rabo

Can a rich Thai just be a rich Thai and stay out of Politics. I guess the dirty money is always dirty no matter how much it is laundered

Why do you assume she is rich ??

ph

And why the slur about dirty money............Maybe you have a dirty mouth.( let me rephrase that, perhaps you need a wash )

I don't think she is rich, her father was not so successful in business, and he was bankrupt in some law suits by a couple of former police chiefs over some business deals. She does get his generous army pension for life, something that would not have happened had Seh Daeng been disbanded from the Army as discussed at one point. Anyway, here's a nice picture. From a Cambodian website Khmerization ážែ្មរូបនីយកម្ម: Seh Daeng: Profile of a warrior.

This should give some of the more rabid critics of the foreign media pause for thought - but it probably won't.

http://blogs.reuters...thaksin_and_me/

It is a good article and an enjoyable read. Reuters usually is. Time is better, I trust Time before I read what they say.

It does not change my opinion of CNN and the BBC's modern sound-bite commercialism though admittedly, the BBC was once upon a time the definition of world class news.

..........Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

Sorry for the long answer, quick one liners are often less that helpful.

This is what I think based on the entirety of all I have seen, read, and understand of the violence.

1. The 60 to 80 bombings recorded throughout the country during this time. Definitely the red side but probably range from intended bombings by organized militant elements to irresponsible people or even juveniles setting off homemade bombs.

2. April 10th. The assassination of the military field commanders and initial targeting of soldiers as well as some protestors was preplanned and done by undercover red militant factions. Subsequent shooting of protestors by the army most likely occurred as the commander-less troops tried to respond to a surprise attack. This event was pre-planned by a red faction. Just before it began, 7 plastic explosive bombs were detonated on the main power lines feeding Bangkok. A major clue into the nature of the conflict.

3. Japanese photographer killed April 10, the government later admitted he was shot by the army by accident.

4. Attempted destruction of Bangkok's power supply and RPG attack on jet fuel storage depot, definitely organized red militants. This is clear terrorism.

5. April 28, (my birthday), the shooting of an army officer was initially reported as friendly fire and later attributed to black shirted militants. Most likely not friendly fire as he was shot in the head, side to side.

6. M79 grenade attacks on yellow shirts at Silom, most likely red elements, thought I don't see it is proven.

7. RPG attack on the Dusit Hotel upper floors - clearly the reds.

8. May 19. All M-79 and other grenade attacks by the reds/blacks. Clearly the military had orders to use rubber bullets (2 thirds of all soldiers photographed had rubber bullet guns), shoot for the legs, or shoot in defense. The lopsided number of deaths and injuries suggests the military did not intend to take a large number of casualties as they had on April 10. Protesters were shot by the army. Some of those killed were clearly part of a threat, others may well have been collateral causalities.

9. May 19. The obvious targeting of reporters, rescue workers wearing clearly visible uniforms, and innocent

people in the temple. - Clearly not the work of the army according to their orders. Surely done by an organized group intend on discrediting the government to cause its collapse. Possibly by the same organized group that started things on April 10th. Just maybe some other mysterious group that wanted the government to collapse.

10. Successful arson of 36 buildings - mostly the reds, probably planned, setting major fires is not that easy.

I don't know how to answer the question "who did the shooting" with less bias.

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army

I must have missed that footage. I've seen an untold number of videos of people dying, but not one that showed someone specifically getting shot in the head by the Army. Do you have a link for any of them?

There was one on U Tube during the Songkran Army attack - how could you have missed that?

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

BBC

New Mandela

CNN

Al Jazera

Bangkok Pundit

2BKK.com

Political Prisoners Thailand.com

Nick Nosterlitz

The Canadian who believes he was shot by the Army

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

That other forum something to do with doorways that cannot be mentioned.

Another newspaper.

Uk Times

Time magazine

UK Guardian.

Independant

Several Australian newspapers.

etc etc

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

The original insinuation was the Thai army purposefully targeted and shot innocent civilians in the head, and the subsequent request was for evidence that this really happened.

