Before We Can Get Anywhere In These Political Debates

[caf]

2. Thaskin was a self serving corrupt politician who committed horrific human rights violations and believed himself to be above the law.

Yes he was corrupt and he believed himself to be above the law. I agree with that.

The human rights issue is another thing. Yes he was responsible to a degree, you will find that at the time this was a policy supported by Thais from the very top to the very bottom, with very few exceptions. Now this does not absolve Thaksins responsibility in the matter but it puts it in perspective. To those who would point their finger at Thaksin and with a quivering lower lip say "It was him, he did it, he murdered 2000 people!" fail to understand there was more to it and it was more complex than that.

But for his role in the matter, whatever that turns out to be after a proper investigation, he should face justice.

For sure, he did a lot of good for Thailand before the zombies hijacked the place.

A very fair post, mc2

he should face justice with the other supporters of that policy. yes, he is primarily responsible but that does not let others in power and behind the decisions off the hook

[rixalex]

2. Thaskin was a self serving corrupt politician who committed horrific human rights violations and believed himself to be above the law.

Yes he was corrupt and he believed himself to be above the law. I agree with that.

The human rights issue is another thing. Yes he was responsible to a degree, you will find that at the time this was a policy supported by Thais from the very top to the very bottom, with very few exceptions. Now this does not absolve Thaksins responsibility in the matter but it puts it in perspective. To those who would point their finger at Thaksin and with a quivering lower lip say "It was him, he did it, he murdered 2000 people!" fail to understand there was more to it and it was more complex than that.

But for his role in the matter, whatever that turns out to be after a proper investigation, he should face justice.

For sure, he did a lot of good for Thailand before the zombies hijacked the place.

A very fair post, mc2

he should face justice with the other supporters of that policy. yes, he is primarily responsible but that does not let others in power and behind the decisions off the hook

Commiting an offence and supporting one are two different things. Let's start by convicting the perpetrator.

[sbk]

Off-topic dialogue between two members deleted. Take it to PM boys, or say nothing at all but keep it out of the forum, thanks

[Ulysses G.]

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

[rixalex]

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

A bunch of heroin and meth dealers??? Seeing as there were no trials for these unfortunate individuals, how are we to know Mr Ulysses who these people were or that of their occupations?

And is it usual to use the term "bunch" for more than 2,500 people? Or did you use it simply because it conveyed a sense of little importance?

[Moonrakers]

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

So that makes it OK then does it?

[caf]

2. Thaskin was a self serving corrupt politician who committed horrific human rights violations and believed himself to be above the law.

Yes he was corrupt and he believed himself to be above the law. I agree with that.

The human rights issue is another thing. Yes he was responsible to a degree, you will find that at the time this was a policy supported by Thais from the very top to the very bottom, with very few exceptions. Now this does not absolve Thaksins responsibility in the matter but it puts it in perspective. To those who would point their finger at Thaksin and with a quivering lower lip say "It was him, he did it, he murdered 2000 people!" fail to understand there was more to it and it was more complex than that.

But for his role in the matter, whatever that turns out to be after a proper investigation, he should face justice.

For sure, he did a lot of good for Thailand before the zombies hijacked the place.

A very fair post, mc2

he should face justice with the other supporters of that policy. yes, he is primarily responsible but that does not let others in power and behind the decisions off the hook

Commiting an offence and supporting one are two different things. Let's start by convicting the perpetrator.

I also said "behind the decisions" so I disagree with you. All involved should be in the frame

[TonySoprano]

There are at least one or two on the board who post more or less "full time", day in day out, month, year in year out, spreading the same biased propaganda messages.

Now I don't know if they get paid, or by how much, nor do I know who pays them, or even if they do it out of fanaticism. I suppose in these difficult economic times, people will resort to any type of jobs to get by and thats understandable.

This could equally apply to both sides of the political arena but without concrete evidence they are nothing more than suspicions fueled by a large dose of bias.

If a person will not admit to the above then they are a one-sided fanatic, and there is no point in debating with them.

