jayboy

It's only irrelevant because both sides have the same record!

Because I think we have a measure of understanding, if not often agreement, I am replying to your comment.

A similar point was made earlier (Thaksin and Jatuporn as dishonest as the army etc) but I ignored it as I tend to pass over semi coherent bar talk.

Yes I agree that there's dishonesty and hypocrisy in the Red leadership but I don't think it can be seriously compared to the record of the Thai military, not least because the latter is operating from a position of power.In case of criminal abuse including murder there is absolutely no comparison given the military's dreadful record

...

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

The difference being that this time around they were fighting against armed civilians.

Actually ... armed civilians, armed trained soldiers etc etc ... but again in the case of the reporter what happened to the reporter is the only thing that is important. Not speculating about the past and not bringing in other irrelevancies. Was he killed by an AK? Was he killed by another weapon? is there evidence that only one side used the weapon that he was killed with? Were there independent (Japanese) observers/participants in the autopsy? All of these questions are relevant whilst trying to convict one side based upon what has happened in the past (often 20+ years ago) is not relevant.

Whistling in the dark and deeply unconvincing.Is reference the Thai army's proven record of murdering civilians,lying and covering up really "irrelevant"? You don't have to go back 20 years:there are plenty of very recent examples in the South.

God what somersaults some have to turn to avoid facing awkward facts.

None of this means that the army was guilty in this particular case because we don't know. There hasn't been a full and thorough inquiry yet.

Using stuff from the past, as some people are doing, doesn't make sense. What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant. The question here is what happened in this particular death. There is footage of Sae Daeng's ronin armed with AK's from that night. I assume that the Japanese have been kept apprised of the progress of the case, and would not be surprised if they were present at the autopsy. I assume we will know soon what they think.

A philosophy lecturer could use the following sentence as an example of deeply flawed thought process.Can you see the lack of logic now or would you like me to point it out?

" What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant."

More generally and at a practical level if the Thai army is known to have lied consistently about the murder of civilians in the past (which is undoubtably the case), does that not make at least its current position worth some scrutiny?

I do agree with you however that the Japanese Embassy position is critical, and if they are satisfied with the explanation we should let matters rest.

Hmm a Law lecturer would have a field day with the "deeply flawed thought process" that shows a complete lack of logic here. The issue is NOT has the army ever lied. The army has many faces and changes in personnel on an annual basis. The question is are they lying now? Their position ALWAYS deserves scrutiny as does the position of anybody/group with that much power. It would even if they had no history of coverups. To try and muddy THIS event with veiled accusations about past events simply doesn't cut it. The past isn't the issue, the issue is was the Japanese reporter killed by the army. full stop.

I've come to notice that those who have been decisively outpointed in debate end with remarks like "full stop", "case closed", "next please" etc.

Your sad attempt to reverse tables with accusations of illogic is just schoolyard stuff.You made an absurdly inconsistent statement and you are perhaps annoyed at having had it pointed out.

Main point however is that the Thai army has an uncontested record of violence against unarmed citizens, followed by cover up or refusal to be accountable.It is just common sense to treat the evidence of a body associated with outright lying with some scepticism.By all means give them the benefit of the doubt but one should be very sceptical when hearing from proven liars.

Using stuff from the past, as some people are doing, doesn't make sense. What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant. The question here is what happened in this particular death. There is footage of Sae Daeng's ronin armed with AK's from that night. I assume that the Japanese have been kept apprised of the progress of the case, and would not be surprised if they were present at the autopsy. I assume we will know soon what they think.

A philosophy lecturer could use the following sentence as an example of deeply flawed thought process.Can you see the lack of logic now or would you like me to point it out?

" What happened in the past is not necessarily what happened this time, so saying the army has covered up past abuses is irrelevant."

More generally and at a practical level if the Thai army is known to have lied consistently about the murder of civilians in the past (which is undoubtably the case), does that not make at least its current position worth some scrutiny?

I do agree with you however that the Japanese Embassy position is critical, and if they are satisfied with the explanation we should let matters rest.

I am sure there are "politically-motivated" posters on both sides. And I'm sure that those without political motivation will accept that both sides were wrong in various respects when all 91 cases are taken into account. Few pro-army posters believe the army didn't kill anyone (the debate is whether the killings were legitimate), but many pro-Red posters refuse to acknowledge the very high likelihood that elements within the Red Shirt movement did kill people (both soldiers and civilians).

We see a lot of defence for the Red Shirts on these boards and that's fine, but I think that only the most scarlet of minds will try to pin the April 10 violence in particular on the army alone.

I just would like to see an independent and thorough investigation.I certainly don't think the violence can be pinned on the army alone, far from it.

