jayboy

Thai is not among the easiest languages (French, Italian, Indonesian)

for Westerners but it is very far from being the most difficult

(Chinese, Japanese, Arabic)

no offence meant Khun Jayboy but i think you possess a wealth of no idea when

it concerns the languages you mentioned.

No offence taken because it's not my original thought.It's the view of many professional linguists including the astonishingly accomplished J.Marvin Brown whom many older hands will remember as the main developer of the AUA Thai Course.

Fluency is difficult, the tonal aspect of Thai ( and other Asian languages ) is effectively a cunning barrier against learning for we of a Western extract.

This issue has been the topic of conversation a few times in the last few days in my residence/hotel. My attitude is that it's retarded not to be able to count to 10 in Thai, not to know the words for left and right, not to be able to return a greeting in Thai.

Seriously, think about it........" I've lived here for three years and I can't count to 10 ".

Shocking and ignorant.......shame can be a good motivator to learn.

The tonal aspect of Thai is often invoked by those who don't know it as being a major obstacle to learning the language.It isn't.

Thai is not among the easiest languages (French, Italian, Indonesian) for Westerners but it is very far from being the most difficult (Chinese, Japanese, Arabic)

The language test you set (counting up to 10 etc) for foreigners after 3 years is absurd.After a fortnight - if that - seems about right.

Fees for Ascot are very reasonable. I think it's a hidden gem

But didn't you say in an earlier post you negotiated a discount?

Discounts for siblings are standard at many schools.However if a school starts offering discounts in a non transparent way this can be a dangerous and slippery slope because it inevitably leaks out and gives the impression of desperation.Also parents who are struggling to afford the stated fees will be understandably resentful if other parents are negotiating a cheaper deal.

Reduced fees for highly talented children is a different matter

Schools want different types of students for different reasons. Some want blue eyed blondes to make them appear to be more like an international school for example. If you have something you think the school wants then give it a shot. I went to many schools and asked for discounts, some said yes off the bat, some took lengthy negotiations, some gave a flat no. It depends on circumstances. What you've described above is nonsense sorry to say. Leaks out how?? Such and such school is crap cos they give discounts??? Doesn't happen. Expats gossip about everything from maids/childcare to supermarkets/holiday resorts to removalists etc and it remains just that, gossip.

I'm not so sure.There is no objection to schools offering reduced fees to pupils for particular reasons of which academic, artistic or sporting prowess are the most obvious.You are sadly probably right that in Bangkok some international schools might want to have a higher proportion of "blue eyes" as a marketing strategy (by definition the second tier ones insecure about their "international" status:the first tier ones wouldn't need to).However my main point is that it is extremely unfair if some parents struggle to come up with school fees if other parents in a similar position receive discounts.As earlier mentioned I am not referring to children with special talents or sibling discounts - these are perfectly normal.As long as there is clear explanation and a transparent process there is really no problem.You are in my view completely mistaken if you think this kind of discrimination -where it exists - can be hidden or written off as gossip.Indeed I am aware of two families that have avoided schools for thjis reason (and to be fair also because the ownership/financial management aspect wasn't very clear).The market for international schools in Bangkok is very competitive and if there is no parental confidence in the transparency of fees being charged, that will eventually rebound to the detriment of the school concerned.Education shouldn't be like buying a used car where one has to negotiate with some spivs for the best price.

Just to put it in perspective, 60% of Britons oppose the taxpayer funding the funeral, and 41% disagreed that she was Britain's greatest peacetime prime minister as opposed to the 25% of Mail, Express and Telegraph readers who think she was.

So most agreed she was the country's greatest peace time Prime Minister.Personally I would rank Clement Attlee above her but she would certainly be in second place.

Clem Attlee when PM used at the end of the day walk the couple of miles from the train station to his home.When some suggested that as Prime Minister he should take a chauffeur driven car,he responded that would be a quite unnecessary waste of tax payers money.A different and I think a better type of politician.

Fees for Ascot are very reasonable. I think it's a hidden gem

But didn't you say in an earlier post you negotiated a discount?

