Similans Tourists See Boat People Mistreated

[Plus]

Did their original boats have engines?

Thai argument is that if you give them engines and point to Mecca they would turn around and land here anyway.

Most of them are wanted further south to Malaysia or Indonesia, I understand, so Thailand gives them a few bottles of water and a couple of sacks of rice and sends them on their way. Not particularly generous but not much worse than they treat local muslim troublemakers here.

The incident with 500 drowning is based on eyewitness accounts, but at least in this article the numbers don't add up at all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7832947.stm

How credible is this account? I'm not sure, but don't forget that it's usually in the victims interests to exaggerate their sufferings.

[Scott]

The original boats had engines. As far as the Rohingyas being less than honest, it's always a possibility, but people interviewing them are pretty quick to figure out the truth from the lies. Very difficult for a large number of people to get their stories straight if they are lying (even difficult with the truth sometimes). Secondly, as they collect names of people on board and get names of people who are missing or dead, it's hard to make up those names--and stay consistent.

Secondly, the fact that of those drug out to sea, some ended up in Indonesia and some in Indian territory, but their stories are consistent and pretty doubtful they were colluding together by mobile phone.

I think this is a situation where it might be wisest to not blame the victims. The officials, on the other hand, can and do have the ability to get their story straight, although it seems that they haven't done a good job of it.

[ballpoint]

Whatever the truth is here, one thing that comes out of this is the hypocrisy of the Western news media and governments, and quite a few posters here on TV. When a cyclone hits Bangladesh and hundreds of thousands are killed it receives headline treatment at first, but quickly dies off in the news. When a cyclone hits Burma and tens of thousands are killed and tens of thousands more made homeless with no clean water or food, the media is all over it simply because Thaksin's friends there won't allow aid to reach these people. The Western governments cajole and beg to be allowed to bring aid, but are refused permission and do nothing, despite people dying for a lack of food and water, and the media lose interest. When China kills thousands of its own minority citizens the West travels over there to watch some people running around a track and swimming in a pool. When the Thai army are accused of mistreating and possibly killing 500 refugees, the media sink their teeth in, the West condemns it, and the Thaksinista brigade demand the resignation of the government. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see the West pay this much attention to all natural and man made disasters and attrocities. The fact that they don't is pure hypocrisy.

[Plus]

They were all on the same boat, no need to use mobile phones to agree on a story, besides no one interviewed them all, it's not a court, and I doubt they could speak English to reporters. Guys from Arakan project probably know what really went down, but the media types don't really care about that, they'll make quotes for you.

In that BBC article, for example, there's Mohammed who didn't give his real name, saying that only a quarter of them survived but he mentions only two boats with about a hundred people on each of them, and only four people appearently have been thrown in the sea when they refused to board. There are no clues, let alone proof, that 500 missing really existed.

Then there's "eaten by the sharks" part that is very dramatic but least credible of all.

I don't know about original boats and engines. Mohammed said they were "sailing". Hard to imagine a sail boat that is able to hold 700 people.

[Steve2UK]

Did their original boats have engines?

Thai argument is that if you give them engines and point to Mecca they would turn around and land here anyway.

Most of them are wanted further south to Malaysia or Indonesia, I understand, so Thailand gives them a few bottles of water and a couple of sacks of rice and sends them on their way. Not particularly generous but not much worse than they treat local muslim troublemakers here.

The incident with 500 drowning is based on eyewitness accounts, but at least in this article the numbers don't add up at all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7832947.stm

How credible is this account? I'm not sure, but don't forget that it's usually in the victims interests to exaggerate their sufferings.

If you had been following anything much of the reporting so far, you wouldn't need to ask the first question about engines - but Scott has brought you up to date.

"point to Mecca" ?

"Most of them are wanted further south to Malaysia or Indonesia" - what does this even mean? If the second part were even slightly presentable as the whole story, you might have a point - even if such treatment might still be criticised by some. As you know very well, that is not the main accusation against the Thai military - corroborating details of which have come from multiple sources.