But the army has a terrible track record on cover ups and that's why one tends to be sceptical.

But most compellingly we still have no real understanding of what happened, and there's very little sense of urgency in getting to the bottom of events.We don't even know who the men in black are and I don't think any have been arrested.

As to this forum there are certainly quite a few experts, mainly I think ex non commissioned officers who can bore endlessly for America on barrelling, calibre and weaponry generally but have no real ability to analyse or see the broader context.Their political views are obvious.

You are a little confused most of us know what happened and why. You obviously don't. You are so lost in meaningless details that you miss the big picture.

When they are done dotting the I's and crossing the T's It will not change what happened one iota. But it will have kept your attention off of the big picture.

Some how I don't think the Japanese government is going to be to upset about there camera man who voluntarily stood in a combat zone. They will make a little noise to please people like your self and then let it die.

In the mean time get a hobby or get out more often.

It's over the red shirts lost.

So the "big picture" is that Reds were defeated and in that objective the Thai army could murder any journalist in the combat zone it liked?

And if the Japanese Embassy protests we should not take their comments too seriously because they don't really care?

As for Porntip, I have followed her career for many years, she has made many impulsive, irrational mistakes, starting with a botched enquiry into a leakage of radioactive material. She is pro government, pro PAD.

Thank you for pointing out just how red supporters see her and why it is so important to attack her.

One could equally mention how yellow supporters see her and why it is so important to defend her.But that would be missing the point.

You fail again - most people here are not yellow supporters. Most don't even say whether they believe the journalist was shot by the army or demonstrators...unless they are red and 100% believe the army did it, even if they have no proof.

I am merely pointing out that the attacks about her 'destroyed' credibility is ridiculous. It is a typical ad hominid as it really doesn't really matter, it has no bearing on this case. Unless for a red supporter...

My point is very simple.Pornthip's reputatrion has been destroyed because of the GT 200 debacle.What people of different political stripes say is significant about her other activity is neither here nor there.A professional reputation is like virginity:you cannot lose it just a little bit.

I love your "ad hominid" comment, classic malapropism.

As for Porntip, I have followed her career for many years, she has made many impulsive, irrational mistakes, starting with a botched enquiry into a leakage of radioactive material. She is pro government, pro PAD.

Thank you for pointing out just how red supporters see her and why it is so important to attack her.

One could equally mention how yellow supporters see her and why it is so important to defend her.But that would be missing the point.

She did put her name to a piece of equipment, though, and it turns out that that piece of equipment didn't do what it was supposed to do.

It's even worse than that.She was an active member of the agency that ordered the GT200 at hugely inflated prices.Her scientific reputation naturally is ruined, but there are other even more damaging questions.

Do you remember the final army response on the GT 200, after the press expose, which came with a Kafkaesqe photo of top brass? I found it deeply sinister.Basically the message to the Thai public was: We know this is a piece of worthless junk, and we know you know that as well.But we are in charge and we will line our pockets no matter what you say.So go screw yourselves and don't ask any further impertinent questions.

I think that conveys the military response on the GT200 matter relatively accurately.

You're barking up the wrong tree in your defence of Pornthip.Her reputation, personal integrity and credibility are shattered through the GT 200 scandal.

Not at all, ever since her findings that the teargas grenades that killed demonstrators during PADs sit-in-attempt was found by her team to be dangerous and proven lethal (including containing RDX) red-supporters have done everything they can to label her as a government lackey, yellow supporter or just incompetent. And the complaints have ranged from everything from her hair-style to the presumed arrogance the poster perceives her to have -- or now after the GT 200 debacle, as someone who defended it. And the latter is to re-write history.

But then again, you have no problem with that.

You completely miss the point, your judgement apparently distorted and twisted by your political prejudices.It's nothing to do with her other work, much of which I'm not particularly well informed about.I understand however she has been competent and as Jdinasia says, always keen to find some common ground, her standing up to the police has been admirable.

But the GT 200 debacle has destroyed her reputation.It's not even debatable I'm afraid.

I am sure there are "politically-motivated" posters on both sides. And I'm sure that those without political motivation will accept that both sides were wrong in various respects when all 91 cases are taken into account. Few pro-army posters believe the army didn't kill anyone (the debate is whether the killings were legitimate), but many pro-Red posters refuse to acknowledge the very high likelihood that elements within the Red Shirt movement did kill people (both soldiers and civilians).

We see a lot of defence for the Red Shirts on these boards and that's fine, but I think that only the most scarlet of minds will try to pin the April 10 violence in particular on the army alone.

I just would like to see an independent and thorough investigation.I certainly don't think the violence can be pinned on the army alone, far from it.