Discounts for siblings are standard at many schools.However if a school starts offering discounts in a non transparent way this can be a dangerous and slippery slope because it inevitably leaks out and gives the impression of desperation.Also parents who are struggling to afford the stated fees will be understandably resentful if other parents are negotiating a cheaper deal.

Reduced fees for highly talented children is a different matter

Many older poeple will judge Margaret Thatcher's time through the prism of their own experiences. I spent the Thatcher years in Wales and Scotland, and saw at first hand what her policies meant for ordinary people. It was a time of retrenchment and insecurity in my own area of employment. The seventies had been a difficult decade, not least because of the sharp increase in oil prices, and Britain did need to change. Yet the way this was done brought enormous social costs. For those in the Southeast of England though, the pain was relatively short lived and the gains tangible - hence her popularity there. The enduring impact came in areas like privatisation, deregulation, monetarist economics, and the toleration of increasing social inequality on the theory that this would bring faster economic growth. Your verdict on the Thatcher government is likely to depend on whether you believe these brought the claimed benefits. Personally I wish we had chosen a different path.

A brief and pithy post, with the member concerned (if I may summarise) clearly sceptical about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher given the social impact of her policies in the regions.I disagree with little except that I believe that on balance the changes she introduced were positive.I also believe citizen33 might recall the total despair that many of us felt at the way the country was going before Mrs Thatcher came to power.Perhaps not worth my comment but I'd like to record that if all our posts had a small fraction of citizen33's calmness, intelligence,solid content and balance this would be a better forum.

If you recall there were rock solid institutions called Building Societies with sensible lending policies. Also rock solid Mutual Societies almost all of whom went the way of the Halifax one of the most rock solid of all. What an achievement.

You are talking nonsense.Banks are and always were separate from building societies.In any case the demise of building societies was nothing to do with Thatcher.The disastrous deregulation of the banking sector did not happen on her watch but under that of Labour.

Deleted Quote edited out

Is he? I"ll take your word for it.Actually what I have noticed in recent years is the criticism of corruption has become code for the criticism of democratic politics and politicians in general (except those favoured by the old order even if like a former Deputy PM they come with a filthy smell).The not so hidden message is that Thais should be directed by their betters and not presume to have their own opinions.


It's quite clever I admit because if one takes issue with it one is conniving at corruption and God knows it's no fun defending Thai politicians.

Hmm...I am American (from the west coast) and everybody tells me that American's are the easiest to understand out of all the other Native English speakers. Not sure if this is true. My Thai boyfriend was explaining to me that American's speak a bit slower and enunciate the words more often. Or maybe it's from Thai's watching so many American movies? Who knows...I'm just glad they can understand me!

I think its easier to understand cause whenever someone from a country learns English, it sounds more like "American English". I've never once heard an Asian that learned English have an "English" or other non-American accent. I'm sure there are a few out there, but 99% of people who learn English are going to sound "American".

You clearly have little exposure to the Thai upper classes where an English patrician accent can often be heard.

I am still happy to have the PR, even though it does not help with the WP. At least I don't have to worry about staying in Thailand when I lose my job.

That said, I would be even happier if a PR meant that no WP is needed and I could own a company - such as a the PR in Laos. Which makes sense, actually.

Hold on.Do we actually know that having PR doesn't help with WP at all?Clearly as Arkady has explained it doesn't now in terms of functioning as a company or in a self employed capacity.But it may well make the process somewhat easier for employees who hold PR.

Obviously Thaksin is currently extremely influential now.Since the people of Thailand recently voted in a government intimately associated with him, this is scarcely surprising.But in the medium term he will become personally less important.As the British politican Enoch Powell, also brilliant but flawed, once correctly commented "all political careers end in failure".

Another variation on the "it's not all about the Shinawatras" line that we have been hearing for so many years, and that is each and every year, proven little more than wishful thinking, if it is even that.

It is sometimes necessary to hold more than one thought in one's head at a time.Yes the Shinawatras are dominant now.But the political revolution Thaksin instigated will be important long after he and his family have faded from the scene

But since your one thought is sneaking a pro-Thaksin agenda in as the long term project (and today on the menu we have the 'I don't support Thaksin but'... and two veg) the twists and turns of additional thoughts holding it all together must be a little stressful at times.

