Yes of course without, I changed it! Thanks!
I don’t really buy the gangster theory, but I still say no, based on the fact no-one knows how the election would have gone if it hadn’t happened. I still find it a little hard to believe the general assumption (made by many) that people would vote for Chen out of ‘sympathy’ - if anything, I think it could be equally be argued that the shooting might have scared some people off voting for him knowing that someone was prepared to use violence against Chen (and by extension, possibly his supporters). Then again, I can’t say I fully understand the Taiwanese mindset about such things and how they might view it 
People who hated his music.
Suppose Bin Laden is caught a week before the US elections and Bush rides to victory in a swell of public support.
No Democrat would suggest that there should be a revote because Bush had an unfair advantage. What’s “fair”? External circumstances are never fair. What if the weather is sunny in Tainan and raining in Taipei on election day? Is that grounds to invalidate the election?
Continuing the example of Bin Laden/Bush above, even if it later came out that Bush hid Bin Laden for a year until just before election day, there still would be no re-vote. That’s what recalls and impeachments are for.
[quote]Suppose Bin Laden is caught a week before the US elections and Bush rides to victory in a swell of public support.
No Democrat would suggest that there should be a revote because Bush had an unfair advantage. [/quote]
Some might, but it wouldn’t get any traction. Something vaguely like this actually happened with Nixon’s election-related Watergate break-in, which was reported in the news before the election (though admittedly nobody really knew what it meant at the time). When the truth came out, they just impeached him, but nobody ever claimed the election had been invalidated by this documented election-related cheating.
Speaking of Nixon, somewhere recently there was an editorial pointing out that Nixon’s loss to JFK in 1960 was even closer than the current one (0.1% or so), and to his dying day Nixon believed JFK cheated – and yet he never called for a recount, let alone started riots. Kind of pathetic, when a politician is even less noble than Nixon…
Nice post jm, I hope someone in the local printed press or TV news finds out about the info you just posted regarding the close Nixon Kennedy election of 1960. It is a prime example for people in Taiwan to think about.
Cheers.
Its already been covered by the Taipei Times a few weeks back. Not sure if it was mentioned in the Chinese-language papers. As a PhD graduate from the University of Chicago, Lien Chan should look at the 1960 election and 2000 elections and do the honorable thing and concede. Nixon could have contested the Cook County voting irregularities in '60, but this would have damaged him politically. Americans generally don’t like sore losers. The same goes for Gore. 800 votes or so is a lot less than 30,000. I am not a big Gore fan, but he deserves peoples respect for his conduct in 2000. The same can’t be said about Soong and Chan. They should open a chorus line show with Elmer Fang and other has-beens. They could finance the broadway show for years with their ill-gotten gains.
Chewy
My wife – who is a hard-line green by the way – came up with this gangster theory the other day and it pissed me off so much I nearly had a stroke. I also has to write an 1800 word refutation of this stupidity for the Chinese press.
As SCL points out, and I pointed out to the Mrs, if you think that “shooting to graze,” under the circumstances in which the shooting took place, is possible, then you might as well admit that the pan-blues have a case that needs to be answered.
My ever-mounting anger about this shooting business is that the entire pan-blue case is based on something that anybody who has ever handled a handgun knows is simply an impossibility. Basically the whole way people are treating this is arse-backwards. It is up to the pan-blues to show that what they are suggesting – “shooting to graze” in the gut – CAN be done before we have any obligation to consider whether it WAS done.
I’d say that you (and anyone else that subscribed to the theory), have watched too many Hollywood action movies and don’t know the first thing about ballistics.
It is impossible to shoot through glass with that degree of accuracy - as you cannot predict the way in which going through the glass will alter the trajectory of the bullet - which it absolutely will do. Period.
It would be impossible for the best marksman in the world using a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight to be certain of shooting with that degree of accuracy.
It would be a hundred times more impossible (if something could actually be more impossible than impossible), to do so with a handgun - much less using handmade bullets.
And that would hold true for a stationary target - it holds true a hundredfold for a moving target on an uneven surface.
RJF
[quote=“RJF”]It would be impossible for the best marksman in the world using a high powered rifle with a telescopic sight to be certain of shooting with that degree of accuracy.
It would be a hundred times more impossible (if something could actually be more impossible than impossible), to do so with a handgun - much less using handmade bullets.
[/quote]
Given that the ‘shoot to injure’ conspiracy theory just doesn’t die, a few more points to consider:
- The shooter was surrounded by very loud firecrackers which would have been bound to have affected his concentration/aim
- The shooter had to try to avoid notice by the rest of the crowd. This means he must have somehow disguised the gun, and wouldn’t have had time to aim accurately
- The shooter was standing in the middle of a crowd on the side of the road; he would have had to be careful about people jostling him, people walking in front of him etc.
