lannarebirth

Seized power? Yet another that needs to engage the grey matter before engaging fingers.

"Yet another that needs to engage the grey matter before engaging fingers." Who are you? What a pompous asinine thing to say. Yes, seized power. Now why don't you answer the original question bucko. What has he done since he's seized power? Don't obfuscate the issue. This government came to power after the military coup that overthrew the legimitely elected prime minister of Thailand. They, the military and the courts gerrymandered the subsequent elections by making TRT illegal and prohibiting anyone who was previously from TRT to run for office. What a sweet deal. So the Thai's have what they have now. Not exactly a democratically elected government but one that was seized by hook and by crook as they say in America.

Absolute rubbish Thaksin was not legitimately elected he bought his victory,

For the answer to your question I believe it was answered very well by another poster that's why I ignored it.

Sir You make pronouncements and statements and don't support them in anyway. Because you say Thaksin bought his victory doesn't make it true. He won overwhelmingly in every Province except Patini. He was a truly great prime minister, of the people, by the people, for the people. Not some Eaton educated aristocrat like you have now. When you drive through the countryside in Thailand and you still see OTOP signs think of Thaksin it was one of his great ideas that truly begin to give the "people" the farmers, economic independence. Thaksin did more in one week to help the people of Thailand that this government has done since it's been here. (The original question I asked, What has the current PM done for Thailand since he seized power? still stands.) It has not been answered by you or anyone else. I can only assume you ignore it because you're not able to adequately answer it. Ok how about this. Let's compare and contrast Thaksin's social economic accomplishments with the current government. I'll tell you what I see here is that this government has spent most of its time just trying to hold onto power by waging a massive propaganda campaign against Thaksin and its own people, the poor unwashed Issan farmers who this government and many on this board don't believe deserve the right to vote.

The successful propagandist will include a measure of truth in their message and spin its meaning in a way advantageous to their cause. It is rare that I see a post such as yours that is absolutely false in every detail.

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

I think where peoples opinions differ regarding amout of weapons is that some see several hundrd weapons, bombs, grenades, etc as not sufficient to overcome the might of the state sponsored Army and therefore don't see the Red Shirts as a "militant" force. In that context I would agree with those posters but I see their aims as far different than opposition to the Army, whose job it was to disperse the protesters. I see the Red Shirt militia force as a body of deadly provacateurs whose sole purpose was to create mayhem and to draw the Army into using overwhelming force in response, thereby discrediting the government on the international stage and justifying the intervention of "outside arbiters" into the Thai internal conflict. I believe the campaign was twofold, one, a militant force to create division and draw a strong response and two a well organized media spin machine. If outside intervention could occur the thinking being, then the side having no legotimacy could be seen to have legitimacy. I think this effort has failed.

The United States still has great abilities in mediation and arbitration. To dismiss this based upon what occurred in the Bush years only shows a rather juvenile world view.

An offer to mediate BEHIND THE SCENES is hardly meddling.

DOS employs thousands of career diplomats, then there are other quasi government players as well.

The huge reason that America is so disliked by Europeans is that it is an energetic nation that sees itself, its role as the sole superpower as a source for stability and good in the world. Europe and Europeans - nothing more than a talking shop. This has been the case since the first great war.

The US has been hijacked by the military/industrial/financial/pharmaceutical/energy complex. This explains Vietnam and the Bush years. There is little or nothing individuals can do to stop the machine, especially when half the population believes the lies it is fed. bad on us.

But to think that the US does not have the ability to assist, to mediate at some level - well, that's European thinking.

All true but I modified your post just a bit. Good post.

What next? A nomination for the Nobel peace prize?

I expect that will happen.

Saying "we're going to burn down..." "trust me" This is conspiracy to commit a crime and is illegal in itself. It doesn't matter whether he was involved or not. And since when does being 'just a football hooligan' excuse anyone of anything? I've met plenty in Pattaya. They should be on leashes.

Hard to imagine someone being more stupid. He may have set a record for implicating himsielf in a conspiracy in 7 words or less. I imagine he'll be rolled for what little he knows, spend 2 weeks in gaol and then be on the next plane out. Idiot.

'Puea Thai party to grill PM and four ministers; will nominate Chalerm as premier' http://bit.ly/cjvdis

Not only does the PTP support these red terrorists now they want to intall a person totally devoid of morals and principles as the next PM of Thailand.

