gopnarak

Similar kind of violence would be how the students of different schools attacking each other.

OMG. Ever heard of child protesters? Ever heard of murdering children because of their relatives? Ever heard of organized state terror?

Yes. Don't have to look that far in the region.

And Russia remains a steadfast supporter and protector of the regime.

I doubt Russia supports torture of children.

5. 555555

One thing is for sure. In North Korea nobody will get arrested for a message on twitter, because the North Korean Government are the only ones in North Korea who have a twitter account.

somehow related:

'I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe': British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes http://www.dailymail...tter-jokes.html

Let me ask a question. Why do all the Aussies fervently believe Assange has done nothing wrong and is so severely mistreated? Is it simply nationalistic pride or is there yet another reason involved.

Do all Aussies believe Assange? What makes you think his Nationality has something to do with it?

Do all American fervently believe Assange is guilty because their national pride is hurt? Or who comes that you think it would be a case of Australian national pride when they support him?

I received this from our US based supplier:

Please be advised that we will no longer be able to process any orders.

Please see the notification we have received and this basically has tied our hands regarding any shipments made. We truly regret informing you of our action, however we do hope that you understand; and once Ms. Nalinee Taveesin is no longer involved with the government or removed from the SDN list, we can resume working together.

Time to look for a supplier who is not based in the US.

Wow... Where did the US Army get the money?

It's always fun to spend money that's not yours.

15 + trillion in debt with an economy on the verge of collapse.

This might be a "feel good" story to some.

But as a man who is not proud to be an American citizen and taxpayer, I find it irresponsible, arrogant and ostentatious.

You know, my first impression was similar to yours. But upon reading the details of the story, I've come to think the goodwill built-up by not only the $50k, but also the relationships formed by the Thai and US military personnel building the school will in the long run more than make up for the relatively small expense involved. Especially when compared to the billions squandered and/or disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a bargain.

I don't think this $50k will bring the the US closer to the verge of collapse.

And if you compared it for what all these other billions are pulverised in Iraq or Afghanistan it is money well spent.

Of course they love her, Thaksin has always been the choice of globalists and international capitalists and she is just his stand in. This administration has ALREADY lowered corporate income tax from 30% to 23% and are lowering it further next year, and have reneged, changed, or delayed all their other election promises. They are slashing taxes for the rich (when they even bother to collect them in the first place), keeping wages low, and pushing free trade agreements, all while hiding their exploitative capitalist policies behind a false banner of populism.

Communism failed for a reason. And it was good so.

Given that the Thai police actually found a terrorist with a house load of bomb making material despite their denials of terrorists beforehand gives just a tad of credence to the US warning and, well, discredits an already dubious self-serving and clearly inept and overtly corrupt Thai government. It's funny to hear the Thai government try to chastise the US. Like anyone, especially Americans, cares what the Thai government has to say about anything! Don't get me wrong. I love Thailand and the people are wonderful, but I am definitely not a fan of their government on certain issues, just as I am not a fan of my own on many occassions. But having lost friends in the 9/11 disaster, I can say with a critical eye that the US is much better at this kind of thing than the Thai government can ever hope to be, and if our government thinks there is a threat to its citizens, then I'm paying attention. If we learned anything here, its better to be safe than sorry, because sorry can be pretty damned bad! I hope Thailand never has to learn that lesson firsthand.

What kind of lesson has to be learned firsthand?

How about this one:

There is no terrorism here because Thailand is friendly with every country, including Muslim nations and the Middle East.

Thailand or "the Thai government try to chastise the US"??? I think you got something wrong here and the Thai govt or Thailand is friendly with the US too.

There is no terrorism here because Thailand is friendly with every country, including Muslim nations and the Middle East," he said.

I really like Thailand.

"People often believe in what the United States has to say, though sometimes the information can be inaccurate," he said, urging the US to be more careful about making announcements that could adversely affect Thailand in the future.

Another point probably many other here at this forum would agree with.

