jayboy

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet by anyone broadly sympathetic to the Red movement, I think it's worth making the point that the army generally acted very professionally in these sad events.Nothing is ever perfectly achieved in these conflict situations and there no doubt several instances of unprofessional behaviour.I don't know whether Fabio was the victim of one of these lapses or not.I think Nick Nostitz sums up the context rather well.

"Lets not forget here that all the mess was a result of a chain of very wrong calls by both sides over a long period of time. This was a development, not just a series of single and unrelated events. The Red Shirts have made many very bad decisions, but the government has done so as well. There were incidents where the military has made right decisions on the ground, but there were other incidents in which the military has shown tremendous incompetence, and there were incidents were soldiers have clearly not just broken their own rules of engagement, but have committed clear human rights violations. What complicates matters even more is that besides the many peaceful protesters there were armed militants.

This whole thing is not a black and white situation, it is very complex and it needs more time to properly investigate. What makes me angry though, and serves nobody, is when people who were not anywhere near the things are giving blanket statements on what has happened according to their own political convictions."

Some on this forum should think carefully about Nick's last sentence.

It also helps that you grew up in Thailand, they will see that you have an emotional connection to the country.

Do you have any evidence for this at all ?

No. But with all things in which humans are involved, making a good impression helps.

I do believe that they want to see that you love the country and have roots here when you apply for PR. This is the same in every country.

Making a good impression is obviously very important overall , but I don't think it scores any ratings specifically.Nor do I think there is any particular advantage for those who grew up here (except perhaps by virtue of a presumed facility with the language).

Nor do I think there is any particular interest or expectation that foreigners applying for PR will "love" the country.A friend of mine who successfully applied for PR in the late 1990's told me that at his final interview at Suan Plu he was asked why he wanted PR.He replied on the lines that he loved the country, the Thai people and wonderful Thai culture.At this the Immigration Officer replied with a twinle in his eye "Ching ruplaw?".Thereafter all parties collapsed in merriment.It was obvious nobody present took these solemn sentiments seriously.Moral of the story according to my friend was that we should never underestimate the sophistication and humour of the Thais.They are much more layered than many of us.

I have a different opinion on the issue.

Only you seem to feel it's your position to apportion shame, That is not your job, shame on you for attempting that. I feel sorry that he's dead of course, but he is more than a small part of the cause. No amounts of flames from you can change those basic facts.

I will leave it to forum members to decide whether your dress code post was appropriate.I think it was shameful and lacking in sensitivity, and I doubt whether I am alone in that view.

It's more than obvious that people who are addicted to Thaksin and the reds don't wish to admit they are addicted, ashamed as they are to admit their addiction; as most addicted people always deny they are addicted and sick.

As you correctly point out some people are completely obsessed bringing Thaksin or the reds into every thread, sometimes regardless of relevance.I'm not sure there is much to be done about this as it's a free forum.If it was done with analysis, context and grace nobody would really mind but I agree the Lord Haw Haw continuous stream of low level heavy handed propaganda that becomes...just boring.It's the Sarah Palin syndrome unfortunately.To echo Barbara Bush sometimes one wishes the people concerned, fine charecters though they may be, would sit quietly in their seaside villas and spare us their never ending droning.

It also helps that you grew up in Thailand, they will see that you have an emotional connection to the country.

Do you have any evidence for this at all ?

Yes that may be the international view. You how ever are omitting the fact that the international view is based on a some what semi reliable press. The facts show a different story.

Ask yourself what would you do if you were asked to personally move them out. A far different scene than sitting in a chair behind a computer. Remember that all though they were not all armed some were and they were shooting at you. Would you run up to each one to see if he had a gun. Remember they were not in full view all of the time. Behind barricades and burning tires.

I'm guessing you meant "unreliable" international press.I disagree and thought despite some errors it was possible to gain a good understanding from international reporters.It's always a good idea to look at several sources.The local cowed press were generally either silent, particularly on context, or just cheerleaders for repression like some on this forum.