They have no shame.

That's a good thing. The more conspicuous ly evil and corrupt they are the better. Unfortunately it will leave the door open for the banned TRT'ers to appear "moderate" by comparison when they return.

lannarebirth....

finally.... most of us are incorrect in our assumption and thinking....

that we are mostly smarter and more superior than most....

some university camps seem to agree that.... as far as smartness and intelligence are concerned....

....and that of the Asian American population being significantly higher - than that of the White American population (based on the self-identification of those tested).

now folks, do not go and jump off into chao pra ya river now....

now.... is thailand counted as an asian country.... an interesting thought....

Well, I think you're making an assumption that most peole think they are smarter and more superior than most other people. I find Thais to be as intelligent as any other group of people I have met, particularly in empirical based work where Thai culture and social crippling doesn't affect their capabilities. I think probably a much more possible cause of low IQ scoring could be from things like malnutriytion, Iodine deficiencies and fetal alcohol syndrome. Now back on topic hopefully. Good Day.

A rather long post before I go to bed; actually a continuation of my previous short post which was based on the following story:

Today was my first day to the office after 2 weeks absence. I was on a business travel abroad, I came back on Tuesday and the office was closed until yesterday. My day was really hectic and I was working like a machine the whole day. Before going home I decided to invite my Thai colleague for a cup of tea (he is not drinking alcohol) in our company's cafeteria. We work literally back-to-back the last 18 months and we make good company. We have both a high level of formal education and I appreciate his moderate style. We've never talked politics before but this afternoon I dared to ask his view over the situation. ....

Good night.

Regarding your conversation with your colleague these my impressions....Take that limited knowledge of "what is democracy?" and overlay that on a nation with an average IQ of 89....

lannarebirth....

my friend.... would you care to deliberate a little more on your comment and apparently your quote from somewhere about....

thai citizen on the average with an iq of 89....?

some months ago, there was also someone which i surely hope was not you again.... who used the same quote....

That would not have been me.

are you per chance a psy student of prof Wm from berkeley.... who proposed that blacks have lower intelligence.... which many choose to interpret it to mean that blacks as well as yellows et al.... are therefore inferior to whites....? you surely do not intend it to mean that.... do you, lannarebirth...?

I did not attend UC Berkeley though I was born and attended university in that vicinity. No I did not intend to mean what you have insinuated.

besides, i surely would also appreciate your enlightening many of us in reference to:

1--the title of the referenced research and perhaps its validity

My recollection was from an article I read wherein the Queen was in despair about the slide in Thai youth's IQ scores. I cannot find the article right now but here's another one from about that time. Her comments nmay have been a year or two earlier.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/07/19/headlines/headlines_30009114.php

2--particularly the evaluative instruments used to measure the so-called iq of the sampled thai citizen (SB, WISC, WAIS, RIAS, WPPSI, UNIT et cal....)

many among thaivisa members are already quite acquainted with the understanding that even among intelligence testing instruments, there are significant variations in terms of neutrality of unfamiliar vocabularies used in different iq evaluative instruments....

and the resultant scores are also subject to interpretive variations....

with that said.... i'll still wanna wait for your enlightenment.... thx lannarebirth for the forthcoming wealth of info....

You are very welcome.

A rather long post before I go to bed; actually a continuation of my previous short post which was based on the following story:

Today was my first day to the office after 2 weeks absence. I was on a business travel abroad, I came back on Tuesday and the office was closed until yesterday. My day was really hectic and I was working like a machine the whole day. Before going home I decided to invite my Thai colleague for a cup of tea (he is not drinking alcohol) in our company's cafeteria. We work literally back-to-back the last 18 months and we make good company. We have both a high level of formal education and I appreciate his moderate style. We've never talked politics before but this afternoon I dared to ask his view over the situation.

I left him to talk for about 10 minutes without any interruption and to make a long story short for 9 out of the 10 minutes he was trying to convince me that the current government is the best thing that Thailand has ever had and that the current PM has been the most progressive PM that Thailand ever had. The other one minute was about the evil that is called Thaksin. I thanked him for his views and I replied with a very short comment and a question. I've told him "OK, I really do not know the political history of Thailand and since I trust your opinion I will accept that the PM is doing his best under the circumstances but since we both work on information systems and knowledge management can you explain to me why this progressive PM and his government has banned so many Internet sites and he is controlling so much the information flow?".

