fasteddie

What about all those 14 and 15yr olds in the go go bars and massage parlours, you telling me they don't look 18 - 20?

If they look 18 - 20, how do you know that they are 14 and 15 yr olds?

I watch the news! are you denying it happens?

Well the bigger problem is the age difference. The woman in her forties dating a man 65 is bound to turn into trouble. Mostly because an Asian woman in her forties looks like she is 65. The man then decides hay there are 20 year old bar girls that will date me for a year or two, I think I will up grade. The 40 year old is pissed, she looses face with her friends and she lost her meal ticket.

So one night the 65 year old man doesn't come home promptly. The 40 ish Thai woman is pacing the floor getting angrier and angrier, next she grabs a knife hops on the motorcycle the farang bought and goes looking for him at his favorite bar, or maybe every bar. She finds him drinking with a friendly and very affectionate 20 year old Thai and the old one makes a scene. The farang pays his bill and leaves the bar with the old Thai broad chasing him and yelling at him. When they get far enough down the road the man stops and says, "listen you worn out old has been, we are not married and I'm getting a younger girl.". The old Thai lady looses it and stabs him.

So just be prepared in advance knowing your character and the character of Thai women. I don't care if she is a bar girl or a regular girl, a Thai woman is going to react way differently than a Western woman. If you're prone to partaking of the available young flesh don't give any Thai woman the impression she is your woman and you are her man.

Absolute cobblers! In general, Thai women in their forties look much younger. If your ridiculous statement about them being more likely to kill you if you get a younger woman was correct, all Thai men would be dead given that's just how they behave.

What a load of crap.

Have never seen ANY Thai woman that looks OLDER than she really is.

What about all those 14 and 15yr olds in the go go bars and massage parlours, you telling me they don't look 18 - 20?

Well the bigger problem is the age difference. The woman in her forties dating a man 65 is bound to turn into trouble. Mostly because an Asian woman in her forties looks like she is 65. The man then decides hay there are 20 year old bar girls that will date me for a year or two, I think I will up grade. The 40 year old is pissed, she looses face with her friends and she lost her meal ticket.

So one night the 65 year old man doesn't come home promptly. The 40 ish Thai woman is pacing the floor getting angrier and angrier, next she grabs a knife hops on the motorcycle the farang bought and goes looking for him at his favorite bar, or maybe every bar. She finds him drinking with a friendly and very affectionate 20 year old Thai and the old one makes a scene. The farang pays his bill and leaves the bar with the old Thai broad chasing him and yelling at him. When they get far enough down the road the man stops and says, "listen you worn out old has been, we are not married and I'm getting a younger girl.". The old Thai lady looses it and stabs him.

So just be prepared in advance knowing your character and the character of Thai women. I don't care if she is a bar girl or a regular girl, a Thai woman is going to react way differently than a Western woman. If you're prone to partaking of the available young flesh don't give any Thai woman the impression she is your woman and you are her man.

Absolute cobblers! In general, Thai women in their forties look much younger. If your ridiculous statement about them being more likely to kill you if you get a younger woman was correct, all Thai men would be dead given that's just how they behave.

Am I the only one who looked at the photo first and thought it was an article about an upcoming puppet show?

Yes!

Australians are the most difficult to understand.

American english has pretty much become the international standard.

I worked alongside some UK teachers in an international school and I honestly could hardly understand a word they said because of their strong accents. American English is easier to understand but not neutral in tone, inflection,. By and large, IMHO, well spoken Australians have the most neutral accent.

''Well spoken Australians''?? Ha Ha, good one.

So happy they can return to their rip off ways!

Not to fear Yingluck has said no more floods. The government has over 3 billion Baht they spent for flood control.

Also the Royal Navy is on the job.

Excuse me! You mean ''Royal Thai Navy'' As ex Royal Navy I object to any inference the R.N. would be involved in such a harebrained scheme.

You could get rid of the cats.

*(Edited quote deleted)*

Hogwash! this is just a separatist movement, give them back their land and dignity and the violence will stop.

At least the police did not open fire on the civilians.

Correct. It was the red shirts opening fire on the police and army:

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

- the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

- the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers (see Thairath).

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

And your proof of the redshirts being responsible is what?

At least the police did not open fire on the civilians.

Nor would they unless the protesters started firing at them. Hurling boos and insults is so terribly provocative though.

''Nor would they unless the protesters started firing at them''

Unlike the army then!

2010 POLITICAL VIOLENCE

Criminal Court rules taxi driver killed by troops

The Nation

2

Nittaya, daughter of Kam weeps during an interview before the court delivers the verdict.//Photo : Watcharachai Klaipong

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court Monday ruled that a taxi driver was shot dead by troops deployed to tighten security around Rajprasong Intesection in May 2010.

Phan Khamkong was shot dead between 12.05am and 1am on May 16. He was shot in the left chest and the bullet also pierced his right arm.

The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong.

Phan was shot by .223 bullet, which was a type of ammunition used by Army troops.

The court ruled that he was killed as a result of the security keeping operations ordered by the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation.

The case of Phan's death was the first of 19 deaths arising from the 2010 political violence sent to the court by public prosecutors.

Public prosecutors told the court that Phan went to rent his taxi to drive in Wat Saket area on May 14.

At 8pm on May 15, Phan called his daughter to day that he was hiding at a condominium construction site in Rajprarop. This was the last time his daughter heard from him.

The Department of Special Investigation have yet to prove whether troops in the area shot at Phan on their own or were simply carrying out an unlawful order. If carrying out an order, they would not be held responsible. Legal action would be taken against those who gave the order.

