jayboy

I've seen the CRES notice a sum-total of three times since the clampdown - on one YouTube video, attempting to browse Wikileaks (ridiculously easily circumvented) and now attempting to access the FACT site. Yet apparently the number of websites blocked is in the tens or hundreds or thousands...? An exact figure or authoritative source of sites blocked would be much appreciated.

I agree the blocking is easily circumvented.I also note after months of blocking the FACT web site is now accessible.Thai students at universities throughout the country are more than a match for the MICT plods.In terms of the number of sites blocked , please do your own research.

And the exact point of posting Hinke's picture was..........?

( Genuine question )

It is as I said earlier exceedingly creepy.The moment I posted the FACT letter, John, in the absence of reasoned arguments was scurrying around the internet to find a way of besmirching the people involved (and failing).

How exactly was it creepy? It may have been pointless (but maybe funny) in relation to the reason it was brought up, but creepy?? Saying that is just as pointless (or creepy) as Buchholz's post.

If you don't understand why not, I could never explain it to you.

And the exact point of posting Hinke's picture was..........?

( Genuine question )

It is as I said earlier exceedingly creepy.The moment I posted the FACT letter, John, in the absence of reasoned arguments was scurrying around the internet to find a way of besmirching the people involved (and failing).

Am personally very curious about this so called "mass censorship". Obviously laws prevent revealing what sites these are, but the numbers can be mentioned - Can you give me some idea of the figures involved and whether the majority of sites are in Thai or English?

freedom,

CJ Hinke

Coordinator

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand FACT)

Party on, dude.

CJ Hinke (center in black T-shirt) lamenting over the Deputy Prime Minister not returning his phone calls.

.

Lord Haw Haw tactics for sure.Does some small part of you understand how creepy your last post was?

Am personally very curious about this so called "mass censorship". Obviously laws prevent revealing what sites these are, but the numbers can be mentioned - Can you give me some idea of the figures involved and whether the majority of sites are in Thai or English?

I attach a copy of a letter dated 10th November sent by the Coordinator of Freedom against Censorship Thailand (FACT) to the PM.I hope this gives you a flavour of the censorship activity.

10th November 2010

The Hon. Abhisit Vejjajiva

Prime Minister

Government House

Bangkok BY HAND

Mr. Prime Minister:

According to your government’s official media releases from April 15 to today, 283,610 websites are blocked by your government.

Our website Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) has been blocked since May 9, more than six months. We host no illegal or even uncivil content.

It is ironic that an anti-censorship website should itself be censored by government.

What does a citizen do to get their website unblocked? I have been in contact with your ICT minister, your deputy prime minister will not return my calls and the military authorities at your CRES and CAPO are simply unreachable by the ordinary citizen.

Mr. Prime Minister, what about Chiranuch Premchaiporn, facing 60-years in prison under the Computer Crimes Act for statements she did not herself pose?

We wish to continue discussion of these issues with you and see our website unblocked now.

freedom,

CJ Hinke

Coordinator

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand FACT)

So you're reduced to name-calling a member as a Nazi?

.

I think it's a fair comment not really for the political content, but for the propaganda style which is very reminiscent of William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw), particularly the heavy handed attempts at levity.I'm sure you were not accused of being a Nazi (which you're obviously not).Joyce was hung for treason after the war and thus unlike some of us was denied the opportunity to re-emerge phoenix like.

1.Nobody I know, whether red sympathiser or not, has not thought for some time that PAD has been marginalised.Siripon - definitely not a red sympathiser! - (an "opponent" who has excellent background knowledge and intelligence) has been making this point for several months.PAD was a useful attack dog for a time and was used for that purpose.No longer needed now, or anything like the same extent.

Although (very) slowly fading a popular line of attack with red sympathisers on the forum is to tarnish any government/Abhisit supports as being "yellow". After the words of a few PAD leaders this week such gross simplifications no longer have any grounds whatsoever.

I personally don't believe people who are not red shirt supporters (in their various yellow and non-yellow forms) would be happy to CRES disbanded just yet either. Not until some confidence in the local plod has been restored, or initially created.

When you talk about "red sympathisers" in the country at large (or even on this forum) you are dealing with a very wide political spectrum indeed.You are courting...well, gross simplification.

PAD has been losing influence for well over a year.I'm not sure recent events have had a major influence on that trend: they are notable I think mainly because Abhisit gave such a public rebuke.Abhisit remains well tied in to the most influential circles.You can be quite sure his now open indifference to PAD's hysterics reflect establishment views, or at least the establishment's unwillingness to give unqualified support as in the past.