Parenthesis: Why I asked this? Because for me the right to free and non-censored information is a FUNDAMENTAL right of democracies and an absolute necessary element of progress. I work 20 years in the field of knowledge management and I've learned that free information makes GOOD! Always! Even if free includes exposure to extreme and radical positions from all political spectrum. Democracies will not control information; they will just educate people so they make sure they use the information for good reasons and they reject the "garbage". End of parenthesis.

At that moment something happened that made me to regret my "stupid decision" to start a political discussion with a Thai colleague. His face became red and his reply to me was the following: "Oh I see, you are supporting the others. I was never expecting that you are a red!". I politely told to him, "I am sorry maybe I didn't make myself clear, I am not supporting the reds I am just asking something that it is related to my field of expertise, my interests and my work and I am really interested to know your position". Fortunately he didn't continued his argument that I am a red but for the next 15 minutes he was trying, extremely unsuccessfully, to explain to me why in Thailand only government endorsed information should be allowed and why censorships is a democratic practice. I have to admit that after the first 5-7minutes I was not really listening to him because the same arguments were repeated continuously. After this I thanked him for his opinion (he never asked my view) and we wished good week-end to each other. I was deeply disappointed because this was not the opinion of an uneducated extremist. It was an opinion of a very well educated conservative person. I was disappointed also in a professional level (for us free access to information is the backbone of our business) but this is another story. In any case I am really sad when I see this opinion to be so widespread in Thailand. I really believe that only bad things can happen to this country if this opinion will finally prevail. Maybe in some years China will be a "paradise of free information flow" compared to Thailand.

Good night.

Regarding your conversation with your colleague these my impressions. He's basically right about both Abhisit and Thaksin. Abhisit IS progressive and if the Red Shirts had any brains they would select them as their leader as his goals are very closely aligned with theirs and not the "ruling elite" as is so often written. Thaksin is just the opposite and its all terribly ironic if so many people weren't dying.

As for his comments on censorship, I would not say that is at all an uncommon opinion here in Thailand regardless of political affiliation. Thailand is a putative democracy but it isn't really. Usually the only thing any Thai will know about democracy is that the most votes wins. They don't know what any of the other pillars of democracy are and maybe that's just as well because Thailand doesn't yet possess them. They know a few but certainly not all of the rights a citizen may hold under a democratic form of government and they know absolutely none of the responsibilities a citizen has toward the government or society under a democracy.

Take that limited knowledge of "what is democracy?" and overlay that on a nation with an average IQ of 89, a hierarchal social stratification and patron/client relationships whereby clients serve patrons who tell them how to think and act in return for "taking care" of them and you can see that extremist views can rock the boat tremendously. That's how we got the cult like Red movement.

It's not right and it has to change and that is what this government is here to do. It is Thailands transformative government. That's why it doesn't have a friend in any quarter. Too many entrenched interests. The people are starting to get it though.

I understand how tough it is sometimes. For instance this morning - for a moment I thought I was wrong - but I was mistaken.

What is your target in time or price for the reversal this morning. I have none, but "thinking like a criminal" I wouldn't take anything other than a ST trading position unless it were at least 150 points lower (SPX). Maybe in a month.

A Thai friend has just come back to Australia with reports of 50 to 100 million baht payments each for the top red shirt leaders.

I'm really trying to determine if all of this violence is being bought by Thaksin, or if this is a true uprising of the people.

Can anyone supply evidence that monies are being paid ?

Can you just see at the beginning when money were handed out to those protesters?

I know for sure that in case of Anupong, who did nothing at the beginning is bought by Mr T, sponsored the education of his two

daughters in England and also bought them a house. Good thing that later on the second in command took charge.

This will come clearer when the info of all the "team" bank accounts activity made public.

I'm not sure if that area of your post I highlighted is true, but I do know many many Thais believe it is true and see it simply as a "given".

Many people in the north have seen the truth and are no longer brainwashed

I would agree that it is a good thing if those in the North/NE who were "brainwashed" see the light, and I include those who indulged in the cult of personality that centred on Mr T. But, if we are seeking honest analysis, how are events really going to look from the standpoint of the rural people?