Having considered the OP for a while, and had a night's kip into the bargain, I've come to the conclusion that this statement epitomises the divisions in Thai society that merely is a microcosym of the similar divisions in world beliefs of all types.

Agree with me or be written off as a <insert favourite -ist or -ic here> and your views will be ignored as being irrelevant and I don't want to talk to you.

"You are either with us or agaist us" - Sound familiar?

Two people can hold diametrically opposing views and steadfastly hold on to those views whilst appreciating those of the opposing party. Just because they are firm in their views does not make them a fanatic of any persuation.

There is overwhelming evidence to support that these two statements are correct. Its not a view or an opinion, its a recitation of facts.

[TonySoprano]

2. Thaskin was a self serving corrupt politician who committed horrific human rights violations and believed himself to be above the law.

Yes he was corrupt and he believed himself to be above the law. I agree with that.

The human rights issue is another thing. Yes he was responsible to a degree, you will find that at the time this was a policy supported by Thais from the very top to the very bottom, with very few exceptions. Now this does not absolve Thaksins responsibility in the matter but it puts it in perspective. To those who would point their finger at Thaksin and with a quivering lower lip say "It was him, he did it, he murdered 2000 people!" fail to understand there was more to it and it was more complex than that.

But for his role in the matter, whatever that turns out to be after a proper investigation, he should face justice.

For sure, he did a lot of good for Thailand before the zombies hijacked the place.

See, now, this is opinion.

Stating that thousands were murdered under Thaksin without trial in a manner which is not acceptable to the international community is fact.

See the difference?

[Sabum]

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

The reason those murders were so terrible is because it is widely believed they were simply people that connected the POLICE to the drug trade.... with a fair number of innocent bystanders thrown into the mix. Can't believe you said that.

[Ulysses G.]

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

[endure]

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

No-one is an actual hard core drug dealer until they've been convicted in a court of law. Thaksin never gave them that opportunity.

[PhilHarries]

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

The reason those murders were so terrible is because it is widely believed they were simply people that connected the POLICE to the drug trade.... with a fair number of innocent bystanders thrown into the mix. Can't believe you said that.

It is also a widely held belief that a lot of the deaths were a matter of "settling of scores" and "removal of the competition". It's easy to sit back and say okay so what if a few drug dealers got wasted, rough justice maybe but justice all the same. But what if the victim was your friend, brother or son shot not because he was a drug dealer but because he had an argument with the son of a local police chief? Don't fall into the trap of thinking such a thing couldn't happen, a man is facing two years in jail just for losing his rag at the airport. The rules of engagement in Thailand are very much dependant on the color of your skin, the balance of your bank account and your family's associations to name but three variables.

btw a lot of posters seem to know a lot about these organisations that pay people to say nice things about them on internet fora. You guys couldn't see you way to posting, or PM me, the contact details could you? Expected rates of pay would also be useful along with any advice as to whether I'd need a work permit or not. I can say real nice things if the pay rate is right.

[thaihome]

1. ...They were not tricked or brainwashed into loving him. They love him because he was the first guy to ever come around and treat them as a powerful voting demographic.

...

Don’t know much about how rural politics actually works do you, except maybe what you read in the BBC.

Thaksin was not the first guy to “treat them as a powerful voting demographic”. He was the first guy to have enough money to pay off enough local faction leaders to form a party and get the votes to have a majority in parliament. Once the TRT controlled parliament, he used government spending to keep the local factions happy with corrupt deals that put something 25% into their pockets.

It is indeed classic populism politics. But, show me one populist movement in the entire world that has not come to grief due to corruption and ended up devouring itself. You can start with the French Revolution and end up with Huey Long.

TH

[Ulysses G.]

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

No-one is an actual hard core drug dealer until they've been convicted in a court of law.

Oh really? I would classify pretty much anyone who sells Heroin or Meth on a large scale to be actual, hard core drug dealers - even if they have never been convicted.

I do not condone killing them in either case.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[rixalex]

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

Absolutely, certainly and most definitely 1000% yes!

