Do You Support The Governments Use Of The Internal Security Act

[rixalex]

The yellowshirts came out and actually said that poor people do not deserve the vote.

If they actually came out and said that then you'll have no trouble providing a link will you? Or is this another Ulysses "fact"?

[rixalex]

Neither you, nor Thaksin, nor the police can possibly say who deserved what. That's why we have courts and judges. They decide on guilt and punishment based on concrete facts and evidence, not hearsay, speculation, hunches, feelings or even grudges.

This is Thailand, not the West, and not even you believe that.

Not even i believe what exactly?

[Ulysses G.]

The yellowshirts came out and actually said that poor people do not deserve the vote.

If they actually came out and said that then you'll have no trouble providing a link will you? Or is this another Ulysses "fact"?

Everybody knows it. Keep on pretending.

[Ulysses G.]

Neither you, nor Thaksin, nor the police can possibly say who deserved what. That's why we have courts and judges. They decide on guilt and punishment based on concrete facts and evidence, not hearsay, speculation, hunches, feelings or even grudges.

This is Thailand, not the West, and not even you believe that.

Not even i believe what exactly?

Do you really think that courts "decide on guilt and punishment based on concrete facts and evidence, not hearsay, speculation, hunches, feelings or even grudges"? Have you moved somewhere outside of this area?

[mania]

Yeah, all the bullet holes everywhere in the departure terminal. And the planes that were damaged by gunfire. And all the deaths from random bullets. It's certainly a crime that it wasn't brought to more peoples attention. Wait a minute, maybe it wasn't because it never happened.

Sorry but they are not the angels you think they are.

I do not say either side is but be fair in your outlook

[mania]

Love of the Thaksin can make people blind ...

Hate has the same result

[rixalex]

Not even i believe what exactly?

Do you really think that courts "decide on guilt and punishment based on concrete facts and evidence, not hearsay, speculation, hunches, feelings or even grudges"?

Yes in general i do, but that's not the point i was making.

The point was that there is a judicial process involved in deciding guilt. What you are advocating is completely side-stepping that and giving the power of judge, juror and executioner directly into the hands of the police. That's precisely what Thaksin did, and you feebly defend this action by saying that Thaksin could not have known innocents would be killed, when by virtue of the fact that none of those murdered were given trials, they were all innocent.

It rather seems though the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is one that either you don't get or you don't believe in.

[rixalex]

The yellowshirts came out and actually said that poor people do not deserve the vote.

If they actually came out and said that then you'll have no trouble providing a link will you? Or is this another Ulysses "fact"?

Everybody knows it. Keep on pretending.

If everybody knows it, it should be easy to prove. Do so, or accept it as being just another Ulysses "fact".

[caf]

First you blame it on the police. Now you blame it on Thai people?!

Most Thai people strongly supported Thaksin's policy -that is a fact - but they don't deserve any blame for the actions of those who did not carry out orders and killed innocents.

Policemen who killed innocent people while claiming they were drug dealers deserve to go to jail, but most people do not care all that much about actual dealers of hard drugs. "Fair" trials, or not, They probably deserve their fate.

You are saying that they deserve their fate even if the trial is unfair???

Somewhere else you say people are innocent till proved guilty.

[tropo]

Of course there have been revolutions throughout history that have resulted in positive change. There have also been ones that result in negative change.

Yes, but no democracies have been formed when people have been complacent and too frightened to stand up to the status quo. Attitudes like that favour dictators.

[Ulysses G.]

The yellowshirts came out and actually said that poor people do not deserve the vote.

If they actually came out and said that then you'll have no trouble providing a link will you? Or is this another Ulysses "fact"?

Everybody knows it. Keep on pretending.

If everybody knows it, it should be easy to prove. Do so, or accept it as being just another Ulysses "fact".

It gets boring proving the same things over and over again to people who say the same things over and over again.

[Ulysses G.]

First you blame it on the police. Now you blame it on Thai people?!

Most Thai people strongly supported Thaksin's policy -that is a fact - but they don't deserve any blame for the actions of those who did not carry out orders and killed innocents.

Policemen who killed innocent people while claiming they were drug dealers deserve to go to jail, but most people do not care all that much about actual dealers of hard drugs. "Fair" trials, or not, They probably deserve their fate.

You are saying that they deserve their fate even if the trial is unfair???

Terrorists who target innocent civilians, serial killers who kill for pleasure, child molesters and heroin/meth dealers who sell to children all deserve anything bad that happens to them and I could care less about a "fair" trial if they actually commited the crime and have figured out how to escape conviction.

PS Of course it is better to put these people to death legally, but it does not bother me a lot otherwise.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[monkfish]

Most Thai people strongly supported Thaksin's policy -that is a fact

No it's not a fact. It's your opinion. Were it a fact there would be proof.

Facts are no different from guilty verdicts - there must be proof. If proof doesn't exist all you are left with is one person's opinion.

And to repeat, whether people support government action or not is completely irrelevant. When people elect a government they are putting their trust in those elected people to make the right decisions on their behalf. That's what politicians are paid to do. It's their responsibility. Prime Ministers have the ultimate responsibility. Although they alone can't make things happen without the support of others, what they absolutely can do is stop things from happening. Thaksin could have and should have said no to execution without trial. Had he done so, it would never of happened. It was within his power, but he did nothing. He must pay for that, just as all those involved must pay. Whether they will or not is quite another matter. There are too many people tied up in it all, including those still in power, for much to happen on this in my opinion.