I mean someone who would believe these in these alarmist terror warnings, would have probably left Thailand already for the sake of his own safety, thus have no reason to hang around here and moan how scary, terrible and extraordinarily dangerous everything here is.

"...Police are now hunting the driver, who fled the scene."

It seems this is true in the majority of tragic motorway accidents. And 99% of the time the driver is found, usually within a few hours. Why do they do it? It's a mystery to me.

1 ) Because they don't like taking responsibilty for their actions

2 ) It could invariably involve paying some form of compensation.

Agree with points 1 and 2. There is also the issu of

3) avoiding a possible drug/alcohol test

4) fear of being lynched to exact revenge for the accident. Can happen in thailand. Cambodia is quite common and ambulances are often escorted by military with automatic weapons to deter mob behavior at road accident scenes.

5) suffering an acute stress reaction or psychological shock.

Must be quite traumatic to be involved in such accident and/or maybe the driver was injured too a heavy bang on the head. In this case people don't act rational (fleeing the scene because point 1.- 4.) but irrational.

Another car trying to pass are a car going slower,

or safely due to the conditions. That is over pass overtake.

Can anyone translate this English teachers post?

Sorry, but that bunch of English words has not been constructed in a way that makes sense to me.

Pity about the students, eh?

Maybe he isn't a English teacher, but a driving instructor.

1. Drink 3 large bottles of alcohol (2.25 liters).

2. Do the Sociopath test.

3. Blame the female.

It is the job of the host to bring in the people.

The PM was just invited as guest speaker, it isn't her job or that of the Finance Minister to promote the event and invite guests.

You could also say an event "organised" and hosted by the Economic Reporters Association (ERA) failed to raised any interests in the business community and the large community of Thailands economic journalists. Almost nobody showed up at their “Decoding GDP 2012” seminar.

To expect a crowd of more than 400 participants, consisting of economic reporters and business leaders turned out to be just a pipe dream of the organizers.

If you twist the story to "more than 400 participants, consisting of economic reporters and business leaders weren't bothered to listen to speech by the PM" then you are on the pipe too.

Perhaps after her "stunning success" in Davos the organizers thought that having the PM as speaker would attract a huge audience. In any other country the Head of Government attending would have filled every seat.

No matter how you turn and twist the story, the fact remains that no one bothered to listen to the Thai PM talking about "Decoding GDP 2012" - as everybody knows she has no clue. Even her Finance Minister did not want to witness this disaster.

Maybe next time they should have YS as surprise guest - and as a precautionary measure lock all exits.

1. What happened in Davos doesn't matter - its a flawed argument someone else brought up.

2. YS has no clue - That might be true or not. But it is not the reason why nobody showed up there.

3. Like a blind test? Do events by the Economic Reporters Association usually draw a crowd of more than 400 participants, consisting of economic reporters and business leaders? Or did these people showed up after Yingluck delivered her speech. As i understand it was a seminar and the PM only scheduled to hold a 20 minute opening speech but not to run the show for the rest of the day.

Well, lots of speculation in this thread. This how how things work:

An organisation plans a PR event and invites a VIP as the guest speaker.

The VIP's secretary wants to know how many people are expected, and what kind of people (press, business leaders, etc) these are, and where the event will take place.

This is done months in advance, as the VIP has a full schedule.

The VIP agrees, and the PR machine is set in motion to make sure these people do attend the event. That is the job of the host, i.e. the organisation that first contacted the VIP's office.

I have attended quite a number of such events with Thai Prime Ministers as the guest speakers (i.e. the VIP) but I never heard about this particular event. Not saying that I expect an invitation to each event the Thai PM attends, but if the host/organigser does not get enough confirmations, they should widen their target audience.

I think the major failure here is on the side of the host. Yes, the PM lost face in the press, and I think the result of that will be that no Thai PM will accept an invitation from this organisation any more. I don't think the speaker can be blamed for the failure of the organiser to fill the room.

