nurofiend

...threatens to take to streets again...

A clear indication that Thailand is getting more and more in demand for a proper and efficient riot police force.

Obviously, this is the price to pay when a developing country is striving for first world country status.

Agreed. You cannot have first world status with a 4th world Police force. The Police (though some hard working) are a serious danger to the stability of Thailand. Their refusal to act in certain protests is outrageous - and stems from the fact that they act with relative independence from the government.

For those that are against PAD, don't bother to complain now, you did not complain when the red shirts flooded the main business areas of Bangkok for months, terrorised the streets of Bangkok and disrupted nearly anyone coming from the outlying districts for any reason - including friends in Chit Lom who hid in their apartment whilst gun shots were constantly going off.

There needs to be fair elections held with UN oversight (and vote counting, and control of voting stations) and both parties (and conjoined protest movements), including the criminal who throws his money around to cause disorder when he does not get his way, need to accept the decision of the people. Perhaps it is time that every major law change must be approved by public referendum so that the corrupt crooked political system actually works in favor of the people it is designed to protect? Perhaps such gas assets as allegedly exist, should be nationalised if they become a Thai asset, and that all workers become state workers, all profits are given to a good cause outside of Bangkok, such as building better communities in the South?

"For those that are against PAD, don't bother to complain now, you did not complain when the red shirts flooded the main business areas of Bangkok for months, terrorised the streets of Bangkok and disrupted nearly anyone coming from the outlying districts for any reason - including friends in Chit Lom who hid in their apartment whilst gun shots were constantly going off."

i don't like what PAD stand for, and i also complained during the red protests... stop being so black and white and presumptuous.

we get it already, you don't like the red shirts, but this thread isn't about them, no need to vent on them at every oppurtunity.

it makes you seem narrow minded.

I think the particulars are at least lacking if not complete fantasy. There is no mention of a student deferment which has been reported elsewhere, and a claim that he faked a Sor Dor 43 when other reports have indicated an incorrect date on a replacement document.

as i understand it with these "sor dor's", a sor dor 43 is to prove you've shown up for conscription in the first place.

a sor dor 9 is where the age falsifying comes into play, for him to have been eligible to teach he would have had to have been a certain age (or served a certain number of years?) plus he would have had to have an original sor dor 43 document for this to be a valid placement.

i think the young hi-so kid did his best to avoid serving in the army and make it as short as possible.

does that make him a monster? nope, not to me.

just think logically about it is all i ask of people.

it doesn't make him a monster...just deceitful and hypocritical of what he portrays himself of standing for.

Re-read your post. "he had no interest in being part of the army......."

yes?

and i don't think he did have any interest in it... you should read more carefully, not me.

i've already posted this, because i pretty much accept what is written here by a person who obviously prefers abhisit to thaksin any day of the week.

have a read of it:

http://blog.nationmu...int.php?id=7478

it does seem to make a bit too much sense doesn't it?

Actually, it sounds like somebody's opinion. Now I have to wonder whether having "interest" in being in the army is relevant to the fact that he was.

Personally, I had no interest in a different army, except that I was part of it.

wonder away mick, wonder away.

edit:

actually do you not think what is written sounds quite plausible, possibly even the truth of what happened?

what do you think about what's written there, i mean particulars and not just about whether it's an opinion or not, i mean particulars about the individual statements?

he dodged the draft, tried to cover his tracks.. he had no interest in being part of the army just like most rich kids, he knew what was going on.

people, imo, are foolish to believe otherwise.

what the judicary will do however is something yet to be seen.

Everybody but you, including the MoD have accepted that he lectured at the military academy. This is "part of the army".

where did i not accept this, or is that just a fantasy you've just invented?

Re-read your post. "he had no interest in being part of the army......."

yes?

and i don't think he did have any interest in it... you should read more carefully, not me.

i've already posted this, because i pretty much accept what is written here by a person who obviously prefers abhisit to thaksin any day of the week.

have a read of it:

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=7478

it does seem to make a bit too much sense doesn't it?

That's making it political instead a terrible beating by some low thugs and you expect excuses from a political party/movement?

You know better than that.

It's your personal view upon the red shirts in general, grabbing every single article in some low standard newspaper to attack and describe about how terrible red shirts are.

You are continiously generalizing dozens of millions of people who support the red shirt movement whether they are nice or not; correct or not; in the government or not.

.

Personally, I think that the vast majority of red shirts are decent hard working people the same as the yellow shirts.

