jayboy

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

No it doesn't imply any such thing, only YOU repeatedly attempt to imply this meaning.

Sorry that dog won't hunt.

Your unnecessary attack on my clear prose,

and attack on my moral character which a flame by forum rules,

implies that you have an agenda to get me riled,

and maybe get a ban for flying off the handle and flaming you.

Sorry no such luck either.. Wither your malign intent on the vine.

Fighting a war on drugs is not the same as killing drug dealers to do it.

And calling me ignorant when to most anyone thinking clearly sees that this is not the case,

puts paid to anyone else's confusion that YOU might be on the up and up posting here.

Perhaps a reminder is needed it was you that started spouting about standard operating procedure of those on the other side of the moral aisle (ie anyone who disagrees with your view point)

I will leave it to others to decide who has the clearest prose.

And I'm afraid on your "collateral damage" evasions, no amount of back pedalling or ranting can disguise your meaning that the killing of the "guilty" was acceptable.It's also the view of 90% of most Thais so don't get your knickers in a twist.

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Are you suggesting everything would have been acceptable if only those involved in the drugs trade had been murdered?

No,

and it is disingenuous of you to try and imply that.

But that IS s.o.p. from that side of the moral aisle.

But your words are very clear and your response doesn't clarify matters at all.

I don't understand what s.o.p means but I gather it's part some form of ad hominem abuse (again), and that you fondly believe you have full possession of the moral high ground.

A couple of points

1.You made your position clear on collateral damage and your back pedalling doesn't alter this.It's not an unworthy or unusual position to take (not that different from mine actually) so stop whining.

2.Like many desperate to vilify Thaksin, you seize (correctly I concede) on the drugs war as his greatest crime (because in their heart of hearts even the most rabid Thaksinphobes know the actual charges made against him are comparitively minor and politically inspired).But on the drugs war to invoke your term of "collateral damage', be very very carefuL as you fling accusations around.Not only did the campaign have massive popular support but endorsement at high levels.Why do you think the elite has been so quiet about the drugs war and why has there never been a suggestion Thaksin might be charged?

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Are you suggesting everything would have been acceptable if only those involved in the drugs trade had been murdered?

What has been discussed at that meeting in Finland is still a secret. None of the participants, and i guess there were dozens of them, came forward with a "real" version.

I don't normally recommend Wiki articles but in this instance (Finland Plot) the key points are well covered.

I hope it isn't thought off topic but I was struck by these words of Winston Churchill given the passions shown in this thread, and of course others in discussing the current political divisions in Thailand.

"It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new proportion. There is another scale of values. History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days."

The brilliance and quality of the man shine through the decades, above all perhaps the generosity of spirit - so rare in Thai politics.And how strange our deliberations will seem with the passage of time, say ten years - the inflamed passions of expatriates.My guess is the Thailand that most of us cherish will in all important respects be much the same.

...However it's worth pointing out that the PAD rallies in Bangkok, led and mostly comprising Thais of Chinese extraction, had a very clear recognition of ethnic background with many racist slurs against people from the North East and elsewhere.Don't forget that the Sino-Thais have dominated politics and business for decades, and many have very ambivalent feelings about the increasing political clout of the Thai Ter.

Oh, and the leaders of the TRT and it subsequent acronyms was not lead by Thai-Chinese, starting with the ole square head himself, to say nothing of most of the upcountry elite families that support him?

Yes but look at the core supporters.

My impression is that the only people who really care about peoples Chinese backgrounds are the Farangs here on the TV website.

For most, if not all Thai's, it is little more that a minor side issue of interest of someones backgrounds. Most Thai's with Chinese heritiage are proud to celebrate it, and those who aren't of Chinese decent are typically happy to celebrate along with them, especially if it involves food....

Don't disagree with your general position and the peaceful co-existence and intermarriage is a tribute to both Thai and Chinese pragmatism.