For a rank-and-file protester who spent most of his/her time in front of the main redshirt stage (and who moved between the two main sites), I'd imagine it goes something like this. In the beginning the protest resembles a carnival. There is a moment when they seem to be winning. Then Seh Deng is shot (they believe by the army, even if this is not true) and this changes everything. They hear that the push is coming and sure enough the shooting starts in the distance. They see photographs of the wounded on camp notice boards, and hear both their leaders' accounts and the Government warnings. The shooting gets closer. Perhaps they retreat to Wat Patham and endure what, from some accounts at least, is a terrifying few hours when they are not sure if they will live. As they make their way to the police buses, they see the smoke and are told of the arson and destruction.

For those watching from afar in the NE, there will have been both the TV reports and what they hear on the grapevine. They will know that Thai TV is not telling the whole story and may be sceptical. A few will have access to other satellite channels with disturbing coverage, which many on this board say is biased towards the red side. Later they hear that the bodies and the wounded are coming home. The realisation of the extent of the destruction starts to sink in, and they also hear the condemnation, though not much about the deaths that they know happened. What will be their overall judgement?

Do these people see a single truth clearly? Speaking for my own Isaan wife, currently in the UK, there has been a change of view She says she hates Thaksin and that the protesters were stupid, because the army will always use force on the people of Isaan so that they never had a chance. But she hates Abhisit too because she believes he ordered Thais to kill Thais, and most of the dead are on one side. The nation is still going to be deeply polarised and it is wishful thinking to believe that rural people will see things the same way as expats. I do believe this is another nail in Thaksin's coffin, but my view is that his influence had been waning for a while. I shall be watching with interest for evidence of the extent of his financial backing.

Maybe you can help me, this is a sincere inquiry. Why do many people believe if there is a greater number of deaths, more widely distributed amongst both sides in a conflict, that the outcome is more "valid". Logically, I just don't get that.

Now - with the help of the futures - I can see now - yesterdays lows are most likely going to be undercut by a small amount (about 20-30 on Dow). But still should be the bottom of "this cycle".

Well, you have to define the cycle don't you? Is it the 4 day cycle? The 21 day cycle? 34 day cycle? 55 day cycle? 22 week cycle? 74 week cycle? 80 week cycle? Kress Cycle? Kitchin Cycle? What are we talking about here?

Herr Naam - I love your cycle. Can I convince you to part from it? It appears to be exactly the type of cycle I am talking about. It goes round and round and where it stops only a "mathematically inclined" mind can determine.

Being mathematically inclined IS helpful, especially if you can move out to Fibonacci and Lucasian type numbers. What helps even more in my experience is the ability to "think as a criminal does".

Now - with the help of the futures - I can see now - yesterdays lows are most likely going to be undercut by a small amount (about 20-30 on Dow). But still should be the bottom of "this cycle".

Well, you have to define the cycle don't you? Is it the 4 day cycle? The 21 day cycle? 34 day cycle? 55 day cycle? 22 week cycle? 74 week cycle? 80 week cycle? Kress Cycle? Kitchin Cycle? What are we talking about here?

and for providing a source of generally accurate information and a medium for people to express themselves during this recent crisis period. While most of us were not directly affected by the recent protests and riots many were and your portal has provided a means to gather information to make decisions whereby we can conduct ourselves appropriately and provide protection to those we love and care for. I really can't thank you enough. You've shown the absolute best of what the internet can be used for.

With gratitude, LRB

Massacre defined as shooting 40+ people shot in the head and counting. More people being killed and we are hearing small fragments of information to confirm. Point is: more people are being shot.

Abhisit called for an election when it was safe to do so. No politician calls for an election he thinks he will lose. Abhisit got his position as a result of a military coup. He did not wait 4 years to get his position.

The majority of PMs voted the way they did as a result of changing political positions. Not he Political position they they were elected to hold.

Yes the majority of the PMs support Abhisit because they changed their political position. Not the one they were elected to hold.

I put to you, have an election now and see if you can make these same statements. I think not.

I know I will be suspended soon from these forum speaking this way.

Interestingly enough, telling lies is not against the TV forum rules. There would be a hel_l of a lot fewer posts here if it were. My guess is you will be suspended when you post inflammatory comments after another poster refutes one by one the points you try to make.

I know you read those numbers but those numbers given my the Thai government are not true.

There were 7 dead in a temple that a doctor reported and the Thai government did not report those and likely has missed the 100s you are talking about.