A final point to consider: the shooter must have known there was a very good chance that someone standing next to him would have noticed him - and so he would either have been likely caught on the spot, or identified at a later date. Any ‘professional’ organisation (whether DPP/KMT/Gangsters) would have known there was a likelihood the action would be traced back to them; not so much of an issue for underground gambling rings, but for a major political party? Political suicide for a few thousand votes.
The saddest thing about this affair so far is how it has shown up the utter incompetence of the Tainan police force. They seemingly have practically no real leads, and are running around like headless chickens with pointless ‘busy work’ like questioning foreign English teachers (yeah, right, like some Canadian/American backpacker did it in exchange for party money at Kho Samui).
To all of those who believe that Chen’s shooting was a real one you have to think again and think really hard. The whole shooting scene is a LIE!!! Chen just wants to get the sympathy of the locals so he would have the most chances of winning the Dumb Election! If somebody were really to shoot him why in the world would Chen not be shot in the head then? Another thing that is disappointing is the dumb ass writer who wrote the article about Chen’s shooting. Why can’t non Taiwan citizens just shut the hell up rather than adding stupid comments about Taiwan’s politics. Non Taiwan citizens can’t do anything to help the locals think better or decide better on who to vote. Besides, non Taiwan citizens are not here to stay forever so what’s the point of minding the political issues on Taiwan? Well unless you are one of the greedy Americans who only care about selling weapons to Taiwan and suck all the money out of Taiwan. :fume:
I disagree. Whether it can be done or not may be interesting but is irrelevant. Before I consider anything I want to see some evidence.
Political motives aside, are you saying that the gunwounds were faked?
Hm…it is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Yes! Why don’t all the non Taiwan citizens just go back to America and worry about Kerry and Bush! And why don’t all the waishengren swim back to China and worship Hu Jintao! Where’s the justice?! :fume:
If you don’t want to see foreigners’ comments on Taiwan’s politics, you’re on the wrong thread in the wrong forum on the wrong web site, mate.
Yes - over and over again. And that the two bullets were made of different materials (one brass, one lead), and that they weren’t deformed after impact. Would a bullet (lead or brass, homemade or otherwise) still be pointed after going at an angle through a car windscreen? This is not a rhetorical question - I am just asking.[/quote]
Deformed – “it depends”. A jacketed bullet would stand up to a windshield better than a lead bullet. Neither of them would necessarily be seriously deformed after hitting soft tissue. The hardness of the lead bullet (really lead alloy) would make a difference, too. This is a fancy and longwinded way of saying “I don’t have any idea.” Sorry.
How do they know it was a homemade gun, though? No rifling marks on the bullets? If that’s the case, then the bullets might have been tumbling as they hit, whatever they hit – so all bets are off for how a bullet might have bounced off that windshield. [/quote]
You were right. Both bullets are pretty small - not rifle bullets. The solid copper (not jacketed) bullet was the one that went through the windscreen and hit Annette Lu in the knee, and the lead bullet was the one that didn’t go through anything hard before it gouged Chen Shuibian’s abdomen. That’s what I expected, because I imagine the windscreen impact would have messed up a lead bullet. The tips of both bullets were intact, but the base of the copper bullet was chipped. The forensics guys deduced that the copper bullet must have been tumbling when it hit the windscreen.
A lot of people out there are still puzzled as to whether a bullet that went through a windscreen could really be stopped by the support Annette Lu was wearing on her already-injured knee, and whether a bullet that entered through two layers of Chen Shuibian’s clothing and ploughed across several inches of his skin and blubber would then come to rest in his jacket. Probably they could and probably they did, but people are wondering nevertheless.
At last I got to meet a soldier. On Sunday I met a friend of mine who has signed up for five years in the ROC army and has done his first few months of training down in South Taiwan. I asked him about the allegation that a lot of soldiers lost the chance to vote because their leave was cancelled under the national security mechanism (guoan tizhi) brought into play following the apparent assassination attempt. He told me that new recruits such as himself got their leave to vote as usual, but all soldiers with a profession (zhiye) had their leave cancelled, and he knew someone who was already on leave and was recalled. So a lot of people did lose their vote and they are not very happy about it, he said.
About the assassination, he said that Chen and Lu were being guarded by both army personnel and police, the police being “outside the system” (tizhiwai) - i.e. not those normally assigned to such duties. Following the shooting, all the military personnel where cleared away, and only police accompanied Chen and Lu. This is another thing the army people are not pleased about, according to my friend.