But the army has a terrible track record on cover ups and that's why one tends to be sceptical.

But most compellingly we still have no real understanding of what happened, and there's very little sense of urgency in getting to the bottom of events.We don't even know who the men in black are and I don't think any have been arrested.

As to this forum there are certainly quite a few experts, mainly I think ex non commissioned officers who can bore endlessly for America on barrelling, calibre and weaponry generally but have no real ability to analyse or see the broader context.Their political views are obvious.

Nonsense - she never said it works and is all great, she said that people had reported to her that it works and so she believes them. She never defended it as if she was placing all her reputation on it in a 'may the lord strike me down if it doesn't work' fashion that some of your red-leaning posters seem to imply.

You are the ones with credibility issues in your criticism of her since it all coincides with her findings regarding killed or wounded from riots by reds.

You're barking up the wrong tree in your defence of Pornthip.Her reputation, personal integrity and credibility are shattered through the GT 200 scandal.

She is a member of the government agency which purchased the GT200 devices (at absurdly inflated expense for essentially a glorified Blockbusters card). These same devices have been purchased by countries and agencies that have a history of procuring items corruptly.The ridiculous things don't work.

I wouldn't dream of accusing her defenders that they are motivated by her findings on the killings last year - yet you have no hesitation in saying her critics are motivated by her findings in this area.

I am sure that the Japanese will make their own conclusions NOT based upon anyone else's slanted opinions.

On that I can certainly agree.

A series of frankly rather unconvincing posts seeking to deflect scrutiny of the army's record.Not to be taken seriously as the vast majority politically are motivated , and in some cases incoherent.None seem aware of (or prepared to admit the army's appalling record of violence in Thailand and refusal ever to accept accountability

Key question is the attitude of the Japanese authorities who will I suspect be rather more persistent in seeking the truth, not that our little band of apologists for murder are much interested in that commodity.

Doctors can only speculate as to what type of rifle fired a bullet that hit a body. And forensics can speculate on angle of entry/exit wounds and the victims position if the scene is not a static crime scene afterwards. This was not the case in this riot zone. No one without actual video footage of the actual shooting can determine definitively where it came from.

A forensic analysis of a bullet can tell one type of rifling from another in many, but not all, cases. An AK-47 fired bullet would not have the same barrel marking grooves as a M-16. So if the earlier 'leaked information' was about 'witness statements', none of whom can actually SEE a bullet in flight, and the update is based on actual ballistics analysis then this is a plausible change. That the Reds side will howl to the high heavens over this is understandable. I'll await todays press conference clarification.

The usual half baked quasi scientific claptrap but essentially determined by political prejudice.

Wrong also in assuming it is the Red leadership that will lead the charge at this predictable cover up.It's the Japanese Government which will not I think be put off by lies and obfuscation.

My mind would be comforted if Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand M.D. had been involved in the investigation process. This formidable lady lives by a mantra of 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. In spite of not being part of the Establishment she has risen to the top of her tree and few, apart from the Police, would question her credibility.

You must be joking.I realise that Khunying Prnthip is the kind of colourful person that some foreigners latch on to.However her credibility is almost zero.

You are wrong also in believing she is not part of the establishment.

She was badly compromised in the GT200 scandal.

The headline should read:

Democrat says Pol. Lt. Col.Thaksin claims reconciliation cannot be achieved without him coming back and doing his time.

Works for me. It seems Abhisit is getting too much good press and the damned hamsters not getting the wished for traction. Cue for Noppadom and 'story time'.

Don't know what this gobblededook means but the truth of what Thaksin says is self evident.There can't be true reconciliation without him paying a part.Doesn't mean he shouldn't serve time or have his assets restored (though this will presumably be part of the bargaining process).Personally I think for the good of the country he should formally undertake not to seek public office.Watch this space but I don't think much will happen on this front for a few years, ie until wounds on both sides have healed.

The lawyer would not have saved me any time. That's my point. I do fly business class on long-haul flights, because I see a difference. If there is no difference, why would I pay more money?

If course, this applies to my situation, as well as the people I know who have applied. The situation of your friends may be different.

Doesn't really make sense I'm afraid.Perhaps you are not as busy as you think! Or perhaps you enjoyed hanging around Immigration totties !

If the lawyer saved an applicant making one trip to Immigration, he saved time for that applicant.And in practice there is much more to it.

Once again I'm not suggesting a lawyer is essential,just helpful for genuinely busy people.

The sufficiency economy philosophy has been stressed.

