jayboy

Mispost, sorry

You have flippantly re-posted the same statement and continual previous evasion of posting the proof is also serious as it is in violation of ThaiVisa rules, to-wit "...post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate.."

The onus is upon you to supply  proof.

Remind me, what was your question again.

I think you will find on closer study of the Thai Visa rules that it is not compulsory to respond to inanities.

But they fear the worst and despite the poison of Thaksin and the mediocre UDD leadership, they know the Red Cause holds the moral high ground.

Most of my expat circle are in fact well-educated, employed indivisuals here for 10-30 years and none of them stand on your side of the divide on these questions.

I fear your sample is too small

You may be right the Reds originally a prescibed Thaksinite objective, but this has been hijacked..and times have moved on.

You and your UDD friends can repeat that propaganda but it doesn't make it true. In terms of UDD leadership - without whom there would be no Red movement -- Thaksin and their objectives are inseparable.

This bears on the question of CNN objectivity in particular. CNN is owned by Time Warner, who along with FedEx, General Electric Company, New York Life and Unocal, became US-Thailand Business Coalition corporate chairs when Thaksin was pushing the US-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. Of course the proposed FTA is at odds with pretty much everything the 'poor' you keep pushing want or need. The US will not offer tariff- or quota-free access to any major Thai farm exports. Once tariffs are eliminated under the FTA, Thai farmers will face a further flood of subsidised US agricultural imports, threatening their livelihoods, as happened with the 2003 China-Thailand FTA (to expand further this year, 2010). US corporations and officials applauded Thaksin’s privatization program, viewing the FTA as a means to advance and lock this in, and would love to have him back in power.

There is much more going on than meets the casual eye perusing the news or listening to UDD propaganda.

I think you are probably right, namely that there is a CNN conspiracy on the lines you have outlined.You do not mention the Protocol of the Elders of Zion but I think that fits in somewhere.The odd thing is that few seem to know about this and perhaps you should write a letter to the Bangkok Post explaining the position.There you would be in the company of several other regular correspondents whose lucidity and sanity is a matter of general comment.Anyway well done for letting us know about this CNN "under the radar" development, and indeed the American establishment which backed the Thaksin privatisation programme.As a matter of interest does the American establishment provide directives to CNN, or does the latter just get on with its disinformation without being told.It will certainly provide me with an an alternative insight.The truth is out there.

Also interesting that your "well educated employed" friends here all are of one mind.I must have been taking too small a sample.

And if you reds really want to see human rights violations punished lets go farther back to Thaksins rule then there are all the war on drugs victims who died without trial and of course a truck load of handcuffed dead and so it goes on.

Yes I agree.We are waiting for the necessary charges to be filed.

Wonder why it has taken so long?

No one forced "the man" to do what he did.

He chose to betray his country and people for money and fame, which doesn't usually deserve you resting in peace.

Why should history and people not be allowed to call a traitor a traitor after his death?

You have no idea what motivated him, and your remarks about money and fame are just speculation.

Certainly he was a dangerous oddball.I have no regret at his passing.What history will say is unknown.

Whether he was a traitor is debatable.What isn't debatable is the treason of those who supported, planned and executed a military coup.

What's significant here is that absolutely no mention is made of why the reds were there in the first place 

They wanted to return Thaksin to power and everyone knows it. It does not need to be repeated over and over again. 

You seem to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.Of course the ambitions of Thaksin represented a major factor.But if you think that's all there is to be said about the red movement you don't understand very much.I can scarcely be bothered commenting on this type of post.Suffice it to say that the government ,notably Abhisit and Korn are not so naive.

always amusing to mock the huge band of retired sexpats.

But I doubt many of them are connected and on this forum...

Yeah, right...none of them on this forum.

I was talking about high achieving Westerners,well off, perceptive and highly intelligent - typically Ivy League or Oxbridge graduates with detailed knowledge of Thai culture and history.There are plenty of long term westerners who to put it kindly don't meet these criteria.