In the BBC article to which you refer, just which "numbers don't add up at all" ?

[Journalist]

"Human interest" stories are just that. There's no rating system applied by editors to give column inches to the biggest loss of life.

In Europe last year, the Press went doolally over the kidnapping of a British child in Portugal.

Did the story really deserve such coverage? No, of course not.

The same sort of subjectivity applies when you hear the old cliche about "X Americans were killed in the accident"....I don't need to explain the thought process there, you all know it already.

[Plus]

I'm not trying to establish the truth here, just to show that Western media coverage is not reliable in this case.

Steve, I don't know what you mean by multiple sources. From the very start the only source of "500 missing" story was Arakan project, whoever they are. Everyone else just quotes them, and never with names. Only this morning someone posted a link to Jonathan Head's article where he gives a name of someone from Arakan, but he has not attributed "500 missing" quotes to that person.

In the BBC article there's Mohammed instead and a picture of a boat but it's hard to imagine how it could carry additional 500 because it's full to the brim as it is.

Yes, I don't know how these people reached Thailand and what happened to their original boats. In some cases Thais could have destroyed them and put them on barges instead, but Mohammed mentions no such thing.

I read that there are tens of thousands of Rohingyas in Malaysia, that this is their most likely destination and they can get jobs there. For Thailand it means - on your bike, lads, this country is closed. I also doubt that Thailand would ever play a free refueling station for them. They are victims of international human trafficking and Thailand is just an unfortunate transit stop for them, it's neither the origin nor destination but it gets all the blame because of some colorful story that might not be even true.

[Steve2UK]

They were all on the same boat, no need to use mobile phones to agree on a story, besides no one interviewed them all, it's not a court, and I doubt they could speak English to reporters. Guys from Arakan project probably know what really went down, but the media types don't really care about that, they'll make quotes for you.

In that BBC article, for example, there's Mohammed who didn't give his real name, saying that only a quarter of them survived but he mentions only two boats with about a hundred people on each of them, and only four people appearently have been thrown in the sea when they refused to board. There are no clues, let alone proof, that 500 missing really existed.

Then there's "eaten by the sharks" part that is very dramatic but least credible of all.

I don't know about original boats and engines. Mohammed said they were "sailing". Hard to imagine a sail boat that is able to hold 700 people.

He actually mentions four boats ("a boat with 105 people and there was another with 102" + "Later two more boats with 208 people were intercepted similarly"). He does not mention 500 dead nor does that appear anywhere else in the article.

From the article: ""While sailing, we had seen sharks and I suspect many of our people were eaten by them." [my emphasis]

Sails? Sailing? Have you really never encountered the expression that x ship "sails to y" - when the ship in question is a liner, an aircraft carrier etc? Not too many sails to be found on those either............

Forget it, Plus. As usual, you read what you choose to read (IMO fine) - and you then read into that what you choose to read into it - and blatantly distort or ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda (IMO far from fine). Deja vue all over again..........

If you have any valid points to raise, they'll be worth a response.

[Samuian]

I don't think the international laws has a special provision for dragging people back out to sea.

Nor is any international law AGAINST such practise (dragging people back out to sea).

Remember the Vietnam Boat People 20 years ago. I believe many countries around Vietnam (Thailand included) refuse them to land, and leave them to die in international waters.

Well human here human there, human this, human that... how about that this country already said -

"No way we can deal with camps for these people"!

How about cause and effect?

These people jump in a rickety boat, maybe for some hard cash at the hands of some scrupelous agents

and hope they come ashore in the "promised land"...

It's ridiculous in the first place - why they don't have to show responsibility?

Because they are fleeing economic hardship?

and then other, 3 rd Parties have to carry the blame for problems they have caused themselves for themselves?

Next is the country of origin, they should take FULL responsibility for them to become refugees in the first place?