On the subject of CRES, I'm fairly confident what gives it continued support from the establishment is the realisation that public attitudes, views, diversity of opinion etc in Thailand now diverge enormously from the official establishment line.Everything is being questioned and the mass censorship of the internet is I think not effective.All this is encouraging or frightening depending on where one stands.

It would be encouraging if we heard even one message from the apologists for repression that CRES is an affront to civil liberties, and in any event has ludicrously overstepped its role.That's why it has been deservedly bitchslapped by Abhisit.I suppose the apologists are too busy chattering among themselves and spinning about how the Reds actually slaughtered themselves in Bangkok earlier this year.Fortunately that conversation is limited to one or two reactionaries.A tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I think there's more than one or two of us.

And in any event, if Abhisit didn't request CRES lift the ban you know as well as I do it would still be in place today, regardless of whether such items were available for sale or not.

Two red-spun myths blown out the water this week - the PAD are the government and the military are the ones pulling all the strings. Evidently not the case on both counts this week.

As to the myths "blown out of the water":

1.Nobody I know, whether red sympathiser or not, has not thought for some time that PAD has been marginalised.Siripon - definitely not a red sympathiser! - (an "opponent" who has excellent background knowledge and intelligence) has been making this point for several months.PAD was a useful attack dog for a time and was used for that purpose.No longer needed now, or anything like the same extent.

2.The army continues to be a major factor in Thai politics.One can have a reasonable debate whether it pulls all the strings (probably not in my view) but it still pulls plenty of them.

It would be encouraging if we heard even one message from the apologists for repression that CRES is an affront to civil liberties, and in any event has ludicrously overstepped its role.That's why it has been deservedly bitchslapped by Abhisit.I suppose the apologists are too busy chattering among themselves and spinning about how the Reds actually slaughtered themselves in Bangkok earlier this year.Fortunately that conversation is limited to one or two reactionaries.A tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

not to be a skeptic but I'd love to compare Paiboon and Pramot 'official' govt salaries to their financial wealth,,, just wondering,,,

kids at Uni in Europe i would bet!!! nice mercedez benzss

You're off target completely with Khun Paiboon who is a shining example of an honest capable Thai public servant who has done several top jobs with distinction.He is married to an equally distinguished honest and capable banker (Khunying Jada).You have in effect identified one of the very few Thai public servants where the paradox you identify isn't an issue.

If the Democrats survive the court case, I believe he will still be PM after the next election. The current coalition and recent by-elections point to that result.

The red shirts will come out for another large protest following the court decision, at which time the PM will call elections and will get enough coalition seats to stay PM.

If the Democrats get disbanded, and Abhisit is banned, the new democrat party will not be able to find a leader with the quality of Abhisit, and strong enough to hold a democrat led coalition together.

The recent by-elections (or should that be 'buy elections) were held in Dem strongholds anyway so they really give no insight into a General Election, and as for the Dems not finding someone with the qualities of Abhist, well thank god for that, they might find someone with balls to stand up to the army that is controlling abhisit, all i can see in Abhisit is cowardice and other poor qualities, in fact I am ashamed that he was educated in my country, I guess you can take the boy out of Thailand but you can't take Thailand out of the boy, he is as bad, if not worse, than the rest of them.

Many are knocking Abhisit but does anyone have a sensible suggestion as to who is qualified to replace him with the qualities to unite the country and carry it forward in difficult times in addition to retaining the respect and confidence of the International community? Abhisit may not be perfect but I cannot think of anyone who could do a better job.

The reality is there is no better qualified person than Abhisit.The interesting development now is watching the tug of war in Abhisit's psyche - between liberal democratic instincts and the old fashioned Thai elite vested interests.There's some contradictory evidence but I'm beginning to think he has that flint of ice necessary for a successful politician.Look at the way he has swatted PAD away, carefully waiting until that movement was semi marginalised.

Two further thoughts

1.He somehow has to do a Cameron, by which convince enough people mostly in the North and North East he is someone they can do business with.

2.Talk about the international community (ie potential pressure from) is in my view not that relevant.Thailand despite its internal social issues is a generally admirable place, with tolerance even now better than most countries.Unless the Thai army goes berserk and launches a coup or starts murdering people Thailand will tend to get a passing grade from the international community.

