jayboy

comments made by those who try to stir up trouble

He's referring to Suthep?

Suthep does it as does Jatuporn. Neither of them have any ideology but are pure political attack machines and in Suthep's case a shrewd political manipulator. Sodsri is more a kind of maverick. For different reasons not much any of those three say will be listened to by anyone who isnt an ardent supporter of them or a family member (excluding Jatuporn on that count)

There are plenty of others too. If you look at why the attack machines say what they do rather than listen to what they say, it is easier to understand imho. People like this are good source for media but discredited outside of their initiates.

But in this case Jatuporn's comments seem entirely reasonable to me, or at least the concern behind them.I have no information about military teams being despatched but the concern is legitimate.The Thai military does interfere in politics and has tried to manipulate elections in the recent past.

The journalistic headline in the OP is fine:

PCI report says 93 killed in last year's crackdown

It's the thread title that's in error.

You're quite right.I withdraw my journalism comment.

Politically biased group purporting to be an independent NGO group, but clearly misstating facts willy nilly and clearly in the pocket of the Big Red Paymaster's family. More propaganda. And this will only get worse till the election is done with.

So to summarise, your belief is that the PIC pretends to be independent, but is in reality being deliberately misleading and is indeed being paid by Thaksin Shinawatra's family to further the Red cause.I am wondering whether you have any evidence to back these assertions or whether, as I assume, is the usual dishonesty you spew out when awkward facts are revealed about the massacre last year.Yoshiwara makes a similar libellous allegation.How some people fear and hate the truth.

In fact I have read the PIC report and the approach is calm, methodical and devastating.The PIC is headed by Kritaya Archavanitkul of Mahidol University’s Institute for Population and Social Research, not an obscure NGO but at the heart of the Thai academic establishment.It does not make wild accusations but asks some penetrating questions chiefly related to the very slow progress of the enquiry.

Hammered is incidentally right to point out the misleading heading, the usual sloppy journalism one assumes.

The Asia Sentinel has an article on the background to purchase this useless junk.It also touches on the lies, corruption and sheer stupidity of other military procurement decisions.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3108&Itemid=392

Interesting that in the same article, the Thailand Ambassador to the UN is denying that he ever admitted to the use of cluster bombs and the CMC distorted what he said and turned it into an "admission."

Cheeseman strikes again.

Usual tactics.Uncritical support for the Thai authorities, particularly when the military is involved, and personal attacks on independent sources - in this case Ms Cheeseman of CMC but previously with journalists.

If the Thai military was known for its transparency and honesty, one might give them the benefit of the doubt.

Your opinion on Kasit is noted

Your opinion on Thaksin is noted Your assumption that they wanted Thaksin back via extradition is noted but not agreed with. Had they wanted him back I am fairly sure they could have gotten him back. My assumption is that by going for the little case first, they wanted him marginalized outside of Thailand and that they have accomplished that.

I am not sure how you can call armed people involved in an insurrectionist movement "civilians".

Thaksin has been responsible for mowing down unarmed civilians all over the country as you seem to admit, in his "war on drugs."

Your views are similarly noted.My understanding the Thais were never likely to achieve extradition, nor perhaps did the truly influential really want him back.A British lawyer told me a top flight London QC would have made humiliating mincemeat of the Thai Government's case, i.e that there was no political motivation.Cleverly, as you know, since the UK is a friendly government, the Brits simply denied Thaksin a visa

Most of the Redshirts were unarmed civilians.You're surely not disputing that.

I was referring to political violence on the streets of Bangkok in the tradition of Suchinda and now continued under Abhisit.

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

Why go for the cheap shot on someone in the second sentence of what would otherwise have been a decent post?

