jayboy

Except that, historically, those aspects never seemed to stop students before from joining in with organizations over government policies/social issues/etc.

Actually, university student populations have often been at the very forefront of these organizations. Certainly not so with the Red Shirts where their presence is very minimal.

Just a postscript to my comments on this subject.I don't think most reasonable people would disagree that the Red Shirt movement has failed to generate a student consensus behind it, a reflection perhaps on its lacklustre leadership (not so much on Thaksin himself).

At the same time there doesn't seem to be much student support for the old fashioned right wing gerontocracy - where feudalists, generals and other fat cats assume they have the right to speak for the Thai people.Equally there wasn't much student support for the yellowshirts (Let's face it a mob of Chinese grannies and young hoodlums isn't exactly "cool")

In other words a word of caution to reactionaries, don't make too many comfortable assumptions about Thai students.

the reason I think that, for the most part, young people and student groups have not gone in on the side of the poor oppressed masses is that they are capable of seeing the redshirt leadership for what it is AND have seen and heard the calls for violence from the reds.

I'm not sure about this at all.It's beyond doubt that Thai students are less politicised than in the 1970s.However my impression is that the student body is largely apolitical now.I haven't seen much evidence for strong political views one way or the other, concentrating rather on preparation for a competitive job market.This would reflect the situation in many Western countries.

On a related tack, and I'm thinking out loud here, I wonder if in a general sense students have the abhorrence of violence that most of us have.After all throughout history events have been shaped by young men who are prepared to go out on the streets and crack heads and risk having their own heads cracked.

The position of Thai students on political matters is an interesting subject.It would be good to have credible surveys available.

A final point I have never really thought the motivation for the Red Shirt movement is mainly about the "poor oppressed masses".It might have been 40 years ago but Thailand has developed (for the better) beyond recognition since then, and if it doesn't sound presumptuous coming from a foreigner I don't think there is much dastardly oppression going on.I think the main motivation is two fold - interference in politics by unelected elite figures and underlying that a profound sense of unfairness.

I contacted a couple of law firms before I started applying for PR to see if they could help. Neither of them seemed to know much about the process but focused on the need to pay bribes. So I didn't pursue things with them. If I had, I am sure they would have insisted on tea money that probably would never have got as far as Immigration, or at least very little of it. Unless you have time on your hands, you will need some secretarial help to prepare all the documents and liaise with Immigration but this certainly doesn't have to be law firm. In fact it is better, if you have some one under your direct control liaising for you, rather than a remote law firm. Immigration is able and willing to provide all the information you need about how to prepare the application. In the event, no bribes were requested or necessary in my case, although a friend claimed he found a way to pay a bribe the same year and skipped one interview stage and got his PR a few months before me. In the last few years it has only been high level connections that count.

Then you contacted the wrong firms.I agree you however about secretarial help.A first class Thai secretary could in many respects - but not all - be a substitute for a law firm.I am more dubious about your "direct control" argument.I have never heard of bribery at the Immigration Department in relation to PR applications.

Thanks for that almost interesting piece of geographical information. Perhaps Simon can use your input to check whether he still has a valid visa for the country he is currently in.

Does he need a visa for the UK/US? I assumed he was from where ever he's posting from and wouldn't need a visa.

If he is in Thailand, he probably should check his clocks and calendars. Maybe he just had a big night Saturday night and slept right through Sunday without realising it.

What on earth does it matter where he is? He asked a reasonable question and hasn't yet received an answer.

You're probably right, the only time I have difficulties with them is after lowering myself and responding to your baiting.

Well perhaps we all should cut out the dramatics, and concentrate on an intelligent well informed give and take discussion.Most people would welcome that.

I'm always in favor of that as long as it doesn't entail personalizing posters with derogatory and insulting terminology.

Fortunately, it's only a few people that can't differentiate between making negative comments regarding public figures and disparaging members.

Even a conciliatory overture is treated with contempt.Ah well.

You're probably right, the only time I have difficulties with them is after lowering myself and responding to your baiting.

Well perhaps we all should cut out the dramatics, and concentrate on an intelligent well informed give and take discussion.Most people would welcome that.

As for the remainder, it was simply done to show how over-personalizing antagonistic and inflammatory your posts are, although many in the forum are already well familiar with that feature of your presence. The mods certainly are what with the amount of work you create for them in editing or deleting your flames.

Most members on any side of any issue on any topic would likely also recognize my earlier response was probably the better plan in that if any member in any forum or sub-forum finds the material in that forum is boring, then perhaps its best to skip over the threads.