Really? You have proof of these hundreds that are dead as well as the seven in a temple, right? Which temple was it?

i think it was 9 dead at the temple..

reported inthe nation for one

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Nine-...e-30129827.html

There's no indication of how they died or who killed them. I find it hard to believe that the army was responsible. That would mean they would've had to enter the temple to kill them. Someone would've seen. If indeed it was the army that killed them, why didn't the two survivors say anything?

Its interesting that one of the dead was reported as having been hit with shrapnel and was dragged to the temple by a journalist, who was also fired upon. I don't believe the Army has been using grenades in this action but we know that the "black shirts" are both using renades, and using them on journalists and civilians. I hope they unravel who is responsible and may all RIP.

I doubt that anyone will act on the arrest warrant. They have a arrest warrant already and no one is doing anything.

The other truth is all these things that people on here are suggesting should happen to Thaksin are never in reality going to come to pass. "a short trip to the gallows...." Well they don't even have death by hanging. Death by lethal injection is the follow up to the machine gun that was previously used. If they did put a warrant out for something that carried the death penalty then no first world Country would extradite him save for America as they all have prohibitions on extradition where the life of the person is at risk.

The problem it appears to me is that the charges have suddenly appeared and have all the hallmarks of being politically motivated. I really can't see anyone buying into it at all.

The other thing the Thai government has to be wary of is taking extra judicial steps. The very thing that people accuse Thaksin of ! They cannot impound people's monies without taking steps - one would assume that they have the process that would allow them to re-install the freeze that was on the accounts not that long ago. At least that would keep it where they can ensure it is not moved.

I still go back to the theme that i and i am pleased to say a number of people have sort of agreed with. The Country in my humble farang opinion needs to step back and try to move forward in a different way. It won't happen in the short term but it needs some kind of leadership. I don't know where it is going to come from.

It is true that the majority support the Reds. What is clear also is that most of them are misguided and miss led by the various party leaders. How therefore the impasse is broken is a question for debate and one that perhaps would be the area that those who love the Country should concentrate on.

That is not true at all. I think they won 35% at last elections and have lost seats since. You think the killing, burning, looting is gaining them more devotees?

quote Lanna rebirth "That is not true. The current government was formed by a coalition of MP's each of whom was democratically elected. "

How can it be a democratic election when the original party for the redshirts was forbidden and disbanded.

Even the fachist Nazi national front in England is allowed to run for elections.

This is the meaning of democracy.

Every line of thought should have its chance - be it for better or worse.

This is democracy

Free speech is another thing

The current gov has banned lots of websites with political criticism against them.

This is not a democracy because of internet and news censorship, and the arrest and imprisonment of people for simply expressing their opinions..

There are other things too but i think the above points are enough and prove that the current gov is not democratic.

The above points or drivel prove that you are full of shit and have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

1. they are not drivel unless you can prove so with decent rhetoric

2. Your insults fall on deaf ears. when you point at someone with your finger there are four other fingers pointing back at yourself.. so keep pointing as much as you want.

Perhaps i know some factors which you don't.. things that are not in print or news or tv.

You cant answer my points with a counter obviously and thus resort to an insult.

Insults are drivel.

So if you are able to keep pace with me then please answer this;

how can this gov be a democratic one when they forbid free speech on the internet and in news, and forbid the formation of certain political parties?

if you cant reply and explain with more than an insult, then you are showing yourself to be unable to prove me wrong..

I did answer your points with a counter. The correct answer, rather than your lies. That's why you chose to cut that portion out of your next post and start up with a new line of bullshit unconnected to the post I was replying to. It just became unconnected rambling designed to obfuscate the fact you posted crap and no longer worthy of a

response.

quote Lanna rebirth "That is not true. The current government was formed by a coalition of MP's each of whom was democratically elected. "

How can it be a democratic election when the original party for the redshirts was forbidden and disbanded.

Even the fachist Nazi national front in England is allowed to run for elections.

This is the meaning of democracy.

Every line of thought should have its chance - be it for better or worse.

This is democracy

Free speech is another thing

The current gov has banned lots of websites with political criticism against them.

This is not a democracy because of internet and news censorship, and the arrest and imprisonment of people for simply expressing their opinions..

There are other things too but i think the above points are enough and prove that the current gov is not democratic.

Do not waste your time talking to the anti Reds.

This group here is never going to make sense or change.