Despite their ordeal, there are plenty of countries peoplel want to leave not because there is something wrong,

just they have a dream, of a better live...

And some of the target countries already facing difficulties - nothing to do with rich and poor countries!

"Human Rights" - neat idea but one of the most mistreated ideas in the last 3 centuries, if not the most incredible fiction of all!

[samgrowth]

As I am walking home in Soi A, I realise that someone left a newly born Muslim baby (the way it was dressed) in the trash bin in front of my house. I look around, no one is around. So I quickly and quitely carry the baby across to next Soi B, and left it in the trash bin of the Muslin house there. Not because I hated the baby, but it would be better for it to be with people of the same faith. I quickkly disappears and I am very happy that no one saw in doing that. And I am very glad that I don't have to take any responsibility.

The next day, it was reported that a baby was found in the trash bin of Soi Z, infront of a Hindo home. The poor baby must have been toss around quite a bit in the night. I just pretended I have just knew about it.

Of cause this is not a true story. But similar thing is happening with these Burmese.

Edited February 6, 2009 by samgrowth

[desertrat]

"Remember the Vietnam Boat People 20 years ago. I believe many countries around Vietnam (Thailand included) refuse them to land, and leave them to die in international waters"

Yes, I recall Lydia Dunn a hi-so Chinese on the HongKong Legco strongly advocating towing the Vietnamese back out to sea. She is now Baroness Dunn. Is there an Asian translation for "compassion"?

[Plus]

He actually mentions four boats ("a boat with 105 people and there was another with 102" + "Later two more boats with 208 people were intercepted similarly"). He does not mention 500 dead nor does that appear anywhere else in the article.

From the article: ""While sailing, we had seen sharks and I suspect many of our people were eaten by them." [my emphasis]

This raises only more questions about authenticity of this account.

How does he know exactly how many people were on each boat, especially on "later" ones, was he around when Thais were intercepting them?

He said only a quarter survived - a quarter of what? Is the 400+ remaining, if you add "later" boats, is that the surviving quarter? The original 200+ the remaining quarter?

Who are those "many people" eaten by sharks? Why were they overboard? In some accounts they say that hundreds of people tried to swim to the shore, but Mohammed doesn't mention it.

And this is my favourite part:

Forget it, Plus. As usual, you read what you choose to read (IMO fine) - and you then read into that what you choose to read into it..

Yes, Steve, I'm not some Internet groupie swallowing every story doing rounds on the web, hook, line and sinker. I'm nearly 100% sure that what has actually happened is very different from a narrative constructed by Western media, but if that's what you consciously choose to believe in, word for word - up to you. That's a bit naive, if you ask me.

That narrative started to grow with the very first story, based on a a few pix by tourists, published in HK and no attributable quotes, it's been weeks and still there's no one you can put a name on. And by name I don't mean "Mohammed", I mean someone with a record, someone you can trust. Faceless Arakan project could be it, but they are not jumping forward with confirmations, are they?

[Steve2UK]

This raises only more questions about authenticity of this account.

How does he know exactly how many people were on each boat, especially on "later" ones, was he around when Thais were intercepting them? "Mohammed said he was in a boat with 105 people and there was another with 102, sailing side-by-side from Bangladesh before they were intercepted by the Thai navy.Later two more boats with 208 people were intercepted similarly, he said. "We had sailed for 12 days before we were caught. We were put on a desolate island for eight days" (first 2 boats intercepted then the next 2 - all 4 boatloads detained on the island & therefore not exactly difficult to establish numbers)

He said only a quarter survived - a quarter of what? Is the 400+ remaining, if you add "later" boats, is that the surviving quarter? The original 200+ the remaining quarter? "At night, one Indian coast guard vessel approached their boat and rescued them, but only 98 were counted alive, says Mohammed. 'When we told the Indian coast guards that there were more than 400 on board, they launched a further search and found nine of our people alive in the sea," 98 + 9 - out of 400+. Do the maths. After your previous "sailing" query - I guess you'll also need it explained to you that "400 on board" plainly refers to all the boats not just one.............