There are plenty of foreign arm chair military "experts" around in Thailand, usually former non commissioned officers - good at detail, not always so good at the big picture.Anyway just in case there is a military aviation expert (ideally from a Western embassy) around it would be useful to know why the cost of these Swedish Gripen JAS39 jets is said to be twice for Thailand that for other purchasing nations.Any reason for this?

I gather the Thai partner with Gripen for this deal is the same firm that marketed the fabulous GT200 devices.

The double price was a lie as pointed out...but also, notice that different packages to different nations have different content. Don't count only the number of planes, look at years of training-support, maintenance, local or remote production of replacement parts etc etc. Add to that what parts of the planes that are included, i.e. radar systems, rockets, bombs etc.

I think you are talking about that well known feature "lateral investment" which tends to drive up military procurement costs in Thailand.

Rubi kindly referred me to a discussion in July which covered much of the same ground.It's deja vu all over again , as they say.

In that discussion Johpa (one of my favourite members) said:

"Ah,"lateral investment", the newest euphemism to cover the endemic bribery that is part and parcel of the international arms business. I got a first hand glimpse, and a huge laugh, last January at the SHOT show in Las Vegas where the Feds hauled off Smith & Wesson's VP of sales in handcuffs, and we are only talking small arms here. The bigger guys rarely get caught as the funds are skillfully hidden by lawyers and accountants within purchase orders and contracts."

To get real for a moment, both Gripen and the Thai military establishment have a shocking record for corruption in procurement.That's the context of this discussion.

There are plenty of foreign arm chair military "experts" around in Thailand, usually former non commissioned officers - good at detail, not always so good at the big picture.Anyway just in case there is a military aviation expert (ideally from a Western embassy) around it would be useful to know why the cost of these Swedish Gripen JAS39 jets is said to be twice for Thailand that for other purchasing nations.Any reason for this?

I gather the Thai partner with Gripen for this deal is the same firm that marketed the fabulous GT200 devices.

Attacking the man and not the post again? (and not posting the full quote --- so in effect modifying someone's post)

Pi Sek's full statement follows......

That's your belief, not fact. My belief is quite the opposite, I assure you - that UDD snipers were 'mainly' responsible for civilian deaths. I'll shut up if I'm proven wrong, as should you; but until then, please recognise that this is an opinion rather than given fact.

Pi Sek is not the only person that holds those beliefs (particularly about the April shootings.)

And do you hold those beliefs about "UDD snipers" being mainly responsible?

And if you do , do you have any evidence?

See post 43 (your post here is post 50

I do also note that you are still continuing with "attack the man and not the argument" in this thread.

No evidence and I suspect pointless to discuss with someone who apparently believes the red shirts murdered themselves.

The believers just believe it - they don't need any back ups with facts and evidence.

I think you're right.I have a well educated Egyptian friend who is convinced that the twin towers were blown up by the Americans, the jets were drones and all Jews working there were given 24 hours notice of the attack.So I am familiar with the mentality.I have politely noted the view that UDD gunmen slaughtered their own people, accounting for most of the deaths.As with my Egyptian friend it's pointless even discussing the subject.

And do you hold those beliefs about "UDD snipers" being mainly responsible?

And if you do , do you have any evidence?

Why do you care about facts or evidence, jayboy? You're never able to present any to back your opinions.

Most people of whatever political stripe would regard it as bizarre to believe that the deaths in May were "mostly" caused by "UDD snipers."

Neither the government nor army nor Thai press nor foreign press nor on the spot observers have made this claim.

Do you have any views?

Pi Sek is not the only person that holds those beliefs (particularly about the April shootings.)

And do you hold those beliefs about "UDD snipers" being mainly responsible?

And if you do, do you have any evidence?

My belief is quite the opposite, I assure you - that UDD snipers were 'mainly' responsible for civilian deaths.

Thanks.That statement marks your position very clearly.

Attacking the man and not the post again? (and not posting the full quote --- so in effect modifying someone's post)

Pi Sek's full statement follows......

That's your belief, not fact. My belief is quite the opposite, I assure you - that UDD snipers were 'mainly' responsible for civilian deaths. I'll shut up if I'm proven wrong, as should you; but until then, please recognise that this is an opinion rather than given fact.

Pi Sek is not the only person that holds those beliefs (particularly about the April shootings.)

And do you hold those beliefs about "UDD snipers" being mainly responsible?

And if you do , do you have any evidence?

My belief is quite the opposite, I assure you - that UDD snipers were 'mainly' responsible for civilian deaths.

Thanks.That statement marks your position very clearly.

The economic effects of the prolonged Red siege far surpassed the 9 day airport loss.