They called for the attack and now are still calling for killing.

All Bangkok can burn down and they will still be saying the attack was a good idea.

I didn't call for the attack, on the contrary. Until the very last moment I was applauding the governments restraint. Anyhow, I think you're posting to yourself there.

quote Lanna rebirth "That is not true. The current government was formed by a coalition of MP's each of whom was democratically elected. "

How can it be a democratic election when the original party for the redshirts was forbidden and disbanded.

Even the fachist Nazi national front in England is allowed to run for elections.

This is the meaning of democracy.

Every line of thought should have its chance - be it for better or worse.

This is democracy

Free speech is another thing

The current gov has banned lots of websites with political criticism against them.

This is not a democracy because of internet and news censorship, and the arrest and imprisonment of people for simply expressing their opinions..

There are other things too but i think the above points are enough and prove that the current gov is not democratic.

The above points or drivel prove that you are full of shit and have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

You are all entitled to you views but really people, the city is burning and empty of all business.

The government killed over a dozn people in the temple-women and children.

It is going to get worse.

You were calling for war?

Well now you have it and the city is being destroyed.

The army should have NEVER moved on the people like this.

It was stupid.

You like the results so far?

Wait until it burns for weeks.

Call in the UN.

The only other person I've seen calling for the UN is the guy who is signing your checks, Amsterdam or Thaksin. The UN is not coming for 2 reasons. 1) It is a conflict that is internal to a sovereign nation, and 2) only one of the parties is legitimate (the govt, if you were wondering).

I tuned into BBC for a change, usually watching Thai news on various channels (to get different viewpoints or have a good laugh with ASTV). Gosh, BBC is so beyond it, even though their reporters are in the middle of it.

The farang interview partners they drag along are worse than some posters on Thaivisa. The tragedy is that half of the world watches this crap and believes it.

BBC should switch to reporting from volcanic eruptions and space shuttle launches only... can't do anything wrong with those subjects.

I called my dad in the states tonight to wish him a happy birthday. He was quite apprehensive about the state of things in Thailand and from watching US news channels was under the impressiom that the current PM was not currently elected and if he were it really didn't matter because the Army was now running the government and indiscriminately killing poor farmers. He said Thaksin was portrayed as the true government, in exile. It took me 20 minutes to disabuse him of all the propaganda he'd been fed by the "mainstream media". The malignant pustule Amsterdam seems to be good at his work.

are you being serious?

with this is how your dad saw it?

or are you just trying to make a point about the international media?

and maybe its you thats been taken in with all the local media propaganda???

because you cannot argue the local media is controlled by the goverment, can you?

and from what i see from this mr amsterdam on the al jazeera interview,,he did alright, he mangered to get his "points" across but still looked like he avoided some hard hitting questions,,but i dunno if its his work thats managing to control any international media output????

No, I'm being honest as I don't watch television at all and only see the occasional YouTube clip. I'm not a consumer of mass media, I'm a seeker of truth. It's a lot of work.

Here - I'm going to cut and paste the lot. The best comment yet on international media. Apologies to those who've already read it.

The original is here:-

http://www.somtow.org/2010/05/dont-blame-dan-rivers.html

I have been composing a long, day by day account of the "troubles" of the last three days, which I have not yet posted. The reason is that I've been getting a lot of mail asking me to explain "the truth" to people overseas. A lot of people here are astonished and appalled at the level of irresponsibility and inaccuracy shown by such major news sources as CNN, and are imputing the most astonishing motives to this, such as suggesting that they're in the pay of Thaksin and so on.

I don't think this is really what is going on. Rather, I think that there are two basic problems: preconception and language.

CNN first became a force to be reckoned with during the "People Power" movement in the Philippines. The kind of coverage we had for this was amazing. There was a camera in every camp, and we could follow this exciting revolution every step of the way. We knew exactly who to root for: the oppressed masses led by the widow of the iconic Aquino, and we knew that whenever President Marcos appeared he was Darth Vader, the symbol of an evil empire. The arc of the story was simple and inexorable. A whole new way of looking at the news was born, with all the excitement of a TV miniseries and, prophetically, a reality show as well.

Of course, many of the little details of the story were conveniently glossed over. Reality was not — never is — so black and white. But there are three important things about this story: first, in its essentials, there was a lot of truth. And all the protagonists spoke English.