I disagree that any weight needs to be given to the idea of eliminating drugs was widely popular. The courts obviously don't have to look at "broadly popular" in forming any sentence, nor to the investigations have to consider that fact (arguable, in that I believe most people would claim they were not aware at the time of the vast numbers of street level executions and that they would certainly argue that they were totally unaware of the number of executions that were in no way connected to the drug trade). I typically find any comparisons to Nazi germany specious, but even though this was on a much smaller scale, I find the "we didn't know" argument from some (not all) of the people as specious as the same argument from people that lived near concentration camps during WW2. (Not meant to be a comparison of scale in numbers or sheer inhumanity! just a similarity in how people can delude themselves)

Your summary of how you think Thaksin is seen in the international view is absolutely subjective. He certainly isn't seen as a war criminal, but many people internationally see him as a petty despot that lined his pockets at the expense of the people he was meant to govern, as so many leaders and former leaders of developing nations are seen. He certainly isn't seen as another Suharto, yet. That could change to some degree depending on how the next trials proceed.

I agree that no weight (in the context of seeking justice) should be given to the fact the drugs war was broadly popular.In any case that's not what I said.I argued that the drug war's popularity was a factor in not pursuing Thaksin with this major crime.

As to Thaksin's ability to avoid extradition, my view is certainly subjective as are all "views" including yours.I wasn't talking about "many people internationally" but hardened decision makers who have seen many worse political exiles than Thaksin.With all due respect I think my interpretation is anchored in realism and I don't think yours is.Without repeating my earlier comments do remember the main agent in seeking Thaksin's extradition was Kasit who was prima facie involved in terrorism, something Thaksin never was.Nor has Thaksin been responsible for mowing down armed civilians on the streets of Bangkok.

I, personally, don't view billions and billions in corruption, removing the separation of powers resulting in personally beneficial changing of the laws, the initiation of pie-in-the-sky programs that only benefited himself and his cronies, attempted bribery of courts, or many of the other crimes for which outstanding warrants still exist (as outlined in the link in Post # 80) against him as, "relatively trivial."

I note you avoid addressing the question of why Thaksin was not pursued for the drug wars crimes.Entirely predictable.

Actually Jdinasia gave a very thoughtful reply, and I tried to reply in kind.

In terms of your "warnings" please forgive me if I take them with a pinch of salt given your record.Do I need to elaborate?

If you gave even an inch from time to time, maybe even admit you sometimes get things wrong, you would find people much more interested in a reasonable discussion.

And, of course, it is you that determines what the issues are?

That's a good one.

Just refer to the topic subject matter and avoid personalisation.

Words to live by.

So are you going to respond or avoid the issue ? Has the Thai army lied on the cluster bomb issue or not?

"The MP's should reflect not some hazy concept of a party,

but instead the will of the voters that placed THEM in office."

Worth repeating.

People rarely vote for a person - they vote for a party - same in UK most people don't know the names of their MP's but vote Labour or Conservative (and occasionally Liberal) and that's why they have big political televised debates - not about the individual MP it's about the party and it's policies. Many 'more famous' MP's have gone independent in the past and been kicked out - people vote for parties and mostly for the PM. This is obvious.

I'd go as far to say that many rural Thais neither know the name, nor the party, of the person they are voting for. The ballot papers assign every candidiate a number, for the illiterate, and a pattern of dots, for the inumerate. Take a look at the campaign posters when they appear next. The local vote buyer gives the voter a piece of paper with the corresponding pattern of votes to put their cross against. Think of the mayhem that would ensue should the patterns be mixed up on the ballot papers, imagine the power that someone able to do that would have.

I'm not clear exactly what you are saying here.When you speak of "many rural Thais" are you suggesting a majority or a sufficient minority to nullify the rural voting process?

There is as you know a middle class mainly urban element which claims the rural majority is essentially owned by local patrons, subject to vote buying and insufficiently literate or educated to participate in or understand the democratic process.I'm not sure if you're implying this so will keep my powder dry.Suffice it to say it is a view that can be demolished with ease.

And, of course, it is you that determines what the issues are?

That's a good one.

Just refer to the topic subject matter and avoid personalisation.

If you have evidence to refute the charge that the Thai military has lied on the issue of cluster bombs, you are welcome to provide it.

From beginning to end, the Drug War was Thaksin's "baby"

I agree with you and it was the worst of his crimes.

