nurofiend

it's a good thing to see thai youth from across the country do something like this, even with its ambiguous or overly-simplistic aim (take your pick), it's positive to see in such a politically apathetic society when it comes to young people.

the only song i'm familiar with is take five, probably seeing as it's his most famous and i'm not exactly a jazz enthusiast, i don't dislike it.

interesting that he didn't actually write take five.

he is a character

he's got 'character'

Had it been the other way round I would expect riots.

Had it been the other way round I would expect riots.

Would you indeed?

I'd ask why but there was already one creepy racist comment removed from this thread (nice job Mods). Should't take the chance of encouraging another.

You're not getting a rise out of me, nor will I allow you to construe my comments as racist as oppose to social commentary. P.S Does Rodney King ring a bell?

haha, you think that if it was the black guy that got pushed on the tracks there would be riots ala rodney king, good lord.

so should we expect cities to burn every time a black guy gets murdered by someone who's not black?!

absolutely laughable comparison.

'social commentary'.....

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

that was only a suggestion by the cc not a ruling, i don't believe it's in the constitution to have a referendum just to allow a constitution rewrite.

rewriting it and then putting it to a referendum makes sense to any logical human being.

putting it for referendum before people have any idea of what the changes will be doesn't make sense.

"regardless what's in it"

do you realise how silly that sounds?

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

"as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum"

well then you remember and understand it incorrectly.

I should have said "first officials to mention referendum" as I actually mentioned it on TV in an earlier thread before the CC ruling

If you have footage to the contrary please provide it as I've now requested three times on this thread or else don't bother mentioning it again

i can mention it as many times as i want

ptp, if you count them as 'officials', mentioned it long before the cc got involved after the dems hissy fit.

it was always intended for public referendum but the democrats seem to have a problem with public votes.

Really? So why did Chalerm ask if people had fallen asleep during the election and state that the government had the mandate to change it unilaterally?

Seemingly you are ignoring everything else said by ptp with regards to it.

and charlem's (who we all know has a tendency to speak before he thinks) comment doesn't prove anything about not having the intention to put it to referendum after the changes were made.

If people really think that they were going to risk changing the whole constitution without putting it to referendum then they are really not thinking straight, regardless of how stupid you may think ptp are, they are not stupid enough not to realise that doing so would be a recipe for a coup and that it would be the outcome if they did such a thing.

and what ptp were trying to push through in parliament before the dems hissy fit and they're surrounding of the house speaker (very dignified), was only to set the ball rolling.

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

"as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum"

well then you remember and understand it incorrectly.

^ scratch that, on further reading it seems the black guy was acting crazy and the asian guy was just trying to calm him down.

edit: mr han's wife said he had been drinking and arguing with her.

seems like a pissed off drunk guy bumped into a pissed off crazy guy.

there's obviously no excuse for throwing a man on the tracks but from the video it looked like the deceased was getting in the guy's face.

repeat, no excuse for throwing a man on the tracks and i hope they catch him and lock him up.

Thailand has made a mistake. It is another miscalculation that fails to take into account the impact upon the southern insurgency. It should have abstained like many western governments. The southern seperatists can offer many of the same arguments as the Palestinians with one major argument that the Palestinians cannot not make: The disputed south was at one time an autonomous region and fully separate and distinct from Thailand. The Palestinians have no characteristics of a state: There is no representative goverment or body that speaks for the combined regions of the former Egyptian territory of Gaza, nor for the former Jordanian territory of the "west bank". Hamas and the PA are at odds and loathe each other. There is no government infrastructure etc. Despite years having passed, and billions of euros/$$$ given, the palestinian arabs really do not have much to show for their "natiion" building. Neither the PA nor Hamas are legitimate governing bodies as their "elected" mandates expired. Hamas was elected in 2006 and refuses to allow a return to the polls. The PA President Abbas refuses to allow a presidential election.

Thailand's decision was predicated on its need to retain the favour of its energy suppliers and to ensure the Gulf State big wigs are kept happy. Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc. Fair enough as that is international politics. However, at the end of the day, nothing will have changed. The palestinian arabs are still in the same position as before, have refused the last statehood offer that saw them reject a state at that had been ageed to at the Camp David meetings, seen them reject the Oslo peace accords they signed, and seen them reject a deal offered by former PM Olmert that gave them close to 100% of the land they wanted.