Your description of the flow of events is quite clear, but you seem to still be missing the main point here. If the speaker were somebody actually important such as the prime minister of a country that had just come through some epic events (let's say like great floods or the like), or if the speaker was someone with either direct power or strong influence over something important sucn as the economic destiny of a nation, well then the host would have to do nothing but announce the event and the room would be full. For example, let's say God was going to make an appearance for even five minutes to give his thoughts about the future of Thailand (or even the future of a single horse race coming up next month). Do you think there would be an empty seat in the house? Hell no! The point of this embarassing story is that with or without paid full-time staff working to dig up attendees for the presentation, if the PM or her opinions were seen as having any real consequence, the room would have been full. It wasn't.

The room would have been full (I am sure of that) if the target audience had known about the event.

That sums it up in one sentence.

I agree with you that the host is here to blame.

The host, the organizers messed it up - deliberately or not? Hanlon's razor says: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I wouldn't be surprised if the press secretary is shown to an inactive post somewhere in Chiang Rai.

Joining Yingluck's Facebook Team on the fired list:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4896287

not "her" team. but an outsourced team the government hired from a private organizer.

I expect that here in this case the host will put the blame on a contracted event management agency, and this agency will say they it were some temporary employees who messed that up.

The worst part is even her own people shunned her, "Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Kittirat Na Ranong refused to attend the event, claiming he had an important meeting with the SME Association." Looks like they are treating the window dressing with due respect, doesnt bode well for her future.

Maybe bad wording by the journalist, maybe a bad translation: I don't know why the word "refused" is used. Not every minister is required to attend every event the PM goes to. It would be rather inefficient. And he had to attend another meeting. Doesn't sound like shunning to me.

If this was supposedly set up Months In Advance,

then her finance mister could have scheduled the SME

Small and Medium Enterprise meeting for later or another day, well in advance.

Getting a confirmation of attendees 'well in advance' also

doesn't mean they will show, just that they said they would at the time.

Things change, and if the people just don't show, then the host is

left in the lurch, but not nearly as much as the speaker they

no longer had interest in listening to.

It is the job of the host to bring in the people.

The PM was just invited as guest speaker, it isn't her job or that of the Finance Minister to promote the event and invite guests.

You could also say an event "organised" and hosted by the Economic Reporters Association (ERA) failed to raised any interests in the business community and the large community of Thailands economic journalists. Almost nobody showed up at their “Decoding GDP 2012” seminar.

To expect a crowd of more than 400 participants, consisting of economic reporters and business leaders turned out to be just a pipe dream of the organizers.

If you twist the story to "more than 400 participants, consisting of economic reporters and business leaders weren't bothered to listen to speech by the PM" then you are on the pipe too.

Ouch, ouch and ouch!!!!

Still, this article is far from perfect..... 2001 Constitution? Is that some kind of a compromise between the 1997 and 2007 versions?

Looks like Sondi's team is working overtime. Go PAD! Go!

Actually its the constitution of year 2540 and the constitution of year 2550.

The year 2544 general elections were the first election that were hold under the 2540 constitution and so was the parliament of 2544 the first one under the 2540 constitution. so you could say the key innovation and important changes of the year 2540 constitution were finally installed in year 2544.

Such mistakes as pointed out above can be a result of a translation error to match the dates of the Thai calender with the Christian calender but of course also a bit lax handling with the correct dates at the original Thai language article, but even that is understandable (see 2544 changes).

So i think there is no reason to be that pedantic with the 1997/2001 mistake.

The article itself contains many other points to argue about, if you think its worth to bother.

• Why spend another fortune building reactors deep underground instead of allowing free inspection to surface facilities?
  

because there are people out who wants to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and building bigger and bigger bombs to do that.

The Thai audience that is usually fills up the seats at such events isn't known for being an enthusiastic audience or to show at least any kind of emotion or facial expression that would give a speaker feedback. Talking to 400 empty seat is easier and more relaxed compared with how alienated you will feel as speaker when you ave have to look into 400 empty faces.