But my reasaon for posting is to point out the irony in this very thread one of your kindred spirits invokes the BBC to make his point.Kind of confirms my view that those who criticise the foreign media do so when it upsets their prejudices but are much more relaxed when it confirms them.

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

Shameful post but he is probably incapable of understanding why.

So you say. I disagree.

It's sad, but he made made serial mistakes that led to his end.

And no need to flame me because you do not see that.

Pathetic post with no obvious reason other than a flame..

It was obvious that to understand why your post was so shameful was beyond your comprehension.

Predictable also you accuse me of flaming for pointing this out.

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

Shameful post but he is probably incapable of understanding why.

I can't see the stats at the moment, but if I recall a few days ago the wikileaks site listed that it had over 5,000 leaks from the Bangkok embassy.. Only like 3 have been released.. should be interesting to see what comes..

It will be fascinating.One nugget picked up in a brief scan is that Obama has never picked up the phone to speak to Abhisit and that Thaksin has easy access to Russia (including one to one meetings with Putin.)

Go figure.

"The ambassador called Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya immediately after the verdict on August 11 and expressed deep disappointment, claiming the verdict was not justified on legal grounds and that the judge had clearly been in error on several key points."

How considerate of the ambassador to tell the Foreign Minister of Thailand that the Thai Judge had clearly been in error...

I'm sure the Foreign Minister of the US will listen to the Thai ambassador in the US next time if the latter claims a US Judge was clearly been in error.

LaoPo

I am surprised you think it odd for an Ambassador to express his opinion and bring whatever weight his position has to get the outcome he wants.

It is called the Diplomatic service only to confuse people. It should be called the "Getting what you want, but giving away less" service. Just because the US appears to have the power to get what it wants, I don't think we should be surprised. It isn't an Ambassadors job to consider the needs of the opposition. It his job to get what he wants within the rules of the game.

Would be interesting if Wikileaks could get hold of the private cables from The Russian side. I am pretty sure it would make far more interesting reading, than to read that "the ambassador expressed his deep dismay ......."

Exactly.And from the details I have seen the Ambassador seems to have made some compelling points about the interpretation of the law.

The Wikileaks on Thailand are and will continue to be fascinating.By historic accident we have access to American views on various issues without any obvious reason for dishonesty or spin.The Thais don't seem to have woken up to the implications of this.From reports in the press today the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry spokesman first reactions' to the Bout case "no pressure levied on us etc" have simply not been telling truth.The appropriate reaction is surely "no comment" or an "aw shucks" sheepish grin.

Isn't it a pity some euro politician didn't pass a law banning American intervention in WWI and WWII. But of course, reciprocity is a hard word to translate. Just be thankful you don't have to finish your post with "Seig Heil".

Isn't it a pity that a law has not been enacted that prevents ignoramuses perpetuating the myth that the US saved Europe from subjugation by Hitler and his bullies. Those in touch with reality would give much of the credit to the Russians - and a handful of British, Commonwealth and European fighter pilots - for that.

You obviously get your version of history from Hollywood aka a dreamworld.

NOT TRUE - the part the US played in the 2nd world war was HUGE - in funding, leasing armour, planes, weapons, in raising credit to fund Stalin, in protecting British and russian convoys, in war bonds, in propoganda production before youve even mentioned the direct military involvement, which from North Africa to the invasion of D Day and into Germany and from the island hopping into japan was phenomenal - go read some history books - or if thats too much for you - at least sit down and watch "world at war"!!!

It was huge as you suggest.But it was not decisive.That role belongs squarely to Russia.

You obviously get your version of history from Hollywood aka a dreamworld.

He is not alone in that. Despite the valiant efforts of both Russia and Britain, WW2 would have been lost if not for the USA.