Dozens of millions of red shirts? On what do you base this claim?

oh stop being so pedantic.

he dodged the draft, tried to cover his tracks.. he had no interest in being part of the army just like most rich kids, he knew what was going on.

people, imo, are foolish to believe otherwise.

what the judicary will do however is something yet to be seen.

Everybody but you, including the MoD have accepted that he lectured at the military academy. This is "part of the army".

where did i not accept this, or is that just a fantasy you've just invented?

i find it hilarious that people think the relaxed gun laws in america is in any way a positive thing.

from an amendment written in the 1700's, i'm not saying that automatically nullifies any rule or right but <deleted>, times are different now.

he dodged the draft, tried to cover his tracks.. he had no interest in being part of the army just like most rich kids, he knew what was going on.

people, imo, are foolish to believe otherwise.

what the judicary will do however is something yet to be seen.

Considering the source, what's his real agenda?

he did legalize pizza, womens pants and cellphones... maybe things are just looking up for the DPRK!

guns don't kill people, people with guns do.

"The academy would have to ask the Army to forward the matter to the Royal Palace and seek a royal command to cancel the rank".

Now they will try to involve the palace in their nefarious political machinations. Oh well another storm in a tea cup. Abihist should be content in the knowledge that everything the PTP involve themselves in is turning to <deleted> and they bare crutching at straws to gain the upper hand. Their corrupt policies are falling apart and the true essence of what they are doing is becoming clear to the electrate. Before their term is over the "chickens will come home to roost", then the PTPs skills at ruining running Thailand will be plain for all to see.

Then PTP will win the next election

I believe the Democrats wont win the next election the PTP will loose it.

are we talking public general elections or in house elections?

careful, you're sounding too level headed.

Careful?

I've been there...

edit: nvm

seems weird that someone who obviously prefers abhisit to thaksin and doesn't like thaksin would just make it up, but oh well.

it all just seems too logical too doesn't it, like it makes too much sense?

these are obviously the new invisible shotguns.

very hi-tech.

Let's see if the Red Shirt Leaders condemn these low character Red Shirts. Let's see if they are denounced and removed from the organization.

Historically, that has yet to occur with the many previous violent incidents carried out by Red Shirts.

.

You sounds like the "quality" newpaper who wrote the tenditious article, describing a bunch of thugs as "Red shirts" as if beating a man has anyything to do with politics.

You make the same mistake and it's the same as if a (democratic or republican) thug in America who beat up people would be excused by the Democratic- or Republican Party.

I don't think that ever happened in any country in the world so don't make it political, when it's not.

It's how they are identified. Red shirts.

That's making it political instead a terrible beating by some low thugs and you expect excuses from a political party/movement?

You know better than that.

It's your personal view upon the red shirts in general, grabbing every single article in some low standard newspaper to attack and describe about how terrible red shirts are.

You are continiously generalizing dozens of millions of people who support the red shirt movement whether they are nice or not; correct or not; in the government or not.

.

Personally, I think that the vast majority of red shirts are decent hard working people the same as the yellow shirts.

careful, you're sounding too level headed.

I don't believe it. He was and is a good man. That's the trouble it doesn't pay to be nice here or any where.

what about this, written before this blew up and while he was just elected as PM?

is there anything in this you refute?

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=7478

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

Your attempts to insult me rather than coherently argue your corner leads me to believe that you are incapable of doing so.

Your attempts to inject your own fiction into the news story leads me to believe that your are not at one with the truth.

The very fact that you sit on here all day going round and round in ever decreasing circles posting the same one-eyed garbage day in, day out leads me to believe that if you are gainfully employed you are either not worth the wage or are employed by a concerned party

"Your attempts to insult me rather than coherently argue your corner leads me to believe that you are incapable of doing so."

hahaha, that's rich.

Where does it say it was a crucial checkpoint? It was a checkpoint. Even if the van was lost, why was it speeding towards a checkpoint? Do you speed towards police checkpoints?

Is there any evidence of speeding or was this the army trying to cover up a complete cock-up? If it was not a 'crucial checkpoint' why did they have heavily armed troops there & why did those troops consider it necessary to defend it with a "hail of bullets"?

They had armed troops there. Were they heavily armed? Why would they allow someone to speed through a checkpoint?

where are you getting the source for the van speeding?

let me guess, the army? the nation?

what about witnesses?

genuine question that i want to know the answer to.

and he'll probably still get his way.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/print.php?id=7478

it's just plain obvious to anyone with a level head that he was 100% aware of all that was going on.

it's come back to bite him on the behind.

hindsight eh.

