misterjag

Give it to the Dutch , they know what to do , their country has big surfaces UNDER sea level , great water managing experts.

Deltares was hired to advise the Thai government in mid October, but of course they should have been consulted years ago.

Rest assured, there won't be any lack of political will following an election.

Abhisit, the best way to gauge Thai public opinion is to hold an election.

Th Red Shirts would be better served if Thaksin were jailed or assassinated. They could get along without his advice and financial contributions. They could use him as a martyr. More importantly, the government would no longer have a boogie man to blame for Thailand's problems.

Unfortunately, it appears that the term "terrorist" is being abused. Anyone that is opposed to the government is now being labeled a "terrorist". Reminds me a bit of Bush's "either you're with me or you're with the terrorists". There was a report in several Thai and also English speaking newspapers about a professor of Chulalongkorn University being arrested and detained without clear charges, without being allowed to communicate with his family.

Thailand will soon be a police state if this keeps up.

Let's hope there's enough sanity to prevent this from happening.

Thaksin certainly knew about the coordinated fire attacks. The terrorist label is warranted. Will probably restrict his movements, but he will not set foot on Thai soil again, during his lifetime, that is a certainty.

If you suspect a crime is going to occur, are you legally obligated to call the police? I don't think so. Pardon, under most jurisdictions it is the duty of any citizen, who has reason to believe a crime is to be committed to alert the authorities. Indeed failure so to do can lead to charges being brought.

Thaksin may be many things but I don't think he's dumb enough to involve himself in planning arson or violent attacks. He didn't want to be branded a terrorist and face extradition.However if his expectation was that the government would fold, maybe he thought such extreme measures would force just such a failure, and he could arrive riding his white private plane as saviour. Tragically, it's not so out of character for him

Regards

Actually, I think the Red Shirts would be better off if Thaksin was in jail or dead. They don't need him. Then the government would only have itself to blame for their failure to address Thailand's problems.

Mandela, MLK, Lenin, Castro, Che Guevara, and Subcomandante Marcos aren't uneducated peasant farmers.

Thaksin certainly knew about the coordinated fire attacks. The terrorist label is warranted. Will probably restrict his movements, but he will not set foot on Thai soil again, during his lifetime, that is a certainty.

Thaksin may be many things but I don't think he's dumb enough to involve himself in planning arson or violent attacks. He didn't want to be branded a terrorist and face extradition.

He sounds like a well-intentioned fool. I hope they go easy on him.

It hardly matters whether Thanksin is or isn't extradited. The Red Shirt movement will grow in strength and eventually their demands will need to be accommodated.

Sorry, I didn't realize that Bangkok Post articles couldn't be linked.

I must say, I've missed Kinokuniya bookstore.

Bangkok shopping malls, hotels back in business

CNNGo Asia 25 May, 2010

Siam Paragon, Siam Discovery and Siam Center reopen today, joining MBK and Central Chidlom, which reopened on Monday. According to the Bangkok Post, Gaysorn and Amarin Plaza are planning soft openings for June 1 while over 100 Gaysorn retailers will be fully open June 4.

The Intercontinental Hotel, the Grand Hyatt Erawan and the Four Seasons will reopen today, as well as the Dusit Thani.

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/sleep/bangkok...business-053543

A lot of people on this thread are not taking these terrorism charges serious enough , wait a few days and this will spread world wide , governments will not stand back anywhere.

He is charged with Terrorism , there is a lot of people dead the city has been burnt ,and bombings have occurred innocent people shot and it is alleged that he has funded it.

I would expect him to be arrested within the next 14 days and he is most likely being followed now.

A couple of terrorists

One down one to go!

They should let Col. Romklao's regiment have him for a little fun and M-79 DANCE!

Supporting and endorsing assassinations is allowed now under ThaiVisa forum rules?