The contribution of the USSR in WW2 was so huge it dwarfs that of all others.The war would not have been lost without the U.S (because the USSR would have won it) but it would have meant a Soviet dominated Western Europe.So you could plausibly argue the Americans saved Britain from Stalin.Asia is a more difficult case to read if the US had been isolationist.One assumes that Russia would have done a deal with the Japanese, perhaps taken India for itself and left S.E Asia to the Japanese empire.So in short one cannot say the Americans were the decisive influence in winning but their involvement meant the post war settlement was a much better one.

Quote :-

The party's move may have been swayed by an unconfirmed report that Election Commission chairman Apichart Sukhagganond was pressured by his four fellow EC commissioners to take responsibility for the Court's decision and resign.

At the EC meeting yesterday, he had earlier called on the four members to resign in the wake of the decision, but was instead asked to resign by his colleagues.

Unquote.

It's all your fault.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Is.

Isn't

True to form. Nobody takes the blame for anything. Deja vu. A nation of 14 year olds governed by 16 year olds.

.

Who took responsibility for the failure of the double standards cases that allowed Snoh to walk free in the countries biggest ever land scandal on a technicality or that several cases against mega rich Thaksin fell on technical reasons? Or of course who fell for not protecting the basic democratic right of right to trial for the thousands slauhgtered on death lists a few years ago? Who fell fo rthe failure to protect witnesses in the nightclub killing of a police officer a few more years ago?

Until there is equal consideration of these issues alongside ones currently being aired, there is no real consideration for double standards and holding all to equal standards and there certainly are no human rights in many cases and there are zero people trying to uphold human rights unless they are campaigning equally for those killed in May as they are for those killed in the Thaksin years. There is a lot of mass hypocricy out there and few if any ideals.

Hammered

Thanks for reminding me of these past "technical get offs".I made a post a little while ago rather sarcastically claiming no memory of technical get offs (horrible phrase but it will suffice) for the Democrats' opponents.I was wrong.

I suppose what one can say however is that the system in Thailand tends to favour those in the driving seat.It also of course took some time before "elite" interests worked up a position where it could overturn by various strategems the Thai peoples' electoral preferences.

I was mocked today for using the word "amart", actually a fair enough tease.It does seem a bit pretentious.On the other hand "elite" doesn't really work in the Thai context.Suggestions for suitable terms welcomed.

My understanding is that in the Red areas of the country there is surprisingly little agonising on the recent court decision, and the bleatings about double standards are made just for the sake of form (not that the essential premise is disputed just a sense of pointlessness in banging on about it).It was not unexpected and the focus is very much on the next election.

Personally I am wholly agnostic about the Court's decision.It seems absurd to dissolve a whole party for individuals' offences.Absurd when done to TRT and absurd option in the case of the Democrats.

I don't normally respond to this kind of post - "all this amart crap etc" - but I think it's worth pointing out "amart" is just a label.In 1960's Britain it would have been the "establishment" or the "Boston Brahmins" in the U.S of the 1950's.The comparisons don't quite work out I agree, but the point is "amart" is just a convenient description.Baker and Pasuk have written interestingly on this but their audience is primarily well educated people.They and most other commentators would certainly recognise the existence of an "amart", though not necessarily a class war as some Reds would have it.

The Pasuk Baker book has its merits, but is no substitute for getting out into the rural regions and talking with the people in their own language to find out what they really think of Thaksin. In that way it could even be said to be aimed at those too lazy or ignorant of the language of the country they have chosen to live in (and argue so vehemently about) to get off their <deleted> and find out for themselves. Basing an entire political opinion on one book is also a little narrow minded, but I guess if the smallest cap fits, then that's the one you're stuck with.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point about Pasuk/Baker is that they are not only scholarly but accessible.That's why I recommend them in a forum like this.My own reading list covers many others.

What sort of person would describe the death of 91 and the disappearnce of 100's more as 'This time it appears that Thai people for the most part did not see the Reds as 'civilian' and thus accepted it as something painful that needed to happen' .