Olmert wanted to annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank to Israel, areas that are home to 75 percent of the Israeli population of the territories. His proposal would have also involved evacuation of dozens of settlements in the Jordan Valley, in the eastern Samarian hills and in the Hebron region. In return for Olmert proposed the transfer of Israeli territory to the Palestinians equivalent to 5.8 percent of the area of the West Bank as well as a safe-passage route from Hebron to the Gaza Strip via a highway that would remain part of the sovereign territory of Israel but where there would be no Israeli presence. Basically, Israel would have given part of its own land to the arabs to compensate them. Think about it. The arabs rejected an agreement because of a dispute over 6.3% of the land in the proposal. Had the arabs accepted, they would have had a nation a few years ago and a starting point to negotiate the small bits and pieces of lands still disputed.

"Many countries that abstained or voted in favour did so because of their perceived need to give Abbas a lifeline, to keep his political faction alive as the loss of Fatah would only leave groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad etc. Some countries voted in favour because they are aligned with the arab voting bloc."

But of course no mention of countries voting that way or abstaining because they actually thought it was the right thing to do... and a way to build foundations for the future.

Nope, there has to be some selfish agenda or fear factor for all of them in your eyes... that's a whole lot of countries in the world with their own selfish reasons, it couldn't be that they just think it's the way it should be.... it just couldn't!

You speak of western countries, even old reliable germany abstained instead of voting no, a big blow to perceived support of israel.

The UK said they considered voting yes as long as Palestine promised not to use it's status to gain membership in the I.C.C, where they would obviously pursue Israel for the backlog of war crimes... why this promise should be made, i have no idea.

Nine countries in the world voted against it,

Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama are five of them.

Czech Republic is another one.

I'm sure you know the other three.

Good on you Thailand and every other country that recognizes that ignoring Palestine does nothing for progress and keeps us stalled in the dark ages on this matter.

there were some thai kids who shot at someone in a hospital, that is bad.

what more can i say without going off topic...

so was this all a waste of time or has something, anything, come out of it?

calm down.

usually mafia have good reason to execute mafia style. mafia style usually done to those in the game!!!!!!

no offense but pooket does draw a lot of foreign scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are plenty of scum of every nationality there but the Thais top the bunch.

i can't say no they don't, only reason being is that i don't have a top of the bunch.

nice work pal.

Throw the book at them

Yes, throw the book at them if found guilty. They are responsible for the deaths and injuries to so many people, and also caused many innocent Thais their livelihoods and all that damage to property, make an example of them so that no one will dare try that again.

Precisely. The sticking point is the terrorism charge. Very very hard to make that stick.

They should have found something easier. Charging people with terrorism is a very technical charge, especially when they are the leaders, who will inevitably say they aren't responsible for the conduct of others. Has anyone down south been charged with it yet?

You are right. Terrorism is not easy to define & labelling someone or group terrorist(s) even more difficult. It's far too often a finger pointing exercise to dam_n those of an opposing opinion. Individuals, groups, militaries & even governments commit terrorist acts but usually only the weak get tarnished with the terrorist label.

Violent conduct or incitement to violence or both is the type of charge that should have been made.

"Terrorism is not easy to define & labelling someone or group terrorist(s) even more difficult"

seems easy enough around here.

"The inquest concluded that Charnnarong Polsriwala, a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)"

Can we assume not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time but one of many members of an armed group of rioters who were not only violating laws but had proven themselves to be an armed and dangerous militia.

Only in Thailand and only from a government who seized power aided and abetted by these violent thugs could there ever be such a ridiculous inquiry!

of course you can assume that, i'm sure that's the natural reaction of a lot of people.

you know nothing about the person shot, just as i don't but you have the gall to label him as a violent thug and assume he was armed.

btw, do witnesses mean nothing to you? we haven't even seen the inquest, just a report on it from a biased news source and you have your mind made up already.

and calling the red shirts a militia is just laughable and ignorant.

If you cared to look up the definition of terrorist you would find that that is just what the redshirts were in Bangkok 2010. And some of them still are. A sad point is that some of them did not even realize that they were just that.

if you cared to actually read my post you'll see there is no mention of the word terrorist whatsoever.

however i don't describe 'the red shirts as terrorists' because i don't see them all as a bacteria like some people here seem to.

"The inquest concluded that Charnnarong Polsriwala, a member of the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)"

Can we assume not an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time but one of many members of an armed group of rioters who were not only violating laws but had proven themselves to be an armed and dangerous militia.

Only in Thailand and only from a government who seized power aided and abetted by these violent thugs could there ever be such a ridiculous inquiry!

of course you can assume that, i'm sure that's the natural reaction of a lot of people.

you know nothing about the person shot, just as i don't but you have the gall to label him as a violent thug and assume he was armed.

btw, do witnesses mean nothing to you? we haven't even seen the inquest, just a report on it from a biased news source and you have your mind made up already.

and calling the red shirts a militia is just laughable and ignorant.