Care to explain why he was never charged and instead was pursued with relatively trivial offences (in comparison)?

It would be wonderful to receive an honest reply on this.

I'll give it a go.

It would likely implicate members of many of the civil servants at many levels, from the Tambon offices all the way to the top in BKK, so that limits the political will (police, governors appointed from BKK, local administrations etc). That, of course, is supposition. I welcome any reply that has any facts

and 2 (since you are actually asking 2 questions)

You go for the easiest cases to prove and get a conviction on first to limit the actions that Thaksin can take. The other cases are still lined up against Thaksin and can move forward upon his presence in court to answer charges. The criminal conviction already in place sent him scurrying away. I am sure they were hoping he'd just hide out and be a good boy on that first conviction. If you think it is trivial (and by comparison to 2500 extra-judicial killings it is), ask yourself why he didn't show up for sentencing and immediately lodge an appeal. (Appeals require new evidence -- and any way you cut it -- legally his signature on the land deal for his wife was an open and shut case.) Once in jail and less able (not unable) to use soem of his own political juice, some of the other cases could have moved forward. He ran. The appeal would have been denied in all likelihood and staying would have made him available to show up in court to answer the other charges.

The prosecution did the right thing in going for the easy win first. Get the criminal in jail and then work to prosecute the harder cases as you go. Had they gone for a more major case first and failed and THEN followed with a minor one cries of "I am being persecuted" and "politically motivated" would have had more weight.

In the history of my own country there have been major criminals that were never brought down for their serious crimes, but that were brought down on more 'technical crimes" such as tax-evasion.

Thanks for the courtesy of a well argued and broadly convincing response. I knew I would never receive a sensible reply from the person actually addressed.We should aim to make this the tone for future exchanges, in general anyway.I don't object to being mocked by the way.

While agreeing with your point that too many people were implicated at various levels, one sadly has to give some weight to the fact this was a broadly popular policy.I would also go further and suggest that there is no sense that the authorities would actually have liked to snag Thaksin on this charge but for practical reasons (which you have outlined) were compelled to pursue him with a more manageable lesser charge.There are also some highly sensitive reasons why this charge was not pursued, and I can go no further than that.Incidentally I do seriously maintain that the lesser charges were relativaly trivial.My own view, drugs war apart, is that Thaksin's most objectionable feature was an over weening meglomania compounded by changing the rules of the corporate playing field to suit himself.Anyway by pursuing these lesser charges, after Thaksin's flight, the chances of a successful extradition were nil.I know you don't like to hear it but the international view can be summarised that Thaksin, while no doubt a shady character, was illegally deposed after being popularly elected and was being pursued for political reasons by the Thai Government.It's a sorry story from which nobody emerges with credit.But what an opportunity missed.All Thailand's problems remain in the pressure cooker, simmering and building up steam.

"It's appalling that any country would resort to using cluster munitions after the international community banned them," added CMC director Laura Cheeseman.

It's interesting which countries have (or more importantly have not) ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Ofcourse the US haven't ratified. Do they ever ratify an international convention? Also, Australia is not on the list. Of SEA countries, Laos is the only country to have ratified it.

Rather more important than those who have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions is those who have used them

Like the Americans and the British...

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrw.org%2Fes%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F11%2Festados-unidos-cientos-de-muertes-de-civiles-en-irak-pudieron-prevenirse&act=url

with the UK ratifying the convention just last year

.

You have already been informed the issue is not about who has signed the Convention.The issue is who has been lying through their teeth.

From beginning to end, the Drug War was Thaksin's "baby"

I agree with you and it was the worst of his crimes.

Care to explain why he was never charged and instead was pursued with relatively trivial offences (in comparison)?

It would be wonderful to receive an honest reply on this.

Thai air force personnel load food and relief supplies for the heavy floods in south Thailand at the military airport in Bangkok March 30, 2011. Severe flooding and mudslides in southern Thailand have killed 21 people, stranded thousands of tourists and threatened to delay shipments of rubber in the world's largest rubber-producing country, authorities said on Wednesday.