Who are those "many people" eaten by sharks? Why were they overboard? In some accounts they say that hundreds of people tried to swim to the shore, but Mohammed doesn't mention it. "He recounted the day when they first spotted a lighthouse on the coast just before sunset. "Seeing the light, many... were afraid that the boat would be carried away by the strong current and that they would lose the land forever. "We couldn't stop them from jumping into the sea, as they were too impatient. We saw many drowning, as none of them had any energy left to swim." He doesn't say hundreds - he says "many". I haven't seen a more precise numerical reference to people trying to swim to the shore - where are you pulling it from? I have already responded before to highlight that he said "While sailing, we had seen sharks and I suspect many of our people were eaten by them" - but no surprise that you ignore that.......... I suspect that the reason is contained in your "favourite part":

And this is my favourite part:

Forget it, Plus. As usual, you read what you choose to read (IMO fine) - and you then read into that what you choose to read into it..

or rather the fuller version of your favourite part - which continues: "and blatantly distort or ignore anything that doesn't suit your agenda (IMO far from fine)"

Yes, Steve, I'm not some Internet groupie swallowing every story doing rounds on the web, hook, line and sinker. I'm nearly 100% sure that what has actually happened is very different from a narrative constructed by Western media, but if that's what you consciously choose to believe in, word for word - up to you. That's a bit naive, if you ask me. Are you suggesting that I'm "some Internet groupie.... etc "? If so, it's not the first time you've made the insult - as baseless as it is despicable. When you run out of anything even tenuously material to say - reach for the insults. Same old same old routine............ If it were even slightly true, it would be more than "a bit naive". How about you provide just a tidbit of evidence to support your "nearly 100% sure..... etc"? Seeking out the occasional minor discrepancy between reports (not even counting the stuff that you just can't/won't understand) and raising ever more spurious questions doesn't cut it. Naive?

That narrative started to grow with the very first story, based on a a few pix by tourists, published in HK and no attributable quotes, it's been weeks and still there's no one you can put a name on. And by name I don't mean "Mohammed", I mean someone with a record, someone you can trust. Faceless Arakan project could be it, but they are not jumping forward with confirmations, are they? For "someone with a record" - do the Indian navy/coastguard/police/intelligence forces qualify? The Indonesian authorities? Do they all "have it in" for Thailand - or, irresponsible pranksters that they are, do they just love to help the foreign media with selling their fiction? As so often, as you switch your positions and are imprecise in what you write, one can only guess at what you (currently) mean with the rest here. As for the "Faceless Arakan project" (no idea what "project" means here), I guess you skipped past Post #16 on this thread. Even if the website linked there contained the kind of "confirmation" you claim to seek, I doubt it would get past the self-erected firewall that shields you from anything not on your agenda.

[Italics above are direct quotes from the original BBC article - do you always need this much help from others in your reading?]

NB : I normally regard it as poor form to add responses within the quote of someone else's post - but I think it's justified here when it's to deal with points (however spurious) one by one.

This is not the first time I've had to point out to you that salient information is contained in posts on a thread and in links from posts. It's your choice and your problem if you can't be bothered to inform yourself and gain at least a vestige of credibility before jumping in with the predictable "they're just selling a story" or "they've been put up to it" or whatever line you've decided to take on any given occasion.

In Post #307, you open with "I'm not trying to establish the truth here, just to show that Western media coverage is not reliable in this case". Does it occur to you that to "establish the truth" must be a good first step to deciding and being able to demonstrate what you're claiming? It is not gullible to allow that the occasional discrepancy between differently-sourced reports doesn't undermine the core case being made; as you're so fond of saying elsewhere - "it's not a court case". All in all, the multiple reports from varied sources tally and corroborate substantially - all the more so when one considers the far-flung sources and language issues in obtaining clear details (and not just garnering the output of some single faceless "project"). Just for example - CNN's Dan Rivers has made a point of leaving open the question of whether the particular Rohingya he reported as having been towed out to sea were the same as those that reached Indonesia (minus 22 who died on the journey). He did say that the time interval and reported numbers fitted but - quite properly - stressed that it couldn't yet be confirmed that they were the same.