If the events did indeed occur as described (and I have no reason to think that they did not), it is a horrible, shameful event and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Shirt color or political affiliation is irrelevant.

exactly, politicizing a case about four thugs like this is absolutely ridiculous.

I like that what the last government did. How about what bigT did to get his buddy Hun Sin to do to cause nothing but trouble for Mark over this bare piece of land. Very interesting that as soon as Yingruck elected most all activities around this temple came to an end and nothing but agreement, on both sides, Big T will sale out Thailand on this deal.

and do so overtly...

Thaksin, the OP's Thai Foreign Minister and Thaksin cousin Surapong, Hun Sen

still, looked like abhisit tried to be his mate at least.

trouble is when you're well know to be in bed (with the well opposed and hostile to the issue) PAD leaders and do things like invite them to your home to discuss the preah veah and land dispute issue, it might just cause some hostility and sour relations.

but of course we all know, like everything else, it's all thaksins fault........

interestingly, i do recall posters slating thaksin for his 'friendly looking photos' with hun sen.

i have no love for the red fascists either. The reds and the yellows both represent the worst in politics; intolerance, violence and contempt for any view that does not represent their world view.

Odd. Most of the UDD bashers call the reds commies, socialists, leftists etc.

Well, when classifying this type of thing they are meant to have some ideology. Unfortunately, the reds don't really fit because it comes into accusations of issues that can't be discussed.

Very clever from the yellows, they have painted the reds into being something that they probably aren't.

clever from the yellow leaders yes, but the yellow rank and file ate it up hook, line and sinker, so not so clever from them.

The average Thai could could give a flying bleep about this temple......For the foreign minister to even suggest otherwise shows the complete disconnect of a Thai politician from the people. Every court decision regarding this temple has been in favor of Cambodia, not really sure why Thailand continues to make a fool of themselves over this issue.

I have been to this temple from the Cambodian side two years ago. The site is certainly scenic but as temples go was a bit weak. Both sides are using this as a wag the dog scenario when it suits them, causing lots of needless deaths on both sides. It makes me sick to watch it. The Khymers built the dam_n temple, it is theirs....Not really sure why Thailand has kicked up such a fuss about the couple square kilometers of land it sits on. They should be far more worried about the thousands of square kilometers of land they have lost in southern Thailand ........

Didn't the Khmers build the temples at Ayutthaya to? That's a fair chunk of land to give away because "it's theirs".

The main reason that the Thais have an issue with the temple, is because, as per treaties with the French when they controlled Cambodia, the temple is on Thai soil. The treaties used the watershed as the border, but for some reason some maps that were produced move off the watershed around the temple.

The courts ruled that the temple belongs to Cambodia, which Thailand has accepted, but the court didn't rule on the land around it. Thailand won't just give their land away.

What would you do if your neighbour built a fence in the process taking some of your property?

That is only partly right. The 1904 treaty between France and Siam did agree in principle that the border would follow the watershed along the Dangrek Mountains but the precise demarcation of the border was left to a French-Siamese Mixed Commission and they did in fact go and survey the border together. Since the Siamese had no expertise in map making, they left that job to the French who produced a map in 1907 showing the temple as being in French territory and presented it to the Siamese government in Bangkok. Receipt of the map was acknowledged by the King to the French minister in Bangkok but no objection was raised by the Siamese regarding the border demarcation. The map was thus added to the treaty as an annex to to show the demarcation of the border that had been agreed by the joint commission.

I haven't looked at the map myself but I assume that the French must have included enough territory around it to make access practical. However, the ICJ for some reason didn't touch on this point in the 1962 judgment. If my guess is correct, it seems likely that the court will now put right its earlier omission and rule that the French showed the surrounding 4 sq km to be in French territory too. If so poor Suraphong's worst fears may be realised and Thai people won't understand the ruling. However, I think the reason that most Thais won't understand it is because they coudn't give a dam_n about it. I have not discussed it with many Thais who even knew which Thai province it adjoins, let alone had any interest in the case. The Thais who actually live there just want stability, so they can benefit from the border trade and the tourists visiting the temple.

The Thais who actually live there just want stability, so they can benefit from the border trade and the tourists visiting the temple.

of course they do, it's only the deeply nationalist and fascist PAD who seem to have the big problem with it.

Stupid stupid stupid article.

it's an article for people to bash yingluck about, a classic nation recipe.

No it isn't, it's an article to point out just how deeply superstition is embedded in Thai culture.

yeah, read back over the thread.