Anyway let's hypothetically assume we are talking about the same people.I think most would certainly agree with your assessment of Thaksin's record.I think however while not denying his continuing influence his greater significance would be seen more as a catalyst.There would also be agreement with your view of UDD leadership, shoddy and rather frightening.

And yet...(this is the common theme I have noticed) this group would have a sneaking (discrete, because their Thai friends would think differently) sympathy with red aspirations.They know the nature of amart society, its selfishness, corruption and greed.They deal with it every day unlike the retired wastrels and sexpats who think of themselves as long term residents.They know the denouement is not too far away.They would love the Thai elite, with whom they have much in common by virtue of social class and education, to reform itself.But they fear the worst and despite the poison of Thaksin and the mediocre UDD leadership, they know the Red Cause holds the moral high ground.

Some of what you say is reasonable and other stuff is utter rubbish. There are a lot of Oxbridge grads who are total wan*ers. And just because someone is high acheiving does not make them all knowing. However, I will give it to you that people with an education, whether formal or self educated, do tend to view things less in black and white than in shades of grey. Or in this case yellow and red.

While I do know "the nature of amart society, its selfishness, corruption and greed", I do not believe what the red cause would bring would be any better. It would just be the new amart (but red instead of yellow). They do not know any better. It is cultural and has been this way for many generations. The red shirts do not hold any moral high ground. You are equating the red shirts with the aspirations of the poor. They are two different things. The red shirts was a political creation for political ends only.

As to the OP, if the bias in reporting brings about reform, well then okay, but to be fair does the rest of the world give a shit anyway? It is no longer news. The only people interested are Thais and the relatively few foreigners who live here. What about the investigation of the events? Will anything happen as a result of the findings, if indeed there are any conclusions? Perhaps the usual will happen and it will drag on for years until all interest disappears and they can shelve the investigation. You know how it goes here.

Actually this is a very reasonable reply.I had my tongue firmly in cheek with the Oxbridge/Ivy League references, always amusing to mock the huge band of retired sexpats.The key point which you pick up on is the need to understand nuance and context, not just to mouth slogans.I also sympathise with your view on the red political alternative.But rightly or wrongly the reds do represent the aspirations of the poor...and not just the poor.There is now in Thailand a great amount of discontent among all classes at the way the elite has behaved over decades.And this is fuelled by the certain knowledge the reckoning is not far away.You may be right the Reds originally a prescibed Thaksinite objective, but this has been hijacked..and times have moved on.

 

I was talking about high achieving Westerners,well off, perceptive and highly intelligent - typically Ivy League or Oxbridge graduates with detailed knowledge of Thai culture and history.

There might be a few around, but most likely they are perves who are wanted by Interpol and are not available for interviews. 

Yes, that's it.Well done.

What I am saying however that the really impressive Westerners, the ones with long experience of the Kingdom achieved at a high level will tell one, albeit discretely, that there is much in the red cause with which they sympathise.

A rather dubious presumption, I'd say. I've been here over 30 years and most of the longterm international residents I know have no sy,pathy whatosver for the UDD, seeing it for what it is, the tool of one self-exiled megalomaniac.

I agree with Shawn Crispin, who wrote back in March:

What strikes many long-time observers of the country's politics is the UDD's apparent collective amnesia of Thaksin's own anti-democratic record, marked by his efforts to bypass parliamentary processes, undermine checking and balancing institutions and pressure the free press, and the benefits he reaped through close relations with the bureaucratic elite, including the privileged state-granted telecom concessions he leveraged into a multi-billion dollar personal fortune.

While the UDD clamors for Abhisit to dissolve parliament and hold new elections it has failed to give voice to the fact that a controversial Peua Thai politician, Chalerm Yoobamrung, would most likely run as the party's prime ministerial candidate. His son, Duangchalerm, was accused of murdering an off-duty police officer in 2001 and many say Chalerm epitomizes the double standards that favor the powerful over the poor. Duangchalerm was acquitted due to insufficient evidence in 2004 and is now a father-propelled, rising political star.