... hosted by the Economic Reporters Association. would have been their job to fill up the seats, send out the invitation and make sure the people come. No one goes to these events out of true interest or voluntary like you would go to a concert or the cinema. Its all organized, gives hotels a business, mini bus drivers a job to pick office teams up and office worker a welcome change from looking out of the window all day and stay motionless behind the desk and shuffle some papers now and than. + free buffet and group photos with others standing around one 'high profile attendant'.

The Economic Reporters Association failed to do their job as host. Was it in a spirit of mischief or just fail? Those tasked to organize the event were probably just "temporary employees".

No, the Economic Reporters Association let the REAL story play out, and then reported it.

Rather than 'MANIPULATE THE STORY' as you suggest, just to be 'good hosts'.

Sorry that is not reporting, that is propaganda creation, you expect them to do.

I am sure most no-shows thought someone else would be there and they would not be missed... Seems most all came to that same conclusion; We have better things to do.

You are out of touch with reality, but looks like you are not alone.

A bipartisan American group suggests it is now time to show the ACTUAL willingness to use force against Iran to prevent their nuclear program falling short of using it for now. Makes total sense to me:

The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Former U.S. politicians, generals and officials said in a report that the best chance of stopping Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons was to make clear American willingness to use force, although it stopped short of advocating military action.

http://www.haaretz.c...t-iran-1.410359

NOW it is ACTUAL the time? Makes total sense to me:

2011

The Globe and Mail, November 4, 2011

Israel signals attack on Iran is possible

Agence France Presse, November 3, 2011

In Israel, speculation over strike on Iran grows

Haaretz, September 28, 2011

France: Iran risks attack if it continues to develop nuclear program

USA Today, September 26, 2011

Report: Obama sells bunker-buster bombs to Israel

The Associated Press, May 30, 2011

Israel minister: Strike on Iran could be necessary

Ottawa Citizen, May 9, 2011

Israel 'stupid' to bomb Iran, ex-Mossad chief says

Agence France Presse, May 5, 2011

Iran won't use nuclear bomb against Israel: Barak

Agence France Presse, January 25, 2011

**Iran not working on bomb: Israel intelligence head

The Australian, January 13, 2011

Israel PM warns of N-strike on Iran,

The Associated Press, January 3, 2011

Aftenposten: Israel gears up for Iran attack

2010

Agence France Presse, December 29, 2010

**Iran 3 years from making the bomb: Israel minister

The Washington Times, December 6, 2010

Will Israel or the U.S. strike Iran first?,

The Australian, November 30, 2010

Israel sets deadline for attack on nuclear Iran

The Guardian, November 30, 2010

Motorcycle bombers mount co-ordinated attacks on nuclear scientists in Tehran

Agence France Presse, November 29, 2010

Israel could strike Iran without US help: leaked cable

Agence France Presse, August 20, 2010

**US tells Israel Iran is one year from atomic bomb

The Christian Science Monitor, August 12, 2010

Is Israel really likely to attack Iran next summer?

Agence France Presse, June 12, 2010

Saudis tests clearing skies for Israel to bomb Iran: report

Wall St Journal April 21, 2010

Israel Weighs Merits of Solo Attack on Iran

2009

The Associated Press, December 15, 2009

**Israel: Iran nearing atomic bomb capability

Washington Times, October 22, 2009

World Watch: What happens if Israel strikes Iran from the air?,

Christian Science Monitor, October 13, 2009

Could an Israeli air strike stop Iran's nuclear program?; Israel does have the capability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities,

Wall St Journal, September 22, 2009

Israel: Military Hints Strike Option is On the Table for Iran

The Montreal Gazette, September 17, 2009

Iran's nuclear facilities under fire; Israel will attack by end of year if no sanctions, ex-defence official says,

The New Zealand Herald, July 6, 2009

US 'won't stand in the way' of Israel attack on Iran - Biden

The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2009

What If Israel Strikes Iran?, By John R. Bolton

The Australian, June 9, 2009

Israel may strike Iran, says Clinton

Agence France Presse, June 3, 2009

Israel 'does not intend to bomb Iran': Lieberman

The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2009

CIA head: Israel knows attack on Iran would mean 'big trouble'