The Philippines, as Filipinos never tire of telling me, is the third most populous English speaking country in the world. We will leave the definition of "English-speaking" to another blog, but it's very important that the various sides in this conflict were able to articulate their viewpoints in a language which CNN well understood.

The third important thing about the story is that it fulfilled a vision of history that is an inseparable part of the inheritance of western culture, that is so ingrained in western thinking that it is virtually impossible for an educated member of western society to divorce himself from it.

It is a vision of history as a series of liberations. From Harmodius and Aristogeiton throwing off the tyrant's yoke to the removal of the Tarquins and the establishment of the Roman Republic to the failed rebellion of Spartacus, from Magna Carta to the Bastille to the American Civil War to the Russian Revolution, there is this Platonic Model against which these big historical movements are always compared. There is a bad guy — often a dictator — who can be demonized. There is a struggling proletariat. The end comes with "liberty and justice for all". This is Star Wars. The dark times. The Empire.

The "People Power" coverage was riveting, compelling, and contained all the emotional components of this mythical story arc. Finding another such story, therefore, is a kind of Holy Grail for the international media. When a story comes that appears to contain some of the elements, and it's too much hard work to verify those elements or get all the background detail, you go with the Great Archetype of Western Civilization.

Now, let us consider the redshirt conflict.

Let's not consider what has actually been happening in Thailand, but how it looks to someone whose worldview has been coloured with this particular view of history.

Let's consider the fact that there is pretty much nothing being explained in English, and that there are perhaps a dozen foreigners who really understand Thai thoroughly. I don't mean Thai for shopping, bargirls, casual conversation and the like. Thai is a highly ambiguous language and is particularly well suited for seeming to say opposite things simultaneously. To get what is really being said takes total immersion.

When you watch a red shirt rally, notice how many English signs and placards there are, and note that they they are designed to show that these are events conforming to the archetype. The placards say "Democracy", "No Violence," "Stop killing innocent women and children" and so on. Speakers are passionately orating, crowds are moved. But there are no subtitles. What does it look like?

The answer is obvious. It looks like oppressed masses demanding freedom from an evil dictator.

Don't blame Dan Rivers, et al, who are only doing what they are paid to do: find the compelling story within the mass of incomprehensible data, match that story to what the audience already knows and believes, and make sure the advertising money keeps flowing in.

A vigorous counter-propaganda campaign in clear and simple English words of one syllable has always been lacking and is the reason the government is losing the PR war while actually following the most logical steps toward a real and lasting resolution.

If the foreign press were in fact able to speak Thai well enough to follow all the reportage here coming from all sides, they would also be including some of the following information in their reports. I want to insist yet again that I am not siding with anyone. The following is just information that people really need before they write their news reports.

-- Thaksin was democratically elected, but became increasingly undemocratic, and the country gradually devolved from a nation where oligarchs skimmed off the top to a kleptocracy of one. During his watch, thousands of people were summarily executed in the South of Thailand and in a bizarre "war on drugs" in which body count was considered a marker of success.

-- the coup that ousted Thaksin was of course completely illegal, but none of the people who carried it out are in the present government.

-- the yellow shirts' greatest error in moulding its international image was to elevate Thaksin's corruption as its major bone of contention. Thai governments have always been corrupt. The extent of corruption and the fact that much of it went into only one pocket was shocking to Thais, but the west views all "second-rate countries" as being corrupt. Had they used the human rights violations and muzzling of the press as their key talking points, the "heroic revolution" archetype would have been moulded with opposite protagonists, and CNN and BBC would be telling an opposite story today.

-- the constitution which was approved by a referendum after the coup and which brought back democracy was flawed, but it provided more checks and balances, and made election fraud a truly accountable offense for the first time.

-- the parliamentary process by which the Democrat coalition came to power was the same process by which the Lib Dems and Tories have attained power in Britain. The parliament that voted in this government consists entirely of democratically elected members.

-- no one ever disputed the red shirts' right to peaceful assembly, and the government went out of its way to accede to their demands.

-- this country already has democracy. Not a perfect one, but the idea of "demanding democracry" is sheer fantasy

-- the yellow shirts did not succeed in getting any of their demands from the government. The last two governments changed because key figures were shown to have committed election fraud. They simply did not take their own constitution seriously enough to follow it.