I think probably someone who has a very clear political view but lacks the ability or willingness to process information that might lead to self questioning.It's actually a very common view among the Thai urban middle class.To an extent I sympathise with them as they are are no doubt alarmed and even frightened by the social and political re-alignment in prospect.What they might get some comfort from is that changes often take a long time to work through and the new political order will no doubt have plenty of representatives from the educated middle class.So I think some understanding is due.Although attitudes expressed may appear cruel and unfeeling it's all understandable.In due course they might even unhinge themselves from the greedy undemocratic amart with its distasteful feudalists, generals, and lazy business monopolists.

Why a few foreigners think like this is more difficult to understand.

And yet again Jayboy resorts to personal attacks

I do notice that while trying to defend his attack he fails to address the fact that BOTH sides are led by these so called "amart" and that both sides (PAD vs UDD/PTP/Thaksin) are pretty useless.

And where is the personal attack exactly ? Perhaps I should remind you that accusing forum members of succumbing to "crap" is very disrespectful and could be construed as a personal attack.

Moving on to the substance you don't seem to understand what "amart" means.Because Thaksin (and other red supporters) are very wealthy doesn't make them "amart".You simply need to read more I think to obtain context and deep backgound.One could make a case for a struggle between elite groups but these wouldn't both be "amart".

<snipped>

Why would Sondhi and the PAD need to protest if they (the elite) had control of the courts anyway?

Because .... all this "amart" crap is just silliness cooked up by some reds (that some tvf members have bough into). Both sides are led by some people that would be considered "elite" and both pretty much are useless. (Though I admit to happily buying the PAD line when it was just Anti-Thaksin)

I don't normally respond to this kind of post - "all this amart crap etc" - but I think it's worth pointing out "amart" is just a label.In 1960's Britain it would have been the "establishment" or the "Boston Brahmins" in the U.S of the 1950's.The comparisons don't quite work out I agree, but the point is "amart" is just a convenient description.Baker and Pasuk have written interestingly on this but their audience is primarily well educated people.They and most other commentators would certainly recognise the existence of an "amart", though not necessarily a class war as some Reds would have it.

This second case filed by the E.C. against the Dem's had already been accepted for consideration, but could not proceed decently without the first case finished first. Now the court has to set dates for first statements. Then decide about how many days to hear witnesses from both sides, set the dates, do the hearings, deliberate pro/con, come to a verdict.

With even less direct evidence it's bound to be really 'sanuk' again with conflicting statements, hearsay, etc., etc.

A working legal system in action.

Let's all take a wild guess at the outcome.Answers on a postcard please.....

Opposition Puea Thai issues statement urging people dissatisfied with Court ruling on Democrat's disbandment case to stay calm; defiant activities could be used as excuse for coup /MCOT

I don't understand why there would be a coup just because there are protests. While the government is stable, and while they seem to have the support of a majority of the people ... and, particularly, are getting along with the army, WHY would there be a coup?

There wouldn't. The threat of a coup is just an attempt by PTP folks to shift some attention and rile some people up!

And that is why Khun Anand Panyarachun, that well known PTP supporter, has just come out and said a coup would as always be disastrous and solve nothing?

And the rumours of a coup which have been around for a few weeks, which I personally discount, that is also the mischievous work of "PTP folks"?

I agree that reconciliation will be difficult.

That does not mean that we must look the other way from the violent history of the reds. There are real concerns that people have that the reds may turn violent yet again. Have there been some peaceful red rallies? Absolutely. Are they more peaceful these days? Yes! Could that be attributed to their leaders being in jail? Yes! Could that be attributed to Jatuporn's parliamentary immunity being gone? Yes! Could that be due to a lack of funding? Yes!

Today in criminal court the judges got to witness the video of Red Songkran, and hear testimony from the PM. There is a significant number of extremely violent people in the red shirt movement and to deny that is not going to lead to any reconciliation either!

