wandasloan

I am ABSOLUTELY an advocate for free speech, and in my not so humble opinion, this is the one exception to make that rule. I didn't know anything about Peace TV, so I watched their newly posted Youtube videos - what a crock! Just like screwing for virginity, there's no "peace" in their messages.

Post of the day week month year millennium.

Where "absolutely" is an absolute word, you mean? 555555 Now that's funny!

NHRC director Niran Pitakwachara said today that the committee believes the shut-down order was delivered without due process or cause

Maybe there was cause and maybe not but the order was legal under Section 44 of the Interim Constitution that that governs the NCPO. The NCPO can shut down any thing any where any time as they have proven with 'Peace' TV.

Section 44 was not invoked at the time the station shut down. Nor has Section 44 ever been mentioned as involved in this case, except by you.

The station was not shut down by the NCPO. The head of the NCPO strongly denied that the NCPO played ANY part in the shutdown. The station was ordered closed by the NBTC, which has no constitutional responsibility to do so. Its charter and regulations forbid it from shutting down any broadcaster. At no time, in no place has the NCPO touched Peace TV in any manner. Your claim is utterly false, and demonstrably defamatory.

At the end of May, 2014, the NBTC received a limited order from the junta to shut down broadcasters it believed were obviously inciting the public. This order was not issued under Section 44. The number of broadcasters shut down under this order in 51 weeks is: one (1).

If you favour this censorship, just say so, as your opinion. Don't try to twist the facts. If you don't favour free speech then you don't. Up to you. But there are always those who know exactly what happened and will point out any of your terminological inexactitudes, misconceptions and falsehoods.

Right now, because it's Thailand and this sort of thing is generally common, my favourite people are the ones who say, "No, no, no, really, REALLY I'm in favour of free speech but". Liars. Every one of them. No exception. A more honest post like yours is superior, but unpleasantly marred by all the factual errors, apparently an effort to try to misdirect your readers on the blame.

It was NOT the military that shut down Peace TV.

How did this report on how police were this ][ far from catching the Koh Samui bombing get mixed in with the human trafficking story?

Note the DATE for this major Flushing ....Considering all the "Krap" that Obama and his henchmen have been throwing at our Government, do you think it is a mere coincidence that this is all due to take place on 04 JULY?

I reckon it is a "ripper way" of telling Yinglick's friend in the Whitehouse what we think of his advice.

It's a royal birthday. Methinks her nibs the minister may want to rethink her plan, probably the way Elmer Fudd hunts wabbits - vewy vewy quietwy.

And if she couldn't figure out it's the birthday of a top royal, I'm not sure how she could be as cluefully bright that you give her credit for.

What part of Thainess does this elude too ? and yes sensless violence does occur in other countries but not with such banality and senseless regularity. The mental health of this country is in serious doubt.

Yes. It does, only worse. If you've not heard of Rotherham, ask Mr Google about it.

Rotherham does not excuse this dreadful man and his enabling merit-makers. Neither are the alleged "men" of Rotherham, in the slightest way, unique in their banality and senselessness as this incident shows.

But you are wrong it doesn't occur elsewhere. That's the problem - it occurs everywhere, and often far, far worse than this isolated incident. In Rotherham, however, it was far worse, far more banal and senseless, and the true guilty parties - the counterparts of these merit-makers - are (not "were" but "are") the police, social workers and politicians who weren't even called on their immoral, banal senselessness.

At least in this horrible incident, the guilty were a bunch of half- or full-drunk villagers. England is far worse than Thailand in this comparison, not even close.

I wouldn't be surprised if the picture in the OP is actually taken in Vietnam.

Sure. Those Asians all look alike anyway, right?

Good grief. And they complain about Thai education.

quote: <<If they wanted front pages and TV broadcasts, they would go to Bangkok, to Phuket, to Krabi>>

or Had Yai.... or Samui.... you get it yet?

Sigh.

Hat Yai is within their area. It is "their" claimed territory, part of what they call Patani.