Reuters

Thai navy officers evacuated tourists stranded on Koh Tao island by helicopter following heavy storms and rain hit southern part of the country in Surat Thani province, Thailand Wednesday, March 30, 2011.

AP

Tourists are evacuated with the help of the Thai Navy from Koh Tao Island after heavy storms in Surat Thani, south of Bangkok March 30, 2011.

Reuters

Foreign tourists evacuated from flooded Koh Tao Island arrives at the Royal Thai Navy base in Sattahip, Chonburi province, east of Bangkok March 31, 2011. Severe flooding and mudslides in southern Thailand have killed 16 people, cut off land and air transportations and delayed shipments of at least 50,000 tonnes of rubber in the world's largest rubber-producing country, authorities said on Thursday. Thailand's navy sent four vessels including an amphibious landing craft with on-board helicopters to the region to deliver supplies and rescue tourists and villagers in areas severely hit.

Reuters

[A soldier carries an old woman to a helicopter to be moved from her district, which was damaged by a flash flood, in Nakhon Si Thammarat province, south of Bangkok April 2, 2011.

Reuters

Lets indeed look at the whole picture

It's not the full picture.It's a very partial picture.Everybody welcomes the rescue capability of the Thai armed forces but it's a tiny part of what they are about.

In the context of the thread subject matter, I call it cheap propaganda from someone who has lost the argument on all other grounds - ie the corruption, the interference in politics, the business and media interests, the incompetence and the civilian massacres at Tak Bai and elsewhere.

Most Thai people seem to learn English to communicate with Asians. It may be that learning from other Asian English speakers is a better alternative although I do once remember talking to a government minister in the first Thaksin government and he told me that the country needed to improve the English of the lower classes so they could go and be maids in strange and foreign lands. He also was rather upset that Filipino poor ones were better at doing this as they had better English and he could even quote the figures of money remitted to the Philippines that was then spent in locally owned businesses thereby enriching the local elite.

Sometimes those tasked with making decisions on what is best for the country have strange ideas and motivations

I wonder what you thought of the minister's standard of English.I am always amazed by the poor English proficiency of many Thais who have been educated overseas.Graduates of the second tier American state universities are the worst possibly because they tended to congregate mainly with other Thais and perhaps because of the easy peasy multiple choice examination system.Abhisit and Korn are special cases with their perfect (though not quite accent free) English because they went to British secondary schools as well as universities.Thaksin was quite awful at English though he worked on it.

The supreme commander confirmed that people can rest assured that the military has no involvement in the national politics

That must have changed overnight then.

He knows it is a lie.We know it is a lie.The Thai People knows it is a lie.

While I don't support the PAD, I certainly understand and support their position that Thai politics is at such a diseased state that it doesn't deserve anyone's vote.

If you take that position you are in agreement with one of the fundamental beliefs of the PAD leadership.... so no nonsense please about not supporting the PAD

No need to go to Washington Square since Suzanka moved to Tong Lor, and the beer is just as good in other irish bars.

I'm fairly sure this is an area in which you are vastly more knowledgeable than I.

Once again, jayboy makes a number of posts without making any statement relevant to the thread topic. In this case, he also illustrates a favoured technique of his: introduce a topic (Washington Square in this case), wait until some one comments on that topic, and then flame them for doing so. All rather tedious. I can't wait for Pasuk & Baker to come out with a new book to keep him occupied, if only for the length of time it takes to colour the pictures in. Although, given his ability to stay within the lines of discussion here, that won't take long.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the navy gets these submarines or not. They have their reasons for requesting them; whether strategic, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. The government will have its reasons for approving / not approving them; whether for face (see, we can stand up to the military), belief in their strategic value, pay back of a favour, show off value, personal monetary gain, or any combination of these. I do see one good outcome of them even being brought up though. They have annoyed the jumped up little Pol Potter next door, and his supporters on this forum.