I would have thought the elite's attempts to frustrate the Thai people (no need to enumerate these) would increase rather than lessen the chances of violence.There is going to be a seismic shift so Thailand realigns more to a system that favours the people rather than an entrenched elite.There's still plenty of time for a peaceful transition but the elite seems to have no sense of enlightened self interest.But ultimately unless there is some meaningful compromise, there will certainly be violence and on a terrible scale.I and most others dread this but students of history will know exactly what I mean.

I can be proud to say I tentatively support the military. If they get out of line, I will withdraw my support, and I believe so will Abhisit.

That's a new and bizarre comment.Most people who have a clue about Thai politics would say it's a question of when the military withdraws support from Abhisit, not the other way round.

Actually I think Abhisit is doing a reasonably adept job in managing the relationship but your comment suggests you don't understand the dynamics.

Democrats Acquitted on Technicality

The court reasoned their acquittal on the fact that the Election Commission did not file the charges in accordance to Article 93 of the Constitution.

-- Tan Network 2010-11-29

Is the EC being bribed to file a late complaint...even if filed on time i am sure the kangaroo court would still acquit the Democrats...the whole system of governance..army, police judiciary etc etc is under the control of the " amartaya "..

they have treated the thai people as fools....

No, I think it was more that they were being forced to file a complaint. They decided a number of times previously not to file it, until they had reds on their doorstep giving them a bit of encouragement.

All sides involved the EC, its members, the Court and the judges declared that they didn't act under pressure.

The Democrats got lucky because of a procedural error. I think to argue on a on technicality was also a strategy of the democrats defence. Its part of the law and their right to do so.

Got lucky? Hmm. I don't remember too many procedural errors in the cases against the Democrats' opponents

For those tired of the predictable half truths we have seen too much of since the verdict, here is the Economist's useful summary.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/11/thailands_political_parties

You're right of course... be careful though otherwise you will have JDinasia trying to get you banned for 'impuning judges'

[/quote

That's his aim though most are on to it now.Why some members don't focus on give and take discussion, rather than trying to get other members banned I have no idea.There was a member, now banned, following similar tactics re lese majeste.

In this case however the language used was very extreme, and personally I wouldn't want to be associated with it.However temperate and discrete criticism of the courts is reasonable.There have been a number of good articles to this effect in The Nation and elsewhere recently.

The problem in my view is when the judiciary becomes mixed up in matters which aren't really its province.Interesting in this context to read UK editorials following a court decision to re-run an election because the successful candidate had made various allegations (the details don't matter) deemed to be untrue.The editorials (I summarise) basically thought it was a very retrograde step when courts started sticking their noses in to matters which were essentially the province of the British electorate.The feeling was that the courts involvement in these matters should be very limited and specific, really just matters of fraud.

Don't probe too far,maybe get to close for comfort for some.

Quite.The enquiry is to be welcomed.This was the worst of Thaksin's crimes, that is where he was personally involved in the strategy and implementation (as opposed to the atrocities in the South).

But the point you make is the elephant in the room, which is why there will never be a satisfactory conclusion to this issue.

Anyway the enquiry should be given every chance and its proceedings should be made public (not kept secret because of "national security" excuses).

Ah, I've got the hang of this now, mention a name in a reply and post a picture and thats satire

PM Abhisit anyone

or Deputy PM Suthep

You're nearly there; just missing some academic replies from jayboy

how creepy

exceedingly creepy

Abhisit is a public figure and thus a fair target.In your case you sought to ridicule (though actually failing to do so) a non public figure leading a respected anti censorship organization.You did so within minutes of the post on FACT being made.It was a profoundly creepy thing to do.We know (and it's an open secret how we know) that you are a strong supporter of censorship and the stifling of public debate.If these are your views then make the case with considered arguments if you are able.