You seem to have overlooked I was arguing for a rational and intelligent discussion.

Probably best not for you of all people to start invoking the mods by the way.

And as soon as the Red Shirts denounce and disassociate themselves from Thaksin and clean out their ranks of the Red Shirt Bombers, Shooters, etc. and do something positive that doesn't involve absolving those Red elites and mercenaries of their crimes, it'll be a worthwhile time to explore the causes that they supposedly are in favor of but which pale in comparison to their efforts to exonerate wrong-doers.

If the lack of intelligence of those posting support of this organization that has fugitive terrorists and multiple criminals could one day see the organization for what it is and not for what it purports to be, then that would be great.

If the anal retentiveness of those that turn a blind eye to the extensive crimes this so-called movement has inflicted upon this country, then perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss the plight of the rural poor.

Their insipid boring one dimensional pro-Red rantings is so endlessly pointless.

A good example of the kind of post I was talking about.Essentially repeats my post but switching around the subject matter (it would be considered smart for a ten year old) - but to what effect or point? Is there meaning, relevance, understanding or even wit in this kind of observation?

Still it's at least worth a smile to be labeled anal retentive by this fellow.

I hope some of the more perceptive members, of whatever political stripe, will at least partly agree with my earlier observations.

Why can't you people leave them walk their rally, voice their concerns. Calling them names, and sarcasm won't make you wiser nor better than the reds. Again and again you are boring me.

Perhaps if they can go 12 months without instigating violence that results in loss of life, property damage, and/or perpetuating a national calamity, they'll be left alone.

If you're bored with their threads and/or the content therein, please remember that you are under no legal requirement to read and/or reply to them.

Asa is quite correct.It's not the political sentiment that's boring.It's the anal retentiveness and lack of intelligence that's so dispiriting - just look at the posts on this thread for example.It's perfectly possible to have a robust, well informed and intelligent champion of the "elite" (Remember Plus).But the insipid boring one dimensional anti Red bashing is so pointless.It's just preaching to the converted anyway.The shame of it is that there's a worth while discussion to be had.

The leaders of '76 would have a quite different mind set than those of 2006, different reasonings and also different views on what the outcomes could and should be. I would hope there is greater progress in the future to winnow out the old guard mindsets and install more modern thinkers. But equally it appears there is a pressing need to install better working checks and balances on the political classes to prevent the same sets of problems that seems to make the army move out of balance. They don't do it in a vacuum.

Quite sensible but I think you would find some startling similarities between the elite mindset (sorry I know that overused term pisses people off, but better than "amart"?) in 1976 and 2006.The objectives were pretty much the same.In some cases we are actually talking about the same people.Ironies abound not least that in 1976 the progressive forces were harassed, even murdered, by Red Gaurs/Village Scouts - uneducated peasants brought in from the country side.But who financed, supported and protected them? I do wish intelligent people like yourself would read some Thai history.

Stonewalling, refusing to participate etc ... is not prevarication which implies actively lying about something it isn't even obfuscation like bringing events that have no bearing on the current discussion into play in an attempt to cloud the real issue. (In this case it is a single death of a reporter.) It is a failure to cooperate. I stated the BBC article pointed out non-cooperation from the police and military in an independent inquiry/investigation AND that there is nary a mention of the military's past.

With these latest breathtakingly revealing words of yours, I don't think I could have demolished your case better myself.

Circumstantial evidence isn't the question ---- historical/anecdotal-historical evidence has no bearing at all. Circumstantial evidence, of course, should be considered and given only the weight that its probative value carries. Such as an eye-witness that claims the shot came from the direction of both military and redshirt armed forces. (Not exactly smoking gun stuff!)

What should get no weight at all in these discussions are terms like "shrill", "blinkered", "misleading" --- and I didn't quote the Beeb's article, I referred to it. There was no place I could have quoted it, because it didn't make any of the statements claimed. It left room, apparently, for some people to talk about irrelevant history (to this particular case) but didn't say anything about past interference, lies, misleading, prevaricating etc on the army's behalf.

I am still assuming that the Japanese either participated in/observed the autopsy (a fact not in evidence) OR will conduct an independent autopsy that should tell us more about the wound. I am not assuming that the "leaked initial report" was conclusive nor meant to be the final report. Neither Reuters nor the BBC seem to have made that distinction yet either. They do question WHY the two reports appear not to be consistent with each other.