You seem fixated by the "500" number. Plainly, you haven't been paying attention to this developing issue whereas I and others have - which doesn't make any of us experts but certainly better informed than you have permitted yourself to be. 500 is one early estimate of Rohingya refugees/migrants "unaccounted for" (I have also seen 300 mentioned). That's it. Nobody has said they are definitely dead or saw them die - let alone how. I will agree with you that some details (and this could be one) do get prominence without sufficient verification to justify the prominence. Fine - cancel out this claim (until verified and explained)......... and you are still left with an overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources that fits together by itself without any help from gullibility or those addicted to conspiracy theories - or an agenda.

Finally, it seems clear that there is some trafficking involved in this case - just as there is in most others e.g. from Central Africa to North Africa to Spanish territories there and to islands and the mainland in Europe. At some stage, we should expect to see reports on it - just as we have many times from North Africa. Given that the trafficking in this case appears to be from Burma, it's plainly more difficult to get in there and report. Some managed to get in and report on conditions during the cyclone, but the on-the-ground situation then was much less controlled than it is now. Any reporter or TV crew going in to pursue that end of this story will face not only alert Burmese authorities but also suspicions/hostility of the traffickers themselves.

[sriracha john]

Excerpts of the article:

Rohingya advocates say tales of sea tragedy were exaggerated

Claims that more than 20 Rohingya asylum-seekers died during a perilous sea journey to Indonesia after being rounded up by the Thai military were deliberately exaggerated, according to an aid group.

The Arakan Project, which advocates for the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group from Burma, said the misleading account which gained headlines around the world was made by a people-smuggler on the vessel, the only one of 198 Rohingya on board who could be understood because he spoke Malay.

At the time there was international condemnation about earlier instances of pushing Rohingya boat people back out to sea, and the Thai Government was insisting such behaviour was not part of its policy.

The false claims were first made by Indonesian naval officers based on the testimony of the only Malay-speaker on board the vessel, a man named Rahmat. Malay is almost identical to Bahasa Indonesia.

Rahmat then gave interviews with the international media, telling how, as the boat drifted for almost three weeks, one person died every day from starvation or dehydration.

He also said that the boat that was rescued off Aceh last week was one of nine vessels containing 1200 people set adrift by the Thais, that many of those on board had lived in Thailand for some time, and that they had been detained for two months on an island before being set adrift.

All of these claims were untrue, Chris Lewa, Coordinator of the Arakan Project, said.

"The people who we spoke to say 22 people did not die; maybe two or three or four tried to swim to shore," Ms Lewa said. "They weren't adrift for three weeks but about two weeks, and there was no other boat towed out."

Indonesia has made thinly veiled complaints about the treatment of the Rohingyas by both the Burmese and Thai authorities and, unusually for Jakarta, granted the United Nations permission to assess their claims for refugee status.

- Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) / 2009-02-10

[Meerkat]

^ Many thanks to SRJ for pointing out that article and quoting excerpts from it. In order to complete the piece cited:

But the group has since interviewed four of the genuine boat people who landed in Indonesia last week after fleeing alleged repression in Burma. They used a translator who spoke the men's obscure Bengali dialect.

While rebutting aspects of the initial account, their testimony still detailed brutal beatings by the Thais and confirmed that the men were set adrift in a flimsy wooden craft by the Thais during January.

Link to the full, unabridged, article.

[Plus]

There you go, Steve.

500 dead, 400 dead, 300 dead, 22 dead, maybe 3 or 4.