Since you are not able to produce any evidence, then we are left to assume the statement is nothing more than the kind of disinformation so often posted by violence apologists.

For perspective. When Abhisit proposed early elections, put forth the reconciliation plan, and began negotiating with the reds, he commented that his biggest problem at the time was Thaksin phoning the coalition MPs in an attempt to pull the coalition apart.

Prime Minister Abhisit was right when he pointed out that the yellow shirts were not hel_l-bent on demolishing a rival political party. The campaigns against the Samak government, he noted, began after the ruling People Power Party vowed to launch constitutional changes to absolve Thaksin and bring him back from exile. That PPP government could still be here, although Samak has passed away, if it had just concentrated on real national issues.

And like it or not, if the PPP government were going to launch constitutional changes, that would had been done with measures and actions that were legal, constitutional and a parliamentary process? done with the power the constitution itself and the electorate gave them? Unlike the illegal and unconstitutional way the putschists removed the 1997 constitution for the 2007 constitution. The PPP government would have done it according to the rules, according to the existing laws without violating them.

The courts didn't like it and the PPP government was disbanded because of voter fraud. Thus they did not have the angelic love of legal, constitutional, and a parliamentary process to which you allude, nor a mandate to change anything.

who originally predicted this earthquake?

I'm not sure where it started, you can google the two names below and pick up some of the story, part of which is on that unmentionable paper. Seems a Thai working for NASA started the ball rolling with a comment about a planetary alignment. Then some talk about a solar eclipse on June 12, which does not seem to be true. There is a solar eclipse on July 11, so June 12 may also be a time of sun/moon/earth alignment.

There is both some lay science and some real scientific data suggesting that moon/sun/earth tidal forces may correlate to some degree with the timing of earthquakes. The moon and Earth control the tides but the other planets have virtually no effect on the earth.

A lucky guess based on partially true, partially understood phenomenon?

Thailand predicts an earthquake. Jing reu mai ?! Once in a blue moon, perhaps.

See:

1.. Kongpop U-yen, a Thai engineer who works at the US National Aeronatics and Space Administration (Nasa),

2. Smith Dharmasarojana

3. Solar Eclipse July 11, 2010: Cruise to Tahiti or watch from Easter Island, Chile, or Argentina

4. Planets do not affect earth read here.

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

Glad my opinion was only simple and mindless, thus I was able to escape the majority of your negative criticism of posters/ Neanderthals. There is another guy/cat around who keeps insinuating that posters who don't agree with him are poorly educated. Nice of you to suggest it is a genetic rather than education problem.

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

Definitely, the order that Thai's use for words and phrases can be less than intuitive for a foreign speaker.

Have you tried tapes? They're a good way to pick up a feel for word order in phrases. You can listen in your spare time and the learning is almost subliminal. Good for tones too, which are often different between Northeastern Thai and Central Thai.

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

Nakchalet, your spewing hatred against Thaksin (you need to learn some spelling...) is completely irrelevant here.

Let's stick to the topic and to what I wrote and not what you might think is my point of view. Mybe you can initiate a new thread, something: What do you prefer - a military dictatorship or a democratically elected leader like Thaksin?

The topic is about Sonthi who committed hight treason by toppling a legally elected government. He later changed law and constitution to avoid prosecution.

This human lifeform has absolutely zero credibility and even less legitimacy talking or being involved in any form of democratic reconciliation. Honest reconciliation would start with putting someone like him in jail for the rest of his life.

It's just about him - the reason that you think Thaksin is so evil is another topic.

Tallforeigner, your comments are all about Mr. Thaksin. Mr.Thaksin's growing abuse of all principles democratic was the sole reason for the coup. In a Hollywood movie he would play the leading role, Sonthi and others would play supporting roles.

You cannot make a rational argument based on a single incident in time while denying discussion about what caused that incident.

......... your spewing hatred against Thaksin......... ..