He also told me that he has never encountered an officer, either mainander or Taiwanese, who is pro-DPP. I asked him if there are DPP supporters among the privates and new recruits. He said there are, that they are a minority but more vocal than the blues. I asked him whether, given the discontent in the military, he thought Chen Shuibian was worried about whether the army is willing to follow his orders. He said that Chen Shuibian had good reason to be worried about that.
OK, so that is just one soldier and maybe there are other soldiers with different stories. I’m just a little more inclined to believe my friend than politicians from either side.
In my humble opinion, even if no votes were fiddled, the assassination attempt was 100% genuine and forgetting the capital pro-DPP underground radio stations tried to make out of the shooting, the deprivation of the right to vote of thousands of soldiers, if true, is reason enough to make the election result invalid. It can be set right by forming a credible list of the soldiers, police and military police who lost their vote and giving them a supplementary vote (buxuan) or, failing that, by holding the whole election again.
[quote=“Juba”]
In my humble opinion, even if no votes were fiddled, the assassination attempt was 100% genuine and forgetting the capital pro-DPP underground radio stations tried to make out of the shooting, the deprivation of the right to vote of thousands of soldiers, if true, is reason enough to make the election result invalid. It can be set right by forming a credible list of the soldiers, police and military police who lost their vote and giving them a supplementary vote (buxuan) or, failing that, by holding the whole election again.[/quote]
If soldiers could not vote because they had to perform duties resulting from a legal and normal response to an assassination attempt, that is not enough to make the election result invalid. The elction was held fairly and according to the rules. Changing the rules because the result does not suit you is not part of the normal workings of democracy I am familiar with.
Besides that, there’s nothing wrong with presenting logical arguments in a situation like this, but with all the total bullshit about this election that has been presented by the blue camp as logic up to this point, there had better be an ironclad reason for a revote. You can’t just keep grasping at straws and expect the other side to accept one sooner or later.
[quote=“Juba”] …He told me that new recruits such as himself got their leave to vote as usual, but all soldiers with a profession (zhiye) had their leave cancelled, and he knew someone who was already on leave and was recalled. So a lot of people did lose their vote and they are not very happy about it, he said.
…of thousands of soldiers, if true, is reason enough to make the election result invalid. It can be set right by forming a credible list of the soldiers, police and military police who lost their vote and giving them a supplementary vote (buxuan) or, failing that, by holding the whole election again.[/quote]
How many???1,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, 30,000…???
I could kepp going on upto 999,000
[quote=“Juba”]
In my humble opinion, even if no votes were fiddled, the assassination attempt was 100% genuine and forgetting the capital pro-DPP underground radio stations tried to make out of the shooting, the deprivation of the right to vote of thousands of soldiers, if true, is reason enough to make the election result invalid. It can be set right by forming a credible list of the soldiers, police and military police who lost their vote and giving them a supplementary vote (buxuan) or, failing that, by holding the whole election again.[/quote]
In my opinion, the possible disenfranchisement of military personnel has been the ONLY possible reason for questioning the validity of the election results. However, Lian and Song have not made a cogent argument for cancelling the election results based on this issue. They’ve been going in every direction rather than focusing on the one thing that most people would agree is unjust. My thinking is that there are two possible reasons for this. The first reason is that there were actually very few military personnel who were not able to vote, or that these people would not have been allowed to vote even without an assassination attempt. My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that on election day, the military was on no higher level of alert status than on any other election day. It seems to me that the Blues want to stir up passion with this, but when it comes down to it, they can’t point to any substantial number of soldiers who lost their opportunity to vote because of the assassination.
The second possible reason for the Blues not focusing more on the soldier disenfranchisement issue is that the law affecting how or if soldiers can vote on election days was passed by a KMT dominated legislature. If they really try to argue that the election should be nullified because soldiers weren’t allowed to vote, then the DPP would be able to come right back with: “You took their rights away from them in the first place.” This is assuming that the assassination had no real effect on the numbers of people on duty. My guess is that it did not.
IMO, the law concerning how or if soldiers can vote is a bad one. I don’t see why the election commission wouldn’t be able to set up and supervise polling stations on military bases, but I’m sure there is some bureaucratic reason why it can’t be done; probably something related to everyone having to vote in his or her home town. Nevertheless, the election was conducted according to the rules, and the rules (at least concerning soldiers and voting) were agreed upon by all parties before the election. I think it is quite dangerous to go back and change laws after the fact. A recount is one thing; it is only intended to check the result of the initial count. Letting more people vote, however, opens the possibility that only certain segments of the electorate will be allowed to do so in order to change the result of the election. I also think it would prove quite difficult to make a reliable list of soldiers who did not get to cast their votes. It would require coordination with every voting station in Taiwan to confirm whether or not a soldier went there to cast his vote that day. The prospect of doing that in my home country would make me very uneasy. Doing that in Taiwan? Well…