I'm not saying it isn't part of the rhetoric rather in the way Marxism is part of the rhetoric of government in China.But in in both instances one would be hard pressed to find practical implementation.Actually the sufficiency economy is in many ways an excellent approach and I think this has been demonstrated in the economic vicissitudes of recent years.But Thailand is for better or worse part of an interconnected world, and has to live with globalisation.One effect of this is a more dynamic and fluid economy which works against the old stratified class system which some proponents of the sufficiency economy would like to see preserved.Actually there are echos of the English nineteenth century rural movement led by William Morris and others.Personally I am sympathetic but it's like fighting a tidal wave.

jayboy>> I read your post as such since it specifically says 'one person' etc, but if you mean something else then I am looking forward to read the clarification.

It's all completely clear already.If some want to take offence where none is intended (far from it) so be it.

The target was of course the hysterical government propaganda machine , abetted by the military at election times in particular.

No, it wasn't clear and partly still isn't. You are saying that the government propaganda is saying that Abhisit and Abhisit only can fix everyone's problems?

It is completely clear and because there are a number of malicious people who deliberately misunderstand, not necessarily you - I don't know, that is my last word on the matter.

jayboy>> I read your post as such since it specifically says 'one person' etc, but if you mean something else then I am looking forward to read the clarification.

It's all completely clear already.If some want to take offence where none is intended (far from it) so be it.

The target was of course the hysterical government propaganda machine , abetted by the military at election times in particular.

Another thinly wailed attack against...

Unpleasant and dishonest smear.

My criticism is of the absurd hysteria of Government propaganda, and nothing else.

I am sure more than a few hampster acolytes will be on their treadmills late into the nights compiling the best physiological take on how to convince 'working class Thais' that only one person can improve their lot in life.

Some might say judging from the hysterical output from Government propaganda sources that has been the case for some time.

More brainwashing on Thaksin's part to contradict the 'Sufficiency Economy'...

someone please clip this fool.

The "sufficiency economy" has been quietly dropped if you hadn't noticed.

My point relates to Thailand's "economic woes".Again if anybody hadn't noticed the economy is in extremely good shape.

I am a busy executive myself. The lawyer can't take any time off your schedule, as all they can do is tell you which documents are needed, and it is you who has to provide them.

A lawyer offered me a fee of THB 40,000 for PR appplication, and another THB 60,000 in case of success. Or was it the other way around, I don't remember. If you want to part with THB 100,000, please let me know and I'll be your consultant - rather than a lawyer who is not approved to the Thai Board anyway.,

This tells me a couple of things most importantly you were dealing with the wrong legal firm.No reputable lawyer would charge a success fee for helping with PR.A first class lawyer would not take the case on unless convinced all criteria were met.(Obviously this is in reference to the years before the current hiatus with the Ministry of the Interior).I have already made it clear that using the right lawyer is not a cheap business.Using a good lawyer in any circumstances is not a cheap business.

I have also made it clear that it is perfectly possible to process the PR application oneself.I know people who have successfully done this.I think it is also true that using a lawyer or not using a lawyer makes no difference to the Department of Immigration.I don't think Immigration are impressed or unimpressed by an applicant having a lawyer in tow.(In practice this is hardly ever the lawyer himself but a legal assistant type.)

Where you are wrong is that a lawyer cannot take time off your schedule.A friend of mine who successfully applied for PR told me that the legal firm responsible liaised with his secretarial staff.The amount of paper work and follow up and minor problems should not be underestimated.He saved a huge amount of time and was prepared to pay for it.Call it the business class approach if you like.It's more expensive than travelling cattle class and doesn't really offer that much extra but it gets you to your destination in comfort at some significant extra cost.

And for those who draw the Chinese card, I too have more Chinese blood in me than Thai, but have zero loyalty towards China. I don't see why people get so riled up about nationality and blood, it should be about intention, action and all the other things that is the proof of a person, not where they were born or who their parents are. Nationalism is a dangerous thing and should become less relevant in these modern times.

I respect your post and the sentiments therein (and agree with them)

On the Chinese issue there has been much discussion of the pride in things Chinese of many Sino-Thais as China's remarkable rise has taken place over the last decade or so.At the yellow shirt PAD rallies in the past there were many indications of Chinese pride including banners "Sons of China" reflecting the mainly ethnic Chinese nature of the PAD movement (as well as racist slurs against other Thai ethnic groups ).In the first half of the twentieth century it was quite common for Thais to be concerned about Sino - Thai divided loyalties exemplified by a famous royal pamphlet.Now I think this has mostly passed whether though a triumph of assimilation or perhaps the Sino-Thai grasp of politics, business and even the military.My point is therefore while it is not particularly sensitive now the matter of Chinese ethnicity has a potential political dimension that other ethnicities simply don't.