However it's worth pointing out that the PAD rallies in Bangkok, led and mostly comprising Thais of Chinese extraction, had a very clear recognition of ethnic background with many racist slurs against people from the North East and elsewhere.Don't forget that the Sino-Thais have dominated politics and business for decades, and many have very ambivalent feelings about the increasing political clout of the Thai Ter.

The smear on farangs as racist against Issan folks didn't work, kids.

Try again.

What are you talking about? Nobody mentioned farang views on Isaan people or anything else.

There seems to be a consensus on this thread by from some quarters that Isaan people are some sort of intellectual morons without the necessary brains to make their own judgments about matters and who need to be led by the nose by their betters. Highly condescending from people who in the majority have most probably never spent any length of time there.

Anyone who knows the North East would understand this to be nonsense

And the ethnic slur you refer to was very much the kind of rhetoric that was peddled at PAD rallies in Bangkok.It's essentially generated by an urban middle class fear that the long quiescent rural majority will demand fair political representation and an end to the skewed distribution of economic resources.It's a process that ocurred in other countries more than a century ago but it's happening now in Thailand.

And that's the real reason Thaksin is such a hated figure in some circles.

It might just be worth mentioning that after PR is received it is mandatory for the person's name to be added to a tabien baan, i.e it's not in any sense a matter of discretion.

My experience is that there is no particular issue in adding one's name to a tabien baan in respect of a residence where one does not permanently live.I suppose prudence dictates there should be some form of personal connection.

dear Jayboy, I really get the impression you can't conceive how somebody migth not always agree with you. You can't convince us, we can't convince you, so let's leave this to rest.

I thought this thread was about helping potential PR applicants with the process, not about winning or not winning arguments (which I feely admit is the case in the political forums).However if you insist I would point out that those that believe that "influence'' of one sort or another can trump or make irrelevant all or any of the well established PR rules have completely failed to prove their case.So the advice to PR applicants remains the same - follow the rules well set out in Camerata's guide.

Any news on the topic Sunday Redshirt Rally Postponed? All I seem to be reading about are 2001 elections peppered with descriptions of members like:

dishonesty and ignorance

Making silly and uninformed

some just silly.

I know of only one member who specialises in out of context quotes like this.Hmmm.... I wonder!

If you want a discussion on Alexander Pope so be it, but probably off topic.

My point remains valid I think.Why does Thaksin remain the most popular politician in the country? In The Pasuk/Baker series of current history the answer seems clear notwithstanding the man is something of a scoundrel.You can call it brainwashing if you like but that demeans the debate.On this forum there are a variety of views on either side, some informed some just silly.

First of all you started beeing a smart-ass by quoting Pope wrong! So since you are obviously a native speaker could you explain me the meaning of "scoundrel"? Is it a good thing? If yes, then bring him back! If not, let the scoundrel stay away from this country, it's so easy...

I know I'm below your league and you are well informed and all... but thankfully I'm able to keep demeaning the debate, and I will!

Ever had a political discussion with a local farmer? Should try!

If you can correct me on misquoting Pope, you should know what a scoundrel is.Thaksin was undoubtedly such a person.My point was that it might illuminating to try to understand why he has so much support.Most of us can easily agree he isn't an admirable man.

It doesn't matter if he is the most popular politician. Popularity doesn't beat the law.

Agreed but equally it's important to ensure the law and the judicial process is even handed and not in any sense politically "directed".

Link here: pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc interesting research from 2002 on corruption and the rise of Thaksin by Chula Univ., Chris Baker

So after all it was his money that brought him to power... not the electorate

Your conclusion does not follow from your posited earlier premise.If you are going to take an interest in these matters, I suggest you absorb more thoroughly all Acharn Pasuk and Chris Baker have to say.Certainly while stern critics of Thaksin they have never argued that he brought his way into power as opposed to having the electorate's support.A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.The problem for all of us with a Western liberal position is to understand why Thaksin maintains a huge reservoir of political support.Making silly and uninformed (I'm not accusing you of dishonesty) statements really doesn't help.