I wondered about "circumstantial evidence" and on reflection I think Rubi and yourself are right.You also are correct that you referred to the BBC article, rather than quoted it.

My earlier comments stand on the rest of your post.You don't seem to have understood the implications of the BBC article at all.Failure by the army to cooperate with a murder investigation fully justifies all my comments.It has actually happened before and often (or in the Bizarro world of the military apologists does that have to be hushed up?)

Hmmm more personal comments directed about me .... strange; now I am "shrill". Earlier in the thread I stated ALL sides with any power need to be viewed with a critical eye. I have never denied the Army's history. I have stonily, in the face of multiple personal attacks, pointed out that in this case ONLY the facts of this case are pertinent. The BBC report does not point out any prevarication as stated by a poster above, nor does it at all question the history of the Army. It points out a lack of cooperation from the police and military in showing up to meet with the independent investigation. It points out that there is an appearance that the current report and a leaked (unofficial?) report from earlier may be contradictory. No, in this case history isn't important. As Joe Friday always said ... "the facts, ma'am, just the facts"

BTW -- please don't alter my posts by deleting the majority of a post, particularly when in this instance the Army was mentioned prominently in the first paragraph.

I am afraid your comments are sometimes shrill (and more particularly you seem unwilling to give and take in a discussion), just an observation.I dare say some of my comments could also be characterised in some way.Let it go.

You have completely failed to make your case that context, history, and circumstantial evidence are all irrelevant in the case of the murdered Japanese journalist.The BBC report, which you quote, regarding the prevarication and non-cooperation with investigators over many cases demonstrates why your blinkered approach is not only unhelpful but positively misleading.

Finally I am sensitive when quoting members that my deletions do not alter the main sense, and try quite hard to be fair.However I think it's forum policy not to regurgitate posts endlessly, and mods have reminded us of this on several occasions.Nevertheless if you believe I have been misleading let me lnow

Yes, the military has many unanswered questions ...... but THIS thread is about a single case. The Japanese cameraman who was killed.

You consistently point out it's about a single case.And of course it is but your shrill calls for all past history to be ignored simply confirms your prejudices.As though the Thai army's record of violence and lies can be ignored.

While it's about a single case, as the following BBC report points out the prevarication, lies and attempt to subvert justice in this instance are also observed across many of the investigations into the killings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12593729

mmmm ... who was saying that the Red Shirts aren't about Thaksin?

Maybe a red shirt supporter would like to explain that again.

Isn't this a rather tired straw man argument.I'm not aware of anyone (other than a few dreamers, see below) seriously suggesting the Red Shirts have nothing to do with Thaksin, clearly they do a great deal.Obviously on both sides of the fence there are those who make absurd claims.On the Red side the unrealistic section who as you suggest argue the Reds have nothing to do with Thaksin now.On the other side there are those who absurdly dismiss the powerful political and social drivers of the Red Shirt movement, insisting they are motivated by cash handouts etc.

The real argument is surely rather whether over time the Red Shirt movement has the ability to transcend its Thaksinite origins and I suppose whether it needs to/ought to.On this there could be a perfectly reasonable and interesting discussion.But whether it can take place on this forum I don't know.

It is notable, yet again, the sudden uptick in sheer desperation to blame the army for everything here, at the exact time the Censure Motion has kicked into gear yet again. Just as this same argument went into high gear here the last 2 times the PTP tried to bring this up.

Certain posters suddenly become unnaturally argumentative for exactly the same points, soon to be unsuccessfully argued in the house. Why this is deemed useful is not clear, but each time the PTP or Reds start a big move this pattern emerges, just prior to it.

Never mind that the arguments are tangential, just plain nonsensical or spurious, another round always seems bring forward the same types and styles of arguments, just different names and slightly skewed styles.

Propaganda 101 blame the other side for everything,

and tell the lie often and loudly, then some may eventually believe it.

Propaganda 102, be sure to denigrate and label biased or incorrect all those with arguments that refute your big lie, because common sense can not go un-belittled if the lie is to every take hold.

Propaganda 103 make sure it appears there are also those out 'in the real world' who believe the story to be sold the public, so that the common man can have others to group themselves with.

Propaganda 104 repeat 101-103 often.

The issue is not of course about blaming the army for everything.It is about its lack of accountability, dishonesty and record of violence against the Thai people.It is simply not possible as some apologists suggest that this "baggage" simply be overlooked.In the case of the Japanese journalist there has still to be an independent and transparent investigation.

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.