Yes, if they wanted a "mention" as you drolly put it, they would go to Samui. Why do you figure they have not gone to Samui or other places I mentioned but ONLY have stayed in the deep South and NEVER have sought out media attention by going out of the deep South to commit violence of any kind?

They have carefully staged violence *only* in the region that that they specifically claim makes up Patani. That includes just about one half of Songkhla province, and they stick to that half. That does NOT include the neighbouring majority-Muslim province of Krabi, where they have never, ever committed violence.

If they wanted a mention, it's pretty easy, you agree. Just go outside the deep South (Patani) and make violence. So why do they not do that, do you think?

So, they blew up Lee Gardens to get a mention on local radio.....

I'm certain they also couldn't care less about getting a mention on local radio, for Lee Gardens, the attempt to assassinate the high institution in the 1970s, the 54 known beheadings in recent years - or any of it.

But do go on if you have any primary-source information about why these people blow up things in the South. Or kill or terrorise or decapitate or burn. You know, opinions are worth what you pay for a click on the home, here, of The Official Thai Visa Anti-Terrorism Squad.

But do you have actual information about it? Because I've never seen or heard an authoritative voice say they are after "mentions" of any type on their violence. I'm unaware of a single tract, interview, broadcast, banner or even town meeting where they "mentioned" their violence.

You are certainly welcome to your OPINION about whether they are attention seekers when they kill and maim and blow things up, but you are not entitled to claim this as Truth. It's my opinion they are not after any mentions at all. They have a political and paramilitary programme that they have relentlessly pursued for decades, and it has never included propaganda emphasising their violence. Even when Gadhafi and then the Ayatollahs were bankrolling them, they never brought up the violence.

To say that they do these violent things to get a mention of any kind is nothing but mind-reading and transference. Until you reveal yourself as a spokesperson for one of these gangs, or produce some source material, you only have a personal opinion, and it's not enlightened.

.

so, when they carry out these atrocoties, it's not to get any form of attention......... sure...whatever..... In my OPINION... they do aim to get attention.... or you think they just like the sound of loud bangs and screams?

That is not what you said. You said on the radio. You said a mention.

Now you have a different story. This time, in my opinion, you're getting closer. But before.... before you were completely wrong. If they wanted front pages and TV broadcasts, they would go to Bangkok, to Phuket, to Krabi - they would go to Malaysia and decapitate people and they would get front pages then. But they don't.

These people don't care about the media, the newspapers, the radio. But of course they need attention. And they get it, where it matters to THEM.

So, they blew up Lee Gardens to get a mention on local radio.....

I'm certain they also couldn't care less about getting a mention on local radio, for Lee Gardens, the attempt to assassinate the high institution in the 1970s, the 54 known beheadings in recent years - or any of it.

But do go on if you have any primary-source information about why these people blow up things in the South. Or kill or terrorise or decapitate or burn. You know, opinions are worth what you pay for a click on the home, here, of The Official Thai Visa Anti-Terrorism Squad.

But do you have actual information about it? Because I've never seen or heard an authoritative voice say they are after "mentions" of any type on their violence. I'm unaware of a single tract, interview, broadcast, banner or even town meeting where they "mentioned" their violence.

You are certainly welcome to your OPINION about whether they are attention seekers when they kill and maim and blow things up, but you are not entitled to claim this as Truth. It's my opinion they are not after any mentions at all. They have a political and paramilitary programme that they have relentlessly pursued for decades, and it has never included propaganda emphasising their violence. Even when Gadhafi and then the Ayatollahs were bankrolling them, they never brought up the violence.

To say that they do these violent things to get a mention of any kind is nothing but mind-reading and transference. Until you reveal yourself as a spokesperson for one of these gangs, or produce some source material, you only have a personal opinion, and it's not enlightened.

.

I don't know if this is related to the incidents in the south. However, for a long time already I thought for myself, how long will it take before the southerners take their problems to Bangkok or other areas where it hurts and get much more (international) attention than with blowing up small motorbike bombs in Hat Yai.

So far, a little over 50 years.

You assume they want international attention. That's your assumption, not their stated goal.

I hope they find the scum responsible for this.

But I think Samui and Surat Thani are strange targets?