.........This human lifeform has absolutely zero credibility ........

....... He belongs behind bars for the rest of his miserable life

... with 2 wives, (a Muslim) ...

can we please keep his wives and his religion out of the debate?

Facts are facts and the fact that he is Muslim explains why he can have more than one wife according to his religion; but it's against Thai laws, although more or less "accepted" in his (and others') case...... That's why I mentioned it.

In other words: he won't be prosecuted for having two wives....or will he?

LaoPo

Having 2 wives can be prosecution itself.

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

I also think some were later involved.

The two notions of 'guilt by cheering' are equally absurd. It seems one only gets respect from the anti-reds on TV by singing from the same hymn sheet as them. Otherwise, one is subject to sneaky attempts to be drawn into breaking forum rules, tag team forum attacks, accusations of being paid to post by Thaksin or being such-and-such a returning banned poster, etc.

In answer to your little thought experiment: I think the arson would still have taken place after the scenario you paint.

By the way, one question mark is enough at the end of a question directed at me. Spare me the amateur dramatics.

If the reds had disapproved and left, then who would have done all the arson? (Single question mark indicating non rhetorical question)

He also urged the government to shelf its plan to reopen the factfinding investigation into more than 1,200 silence killings related to the war on drugs under the Thaksin administration, arguing this might be a wrong timing.

Disgusting.

Another one advocating injustice be accepted for the sake of appeasement.

I don't know why Sonthi suggested this. But, it might make sense for the government to focus its effort on the current terror charges against Thaksin. Diluting their efforts by raising old, stale, and controversial charges won't help and may give the other side some advantage in the propaganda war.

Please read my post again and try to see a little beyond your pre-conceptions. The only thing I'm suggesting is that we can only speculate about how large the conspiracy was and who was involved.

And, Insight, no I'm not insinuating that. In fact, I'm 99.99 percent sure that it was some Red Shirts who committed at least some of the arsons (though nothing would surprise me in this country). Gangster/criminal elements jumping on the bandwagon can't be ruled out in some of the fires.

Yes, it's a debate. Disingenuous team attempts to discredit other posters is not debate.

OK, I have a good debate for you. I wrote the below in another thread the 26th of May

I worked at Central World for too long really, also after it got uncomfortable or possible even somewhat dangerous to go there because peaceful demonstrators dressed in red intimidated me to stay away (not physical intimidation though)

You could hear the loud speakers at full blast also from inside the office and unlike many of you posting here, I speak more Thai than English in an average day since over 10 years back so it wasn't difficult to understand the message put forward. And the peaceful red demonstrators screamed out their approval at the top of their lungs. Yes, what were these reds who did that?

Don't say that 99% of the reds at Ratchaprasong were innocent, it's more appropriate to say that 99% were guilty – assuming that 1% of them were either too old to hear well or too young to understand the words

My opinion is rather clear I think, what is your opinion of the above?

What a nonsense argument! Most anti-reds on here were ecstatic in their cheering of the murder of Sae Daeng. Does that make them guilty of conspiracy to murder? Same argument, same nonsense conclusion. (cue more rants of how Sae Deng got what was coming, probably leading to discussions on the morality of extra-judicial killing and more discussions about fake reds/soldiers/insert your favourite, and so on and so forth )

A. The leadership of an already violent movement calling for the destruction of a city, explaining the methods, reading lists of targets, and the followers cheering on, and no doubt some were later involved.

Compared to,

B. Seh Daeng, leader of the red militant wing with an arrest warrant issued for him, is shot, and a group of mostly Western forum members express their elation.

You consider these two to be equal???? Would you further ask others to respect your arguments??

Do a little thought experiment. What if the crowds booed or left when the red leadership called for the burning of the city. Is it possible that the lack of support could have prevented the arson, or much of it?

<br />So what the heck was all that about on 107 the other morning? Not internet waffle it was someone who was trying to speak with authority about the earthquake...Fortune Teller? Nut case.<br />

A week or more ago there was a show on TV, a Thai scientist and authority was arguing about the comming end of the world and great quakes, and there was a lot of footage of past earthquakes. Seems to be going around in Thailand.