We're often hearing what an intelligent man Thaksin is (despite, i might say, overwhelming evidence to the contrary!), but with his background in the police force, even a man of limited intellect would have known that giving officers the power to kill on sight without trial, was going to lead to abuse. I mean, it's not like abuse of power by the police is a new or unknown phenomenon.

Thaksin for certain knew what the outcome of his instruction would be, but simply didn't care. People who got caught up in it were simply not important to him. I mean, it's not like any of his friends or family were going to be slain down in the street like dogs, is it?

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad, i'd like you to try and put yourselves in the minds of those family members who have had loved ones taken from then. I can't imagine how it would feel to not only have someone taken from me in this way, but to know that there would never be any recourse to bring those responsible to justice.

Thaksin is at the top of the ladder of those responsible, with the officers involved a very close second... and should Abhisit during his period in office do nothing to look into these deaths, in my opinion he joins the ladder, albeit someway near the bottom. He has a responsibilty to those that have died and if he turns a blind eye to what has happened, he is failing in his duties.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

1. I completely agree with both points in the original post. I'm happy I can call myself balanced in my opinion.

2 :

There are at least one or two on the board who post more or less "full time", day in day out, month, year in year out, spreading the same biased propaganda messages. Now I don't know if they get paid, or by how much, nor do I know who pays them (presumably from the same purse that pays the PAD), or even if they do it out of fanaticism.

To be honest, I'd respect them more if they were actually paid, then they'd fall in to the 'rational people' group. Some of the things I do at work I only do because I get paid for it. So frankly I don't believe they're paid, they're just people without a life and far too much time and internet on their hands. Final point why they're not paid: What would be the point? To convince other people without a life and too much internet of something or another in Thai politics? If I paid good money for propaganda then I'd pay it to news media and influential Thai people. So I'd probably fund PAD, The Nation, TV personalities, etc.

3:

I would guess that Thaksin ordered the Thai police to externinate of actual, hard-core drug dealers. Should he be held responsible for policemen who abused the licence to kill?

YES!

(And I'm someone who'd much rather see Thaksin in charge than Apeshit, but this is a no-brainer.)

Edited March 17, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

and should Abhisit during his period in office do nothing to look into these deaths, in my opinion he joins the ladder, albeit someway near the bottom

Perhaps he can start by looking into those guys from Burma being sent to their deaths? And perhaps he could look into the cases when Chuan of all people let police officers off the hook who killed people in cold blood? (Surat Thani case for example). I would agree with Ulysses that it's all too common in this part of the world, but acceptable it is NOT.

[Ulysses G.]

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad,

I do not condone killing them in either case.

Someone needs to learn to read more carefully.

[Ulysses G.]

and should Abhisit during his period in office do nothing to look into these deaths, in my opinion he joins the ladder, albeit someway near the bottom

Perhaps he can start by looking into those guys from Burma being sent to their deaths? And perhaps he could look into the cases when Chuan of all people let police officers off the hook who killed people in cold blood? (Surat Thani case for example).

How about good old General Suchinda? What happened to a huge number of middle class protesters for democracy who have been missing for 20 years?

[rixalex]

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad,

I do not condone killing them in either case.

Someone needs to learn to read more carefully.

Excuse me, but how could i read what wasn't there? As an afterthought you went back and edited your post to include the above statement, which by the way is in contradiction to the general attitude you have regarding this subject.

Here's one of your earlier statements:

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

Why the question mark after "human rights abuses" ? You are questioning whether people's human rights have been abused when people have been shot down in the street with no right of reply.

And "...murdering a bunch of heroin and meth dealers" - you see here how you use the word bunch to suggest it was a small number of insignificant people.

How do you know in the first place any of these people were heroin or meth dealers? How can anyone know? THERE WERE NO TRIALS!!!

You say you don't condone killing people Ulysses - perhaps that's true, but you certainly don't make much attempt to condemn it.

[londonthai]

btw a lot of posters seem to know a lot about these organisations that pay people to say nice things about them on internet fora. You guys couldn't see you way to posting, or PM me, the contact details could you? Expected rates of pay would also be useful along with any advice as to whether I'd need a work permit or not. I can say real nice things if the pay rate is right.

if you have worked for those organisations before and are going to retire or no longer do your job for health reason, it would be easy to do a new assigment - not that these kind of jobs are advertised on the net, they are more of a covert ones.

pay might be coming as a part of your early retirement deal (you retire 5 years earlier and for those 5 years post on the forums) or you get a few $ per post - not much, but is an additional source of income.