-- The Nation 2012-09-17

Well it is indeed a perplexing article. The only thing we know for sure is he sas killed and the weapon used was a milatary one. The article goes on to say

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now if he was innocent why would he be trying to break through the check point? Why not do as ordered? So all this time and money spent and that is all they can find out. For all any one knows it could have been a red shirt who bought the gun on the Black Market.

I wonder if they are ever going to investigate who gave the order to illegally seize public property that started all the trouble. A peaceful protest and then go home nothing wrong with that but some one made the decision to turn it into a illegal protest. WHO. We will never officially know as that is not what the PT wants to become public.

Did you even read the report? he wasn't driving the van, he wasn't even in the van, that's why he was innocent!

Even though per nickymaster, i need to learn how to read, your final sentence makes little sense to me and I doubt anyone else.

Can you please point to any post or statement of mine supporting or condoning any violence from any side ?

If you cannot, please apologise for trying to put words into my mouth.

Finally, with regard to your statement, "...Nobody has or is denying the Army used real bullets and killed people during the 2010 "protest....", sadly there are very many people who have tried to deny this starting with, AV, his deputy PM, army generals, army spokesmen and assorted folks on this forum.

It is perhaps encouraging that you now admit the army killed people..................

You certainly would use some reading comprehension, I didn't say condoning, or supporting violence, I said denying deaths on the hands of "protesters".

Did the Red Shirts kill people, yes or no?

You may also provide a citation proving the people you mention deny that people died as a result of Army operations, ,as you said, for the past two years.

I have never denied the Army killed anyone, far from it, so there's nothing to admit there.

You are kidding right ??

AV and co have denied from the beginning that "people died as a result of army operations".

That denial is the crux of the problem.

Still,at least you admit the army's responsibility for murder.

The red shirts killed 20 security forces and the security forces killed 70 (mainly) red shirts.

Very sad situation.

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

I already have 1 answer from a 6th grader but I am looking for more.

You shouldn't be rude about 6th graders, work hard and you may be one in 5yrs.

According to his wife - He never attended the rally and worked as a taxi driver.

So why was he in a restricted area at ratchaprasong, driving a white van? Surely he wasn't collecting a fare?

He wasn't even in the van, can't you read?

So it needed an inquest to figure this out?

Guy tries to drive through a security checkpoint, gets shot at, people in van die.

Of course the army killed him. That doesn't make it murder.

When a Red shirts points a gun at a security force, and the security force kills him (because he feels threatened/scared) it is cold blooded murder according to the Reds.

That is the Thailand they are trying to create.

What redshirt? What gun? What threatened soldier? He was a Bangkok taxi driver stood outside a hotel!

So it needed an inquest to figure this out?

Guy tries to drive through a security checkpoint, gets shot at, people in van die.

Of course the army killed him. That doesn't make it murder.

Read the report! He wasn't in the van!! Jeez!!!!!

I wonder what this can open up ??

I suppose it's a surprisingly unsurprising verdict and it must have some serious implications for the armed forces and those who issue their orders.

I think the vast majority of sane people would support an order permitting the armed forces to fire in self defence given the violence of the protesters.

Er..........self defence at an unarmed taxi driver ???

Maybe you should learn how to read.

The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event.

Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb.

In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home.

When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed.

Maybe YOU should read the report, the taxi driver wasn't in the van, he stepped out of a hotel to see what all the noise was and was shot by some idiot from an army with a long history of happily murdering it's own people. Ironic the van driver wasn't killed but innocent bystanders were. Some army. TIT!

Since nobody is asking yet ...

What movie was that????

You been living under a rock? ''

The innocence of muslims''

Bit of a sensationalist headline, if you ask me. I highly doubt they were convicted or jailed solely on the strength of someone waving an antenna at them, fake or otherwise.

Ever heard of the placebo effect? Wave that thing at a group of people and pick up the one who looks like he's cracking walnuts with his butt, it's not rocket science it's psychology.

I'd like to see statistics on how many of those jailed by this fake detector were armed and/or in possession of explosives, drugs.

No, I'm not defending what's happening or saying that there's anything justifiable about it - just playing devil's advocate.

Devils advocate in support of arbitrary arrests and long term detentions without trial by the Royal Thai Army ??

I'm not allowed to say what I think...

The device is joke that has destroyed Army credibility ( not there was much ) and the professional reputation of her with the weird hair do.

The corruption and moral bankruptcy of all concerned is frighteningly blatent.

''and the professional reputation of her with the weird hair do''.

what's Maggie Thatcher got to do with this?

I want to see the BBC get their teeth into this.

Why? They're not adverse to telling porkies you know! They still promote the much discredited theory of AGW for example.

Oh please! all that video shows is that some men carrying shields, and some apparently armed, apparently discharged arms at something or other!

"Both [sides] believe they were victims. The operation by the 'men in black' were very instrumental in creating and elevating the violence with the aim of provoking the Army to use weapons against protesters and wanting to exact the loss of lives," page 184 of the report read.

...

...

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple, the report added.

Let me hear from the usual defenders of the red realm how they feel about these quotes from the article.

An M16 was later discovered inside the temple,

What, 3 days later like in Lumpini?

interesting photo of the "men in black". I wonder why they carry riot shields....

Maybe this video from the 10th of April 2010 answers your question.

Where in the video does it give an explanation why they are carrying shields? So maybe not eh!

interesting photo of the "men in black". I wonder why they carry riot shields....

If you had watched the video that this photo came from, you would see that these guys were amongst the protesters and shooting at the army.

Not true, nowhere in the video can you see who they're shooting at!

Nothing to do with the fact most Thais have never taken a driving lesson in their lives then?