Looks nice. Whish you luck.

Does look nice. The one pic reminds me of an ad long ago in the NYT, "Farmer looking for wife with tractor. If interested, please send picture of tractor."

Can I ask - Is the little hill in the back ground 1) on your land? 2) connected to your land? 3) government land?

sticking to the facts not a stronghold of the Thaksin haters.

Guess it is their different education that separates Thaksin haters at this board from other members.

mazeltof - I would like to hear your opinion about the facts around if Thaksin did call in to the stage at Ratchaprasong or not, the facts around if the red leaders at Ratchaprasong did instigate burning or not, the facts around if the red leaders at Ratchaprasong planned burning or not

I work at Central World, I heard it: Did you also hear that?

What about the facts around if the reds had stock piled cooking cas tanks in strategic locations around Ratchaprasong so that they could make sure the fires they planned to light really took off. Perhaps that's an education issue...

why not discussing the 'facts i was referring to, instead of removing the context of my reply and quoting me only partly?

FACT: people have different education.

FACT: Thaksin did phone-ins, yes. that is true. nobody denies that. but does that put central world on fire?

FACT: The red shirts hold a rally for around two month without much burning and much arson happened.

FACT: According to Abhisit the red shirts were ordinary citizens, innocent people demanding democracy.

FACT: plenty of cooking gas everywhere in Thailand and not only a specialty of the red shirts.

I just can not understand why this guy is still making comments about Thai politics.....If he wants to be involved, then he should come back, as a man, and stop being a coward in exile......

He is anyway a fugitive, and his advice should be treated as used toilet paper.

Let him make his comments, the question is WHY PAY ATTENTION?

Please, lets all look the other way, nothing here to see, that's it, good, just keep walking, mind your way. You, madam! I told you to look away!

This one is about 7.3 on the mazeltov scale.

Much of the message sounds like the ranting of a hurt child."You helped him but you didn't help me, you are not my friend! I hate you". Also a clear admission that the Samak and Somchai government was a Thaksin puppet regime, often denied here on TV.

One could almost feel sorry for the man and his money, until you consider the untold damage to a wonderful nation for which he is responsible.

Sad, sad, sad.

He headed a probe into alleged extrajudicial killings of 2,500 people during a war on drugs under ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a 2006 coup and is idolised by many Red Shirts.

Ongoing Impunity from Thaksin's War on Drugs

In August 2007 the government appointed a special committee chaired by former Attorney General Khanit na Nakhon, to investigate approximately 2,500 extrajudicial killings that took place in 2003 as part of Thaksin's "war on drugs."

...

Thailand | Human Rights Watch

so Khanit na Nakhon was also to Junta government best choice to head an investigation.

anyone remember the fndings and conclusions of that independent committee?

i know yellow simpletons like to ignore these facts.

'War on Drugs' probe draws a blank

An independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found

no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders,

a Justice Ministry source said yesterday.

After five months of inquiries, the panel, led by former attorney general Khanit na Nakhon, has obtained only statistical details about the number and nature of the murders.

But no conclusion that would implicate police or Thaksin as the instigator of the shoot-to-kill policy has been reached.

...

The Nation, Published on January 16, 2008

The report goes on to say:

But the report contained no conclusion that may subject an individual to criminal liability.

The outcome is likely to be considered by many as a failure, because the panel's objective was to bring those responsible for the murders to justice - be they police officers or anyone in higher authority who encouraged extrajudicial killings.

The Khanit na Nakhon panel is said to have opted not to name at least three political office-holders involved in administering Thaksin's highly controversial policy, despite discovering their involvement.

The report said 2,819 people were killed in 2,559 murder cases between February and April in 2003. Of those killed, 1,370 were related to drug dealing, while 878 of them were not. Another 571 people were killed without apparent reason.