Ok, can you explain me your first sentence, please, seems my english is too poor to get it.(??)

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as of

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." (the first line of this couplet is often misquoted as "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," thus reinforcing the aptness of this very admonition, as the misquote betrays a certain want of learning.) (quote wikipedia "an essay on criticism")

Also I wouldn't see myself in a "western liberal position", but I do think to understand why Thaksin maintains to have a certain amount of support, as I stated earlier due to his brainwashing through media + populism + top level corruption. Berlosconi made it back, why Thaksin shouldn't, kind of a thing.

BTW it's nice that you refrain calling my statements dishonest, but silly instead.

This also doesn't change my perspective on the issue.

If you want a discussion on Alexander Pope so be it, but probably off topic.

My point remains valid I think.Why does Thaksin remain the most popular politician in the country? In The Pasuk/Baker series of current history the answer seems clear notwithstanding the man is something of a scoundrel.You can call it brainwashing if you like but that demeans the debate.On this forum there are a variety of views on either side, some informed some just silly.

Maybe some othe facts speak to yourself and you can actually hear them, but it doesn't happen to me.

What's this, some kind of "voices in the head" attempt at sarcasm?

I don't dispute the 2001 background.I was talking - as I thought would have been obvious - about the 2007 elections which are dealt with in the Anfrel report.

Link here: pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc interesting research from 2002 on corruption and the rise of Thaksin by Chula Univ., Chris Baker

So after all it was his money that brought him to power... not the electorate

Your conclusion does not follow from your posited earlier premise.If you are going to take an interest in these matters, I suggest you absorb more thoroughly all Acharn Pasuk and Chris Baker have to say.Certainly while stern critics of Thaksin they have never argued that he brought his way into power as opposed to having the electorate's support.A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.The problem for all of us with a Western liberal position is to understand why Thaksin maintains a huge reservoir of political support.Making silly and uninformed (I'm not accusing you of dishonesty) statements really doesn't help.

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

That was 2001 report, for christsakes. No one ever disputed his victory back then, and in 2005, too, which was a real landslide, and no one disputed his right to form the government, and no state agencies tried to "thwart this", whatever that means.

No it wasn't, read the report referred to in the link provided.With due respect you are perhaps not the most appropriate person to comment on state agencies attempting to thwart democracy.The well documented facts speak for themselves.

There is a great deal of wonderful info on Thai elections in the following link:

http://www.anfrel.org/report/all.asp

Scroll down to the Thailand 2001 election and see page 80 for the official election results.

Thank you for posting this fascinating link.It's a welcome relief to see a cool unbiased and thoughtful analysis.

Incidentally the report makes it quite clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the result of the election confirmed the wish of the people of Thailand to see a government associated with Thaksin, notwithstanding the efforts of state agencies to thwart this.

Worth bearing in mind whatever one's views, particularly given the dishonesty and ignorance displayed by some of the more rabid Thaksinophobes.

Certainly not as much vocabulary as native speakers and grammatically the speech is far from perfect, but they just don't shut up, and, a good thing, they don't pretend to sound like English or Americans - I find that extremely annoying.

A horribly long time ago when I was a Thai language student at the AUA there was an extraordinarily gifted linguist called J.Marvin Brown - one of those mysterious American Asia hands whom one presumed had a history in covert operations. I think he wrote the AUA Thai language course.He had perfect Thai,Khmer and Lao and perhaps other Asian languages under his belt.I remember one of his pieces of advice was to listen very carefully how educated Thais speak and copy their phrasing and intonation.In fact I think "mimic" was the word he used.Certainly he would have had no difficulty in a reasonably accomplished foreign student trying to sound like a Thai if learning Thai or a French man if learning French.In other words mimicry is part of being a good linguist.But where I agree with you is sharing the irritation if it's not done very well.My pet peeve are those Thai Inter stewardesses with imperfect English compounded by a travesty of an American accent.