There's no way to "establish the truth" here, but you are arguing that it is absolutely necessary to call some stories lies. Not at all.

About the Inernet groupie thing - as long as people blindly accept any outrageous stories posted online and cheer for them as if they are gospel of truth, why can't they be called groupies?

You are angry with me for doubting the authenticity of your Internet inspired belief - why can't I call you "groupie" for that?

As I said - I don't know what happened, but it sure as hel_l didn't happen the way the western media presented it to be.

[Scott]

The truth can't be established until the people have been interviewed and a determination is made concerning their overall status. The basis for part of the story was one person, who was an organizer of the trip, as such, he may have a vested interest in the outcome. He could be charged with human trafficking.

Once these people have been carefully screened, they will be able to determine the conditions they left (whether political refugees, economic migrants etc.). A pattern will emerge as to what is happening that is causing them to leave, how they are managing to organize the trips, and what they encounter enroute.

As long as no one has access to them, then speculation will be based on scant information.

[Plus]

I dount any of this will happen in this part of the world anytime soon, not with the global crisis and things. That shipment wasn't one off, there probably had been others since the original story broke out, and they will probably be many more before self-righteous West agrees to fund any kind of real action on the ground.

In the meantime Thais will keep pushing them out. Sad reality of life.

[Scott]

Plus: You may be right, but a lot of countries are still paying pretty hefty sums of money to the UN and part of their mandate is to assist in these situations. When everyone starts getting really tired of it, they start putting a great deal of pressure on the 'home' country to clean up their act--and to some extent they do, usually.

I certainly do not condone pushing people out to sea, and I certainly don't condone hiding/lying about if they do, but Thailand has made it clear it doesn't want to host these people for any length of time. Still it's a problem on their doorstep and they certainly seem to have some sway with the military junta in Burma.

[Steve2UK]

There you go, Steve.

500 dead, 400 dead, 300 dead, 22 dead, maybe 3 or 4.

There's no way to "establish the truth" here, but you are arguing that it is absolutely necessary to call some stories lies. Not at all.

About the Inernet groupie thing - as long as people blindly accept any outrageous stories posted online and cheer for them as if they are gospel of truth, why can't they be called groupies?

You are angry with me for doubting the authenticity of your Internet inspired belief - why can't I call you "groupie" for that?

As I said - I don't know what happened, but it sure as hel_l didn't happen the way the western media presented it to be.

There I go where?

I welcome any further updates from reliable sources, whether they add to or verify/modify the reports already out. On that basis, the complete SMH article is valuable - that's "complete" as in still containing the inconvenient parts that Sriracha John decides to edit out (more than Meerkat identified) - and then also not provide a link to the full article. Perhaps SJ would like to tell us - why those parts and why no link? Copyright issues?

"The incident with 500 drowning is based on eyewitness accounts" and "In some accounts they say that hundreds of people tried to swim to the shore". Your words. I already asked you where you pulled this from - still no answer........ so I guess this is just the classic straw man routine - conjure up and attack a baseless (bogus?) claim and ignore the rest that you can't handle. As to reports not sourced directly or indirectly from this Mohammed (as Scott rightly points out - the basis for just part of the story as a whole so far), are those all "constructed by Western media"? Just one example - with my emphasis........ just to help you get the point:

"Other reports from around the region suggest that Muzaffar's experience was not an isolated incident. A Jan. 14 story in the Jakarta Post said 193 Rohingya were rescued by Acehnese fishermen on Jan. 7 and are now being housed at an Indonesian naval base. The refugees there claim Thai marines also cut them adrift after destroying the engines on their boats, and they managed to stay afloat by erecting sails made of plastic tarpaulin. Survivors from a second wave of refugees "pushed back" from Thailand — a contingent of some 580 — have also made their way to India's Andaman Islands. It is not known whether those who landed at Aceh were part of this same group."