I'm not sure about the last sentence but I thought your post very amusing.Some well directed hits but without malice.I certainly accept I can be a bit of a Pasuk and Baker bore!

My only slight reservation is that you seem to confuse flaming with banter.The two are different but I agree many don't seem to know the difference

No need to go to Washington Square since Suzanka moved to Tong Lor, and the beer is just as good in other irish bars.

I'm fairly sure this is an area in which you are vastly more knowledgeable than I.

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

Not at all.

'Question one is an irrelevancy.

Commentary two about what goes on in the heads of some is against forum rules, actually, and also equally irrelevant.

Stating the facts about the usefulness of the subs, or their potential usages, is neither pro nor con purchase, just pointing out their continued viability and usefulness in the face of uniformed commentaries to the contrary.

And has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Thailand specifically buying them at this time. Should Thailand buy them, maybe not, I can see better things to spend the money on. Could they get good use out of them if purchased yes. Will they? Who knows,

You should continue this discussion over a beer at Washington Square where foreign oldsters with too much time on their hands discuss such matters at interminable length.

I also happen to know there are retired navy submarine professionals on this forum, and some may pipe in as such, or not stating their credentials, but I doubt I am will be contradicted by any of them.

You mean there are some members of the forum that are not retired navy submarine professionals?

I have to admit it is quite amusing to observe the struggle inside the heads of some who (a) know that the proposed purchase of these useless old German subs is an expensive joke and ( an unwillingness to criticise any decision - however corrupt or stupid - of the Thai military.It explains much of the careful treading on eggshells language used in this thread.

The question is: why do Thaksins enemies refuse to investigate?

Perhaps someone else is to blame that currently has allot of power.

The only pertinent question in this depressingly low quality thread.I have rarely seen so much misinformation and half truths.

I'm not sure it's right however to pin the blame on any individual or even group of individuals.The drugs war policy, at least initially until its flaws were made manifest, had broad elite support and for that matter popular support.Even now few Thais regard the drugs war with the distaste it deserves

Among some naive foreigners there was an attempt to "pursue" Thaksin for this,being the worst of his crimes.There is no dodging Thaksin's culpability here notwithstanding the policy's popularity.There was never any attempt however by the junta or successive governments to pursue him on these charges, notwithstanding there was a reasonable chance foreign governments would have extradited him.They were left with the relatively trivial charges which most foreign governments correctly saw as politically motivated.

Hmm Chuan One fell in 95 not 90, Chuan 2 in 2001. Again cite a source where Suthep was proven to have given away land in Phuket to wealthy families. You are correct that none of it is obscure other than proof. It REALLY isn't obscure as to the dates of Chuan Leekpai's administrations Being accused of corruption is not the same thing as having it proven I will accept a conviction as evidence of proof.

edit for typo

You can concentrate on my typo (for which I apologise) or you can deal with the issue.

What you will "accept as proof" of Suthep's corruption is of course neither here nor there.There is much corruption in Thailand which comes nowhere near the courts

Most Thais know the score on Suthep's corrupt background.His political enemies are explicit:his political friends will smile ruefully.None deny his guilt.

A typo is hitting 4 r t or 6 instead of 5,

Hitting 0 instead just means you had no idea what was the correct year, and just threw out something to continue the flame.

Thanks for that useful contribution.

Now now - I don't think it's fair to say "the courts are riddled with corruption" - they're probably the least corrupt part of the Thai public sector, although I would understand it if one didn't put too much value in that.

I'm not sure the judicial system can be included as part of the public sector.

The judicial system has been recognised as quite corrupt for many decades.Bribes are not usually paid directly to judges but are canvassed by officials and distributed to judges, police and civil servants.A major problem is the length of legal proceedings which itself encourages corruption for expeditious process.It's only fair to note that parts of the judicial system work quite well, and that there are many dedicated honest officials.In recent years it is sometimes said the judicial system has been directed to enforce an elite agenda, the so called judicialisation of Thai politics after general election results deemed to be unsatisfactory.That is of course a matter on which I could not possibly comment.