Neither are in an area where Malays are in the majority.

Stranger than Bangkok?

Koh Samui is in Surat Thani province. It is intellectually interesting and frankly scary how you people spread rumours about "two bombs" out of just a simple lack of knowledge.

NGO bigshots are some of the worst scum in SE Asia.

You could be right. It has no relevance to this thread, however, which is about an Ethiopian phuyai who is the head of the United Nations World Health Organisation office in Thailand, his wife, and his Ethiopian maid, who has charged the couple kept her as a slave. Down the hall, fourth topic on the righ... no on the left - NGO bigshots waiting for you to expertly pigeonhole them.

If I had to choose between having a civil war (personal vendetta with paid stooges/mercenaries)in Bangkok and an unwritten charter with unknown content. I would take the charter any day.

Sure.

What if the choice is whether to have a mystery constitution AND having a civil war?

In what way would a mysterious constitution prevent a civil war. And why should Thailand be unique in not having a civil war or wars? It's rather amazing it has never had one, really. I can't immediately think of another country that hasn't.

It's my casual observation from afar but nonetheless as an expat too that it is difficult to believe she's a murderer, especially such a grizzly one.

Finally, an opinion that bears looking into.

He is banned to travel to the U.S. still. But because the UN is in New York he will be allowed to travel to NY and no where else. He will also be banned to any formal US- Thailand meetings. It's the same as the other dictatorship, re: Iran, Libya, Venezuela ect...

I'm trying to think of how you could be more wrong in that many words, and I can't. Start to finish, it's a classic. He isn't banned, he can travel where he wants. There won't BE any US meetings for him to attend and it's not the same as the three countries you mention - individually or collectively. All wrong.

There are no US sanctions against the members of the junta, their friends or family. There are no US sanctions against Thailand. Official relations are cool without doubt. Some military deals have been, er, "delayed". But no sanctions exist against the country or its directors, whether in or out of jackboots.

I got a kick out of the "he can't figure out why no one got the joke" post. It *is* ironic that the only person marching in step is General Failure and everyone else is out of step. Great metaphor, that.

I'm not wrong at all. And I believe Australia has imposed the same ban too. And Prayut knows it. But he is allowed to go to NY for the UN assembly as any other leader of a country, but he will not be able to travel anywhere else in the US.

Ah, so you have a copy of the US sanctions order, or some official statement about it. Well, let's see it. Put up or, sir. Let me repeat, so that you can post the official order and make me look really, really foolish and wildly uninformed simply by proving the following to be wrong:

There are no US sanctions against Thailand or Prayut. Gen Prayut is entirely free, as of today, to go to the US and travel wherever he might like to travel.

.

can thaivisa or that coconut be sued for spreading lies with monitary gains as goal ?

yes.

although I would guess TVF's lawyers would argue that they were just reprinting another source and would no reason to know that a "reputable" news outlet like coconuts was printing anything but the truth

Quite right, and I'm sure that is exactly what TVF would do.

It's futile, though. Under Thai law (and pretty well all defamation laws, everywhere), repeating the defamation is EXACTLY the same as uttering it first. Just yesterday, the court sentenced the quite well-known TV host Woody to a year (suspended) because he repeated a defamatory statement. He did indeed try on the "I'm a journalist and I was only repeating" and the judge nearly fell over and hurt himself quite seriously, he was laughing so hard.

That said, Thaivisa and all other jackal/vulture media aren't going to be sued or even intimidated over this particular case.

.

Where are the members now, who, in their wisdom and without facts, were adamant that this occurred, so much so that they howled down, criticised and denigrated others without accepting that those others had different points of view. Even when evidence came to light that the storey was a fabrication, some just would not let go nor accept that they were wrong and kept on and with their churlish chides, regardless of how foolish they continued to look.

What is it with some, just because someone has a different outlook, they apparently need to have some wise man explain to them the reasons for them being wrong. It appears that unless you think with the pack, then whatever you post is scoffed at because you dare to think differently. Now, if you do, then they will attack you and if you dare to challenge back, watch out because this is when the name calling starts, the post is rubbished, because it is meaningless and the so called expert alleges it is unintelligible, and from then on the attacks become relentless. I think some try to solicit angry responses and when unable to, the remarks passed become more intense and highly derogatory.