Time - 18 January 2009

Full article at:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...6,00.html?imw=Y

(already posted in this thread, but I doubt you read it)

This is a developing story and there are many more facts to emerge - which will alter or add to what has already been reported. What do you expect responsible media to do - say nothing and just wait until after the "exhaustive" inquiry initiated by K. Abhisit and then report a summary of its findings? Dream on in your strange world.

"There's no way to 'establish the truth' here, but you are arguing that it is absolutely necessary to call some stories lies." Given further investigation (and reporting), the truth almost certainly will be established - that's how it works. Duh. As to the second part, I neither argue nor even mention any such thing - just what are you talking about?

You continue with the "internet groupie" name-calling - and now add the insult that I "blindly accept any outrageous stories posted online and cheer for them as if they are gospel of truth". Very few things make me angry; don't flatter yourself - none of the half-baked and predictable outpourings from your keyboard will make the list. Pointless to suggest that you back up any of these lame smears with any evidence that any of my posts fit that description in the slightest; like most others here, I have posted on what I have read/viewed, providing links and making measured, qualified comments as appropriate. What is this - your advanced class for those who have already passed through Trolling 101?

Keeping an open mind is not being gullible and I'll take it over a self-closed mind every time. I'll also take that in preference to only looking at sources that confirm a pre-fabricated stance and blocking out those that don't. As so often with you - big brush, too much tar and wrong target. Get real.

[Plus]

You are great at obfuscation, Steve.

You, and the West, blew the story out of all proportion, the worst genocide since Hitler or something. All based on tall tales by "victims" who, as it turns out, were the perpetrators, the traffickers themselves.

Western media went gaga over this best-selling story without bothering to check the facts. That's the sad truth here, not in the same league as the fate of Rohingyas, but sad nevertheless.

They exploited Rohingyas to their own ends, and you, Steve, was one of the groupies here, on Thaivisa.

As for the truth - time is moving on, new waves of refugees are coming through, media attention cycle is very short. In the end I won't be surprised that Thai inquiry will be the best description of what has really happened.

[jumnien]

Kasit is busy right now writing the version of the truth for the consumption of all PAD-lovers to lap up!

[ballpoint]

Kasit is busy right now writing the version of the truth for the consumption of all PAD-lovers to lap up!

Why would he have to do that? It's becoming increasingly reported in the global media that the policy toward the Rohingya was formulated a year ago by Samak. Strange that up to now it's been all the Thaksin lovers most strongly condeming the Thai navy for this policy, when all this time it was your heroes puppet who is the root cause of it. Change of tune anybody?

I refer you to this weeks Economist, and this very forum:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Samak-Rohing...nd-t177347.html

Also, the Guardian

In Burma, the Rohingya are considered stateless with few rights. Their circumstances have prompted many to seek a better life in prosperous Muslim Malaysia. Most slip into Bangladesh, where people smugglers organize their passage for about £200. Boats packed with migrants set off during October and April, when the seas are calmer. Middlemen in Thailand pay off immigration authorities then take the travelers by land to Malaysia. Thailand turned a blind eye to the traffic, as the Rohingya never planned to stay. But last March the then prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, announced a crackdown on the Rohingya. In December, the new policy of pushing boats out to sea seemed to take effect. The Thai navy intercepts the migrants and hands them to the army, but it seems the army detains them and uses its own boats to push migrants out to sea. By the end of 2005, the UN refugee agency recorded 13,000 Rohingya in Malaysia. Up to 7,000 are estimated to have slipped into the country since, bringing the total to about 20,000.

© Guardian News & Media 2008

[jumnien]

No one doubts where the policy started in this extra-governmental dictatorship. No one doubts that it is Abhisit and Kasit that are defending the Thai military and lying about their policy.

[Steve2UK]

You are great at obfuscation, Steve.

You, and the West, blew the story out of all proportion, the worst genocide since Hitler or something. All based on tall tales by "victims" who, as it turns out, were the perpetrators, the traffickers themselves.

