical, obnoxious ass. errr.... he was vegetarian..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew66 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 BB - there's some credible evidence that he wasn't actually vegetarian. My source would be at home in one of those dusty old fashioned things made of paper though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Adolf was basically a vegetarian -- but sometimes he fell of the wagon and indulged in a sausage. It wasn't for any humane reason. Hitler said he noted that herbivores lived longer than flesh eating animals. Thus he avoided meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTO Posted November 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Volkswagen - Those fast motorways - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew66 Posted November 26, 2009 Report Share Posted November 26, 2009 Adolf was basically a vegetarian -- but sometimes he fell of the wagon and indulged in a sausage. It wasn't for any humane reason. Hitler said he noted that herbivores lived longer than flesh eating animals. Thus he avoided meat. Thanks Flash! That's precisely what I would have written if someone had screamed,"SOURCE! SOURCE!" Some tome at home I have - Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and Politics, from the Great War to the War on Terror ~ Michael Burleigh (Thanks to C + P!) Either that or 'God is not Great' Chrissy Boy Hitchens. Spot my viewpoints...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.