...The problems in Thailand now have more to do with the country going thru growing pains in becoming a mature democracy. There will always be politicians and power brokers trying to "game" the system. Like it or not....But the best way forward is, and will always be, for all sides to embrace democracy fully, warts, blemishes, abuses of process and all. Little by little...by adhering to Rule of Law, backing up the courts rather than criticizing every decision, pressing forward on reforms to assure that each person has a vote, trying to catch and make it more difficult for politicians, of all parties, to buy votes; calling out politicians who place friends and family members into positions of authority (cronyism), police upholding rule of law...allowing all persons to express their views and gather in a PEACEFUL manner...etc. This is the ONLY way forward...it is not pretty. It is not cute. It won't happen overnight. But if all Thais commit themselves to democracy and the eradication of all efforts to undermine it....over time, a better, more complete and more fair democracy will unfold here in Thailand.

A PR campaign emphasizing all Thais commitment to Democracy, Democratic process and Rule of Law...will be more impressive to the leaders of other democratic nations...than simply providing a smile campaign....though smiles are always good .

The timing couldn't be better for the government. They can capitalize on the Red Shirt's disarray.

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

Perhaps the meaning is different than you suppose. Can you please tell us the phrase he used to describe the phrase he used to say "if the government seized power"? If you can't write the Thai then just spell out the phonetics.

Nimitz Modrakee, of 124 Communications offers some useful advice, but I think a new election monitored by independent observers (like the Carter Center) would be the most powerful statement to the world that Thailand could make.

A new, fairly elected government would achieve instant legitimacy and provide the springboard needed to begin a process of reform.

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

The Red Shirts aren't a unified, monolithic organization. There's no manifesto AFAIK. Almost anyone with Red Shirt sympathies was allowed to speak from the platform, including a few farangs! Obviously some speakers, but (apparently) none of the major leaders, were guilty of inflammatory speeches calling for violence against the government.

The UDD is a single group with leaders. Those leaders spoke on stage. They demanded government dissolution. They advocated violence to get this.

What more do you need?

There's no question that the blackshirts hurling grenades and sniping are engaged in terrorist acts. They should be dealt with harshly.

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

"Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well. "

I guess you interpret things with a different bias than me

Were the speakers advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Yes. Their main demand was for the government to step down. And they were using violence to get that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=F2vRhaHRzuo

But Red Shirt speeches demanding the government hold a snap election aren't the same as advocating its violent overthrow. As for speeches rallying the Red Shirts to defend themselves against the soldiers surrounding them, while it's reprehensible and patently illegal, there is a shade of difference between resisting arrest and advocating the violent overthrow of the government. (Obviously the shade of difference narrows when the protester is hurling gas bombs and soldiers are injured.)

There's no need to shout. Which Red Shirt leader(s) said this?

See for yourself:

Is it difficult to identify Red Shirt leaders that advocate violent overthrow of the government? If you have audio and video tapes of them speaking, identifying them should be a relatively trivial matter. Perhaps the problem is, the big shots aren't dumb enough to say things in public that would earn them extended prison sentences.

I think the Reds played in international media better than the government did.

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

This is what the red leaders were saying on stage and on PTV:

If you've got an axe, use your axes or hoes or shovels. You are totally allowed to kill these robbers - it's completely legal.

Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well.

If you see soldiers coming your way, I urge you to simply run them over with your vehicle, After all it's only against the traffic law, so just go ahead and run into them...

I think the Reds played in international media better than the government did.

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

By your Wiki definition, they weren't "hate speeches" because they weren't against a "protected" group, but everything else fits.

And their speeches certainly weren't just "unpleasant truths"!

Based on the poll result so far, it's good to see that most of us agree there's too much Thai government censorship and the Thai media is largely biased toward the government.

I don't agree that the international media are biased toward the Red Shirts. I think they're just painting the picture fairly. Nonetheless, the international media serve the useful purpose of providing a counterweight to Thailand's government-dominated media.

your reading of the poll results is faulty, probably due to your own bias.

the thai media result is split fairly evenly between govt bias and fair reporting - in other words the bias was not particularly heavy, at least according to this poll...

I'm factoring in the conservative, pro-government bias of most of Thai Visa Forum's readership, but it does strike me as rather strange that most Thais agree that their media is too heavily censored, but many government supporters think it's un-biased. How can a heavily censored media be un-biased? Beats me.

Maybe it's because it was the incredible biased red media that was censored, bringing it back to a more balanced view.