Some 54 people were killed in shootouts with police officers, 41 with known drug-related links but two without any known ties. Another 11 people were killed but it is not known how they were involved in the shootouts.

The overall murder rate two years before and two years after the three-month 'War on Drugs' was 454 cases a month, or a third of the number killed between February and April 2003.

Oh! Oh! Oh!

I am shocked I tell you, deeply shocked!

...to read that Thaksin's legal team could be guilty of attempted bribery.

yes - could be guilty. omfg! it is true. could be guilty.

be guilty is a court decision.

Long ago someone came in my house and stole items of value. After he was caught and I understood all circumstances, I choose not to file charges even though he was guilty of stealing my stuff.

Don't quote us nameless sources nor pretend to know more then us and blame the mods for not allowing you to post anything. You just make yourself look like one of those smart alecky people who pretends to know more then the nothing he does.

I agree with you, but unfortunately pretenders and wannabe experts a quite common here in the threads about thai politics. not the smartest people.

sometimes they can cause or even :facedesk: but most of the time its fun. they are easy to detect and even easier to expose and to debunk.

Anyway WELCOME to the board, lets have a quality time, share our knowledge and an interesting debate.

:facefacemeow:

Some progress with the cat? No more claims that others are less educated, just less intelligent.

But it is fun, and we should not forget that.

They tried that twice your Red team said NO twice.

'your red team'? Does anyone who says: 'ELECTION' belongs to the red team?

smells like "yellow logic" aka Blah blah & BS.

And the Abhisit government never tried to hold elections. not twice, not once. the opposite is true, Abhisit tries everything to avoid elections.

This government has a small support of around 25% of the people.(and half of the 25% would probably vote for New Politics Party in a coming election)

They were offered the November elections, remember? Reds said yes then the chief from Montenegro called and Reds rebuffed the offer? Why is it Red sympathizers just always seem to ignore that fine point?

you know there is a difference between: talking lots of words about be willing to offer to hold an election or just holding an election.

You know, it takes two parties to agree. The difference you speak of is the difference between saying "yes" and "no" when offered elections. Or burning down the city, whatever.

I am not an attorney, but I am of the understanding that the decision of a criminal court to grant bail or not - and if so, in what amount - is based on its evaluation of risk of flight and/or potential harm to society as a result of release.

These two are not worried. They're not going to do a runner on their own. They've been paid to follow the script, and that's exactly what they're going to do. Red shirt leaders are good guys, don't you know?

Even if they do some time, their signing bonuses and payments to date are already safely in place offshore. And not in a way that will be easily traceable: paintings, gemstones, rare coins and stamps, precious and strategic metals, etc.

I spent many, many years here as a consultant on government projects. Thaksin is running the red shirt project in the same style as he did when he was PM.

A British Virgin Islands corporation leases a villa in Paris. The BVI company then hires a Swiss property management company to rent the property. The Swiss property management company hires a Luxembourg security company to guard the property. The contract with the security company has a clause that if the property is bigger than so and so and worth more than so and so, the security company has the right to place a representative of their choosing (and his/her family, if any) to reside on the premises. The security company then makes a independent contractor agreement with Somchai Wattanatham to reside on the premises from time to time. No money is ever paid to Somchai; he and his family just get use of villa and its staff in the course of fulfilling his private contractual obligation to reside there.

How about the key and access documents and information for a safe deposit box containing a few 1 kg. rhodium bars. At today's price, about USD 2,500 per oz. that's USD 87,500 a bar.

Really hard to trace, and believe me, these folks are in it big time and for the long term.

As I have posted many times before, there is a kingdom at stake...

I used to do a bit of work in the telecoms area, remember one guy who collected very rare wines. A bottle to say hello or a shipment that could be brought in from the south for more. You can put a lot of millions in a wine in a cellar.

It would be ironic if in fact the court granted bail because Jatuporn could show evidence he was obligated to stay and overthrow the government. "Look, I'm not going anywhere!"

Yes, there is a Kingdom at stake.