My post was fully backed up by multiple links now removed, but in deference to the moderation and no need to rehash for the night crew, I'll withhold re-posting them.

PM them to me then.

you could have just posted them there now and that would be the end of it if as you say, it was fully backed up.

my link seems to fully back up what i said.

are the conservatives listening to Labour in the UK? Has anyone really listened to the wall street protesters?

bang on the money,

lots of posters harping on about others lack of understanding of democracy lately while seemingly ignoring the realities of it.

I think you'll find they actually do listen and communicate effectively with each other, Conservative, labour and Lib Dem MPS sit on a number of very influential committees (Pension and work select committee as an example) etc, to ensure the transparency of budgets, rules being followed etc. These committees report directly to parliament, not to government.

You certainly don't get the conservatives using their positions to install friends and relatives in high ranking government positions, silencing critics, or trying to use their political position and influence to publicly discredit the leader of the opposition.

Which is what politics is in Thailand be it Dem PTP or another at the helm

I think you'll find they actually do listen and communicate effectively with each other

that's debatable but anyway,

my point wasn't to say that thai democracy is perfect obviously, but who's is? certainly not america's or the uk, that's the reality.

i was making the point that we often see posters accused of thinking democracy ends after an election and 'not understanding' just because they point out that ptp were democratically elected, it's ridiculous.

Quite amazing the lengths you have just gone to in sourcing three old snippets of posts, all taken out of context, while seemingly completely unable to post a single source substantiating what you have written on this very thread...

Surely it would have taken much less effort to simply provide a link to a news article that actually supported what you have written? It certainly would have left you with a little more credibility...

No great lengths extended at all. It's very easy to search for a catch phrase that someone has become to be known for as in this case. Accomplished in seconds.

http://www.thaivisa....ch&fromsearch=1

It was intended as a reminder that someone who obfuscates in their own replies for requests for information can reasonably expect to receive the same.

It's become part and parcel on the forum of late to similarly dance around requests and formerly expected protocols have fallen by the wayside in favor of replies similar to such as those quoted.

Odd that you wish to try and focus the credibility issue on me when I've posted more links and more information than the vast majority of posters.

It's difficult not to follow the trend and join in with what has become the forum's norm.

Rather than continue to buck the trend and continually supply links, I'll just go along with the crowd for now. Perhaps when I see more challenges to other posters like your post here, then things might change.

In the meantime, I'll continue to provide links, happily, to those that don't obfuscate tremendously themselves, as I always have.

eg.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5873338

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5865127

Have a nice day.

.

So you've supplied two links that lead to the following old threads on Thai Visa... "National parks reveal earnings on daily basis" and "Police Check Trucks, Vans Heading Into Bangkok", neither of which are in any way relevant to what you have said on this thread or do anything to substantiate the wild claims you made earlier in this thread!

You really are going to great lengths to not substantiate your statements, surely it would be easier to just provide a source and backup your statement? As you have pointed out, you are a prolific link provider on this forum, so why the difficulty now?

If you can't supply a single source, even a tenuous link to an impartial jaundiced article alluding to what you have maintained on this thread as a fact, I am afraid I can only assume you are talking from your posterior once again... I would also like to point out to you that credibility is not automatically granted to those that post the most links on an internet forum... indeed I recall a saying my late Grandmother was fond of: "The emptiest vessels make the most noise."

haha, apparently i have a famous catchphrase now....

he's just wrong.

anyway here's a link that backs up what i said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6911060.stm

am, weren't they holding continuous rallies since june? i take it you're talking about the marching on prems house incident.

and hundreds of policemen injured by the red shirts on one day in july 2007?

let's see your source to prove your claims of, both, the 'within hours' and 'hundreds of policemen' please.

unbiased sources are preferable, but if you can't find any then no problem, i'll read what proof you've got.

pick one

there is this handy tool called google, it helps so that you don't have to spoonfeed people their information

if you're trying to get me to spoonfeed you information, it's not happening.

< ----snip (too many quotes)---->

lol, difference is, i guarantee... without me even making all the effort that you've just put into finding those and checking them, each of those comments were easily accessible information that were one google search away...... yours however, is not...

you know why? because you are wrong.

Think the General was a brave man to stop the protests, took guts. At least he thought about the loss of life that could have happened, unlike the Reds when they were downtown years ago.

do you think the low turnout may have influenced his decision too?

i can think of a few words to describe what little i know of this man but brave is not one of them.

"United Nations regulations allowed police to bypass standard procedures to take more drastic actions to save themselves when their lives were at risk, he said." Hmm.....that in itself is a problem, allowing an outside organization to determine how they do things. Once corrupt organization helping out another?

the UN is his uncle.