tbthailand

or one might ask why there were less than a third fewer deaths during protests which lasted 3 times longer in 2013/14?

One might also ask why there were deaths at all in 2013/2014 protests. How come anti-government protesters can be nightly shot at, have cowards near nightly drop grenades on them.

Anyway, the Clinton issue "please define crackdown". Whatever name you want to give the 'action', unlike Baltimore, Maryland, there is no National Guard in Thailand. So, with police failing that leaves the Army to remove 'peaceful protesters' even when that offends TVF posters.

good job at completely ignoring the point that was made....

par for the course - at least par for your course...

oh yes, the thing with shooting and grenades, you know the PDRC did their fair share of both, but you can't bring yourself to admit it here, can you?

on the other hand this blatant lie of "near nightly grenade attacks" has been disproven so many times I would think that you would be ashamed to keep repeating it.

But no...

Is historical revisionism a profession or hobby?

it's getting repetitive with you - again, you have (very clearly) no idea of what you speak. Seriously go out and get a good dose of information before you start posting such nonsense.

or one might ask why there were less than a third fewer deaths during protests which lasted 3 times longer in 2013/14?

Well for starters the protesters were protesting, not committing acts of violence with military weapons. And almost all the deaths that occurred during 2014 were of protesters killed not by security forces, but by somebody's militia "protecting" the government, who turn out to be the same people committing violence in 2010. Funny that.

what an amazingly stupid and false post. You have no fr!cking idea what you are talking about.

Funny that the Nation pulls a Jatuporn file photo out to lead an article on Blue Sky TV...

I guess they know how to bait their readers...

current draft in English

Very interesting provision in Section 23 paragraph 2. Not sure if the part about the Princess is a new addition, or it was there under previous Constitutions?

I presume it may not be new given no one has mentioned it.

my understanding is that it is not new, but of course paragraph 1 is already fulfilled, so under the current conditions, paragraph 2 is a mute point

One might similarly ask, how many soldiers were shot dead, or killed by rocks, in the last London riots or in the EU ?

And which of those riots went on for over two months ?

or one might ask why there were less than a third fewer deaths during protests which lasted 3 times longer in 2013/14?

One might also ask why there were deaths at all in 2013/2014 protests. How come anti-government protesters can be nightly shot at, have cowards near nightly drop grenades on them.

Anyway, the Clinton issue "please define crackdown". Whatever name you want to give the 'action', unlike Baltimore, Maryland, there is no National Guard in Thailand. So, with police failing that leaves the Army to remove 'peaceful protesters' even when that offends TVF posters.

good job at completely ignoring the point that was made....

par for the course - at least par for your course...

oh yes, the thing with shooting and grenades, you know the PDRC did their fair share of both, but you can't bring yourself to admit it here, can you?

on the other hand this blatant lie of "near nightly grenade attacks" has been disproven so many times I would think that you would be ashamed to keep repeating it.

But no...

current draft in English

How many rioters were shot dead by the authorities during the last London riots?

How many rioters were shot dead at the last G8 summit in the UK?

How many rioters against austerity in the EU countries were shot dead by authorities ?

Yes democratic countries tend to shoot dead lots of protesters, where about are you from mango ?

How many rioters has your country shot dead recently?

One might similarly ask, how many soldiers were shot dead, or killed by rocks, in the last London riots or in the EU ?

And which of those riots went on for over two months ?

or one might ask why there were less than a third fewer deaths during protests which lasted 3 times longer in 2013/14?

Journalists and the Media of USA are on the take from the wealthy and powerful.

See the log in your own eye before pointing at the speck of dust in the eyes of others.

You miss the point. Regardless of whose station it is or who's behind it, it can say what it thinks.

You can stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign or start your own blog or web site or newspaper or whatever and say what you wish to also.

The government isn't going to decide who should be on the air and who shouldn't.

correct.

I tried to diffuse the America-bashers at the start of this thread, but it clearly didn't work

The US and other countries are not perfect and that is used to justify outright censorship and repression in Thailand as "OK".

It's a nonsensical argument. The US and other democracies guarantee freedom of speech. In the US (as you know), it is viewed as absolutely fundamental...

In Thailand there is not freedom of speech, there is not freedom of assembly, and there is not freedom of movement.... among other basic human rights which are not guaranteed in Thailand today.

The same "basic human rights" to which you refer do also not exist in Malaysia or Singapore. There are many variations on democratic rights throughout the world. There is no proof that the system in which any one of us was raised will ideal for all societies. It is just the one we are familiar with.

that there are other countries which do not protect human rights is a shame, and it is also not an excuse for Thailand to not guarantee them. As for the basic human rights, you will see that the link is to the "universal declaration of human rights"... it's not limited to the system in which you or I were raised but is by definition meant for all societies.

ah those meddling Americans.... why can't they just clean up their own back yard first....

beat you to it...