I was talking about high achieving Westerners,well off, perceptive and highly intelligent - typically Ivy League or Oxbridge graduates with detailed knowledge of Thai culture and history.There are plenty of long term westerners who to put it kindly don't meet these criteria.

Anyway let's hypothetically assume we are talking about the same people.I think most would certainly agree with your assessment of Thaksin's record.I think however while not denying his continuing influence his greater significance would be seen more as a catalyst.There would also be agreement with your view of UDD leadership, shoddy and rather frightening.

And yet...(this is the common theme I have noticed) this group would have a sneaking (discrete, because their Thai friends would think differently) sympathy with red aspirations.They know the nature of amart society, its selfishness, corruption and greed.They deal with it every day unlike the retired wastrels and sexpats who think of themselves as long term residents.They know the denouement is not too far away.They would love the Thai elite, with whom they have much in common by virtue of social class and education, to reform itself.But they fear the worst and despite the poison of Thaksin and the mediocre UDD leadership, they know the Red Cause holds the moral high ground.

And who are you Mr. Sherman. What are your credentials ? Did the Nation or the Thailand Government pay you well for your rebuttal ?

Thank you for your opinion piece, but it only supports the government and does not help any any type of national reconciliation. You are being used or willing being used. The government propaganda fight to ward off any blame at all in Thailand's problem is well served by you.

I for one would believe CNN and BBC and rather than Mr Sherman AND THE NATION, but I am a long visitor to Thailand to I do not need any of the propaganda to help me make my own decisions. I see it with my own eyes everyday.

i for one would come to Bangkok and witness everything with my own eyes prior to making statements like you did.I would also probably do some reading and research throughout all media, including youtube, and all other networks.

This article is spot on. Both networks failed to show other side in this conflict and how every day people were affected. In every video on both networks there was only footage of poor red shirts being hurt, but no footage at all of soldiers being hurt, of civilians being attacked and destruction of BKK by the red shirts.

Aljazeera was much more fair in its reporting, and i found Aljazeera is by far better network to get accurate news.

Spot on because it confirmed your own views, and possibly your prejudices.You praise Aljazeera and I agree that network has real strengths.However when Rageh Omar presented an Aljazeera report sympathetic to red aspirations the yellow mob were howling with rage.Similarly Crispin of Asia Times is usually praised by opponents of the reds for his knowledgeable realism, but when he presented an analysis of sinister militar/elite influences the enthusiasm evaporated.Someone on this thread sensibly points out its necessary to have many sources of information.It's actually necessary to process this diverse data and draw independent conclusions.Some have the aptitude and intellect to do so and some don't.Some just mouth slogans and tired mantra.

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

As you requested,  for clarity.

  

Sorry I wrongly presumed you were serious and posed a serious question.

I did obviously pose a serious question several times which you have failed to post proof of and failed to  "..readily admit.. " (see your quote below ) when you are wrong ..if you are wrong in this statement.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

Posting a simple minded asinine reply in an attempt to avoid responsibility displays your

shallowness and lack of credibilty and casts a pall on the genuine Red Shirts of Issan etc, sympathisers, readers and posters on this forum.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

So please let us see the proof of  your "80 unarmed dead civilians" without any further evasion.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

  

Quote; jayboy

"Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

I'm sorry but I don't regard your question as a serious one, given your attitude:

"Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations."

Furthermore if you are disputing a large number (80 seems to be the best estimate) of unarmed civilians were shot dead by the military, I suggest you rewrite history with someone else.

why the reds were there in the first place

i don't know how i could have made my reference to their 500 baht a day payments any CLEARER .

reconciliation

is it that unclear ? who want's reconciliation ?

re: wat pathum . maybe the monks will think twice next time about their letting their "sanctuary" being used as a refuge for arsonists, thieves and looters (or didn't u read the piece about booty from central world being found there?)

