Jump to content

Cycle of deep South violence fuelled by military culture of impunity


Recommended Posts

Posted

I have been reading this for the last 40 years! Nothing has changed really.
Criminals in uniform breaking the law - murdering with impunity! But why single out the South? - They have been breaking the law and murdered with impunity in the middle of Bangkok for several decades as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Posted

What head in the sand rubbish, the insurgency, or Jihad is fulled by Islamic doctrine, the article only refers to Muslims when claims are made about them being victims of the military, religion is the cause  of the violence.

  • Sad 2
Posted
3 hours ago, webfact said:

Cycle of deep South violence fuelled by military culture of impunity 

Cycle of deep South violence fuelled by two disparate cultures both of which act with rigid impunity in regards to the other. 
Terrorism meets The Military.  What can go wrong? 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Lungstib said:

The Martial Law Act 1914 is clearly a wonderful piece of protection for the military and also enables the complete takeover of government as we have seen many times. This is one summation I found :  The provisions of the Martial Law Act place no restraints or limits on the military’s actions. Under the law, the military, without judicial oversight, can prohibit any activity, censor the media at will, outlaw meetings and assemblies, search and seize any item, occupy areas, and detain people without charge for up to seven days.

Perhaps a change is in order.

Martial Law can be invoked without PM consent by the Army Chief.

But if one is pro-military, martial law doesn't apply.

"Martial law does not affect our civil uprising... We still retain our right to demonstrate against this tyrannical government." - Protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban (May 2014)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27480845

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Martial Law can be invoked without PM consent by the Army Chief.

Which brings one to the absurdity that the Minister of Defense that is traditionally filled with an active duty general who has in effect more governing power than an elected prime minister who may not be pro-military or was elected on an anti-military platform.

Edited by Srikcir
who
  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...