My "one thought" is sneaking in a pro-Thaksin agenda? Really?

Is that really my "one thought"? Sometimes a nuanced approach to problems makes more sense than any other way.

But what do you mean by a "pro-Thaksin agenda"? Unless you can articulate this clearly your post is simply another usual suspects rant, a pity really.

If you mean do I admire Thaksin, call for his return to Thailand, and seek for the charges against him to be dropped - then you are wrong on all counts.

If you mean he is a highly significant political figure who has permanently changed the Thai political landscape, then you are right.

But I don't really know what you mean.If you want to explain rationally I will do my best to address the matter.If you don't, I daresay I can struggle on regardless.

But as a piece of friendly advice I don't think mocking the "I don't like Thaksin but.." line really cuts it any more as a debating point.I only mention it because you so frequently use it.

It really only makes sense if you believe that all Thailand's problems were caused by - and are embodied - in one man, and that people who take a different view are driven by some mysterious underlying agenda.

Better still would be to get rid of Article 112 altogether. It is a pathetically backward law which protects nothing and is only about hate. Thailand will always be considered as a 3rd-rate, backwater country until this law is gone.

Both Yingluck and Thaksin have said there will be no changes to the law.

Deputy PM Chalerm has even established an LM "War Room" to scrutinize for even additional offenders.

some very recent reiteration of her earlier voiced opinion....

PM Firm against Amending Lese Majeste Law

The prime minister affirms that the government has no plan to amend the Criminal Code's Article 112 on lese majeste.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra insisted that the government will not meddle with the attempt for the amendment of the Criminal Code's Article 112 on lese majeste launched by the Campaign Committee for the Amendment of Article 112.

Yingluck noted that the matter was already discussed by government coalition parties and conclusion was reached.

She added that there are many issues, especially economic problems, that need to be urgently solved by the government.

-- Tan Network 2012-05-11

.

Another updated reiteration from the Director of the 500 Million Baht LM War Room....

Chalerm opposes lese-majeste law amendment

BANGKOK, 21 March 2013 (NNT) - Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Chalerm Yubumrung has said that he will oppose an amendment to the lese-majeste law, even though the government has not yet drawn conclusion on the issue.

Chalerm said that the government has not yet discussed an amendment to Article 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese-majeste law. He added, however, that if the amendment is proposed, he will personally oppose it.

Article 112 of the Criminal Code states that any person who "insults, commits libel against, or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent, or the Regent" shall be liable to imprisonment of between 5 and 15 years.

Critics have argued that the fact that the article is categorised as national security law, any person could file a charge against anybody else, leading to tentative abuse of the law, and possibly being used as a political weapon.

The government has maintained its stance of not amending the law.

A petition to amend the law was submitted to parliament last year by activists who gathered about 40,000 signatures, but the amendment draft was discarded by the House Speaker.

-- NNT 2013-03-21

I'm confused.You post this without comment.But your posting history shows you thoroughly approve of the PM's and Chalerm's position.Why not be honest and admit it?

Your sympathies seem aligned with the PTP on this issue.

Please try and focus on the topic and avoid personalising the discussion.You should put that on a post-it note for your fridge.Thanks for the advice.I will try to do better..Try harder. .It is sometimes necessary to hold more than one thought in one's head at a time.

Not clear what your problem is.It is undeniably important to hold in ones mind several sometimes competing pieces of evidence when considering a proposition.

However if one's mental processes are swamped by an overriding one track obsession,I can see the concept of reasoning out the truth might be a rather alien concept to grasp.

Obviously Thaksin is currently extremely influential now.Since the people of Thailand recently voted in a government intimately associated with him, this is scarcely surprising.But in the medium term he will become personally less important.As the British politican Enoch Powell, also brilliant but flawed, once correctly commented "all political careers end in failure".

Another variation on the "it's not all about the Shinawatras" line that we have been hearing for so many years, and that is each and every year, proven little more than wishful thinking, if it is even that.