You make my point more clearly than you probably understand.

posters who talk about "unarmed civilians" being killed are being EXTREMELY disingenious .

for this falls under the tenet that "if you play with fire you are likely to get burned"

the "unarmed civilians" were mixing and were admidst EXTREMELY dangerous and volatile armed black shirt thugs (as witnessed by grenade attacks , arson , rampaging of hospitals , road blocks , destruction of private property and babies being held over barricades) .

as things heated up , the "unarmed civilians" had two months to decide whether it was worth risking their life for the (daily 500 baht payments provided by the) montenegran. many / most apparently decided (wisely) it was not and at the end the crowd dwindled to a shadow of what it was when the squatters first moved in to ratchaprasong / lumphini .

considering the hardship they inflicted upon BKK and the violence they propagated , less than 100 dead in returning the central city to it's inhabitants does not seem out of proportion . and perhaps more importantly a lessen was administered .

kudos go out to the thai armed forces for their patience and professionalism .

of course , once the APVs started rolling over the tires and sharpened bamboo sticks, the campers could not retreat to the "safety" of wat pathum FAST enough . saw that one coming from a mile away .

ps that part about an unarmed seh deang (khittiya) being killed was really funny . thanks for the laugh. this guy was provided with a mile of rope and he used it predictably to hang himself .

Much of this is dubious or at least capable of different interpretation.His remarks on Wat Pathum I personally found stomach turning.

What's significant here is that absolutely no mention is made of why the reds were there in the first place (apart from the usual cartoon like explanation).Of course it doesn't much matter what this kind of foreigner thinks one way or the other, but my impression is the uncompromising views expressed are indeed shared by many urban Thais.So where does that leave reconciliation? There seems to be very little generosity of spirit around.

I have no issue with this Thai diplomat.

However the council itself has an appalling record of hypocrisy and selective indignation.

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

As you requested,  for clarity.

  

Sorry I wrongly presumed you were serious and posed a serious question.

Just what the he l has a wide reading and study of Thai history and politics got to do with CNN and BBC inept reporting. Perhaps you could stick to the theme and point out where the article was wrong.

If you are genuinely incapable of understanding how knowledge of the background helps one to assess media coverage, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to help.

Michael Yon is a distinguished war correspondent but he knows nothing about Thailand.He made some observations which have been hawked around by the social media and the Government PR people.Of course it's harde to cover conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.Read his Thailand material and see whether you think he's on the ball.

You claim he knows nothing about Thailand, ignoring the fact that he is a regular visitor to the nation for many years when his 'tours' in Afghanistan allowed him R&R and at the same time ignoring that he has been here longer time then several of the BBC and CNN journalists you so try to defend.

What does that say about you?

It doesn't say anything about me.

Read his material on Thailand and make up your own minds

An excerpt of a dispatch from the website of the most experienced war correspondent on the ground in Thailand today:

Michael Yon

20 June 2010

Flocks of journalists – local and international – had descended into the conflict zone, and the flocks naturally brought the toxic guano of consensus journalism, and also great physical danger for the journalists, which danger could be deceiving in Bangkok.

Comparing the difficulty of covering conflict in Thailand to Afghanistan or Iraq is to compare pebbles to boulders. The entrance obstacles to Iraq and Afghanistan will eliminate probably 99% of the international press from any meaningful, long-haul coverage.

By contrast, many international correspondents live in Thailand. CNN correspondent, Dan Rivers, reported that he and his family had to evacuate their residence because the fighting was so close. Covering Bangkok is no more difficult than covering Washington D.C., and in fact Bangkok might be easier when considering visa issues.

Full report:

Even While the World Watched

Michael Yon is a distinguished war correspondent but he knows nothing about Thailand.He made some observations which have been hawked around by the social media and the Government PR people.Of course it's harde to cover conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.Read his Thailand material and see whether you think he's on the ball.