By no means clear.The disturbances in May were localised and had limited effect in economic activity other than in the high end shopping malls and hotels in the vicinity.The seizure of the airports closed down the whole country for a time, and crippled the tourist industry.Equally importantly business traffic, both passenger and freight, ground to a halt.Thailand's reputation around the world was badly damaged.I'm not minimising the impact of the May disturbances but I think it's important not to make statements which can't be justified simply because they fit in with one political agenda or the other.

Actually you are minimizing the May "disturbance" (which by definition is minimizing the chaos and mayhem and deaths), but never mind, I'm confident most people can sort out which was more damaging.

The civilian deaths mainly caused by military snipers were tragic (not that one would know it from government and army statements) but to be rather heartless did not result in significant economic damage.I pointed the error in your original assertion not to be controversial but to make a reasonable point.I do however think Somtum Tiger makes a very reasonable comment to the effect that without some serious economic analysis (as opposed to the "most people can work out which was the more damaging" approach) the outcome is very subjective.I do know for a fact that the hotel/tourism industry - because I have many contacts in that sector - regarded the airport seizure as more damaging.It's also significant that the yellow shirt/PAD actions ruined Thailand's international reputation and as a consequence it needed very little after the Reds seized Central Bangkok for international travellers/ businesses/conferences etc to cancel their bookings.In other words the yellow shirts and the distinctively thuggish element that followed in its wake undermined international confidence and the reds finished it off.

If you however mean overall damage, that is not just restricted to economic fall out, then of course the events in May were worse with the human tragedy of so many killed.That goes without saying.

[quote name='Buchholz' timestamp='1290412873' post='4040122'

The economic effects of the prolonged Red siege far surpassed the 9 day airport loss.

By no means clear.The disturbances in May were localised and had limited effect in economic activity other than in the high end shopping malls and hotels in the vicinity.The seizure of the airports closed down the whole country for a time, and crippled the tourist industry.Equally importantly business traffic, both passenger and freight, ground to a halt.Thailand's reputation around the world was badly damaged.I'm not minimising the impact of the May disturbances but I think it's important not to make statements which can't be justified simply because they fit in with one political agenda or the other.

Trespassing! One has got to laugh.

But you're right "terrorism" won't be the charge.My post was made ironically since the charge was made completely inappropriately against the redshirt demonstrators - but then they didn't have the feudal, military and elite support the yellow/PAD mob enjoyed.Personally I would like to see jail time for the PAD ringleaders - though of course (see above) it won't happen.

There is a big difference between blocking access to an airport compared to killing army personel and civilians and burning buildings.

In terms of economic damage the occupation of the airports, which also set the pattern for civil disobedience, was far more serious then the arson attsacks.

In terms of killings the vast majority of the dead were red shirt civilians.

You can't get round the hard facts by using terms like "blocking access."

The question is: What will the charges be?

Terrorism

I doubt a terrorism charge will be put against them. In fact I doubt it will be much more than tresspassing. If you have information stating that terrorism is the charge being considered, please share it with the rest of us

Trespassing! One has got to laugh.

But you're right "terrorism" won't be the charge.My post was made ironically since the charge was made completely inappropriately against the redshirt demonstrators - but then they didn't have the feudal, military and elite support the yellow/PAD mob enjoyed.Personally I would like to see jail time for the PAD ringleaders - though of course (see above) it won't happen.

The question is: What will the charges be?

Terrorism

In many countries governments would stand or fall following an investigation of civilian deaths on this scale.In Thailand zip, nothing, zero.

And before someone mentions the drug war killings, doesn't the complete absence of follow up and accountability prove my point?

I agree with you. I think even more than the drug killings, the events at Tak Bai illustrate your point. Thaksin's also been given an incredibly easy ride from western commentators considering what happened there and his subsequent comments.

I know the 'double standards' mantra has pretty much been copyrighted by the Reds now; but to be calling for the current PM to stand trial as a murderer while waving pictures of the man whose government oversaw Tak Bai and made sure no one was held accountable has got to be a prime candidate for the 'double standards' label.

I would have thought the drug killings had far more of Thaksin's stamp on them (he was directly responsible for the strategy) than the Tak Bai massacre where he would have known nothing until after the event.Even his enemies never maintained Thaksin gave the orders for the latter.However as to Tak Bai he is I think still culpable on two counts, firstly the responsibility he has to take as PM at the time and secondly for the negative and unhelpful position he took on Southern problems (though one should note that few elite Thais would take a different view, say on some form of local autonomy).