It is sometimes necessary to hold more than one thought in one's head at a time.Yes the Shinawatras are dominant now.But the political revolution Thaksin instigated will be important long after he and his family have faded from the scene

Well let's see. According to the Wikipedia site, some GT 200s were bought for use in Africa. The stated price was $ 5000. Hmmmm. The stated Thai price was $ 27,000.So I guess that left

$ 22,000 in skim PER UNIT for the generals. Wow nice work if you can get...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200

"The Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF) and the United Nations Environment Programme bought 15 GT200s in 2005 at a cost of $5,000 each and distributed them to the five LATF member states."

So I guess this means the generals will have to cough back some of their 22 million bucks to the NACC to make this quietly go away. I LOVE this place !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, don't single out the RTA only. The wiki article also lists the RTP and other organisations.

BTW in line with the 'police station' scandal which of course is to be blamed on Abhisit/Suthep, may I remind that the first GT200 units were ordered in 2004 under the PMship of our most popular criminal fugitive who is totally innocent of course as he didn't control the RTA in the same way as Abhisit/Suthep controlled the RTP

Congratulations.You have been nominated for the Sriracha John memorial prize for an irrelevant introduction of Thaksin into a topic.

If you are going to quote Wiki be honest about the fact that the RTA purchased the vast majority of this piece of junk.

Pornthip's record in this is appalling, and the fact she was on the committee that initially endorsed this crap raises some disturbing questions.

There is huge credit here for Khun Abhisit.At a press conference he arranged it was demonstrated that of 20 tests made the GT 200 worked only 4 times (using a double blind test).If it was pure random it should have worked 5 times.This means that if you were to replace the 1,2 million baht GT200 devices with a 25 satang coin, the coin would be more accurate.

In a well ordered state the army officers involved in this fiasco would have been cashiered, and jailed.

What do you mean by bring him home? He has a private jet and could be back in time for lunch if he wished. The only person who is stopping him from returning is himself. It seems that even having a sister as PM and a brother in law as head of police isn't sufficient assurance for him of being able to control the cases against him. I think he is waiting for an absolute cast-iron guarantee that he will be above the law with regards all of his past actions.

I agree. And the only way he gets out of the picture is to bring him home and defeat him and his party in an election. If you can't do that he will remain a force in Thai politics.

When Thaksin is out of the picture.

I think therefore that when you say bring him back, what you are actually saying in effect is give him a complete whitewash.

No, I don't believe that is what being said.The suggestion being made is that politically motivated prosecutions, rigged consititutions, military coups and judicial activism only goes so far.They may delay or frustrate the inevitable but can't stop it altogether - namely the decisive voice of the Thai people.In so many ways the clock is ticking in Thailand and all the signs are the unelected elites are on a long slide downwards.Ultimately the only way to stop Thaksinism (and I am here specifically talking about a meglomaniac manipulation of democracy for personal aggrandisement - wealth and power) is to persuade the Thai people and thus be able to win a fair general election.It means taking the Thai majority seriously which for all his serious faults is what Thaksin did, and is why he is so loved by millions.

I'm not sure Thaksin is now the main issue but in the event of his return he would certainly be arrested, tried and jailed briefly.The alternative and less likely option would be a stand off too appalling to contemplate.

The suggestion being made is that Thaksin is totally uninportant, Thailand has moved beyond him, while at the same time our dear politically motivated bail jumper and criminal fugitive is skyping in to tell his cabinet how he wants his country to be run.

He's loved by millions who got handouts, who got indoctrinated, who 'know' Abhisit said "kill me some", etc., etc. He's hated by millions who remember the 'war on drugs', the disasters down South with 'weak from fasting', etc., etc.His lovely sister (Ms. Yingluck that is) is a puppet, his other sister is a mouthpiece, lots of relative being pushed into government and government controlled positions. It's like 2005/2006 again.

The alternative to Thaksin staying away seems to be a return leading to a civil war which would be too appalling to contemplate. Imho, of course

Obviously Thaksin is currently extremely influential now.Since the people of Thailand recently voted in a government intimately associated with him, this is scarcely surprising.But in the medium term he will become personally less important.As the British politican Enoch Powell, also brilliant but flawed, once correctly commented "all political careers end in failure".