I think you'll be quite surprised how thin yellow shirt support is amongst those with a bit of an education; something you commonly cite as being the source of "independent minded people". Although it is admittedly much higher than those supporting the reds.

On the contrary I think the way you put it is very accurate.Those with a "bit of an education" tend to support the yellow shirts.In all seriousness, I'm perfectly well aware that the PAD/yellowshirt view has wide support among middle class Thais which one must presume to be the best educated part of Thai society.My own view is that what foreigners think is really neither here nor there.Some of us enjoy letting off steam but we are essentially irrelevant.The feral foreign reds turn my stomach and I equally recognise that most foreign businessmen here, while not yellow, are highly critical of the Reds and their leadership (and would generally support the views on Western media coverage of the crisis - again broadly echoing the Sino-Thai urban middle class.What I am saying however that the really impressive Westerners, the ones with long experience of the Kingdom achieved at a high level will tell one, albeit discretely, that there is much in the red cause with which they sympathise.

u mean the same "generosity of spirit" and "human understanding" the reds showed the owners and users of central world / center one and the innocent bystander killed at the sala daeng station when grenaded from lumphini ?

Yes the destruction of Central World was the great tragedy in all this.Thank you for reminding us what the priorities should be.

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

I don't think more "sophisticated" societies would tolerate domination by a feudal elite, a treasonable military coup, manipulation of justice,a rigged constitution and murder of unarmed civilians.There are many foreigners (what on earth are they doing here - few seem to have proper jobs)who rant about the BBC and CNN coverage.But it's a complex situation.Look around at several media outlets and one can find reasonable coverage.Don't rely on one source.

I would ask the same question about Jeff Savage, and a few other Pattaya based "freelance" foreigners who seem to aligned themselves with the red shirt cause. There are a good number of ne'er-do-well foreign "barflies" who have few problems with the context of BBC and CNN reports. It doesn't take much investigation to discover that the main reason for this is their close links with the Isaan region, for one reason or another...

I think that's very possible and I think the Isaan connection you mention may well be the key.Equally there are many foreigners in relationships with (mainly) lower middle class urban women who blithely absorb the yellow line.Genuinely independent minded people are few.

like i said before

the joke that was the CNN/BBC reporting makes u think about all the other western reporting from hot spots that has come before (tiananmen , iraq , etc.)

if u live in bkk (walked among them like i did) and lived through the two month-long red squat in at ratchaprasong , u know they were a combination of uneducated , murderous black-sheathed thugs (i.e., motorcy and tuk tuk drivers and out-of-work soldiers) and paid-by-the-day (from montengro) large sized middle age isaan houswives between rice crops w/ absolutely nothing to do but come down and f up the nation's capital

before burning a lot of it down

i don't know how a reporter having flown in the night before and staying at a 5 star hotel with a great breakfast buffet could have missed this

Thank you for this useful and intelligent insight.It's always a good sign when a post begins "like I said before", an indicator of a first class intellect at work.

As you will note, your views are shared by many on this forum, although it is rare to have them expressed with such clarity and incisiveness.I hope you will not be shy about sharing your insights. clearly based on wide reading and study of Thai history and politics.What impresses me most however is your generosity of spirit, though while clearly sceptical about the Red agenda still prepared to reach out with a touching display of human understanding.

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

I don't think more "sophisticated" societies would tolerate domination by a feudal elite, a treasonable military coup, manipulation of justice,a rigged constitution and murder of unarmed civilians.There are many foreigners (what on earth are they doing here - few seem to have proper jobs)who rant about the BBC and CNN coverage.But it's a complex situation.Look around at several media outlets and one can find reasonable coverage.Don't rely on one source.

 If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before  and used as much force as needed.  

The military was selective, and I think professional too.(I'm ignoring your creepy second sentence).However a large number of civilians were shot dead and that needs to be carefully investigated.