The Times (London), April 18, 2009

Israel raises the stakes over Iran as it stands ready to bomb nuclear sites

The Baltimore Sun, April 16, 2009

Gates Warns Israel Against Iran Attack

The Jerusalem Post, April 2, 2009

Petraeus warns Israel may launch preemptive strike on Iran,

Agence France Presse, March 25, 2009

**Iran able to build nuclear bomb in year: Israel

CBS News February 11, 2009

**Iran May Be Closer To Nukes Than Thought

Agence France Presse, January 11, 2009

US rejected Israel's plea for strike against Iran: report

for 1994- 2008 check this:

http://www.iranaffai...e-rattling.html

...

Iran runs nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy.

...

Nobody believes that.

It is obviously propaganda.

Maybe you believe it, but I seriously doubt that as well.

Seriously, that rates up there with Ahmadinejad's "we have no gays in Iran" proclamations.

Any intelligent discussion of the Iranian nuclear program needs to start at a place of reality. That means of course that Iran wants at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons in a short time. I don't think it's worth people's time anymore to play fiction games with obvious propaganda as you have presented here.

What have gays to do with the Iranian nuclear program?

Q: Where is the evidence for a nuclear weapon program?

A: Its all in your head.

That Iran develops nuclear weapon is an hoax almost older than Marie Curie.

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran. Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84

The Phantom Menace:

Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran's Nuclear Program

Facts rarely get in the way of American and Israeli fear-mongering and jingoism, especially when it comes to anti-Iran propaganda. For nearly thirty years now, U.S. and Zionist politicians and analysts, along with some of their European allies, have warned that Iranian nuclear weapons capability is just around the corner and that such a possibility would not only be catastrophic for Israel with its 400 nuclear warheads and state-of-the-art killing power supplied by U.S. taxpayers, but that it would also endanger regional dictatorships, Europe, and even the United States.

If these warnings are to be believed, Iran is only a few years away from unveiling a nuclear bomb...and has been for the past three decades. Fittingly, let's begin in 1984..

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

That you misread my post is sure, trolling possible.

If you'll actually read the link you yourself gave for the Der Spiegle interview, there are serious questions regarding Iran's intentions which are unanswered. It doesn't say "no evidence". Also, if I'm not mistaken this interview took place before the latest IAEA report came out.

I didn't misread your post. That but they signed the NPT is a null argument or not the central point as you said.

The latest IAEA report states nowhere that they have found evidence that Iran develops nuclear weapons.

That "many" "think" that Iran would do that, is no evidence and are just things that happens in the head of these manythinkthats, but not things that actually happen in Iran.

take a look at that:

http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/12/phantom-menace-fantasies-falsehoods-and.html

There might be a warehouse in the outskirts of Tehran full of guano fertilizer and cat litter, but a nuclear weapon program. No.

That they signed the contract and breaking the contract would give the USA the right to attack is a troll argument.

The problem is not breaking a contract. The problem is developing a nuclear weapon when they have sworn not to.

breaking a contract as in doing what you have sworn not to do.

Okay, last round. It is still a troll argument

1. Whatever other countries have developed or not, signed a treaty or not, totally doesn't matter.

2. Iran says it sticks to the treaty and there is no evidence that they are in the process to develop nuclear weapon.

period.

But okay lets imagine for a short moment it would be the other way around:

1. Iran never signed the NPT and develops nuclear weapon.

2. Would the US reaction in that case be: Okay. never mind, up to them, they never sworn not to, so they can do what they want just like Israel, India, Pakistan did. we don't object in this case. No signed treaty, they are free to go.

I doubt that.

I think we can skip all the but Israel, Pakistan and so on has the nuke arguments, same as the US will not allow that Iran develops nuke because Iran signed a treaty argument.