In the buildup to the IRAQ INVASION in 2003, journalists in the USA who dared question the Bush Administration's claims of WMDs were effectively silenced by their own editors. These editors wouldn't print any contradictory stories. (hence, the "echo chamber" effect)

This is how the New York Times - among others - helped lead America into the Iraq debacle.

and?

you want to site self-censorship which led to a bad result as an example for... what?

red herring, ... no amount of discussing and no referendum will change the fact that Thailand will have an absolutely anti-democratic constitution shoved down it's throat. Period.

^It's like talking to a brick wall.

I'll give it another go.

Dear Mr. Lucky11,

You keep ranting about the US criticizing Thailand. You seemed to have missed the salient fact that the OP is not about statements by the US. It is about statements by a non-profit organization that has international scope and representation.

Love,

PDL

Why do they feel it necessary to be involved when it is basically none of their business and they are completely wrong in their appraisal and take of the situation.

Banning a radio station with bad intentions is the right thing to do. They were given warnings to tine it down and even received a 7 day ban but continued to spout propaganda that led to it having it's license revoked. If they are worried about the 100 employees and their families then they should learn to act responsibly and behave!!!

Banning a radio station with bad intentions is the right thing to do.

well, yeah, it is the right thing to do if you are a military icktatochip...

Journalists and the Media of USA are on the take from the wealthy and powerful.

See the log in your own eye before pointing at the speck of dust in the eyes of others.

You miss the point. Regardless of whose station it is or who's behind it, it can say what it thinks.

You can stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign or start your own blog or web site or newspaper or whatever and say what you wish to also.

The government isn't going to decide who should be on the air and who shouldn't.

correct.

I tried to diffuse the America-bashers at the start of this thread, but it clearly didn't work

The US and other countries are not perfect and that is used to justify outright censorship and repression in Thailand as "OK".

It's a nonsensical argument. The US and other democracies guarantee freedom of speech. In the US (as you know), it is viewed as absolutely fundamental...

In Thailand there is not freedom of speech, there is not freedom of assembly, and there is not freedom of movement.... among other basic human rights which are not guaranteed in Thailand today.

Currently Thailand is controlled by the military.

"It cannot be said who the shooters were or which direction the bullets came from," the judge said.

Funny how these two sentences seem to be a natural ordering....

Not at all are they in any order. If the police that investigated the crime couldn't determine, the shooter, how could the courts? You seem to be able to do it with ease. Why haven't you presented your evidence to the courts? Please share with them your first hand knowledge of that night so that this case can be laid to rest.Why have you taken so long to do it?

there was evidence presented which came from witnesses. There was evidence from the autopsies. Past courts have been able to render judgements in similar cases with similar evidence, but this one could not ...

Could be coincidence... of course! But given the military's history of meddling in these cases and specifically the interference from the generals leading the crackdown, as well as the complicity of the courts in the politics of the last decade, it is not unreasonable to think that there could be a connection between the two.

Currently Thailand is controlled by the military.

"It cannot be said who the shooters were or which direction the bullets came from," the judge said.

Funny how these two sentences seem to be a natural ordering....

A perfect example of precisely how clueless the current 'good people' running Thailand are...

First of all, a member of the NRC should be aware that "constitutions" are not "legislation", nor are they the right tool for passing laws.

Second, in order for the household debt north of 80% of GDP, it is rather obvious that "educated" Thais with money and the means to borrow money are the problem, and not the "poor, uneducated Thais" - another typical and condescending statement from the morons in control of the country.

This is surely further evidence, that former-PM Abhisit and the Dems are totally in-the-pocket of the amart ... and that his strings are being pulled by the military, erm ... erm ... right ?

I think it shows that the yellow side is not a monolith, homogeneous block. Same as the red side is not a monolith, homogeneous block.

When Abhisit comes out and criticizes the current draft constitution....you can be sure there is something wrong with it!

dang, I gotta agree with you again...

Prayut said he would like to see love and unity among Thais.

yes, and who wouldn't... ???

Love and unity is not the job of politicians nor generals.

"Rather than asking what I stand for you might ask 'What do you believe in...."

I might, rubl, but I didn't. Maybe answer what you are asked, not what you feel like answering.

the local junta-hugger from Holland claims that he believes in "freedom, equality, democracy, education"

red or yellow, love 'em or hate 'em, free speech and a free press are fundamental to an open and free society.

Can't comment.

Self censorship and all that, but carry on all those who think Thailand is headed for a free and enlightened future.

As you have partaken in censorship yourself you are clearly not against censorship.

Prayut IS carrying on in his quest for a free and enlightened future - we are almost there now that the detritus has been removed!!

Why do you state that you can't comment and then comment? Did you wake up confused or did something bring it on?

As you have partaken in censorship yourself you are clearly not against censorship.

regarding self-censorship, practicing it, and not being against censorship, .... one does not follow logically from the other...