In the meantime I await at least a glimmer of recognition by Marshbanks of the disgusting and racist language used about Isaan people at PAD rallies in Bangkok.

i was not aware of this , (i don't doubt it happened and i most certainly believe it would have happened)

what were some of those things they said ?

Well, you don't know what the said by Jayboy claims it's an excuse for Red's intolerance. How many of them actually heard it first hand? Or is it just a rumor spread specifically to incite hatred?

I bet no one here knows what exactly Jayboy is referring to. I don't.

>>>

Ah, forget it, it's all PAD's fault anyway.

It's not all PAD's fault.

I think there's no serious dispute about the language used at PAD rallies, driven perhaps by Sondhi's talk of "Sons of China saving the Nation" and of course the ethnic background of many in the urban lower middle class.To be honest, and this is probably my fault in making too much of it in this thread, while recognising the ethnic/class divisions I tend not to attach huge importance to it.All countries have class/ethnic differences and most tend to rub along reasonably well.My point in mentioning it in the first place was simply to stress that most in the NE know exactly how they are viewed by many in the urban middle class and understandably don't much like it.To be fair one doesn't hear much of this now and I think credit must be given to Abhisit for raising the tone.

I'm also conscious of stereotyping dangers and again I'm well aware that my thumbnail sketch of PAD support is too crude -a result of the cut and thrust of debate and too little time.Equally the stereotyping of Reds as a violent proletarian mob is completely off mark.There's a useful update out of Pasuk/Baker's book on Thaksin which I'd recommend for an intelligent and more nuanced analysis.

Here's a quote which is striking (p362)

"Especially from 20008 onwards, the red camp began to attract growing numbers who were repelled by the coup,the resurgence of military power, the shrill voices of extreme royalism, the blatant violence of the PAD, the attack on the symbols and institutions of parliamentary democracy, and the challenges to the principles of popular sovereignty and universal franchise.Many of these red recruits had to overcome a deep distaste for Thaksin personally".

You simply ignore my comment the disgusting language used at PAD rallies in Bangkok about Isaan people.

Was it before or after Udon Thani lovers club attacked peaceful PAD rally there last year?

How nice of you to justify Udon reds violence and hatred by referring to some disgusting language heard elsewhere. Also Coke with high sugrar content and other snacks must be held responsible, not the reds themselves.

Right after that incident Marshbag was defending Udon as a quiet place, he even mentioned that the violence was orchestrated by outsiders, I remember. It was in Isan forum.

Look how the mood has changed.

>>>

One thing that should be completely devoid of any ideology is allowing opposting groups freely express their opinions without violence or intimidation. People who want immediate elections should remember this first and foremost. Or maybe they think elections ala Zimbabwe are just fine. I'm fully support Abhisit condition here - unless reds allow ALL political parties and group campaign freely, there will be no use of holding elections.

AFAIK, Jayboy wants both - justified red intimidation and elections.

Have I made a fetish about elections? I don't believe so but they will need to be held in the next year or so.

Nor do I condone intimidation or violence from whatever source.However A PAD rally in a place like Udon Thani is as provocative as a Red rally in say Songkhla - remember these are pressure groups not legitimate political parties.

In the meantime I await at least a glimmer of recognition by Marshbanks of the disgusting and racist language used about Isaan people at PAD rallies in Bangkok.It might help him understand why PAD is hated by so many millions of Thais.

My rant is not that of a foreign codger with / should not have no interests in Thai matters.

marshbags

This isn't about wearing yellow shirts, and it is a complete fallacy to believe that implies support of PAD anyway.It's also nothing to do with Thaksin

You simply ignore my comment the disgusting language used at PAD rallies in Bangkok about Isaan people.

Instead you rant on with ad hominem attacks.Passion and dedication are good qualities, but unless there is thought and focus they are meaningless.

Jakrapob, "Squealer" to Thaksin's "Napolean". Some pigs being more equal than others.

No surely Thaksin is Farmer Jones, the evil human that the animals threw out (and on whom all problems are blamed).