[Ulysses G.]

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad,

I do not condone killing them in either case.

Someone needs to learn to read more carefully.

Excuse me, but how could i read what wasn't there? As an afterthought you went back and edited your post to include the above statement, which by the way is in contradiction to the general attitude you have regarding this subject.

Here's one of your earlier statements:

Human right abuses? I do not agree with murdering a bunch of heroin and Meth Amphetimine dealers, but it is not that out of line in this part of the world.

You posted 35 minutes after my edit and on top of that you are very much ignoring the statement, "I do not agree with murdering a bunch of Meth and Amphetamine dealers." If you are just going to make up a bunch of malarkey and attribute it to others, please do not try justifying it when they point it out.

[rixalex]

You posted 35 minutes after my edit and on top of that you are very much ignoring the statement, "I do not agree with murdering a bunch of Meth and Amphetamine dealers." If you are just going to make up a bunch of malarkey and attribute it to others, please do not try justifying it when they point it out.

I actually started to reply to your original comment almost as soon as you had posted it, but as i was multi-tasking it took some time for me to complete - and in the meantime you had gone back and edited your post by adding a footnote. You then advised me that i should learn to read more carefully. I repeat, i can't read what is not there and at the time of my replying to you, it wasn't there! Don't worry - not expecting an apology.

And then instead of addressing any of the points i made, you have accused me of making up a bunch of malarkey (there's that word "bunch" use for derogatory effect once again) - please tell me what exactly have i made up and what i have unfairly attributed to you?

[Ulysses G.]

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad.

THIS B.S. (malarkey)

Edited March 17, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[mc2]

hey , its a bunch of bs

[rixalex]

For all those like Ulysses who shrug off innocent people being killed on the basis that overall the policy did more good than bad.

THIS B.S. (malarkey)

See you've already edited this post once, but i wouldn't want to jump the gun and comment on it until you had perfected it to your liking. Be a good chap and let me know when it has passed final edit.

P.S. If you are looking for tips, i might suggest a little more substance to your post and an actual attempt to answer some of the points that have been raised.

[rixalex]

hey , its a bunch of bs

MC2, thanks for your input - always of value... and so nice to see you've gone back to George Costanze - he seems to sum you up nicely.

[Ulysses G.]

P.S. If you are looking for tips, i might suggest a little more substance to your post and an actual attempt to answer some of the points that have been raised.

I already have answered your points repeatedly. Maybe you do not understand that, "I do not agree" (with killing drug dealers) means that I am against it.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[rixalex]

Maybe you do not understand that, "I do not agree" (with killing drug dealers) means that I am against it.

It's not that i don't understand that statement - more that i don't believe it - based on all the other comments you have made, not only in this thread but many others. There have been so many... where to start?

How about with your opinion that the man whose brainchild the policy was (to kill suspects without trial) - the man who put it into action - you think couldn't have foreseen that it would be abused and that anyone other than hard-core drug dealers would have been killed - and based on that he shouldn't be held responsible (if you wish to contest that you ever said words to this effect let me know and i'll track back and dig out your comment).

Anyway, if what you now say is true about not agreeing with the killing of drug dealers, it becomes academic what these people did or whether they were criminals or not - killing people without trial, any people, is plain wrong - and Thaksin is the one responsible for this.

Can you see the contradiction in your two stand-points?

Or how about your comment, "human rights abuses?" ? Please tell me why that statement needed a question mark? It would seem to suggest you disagree (or at least question) that people being shot in the street without trial is an abuse of ones rights.

I could go on but the chances of you even addressing those two points directly i'm thinking is slim, so i'll leave it at that for the time being. Look forward to your reply...

P.S. Don't forget to give me the heads-up when your post is ready to be replied to with no further edits to come - wouldn't want to be accused of not having read carefully enough again.