Western media went gaga over this best-selling story without bothering to check the facts. That's the sad truth here, not in the same league as the fate of Rohingyas, but sad nevertheless.

They exploited Rohingyas to their own ends, and you, Steve, was one of the groupies here, on Thaivisa.

As for the truth - time is moving on, new waves of refugees are coming through, media attention cycle is very short. In the end I won't be surprised that Thai inquiry will be the best description of what has really happened.

I have personal family reasons for finding your Hitler genocide remark particularly sickening - but it is patently offensive on this forum even without those. And you talk about others blowing things out of all proportion? Time to check that plank in your eye - yet again.

The rest is more of your familiar smear routine.

"Insults and shouting never win any arguments in Thailand. If he ever had any message worth discussing, it's clouded by his unacceptable presentation". How true - and these are your words (Post #255 "Thailand To Build A Firewall........ " thread). Practice what you preach.

Contrived distortions, offensive smears - and outright hypocrisy.

Obfuscation? Point it out.

Blowing out of proportion? Produce one example.

Put up or shut up.

For the few that still need it, this episode provides yet another object lesson to show you in your true colours:

Respect for facts/truth - huh?...... what's that?

Respect for TV members - huh?...... what's that?

Blowing out of proportion - off the scale

Distortion - off the scale

Hypocrisy - off the scale

Credibility -

News cycles are short and the media do move on - that's a (regrettable IMO) fact of life. In this case, the Thai Foreign Ministry's mishandling of Jolie's (IMO) balanced and diplomatically-phrased comments will actually prolong this cycle (discussed in a separate thread). Others have properly pointed out that the basic expulsion policy was initiated under Samak (and I suspect it was already operated ad hoc before that) - and I have previously made reference here to the fact that few governments worldwide can lay claim to a spotless record on such matters. The core issue/criticism here is a] how the Thai military are alleged to have actually applied that policy specifically now i.e. December/January (because evidence of specifically those actions is what is emerging) and b] what the present government is willing/able to do about it.

[Plus]

Full screen of irrelevant material, cross referencing to unrelated threads, outrage over Hitler remarks, incomprehensible input on the actual issue, your post has it all.

Only the sense is missing, but that's typical of Internet groupies, they are here to make noise and contribute kilobytes.

>>>

If not for 500 dead this story would have never ever made it to any Western publication, and now it turns out it was all lies. Everyone had great fun at Thailand's expense, now over to Australian bush fires.

[Steve2UK]

here to make noise and contribute kilobytes.

>>>

If not for 500 dead this story would have never ever made it to any Western publication, and now it turns out it was all lies. Everyone had great fun at Thailand's expense, now over to Australian bush fires.

- says the member who seems compelled to splatter 5+ posts per day over any topic he can.......... The clinical term for imputing to others what is true about yourself is "projection". Google it.

No evidence to back up the unfounded smears and gross distortions - I'll take that as a withdrawal. Your kind of bickerfest holds zero interest for me on what should be an adult forum. I'll have no more of it - and leave others to reach their own conclusions.

>>>

There aren't and haven't been "500 dead" - your "straw man" fixation yet again. "500 dead" is not the story nor is the real story (as covered in detail from the beginning of this thread) "all lies". Others know that - you (IMO) never will.

Bye.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Scott]

I was just watching CNN. The Thai PM was on and admitted that they had towed Rohingyas out to sea and set them adrift.

[samgrowth]

I was just watching CNN. The Thai PM was on and admitted that they had towed Rohingyas out to sea and set them adrift.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/...sion/index.html

If you want to read about it.

[sriracha john]

It's refreshing to see a government admit its mistakes and be willing to rectify a situation as well as hold those responsible people accountable.

That certainly didn't happen with the previous administrations who prided themselves on subterfuge, irresponsibility, and dishonesty.

Edited February 12, 2009 by sriracha john