-- the red TV station has a perfect right to exist, but if foreign journalists actually understood Thai, they would realize that much of its content went far beyond any constitutionally acceptable limits of "protected speech" in a western democracy. Every civilized society limits speech when it actually harms others, whether by inciting hate or by slander. The government may have been wrong to brusquely pull the plug, but was certainly right to cry foul. It should have sought an injunction first. Example: Arisman threatened to destroy mosques, government buildings, and "all institutions you hold sacred" ... a clip widely seen on youtube, without subtitles. Without subtitles, it looks like "liberty, equality, fraternity".

-- the army hasn't been shooting women and children ... or indeed anyone at all, except in self-defense. Otherwise this would all be over, wouldn't it? It's simple for a big army to mow down 5,000 defenseless people.

-- since the government called the red shirts' bluff and allowed the deputy P.M. to report to the authorities to hear their accusations, the red leaders have been making ever-more fanciful demands. The idea of UN intervention is patently absurd. When Thaksin killed all those Muslims and alleged drug lords, human rights groups asked the UN to intervene. When the army took over the entire country, some asked the UN to intervene. The UN doesn't intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries except when requested to by the country itself or when the government has completely broken down.

-- Thailand hasn't had an unbreachable gulf between rich and poor for at least 20 years. These conflicts are about the rise of the middle class, not the war between the aristocrats and the proletariat.

-- Abhisit, with his thoroughly western and somewhat liberal background, shares the values of the west and is in fact more likely to bring about the social revolution needed by Thailand's agrarian poor than any previous leader. He is, in fact, pretty red, while Thaksin, in his autocratic style of leadership, is in a way pretty yellow. Simplistic portrayals do not help anyone to understand anything.

-- the only people who do not seem to care about the reds' actual grievances are their own leaders, who are basically making everyone risk their lives to see if they can get bail.

-- the King has said all that he is constitutionally able to say when he spoke to the supreme court justices and urged them to do their duty. The western press never seem to realize that the Thai monarchy is constitutionally on the European model ... not, say, the Saudi model. The king REIGNS ... he doesn't "rule". This is a democracy. The king is supposed to symbolize all the people, not a special interest group.

The above are just a few of the elements that needed to be sorted through in order to provide a balanced view of what is happening in this country.

There is one final element that must be mentioned. Most are not even aware of it. But there is, in the western mindset, a deeply ingrained sense of the moral superiority of western culture which carries with it the idea that a third world country must by its very nature be ruled by despots, oppress peasants, and kill and torture people. Most westerners become very insulted when this is pointed out to them because our deepest prejudices are always those of which we are least aware. I believe that there is a streak of this crypto-racism in some of the reportage we are seeing in the west. It is because of this that Baghdad, Yangon, and Bangkok are being treated as the same thing. We all look alike.

Yes, this opinion is always greeted with outrage. I do my best to face my own preconceptions and don't succeed that often, but I acknowledge they exist nonetheless.

Some of the foreign press are painting the endgame as the Alamo, but it is not. It is a lot closer to Jonestown or Waco.

Like those latter two cases, a highly charismatic leader figure (in our case operating from a distance, shopping in Paris while his minions sweat in the 94°weather) has taken an inspirational idea: in one case Christianity, in the other democracy, and reinvented it so that mainstream Christians, or real democrats, can no longer recognize it. The followers are trapped. There is a siege mentality and information coming from outside is screened so that those trapped believe they will be killed if they try to leave. Women and children are being told that they are in danger if they fall into the hands of the government, and to distrust the medics and NGOs waiting to help them. There are outraged pronouncements that they're not in fact using the children as human shields, but that the parents brought them willingly to "entertain and thrill" them. There is mounting paranoia coupled with delusions of grandeur, so that the little red kingdom feels it has the right to summon the United Nations, just like any other sovereign state. The reporters in Rajprasong who are attached to the red community are as susceptible to this variant of the Stockholm syndrome as anyone else.

The international press must separate out the very real problems that the rural areas of Thailand face, which will take decades to fix, from the fact that a mob is rampaging through Bangkok, burning, looting, and firing grenades, threatening in the name of democracy to destroy what democracy yet remains in this country.

But this bad reporting is not their fault. It is our fault for not providing the facts in bite-sized pieces, in the right language, at the right time.

Posted by Somtow Sucharitkul (S.P. Somtow)

Somtow is brilliant here in detailing the "perception" gap.