Maybe some of the posters, who were adamant as to the factualness of the incident and then carried on the way they did, should have a long hard look at themselves and then before coming to and posting such unproven and fallacious statements they should engage their brain before opening their mouths. Now with the police threatening legal action, it would be appropriate for a few to beware of the knock on the door. One never knows and it would be nice to see a few taught a lesson. But so be it in a day on TVF but at least I know who had the last laugh, and no I won't gloat over it.

Wait a minute. Wait just a darn minute!!

This story was originally on the internet. In fact it was on Facebook!! Are you saying that a story on Facebook on the internet wasn't true? Shirley, you jest!

I see Mr Surachai of Facebook/internet fame has deleted all this. That should work equally well.

He is banned to travel to the U.S. still. But because the UN is in New York he will be allowed to travel to NY and no where else. He will also be banned to any formal US- Thailand meetings. It's the same as the other dictatorship, re: Iran, Libya, Venezuela ect...

I'm trying to think of how you could be more wrong in that many words, and I can't. Start to finish, it's a classic. He isn't banned, he can travel where he wants. There won't BE any US meetings for him to attend and it's not the same as the three countries you mention - individually or collectively. All wrong.

There are no US sanctions against the members of the junta, their friends or family. There are no US sanctions against Thailand. Official relations are cool without doubt. Some military deals have been, er, "delayed". But no sanctions exist against the country or its directors, whether in or out of jackboots.

I got a kick out of the "he can't figure out why no one got the joke" post. It *is* ironic that the only person marching in step is General Failure and everyone else is out of step. Great metaphor, that.

Question is, whether it is fake or genuine love from her.

No one can answer this, only himself.

General question about Thai women from one man perspective doesn't make any sense or very little ...

Every one is unique, comes from different background, has different values, experience and million other things.

My advice. Forget about instructions and manuals ...

Good luck.

Excellent. I would only add that he won't "get drained of his money". That, too, like everything else - as you point out well - is up to him. It's his money, and he will decide what to do with it.

In other news, British American Tobacco's chairman said he had misgivings about the poor job his public relations team is doing in promoting the positive side of the story of Rothman's cigarettes.

[snip snip ] ... the NCPO will continue to wield power that can overrule the constitution.

So what's the point of a referndum?

What's the point of an election? Or a constitution? What's wrong with the current constitution where General Perfect selects all underlings, all the time? Voting is just another word for "sucking up to the Europeans".

Interesting. What does an American name sound like? Pachino? Weinstein? O'Donnell? Obama? How about first names. Are Barak, Woody, Cassius and Luigi American names?

It probably has one of the most diverse mixes of cultures of any country in the world.

As I'm sure you know, almost all converts to Islam adopt an Arabic name. There are many converts in the US. At some point in the future all those Arabic names will become American names.

His name sounds like a completely American name. An African American islamic convert from New York.

The bold-faced para is true, but not really related to the post you quote or with the thread. Kwame and Jackson are not Arabic or Islamic. Kwame is African, usually Ghana. The first sone of Jack was probably English. Rasheed is Islamic/Arabic in origin. It's also used in the US by non-Muslims - I suppose most often by African-Americans. But yes it certainly is (also) an Islamic name, one of the "blessed 99" in fact.

While I say "true", I do think you are behind the curve and every name in your post and every name in my post is an American name today.

.

In any Democracy the necessary quilification for a "free and fair" election is:

• A compentant fuctioning system of political parties free from corruption and with honest politicians running it..
• An educated electorate.
• And an electorate who can not be "bribed" or influenced by politicians due to fear of the consequences of their vote.

Now, do you really think that description fits Thailand?

I don't.

And I fear it will be a very long time before Thailand even comes close to that description.

You could be right, but the countries that do have elections seem to do sort-of okay and stumble along even though it will be a very long time and certainly beyond your lifetime before one of them comes close to that standard set by King Ima.