You make a huge mistake if you believe Thaksin's astonishing level of support was primarily based on handouts.I know this is part of the dimbulb propaganda but it doesn't stand up.As Thaksin oriented parties win general elections over and over again, his opponents ought to reflect a little more on the reasons for his success

Millions do not hate Thaksin because of the drugs war.It was in contrast strongly supported by most Thais including the establishment.Some of his enemies subsequently saw it as a way to pursue him after his fall, but no case was ever made.

In the South his involvement was hopeless and he made some stupid and crass remarks.But the criminals were Thai army officers who have never been pursued.In the limited investigations carried out the officers concerned were find not guilty.

I agree the possible disastrous scenario that might follow his unnegotiated return.But there are compromise solutions in which both sides would have to give an take.At present there seems no wish to compromise.

Mr Abisit wants to keep Mr Thaksin out of politics, Mr Thaksin wants to keep Mr Abisit out of politics, the ruling party wants to keep everybody out of politics. When is this personal vendetta going to ever stop.

When Thaksin is out of the picture.

I agree. And the only way he gets out of the picture is to bring him home and defeat him and his party in an election. If you can't do that he will remain a force in Thai politics.

What do you mean by bring him home? He has a private jet and could be back in time for lunch if he wished. The only person who is stopping him from returning is himself. It seems that even having a sister as PM and a brother in law as head of police isn't sufficient assurance for him of being able to control the cases against him. I think he is waiting for an absolute cast-iron guarantee that he will be above the law with regards all of his past actions.

I think therefore that when you say bring him back, what you are actually saying in effect is give him a complete whitewash.

No, I don't believe that is what being said.The suggestion being made is that politically motivated prosecutions, rigged consititutions, military coups and judicial activism only goes so far.They may delay or frustrate the inevitable but can't stop it altogether - namely the decisive voice of the Thai people.In so many ways the clock is ticking in Thailand and all the signs are the unelected elites are on a long slide downwards.Ultimately the only way to stop Thaksinism (and I am here specifically talking about a meglomaniac manipulation of democracy for personal aggrandisement - wealth and power) is to persuade the Thai people and thus be able to win a fair general election.It means taking the Thai majority seriously which for all his serious faults is what Thaksin did, and is why he is so loved by millions.

I'm not sure Thaksin is now the main issue but in the event of his return he would certainly be arrested, tried and jailed briefly.The alternative and less likely option would be a stand off too appalling to contemplate.

Please try and focus on the topic and avoid personalising the discussion.

You should put that on a post-it note for your fridge.

Thanks for the advice.I will try to do better.I would take it even more seriously if at least one (in his several incarnations on the forum) of those who endorsed your excellent sentiment had not so frequently been suspended or warned for persona abuse of one kind or another.

Because they were being fired upon by real live killer bullets and they responded in kind.

What was the Thai military's excuse for using live ammunition before they were fired upon?

They lied about firing live ammo and said they were firing blanks. Video evidence clearly showed them firing live ammunition towards unarmed protesters, using M16's without muzzle adapters.

The Thai military has (and still maintains) a disgraceful record and attitude towards human rights. I do wonder why so many posters take their word at face value? Blinkered hatred and obsession for the man in Dubai I suspect.

With regards the protests in 2010, some of us don't need to take the military's word for anything, because we were here in Bangkok and saw with our own eyes exactly what the situation was and exactly what the dangers were out there.

And with regards the military's "disgraceful human rights record", there is not much the military can do now about things that happened 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, things that happened before many of them were even born, they can only deal with the now and try and do what is right at this moment; and judging events over the last decade, it's not the military the ones with the disgraceful human rights record, it's the politicians, the protest leaders and the protesters themselves who have clearly taken that particular mantle.

Agreed many of us were in Bangkok at the time, including me, and were able to assess the situation personally.Nobody but a fool would claim that presence on the ground gave an all embracing understanding - though some fools do just that.

As to the military's appalling record of murdering civilians (I was around for much of that in the 1970's and 1980's) I think the onus of proof is on those who maintain the army's attitude and behaviour has changed.I don't see much evidence for that.As for politicians responsibility I tend to agree, and this is why Abhisit and Suthep are being investigated.Your suggestion that protestors (whether yellow or red) are somehow human rights abusers is just plain silly however.Still any old nonsense will do if it diverts attention away from the thread - responsibility for the murder of the Italian journalist.Right?

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

With no respect at all, you have no concept of politeness, which would exclude phrases such as "you and your kind" and accusations that everybody, besides yourself, "respond incoherently".

Would you consider it acceptable if I wrote false statements about you, defending them by saying that they can't be ruled out as a possibility?

By this I take it you cannot accept even as a remote possibility the deliberate murder of journalists.I think we already knew this.

The rest of your post and the muddled thinking in it simply serve to confirm my earlier observations.

Can you not manage a post without an insult? My "muddled thinking" can certainly accept the deliberate murder of journalists as a very remote possibility, and my logical thinking will immediately discount it when there is not a shred of evidence to support it. The next question is "Why would somebody suggest such a thing?" or even mention it as an unlikely "remotely possible" "option". But I wouldn't want to insult you with an answer, even if it was only a "remote possibility."

So now you change your mind.There is now according to you a remote possibility of journalists being deliberately targetted - that's all I ever suggested.You can say you discount it immediately - that's your prerogative but as an option it is beyond dipute.As to the possible involvement of the Thai Military in this there will I am sure be different views depending on one's opinion of its accountability for its many crimes,its record of violence against civilians, its discipline and its past history in dealing with crowds of demonstrators.My own position is that the jury is still out.

I didn't "suggest" it.I included it as an option which it obviously is.We don't know the truth yet.

Well it isn't an "option" obvious to everybody.

Considering the number of casualties and the high press presence, do you consider the number of journalists injured excessive to the point it becomes a 'non-suggested' option? Are you claiming it is an option, despite the figures, because of ineptitude? Or are you playing semantics again to hide your statement that the RTA , or somebody else, "deliberately targetted" press.

This thread title, and your use of that term, to me is an implication of who was "targetting" whom.

In all politeness I have answered these questions several times already.If you cannot understand there is little more I can do.If the problem you have is that I don't rule out completely the deliberate murder of journalists as a possibility, so be it.That simply speaks to your prejudices.I don't object particularly but it would save an awful lot of time if you and your kind concentrated enough to comprehend quite straightforward posts before responding so incoherently.

Interesting that when a Thai soldier makes a statement in court which implicates the MIB in an issue it is all ah 'honorable Royal Army officer' obviously telling the truth etc, when a foreign independent journalist makes a statement its 'did he know the firing arc' by wannabe army forensic scientists

Funny how some people will only believe evidence which supports there belief and will ridicule any other.

Also amazing how some people will discount evidence backed by photographs, yet readily accept other which is only vague in nature - if it supports their own mindset.

Can you even accept that victims should bear some responsibility for placing themselves in a dangerous situation?

Do you have an inkling of your own ignorance and insensitivity? Since the Crimean War or even before, journalists and latterly photographers have recorded foreign conflicts.It is inevitable that this will put them in harm's way - but it is a professional risk.There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side.This tragic incident is not about making political points which is all you are apparently seeking to do, albeit not very intelligently.It is about finding out the truth, not making excuses for the culprits.

Do you have an inkling of your own boorish condescension, coupled with innate ability to insult while agreeing with what I said? Accepting "professional risk" is taking responsibility for placing yourself in a dangerous situation.

"There is however a distinction between deaths arising from the "fog of war" and journalists being deliberately targetted from whatever side."

Can you please explain again how "deliberately targetted" doesn't mean deliberately targetted? My BS meter went off scale and had to be recalibrated.

"Deliberately targetted" means just that.Surely any half way intelligent person reading my post would see the clear meaning that journalists deaths in this kind of conflict occur in two broad ways - where victims are deliberately targetted or where deaths occur in the "general fog of war", ie unfortunate but essentually accidental.In all of this I was careful not to suggest or in any way imply the deaths were caused by one side or the other - that has yet to be determined.

The trouble with you people is that you are keen to see malice and bias, where there is in fact none - I made a completely uncontroversial proposition.This propensity to take offence compounded by no obvious sign of analytical thought produces your frankly absurd reaction.Anyway perhaps having a few of the usual suspects "liking" your incoherent post is enough for you?