They probably deserve their fate.

Neither you, nor Thaksin, nor the police can possibly say who deserved what. That's why we have courts and judges. They decide on guilt and punishment based on concrete facts and evidence, not hearsay, speculation, hunches, feelings or even grudges.

You are defending execution without trial. You do know that don't you?

Dig in the archives

Not sure if this is true?

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=254612210023

[geriatrickid]

It is a sad indication of the situation when the government has to resort to draconian actions because it is afraid of its citizens. Thailand's security apparatus is getting very close to its Chinese counterparts when such actions are taken. There is volatile protest because the means to protest peacefully are often blocked.(And that applies to all sides in this argument.)

The public stated goal of the red shirts in this rally is the overthrow of the current government to be replaced by a proven dictatorial personality in the name of THAKSIN. In many countries, they would be in jail for treason just saying that. What do you expect the government to do? Bend over? Nobody is justifying the yellow shirt actions before the coup. However, that is the past. We are now living in the present.

Please provide some documentation to support the allegation about "overthrow". My understanding is that they wish there to be elections without the involvement of the military and its allies/lackies/cronies.

You have every right to dislike Mr. Thaksin, but if he comes into power through an election, you must respect the outcome. Now you say, pish posh let's forget about the past in respect to the military junta's illegal coup, but, you would never dismiss the allegations about Mr. Thaksin that you repeat like a broken phonograph (I tried to use an appropriate reference so you could understand. Perhaps, a skipping Rudy Valee tune on the Victrola? )

100% disagree with using armed forces against any civilians, in this case THAI PEOPLE.

Thia Military vs. Thai people

is that what you want?

I think that's what a great many foreigners and Bangkok elitists want as it would keep the natives in their place. I believe the mindset is that if you allow the natives to get lippy, to step out of line, there will be anarchy and they might refuse to do as they are told and not get back to doing the menial jobs. Worse still is if those people get it into their heads that they have civil rights, there is no telling where it might end. They might even demand fair and equatible treatment, and we all know that these people are not the equals of those that live in the walled compounds, right?

Edited August 29, 2009 by geriatrickid

[rixalex]

It gets boring proving the same things over and over again to people who say the same things over and over again.

Proving the same things over and over again might get boring if you actually did it. You don't.

You said that the yellowshirts actually came out and said that poor people do not deserve the vote. Fine. Supply a link to that quote. How tough can that be?

[rixalex]

Terrorists who target innocent civilians, serial killers who kill for pleasure, child molesters and heroin/meth dealers who sell to children all deserve anything bad that happens to them and I could care less about a "fair" trial if they actually commited the crime and have figured out how to escape conviction.

"If" indeed. That's the whole point - did they or didn't they commit the crime? Shoot them without a trial and we'll never know.

As you refuse to respond to my repeated questions on the matter, you leave me no choice but to assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is simply something you have no belief in.

[mc2]

monkfish has done some good research again:

National New Bureau of Thailand: 2003

According to an Assumption University press release...

Prime Minister THAKSIN SHINAWATRA has been chosen by an ABAC poll, as Person of the Year, and best government politician.

The war on drugs was also voted best achievement of the government

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=254612210023

Edited August 29, 2009 by mc2

[Ulysses G.]

It gets boring proving the same things over and over again to people who say the same things over and over again.

Proving the same things over and over again might get boring if you actually did it. You don't.

You said that the yellowshirts actually came out and said that poor people do not deserve the vote. Fine. Supply a link to that quote. How tough can that be?

Finding links to international news is quite easy, but searching for Thai stories can be very difficult. That is why I will not bother to search for hours for something that has been on Thai Visa over and over again.

[Ulysses G.]

As you refuse to respond to my repeated questions on the matter, you leave me no choice but to assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is simply something you have no belief in.

I believe in the concept under perfect circumstances, but I do not cry when a known terrorist is taken out by a drone without a trial by law or a child molester is stabbed in prison. Heroin and speed dealers who sell to children deserve to die for their crimes.

The world is not all black and white.

[Ulysses G.]

monkfish has done some good research again:

National New Bureau of Thailand: 2003

According to an Assumption University press release...

Prime Minister THAKSIN SHINAWATRA has been chosen by an ABAC poll, as Person of the Year, and best government politician.

The war on drugs was also voted best achievement of the government

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=254612210023

Evidence that the Thai people supported Thaksin's War on Drugs that has been on here many times before. Thanks for searching monkfish. I wonder how rixalex will try to distort this?

[Bukseeda]

monkfish has done some good research again:

National New Bureau of Thailand: 2003

According to an Assumption University press release...

Prime Minister THAKSIN SHINAWATRA has been chosen by an ABAC poll, as Person of the Year, and best government politician.

The war on drugs was also voted best achievement of the government

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=254612210023

Evidence that the Thai people supported Thaksin's War on Drugs that has been on here many times before. Thanks for searching monkfish. I wonder how rixalex will try to distort this?

Just because a majority supports something is irrelevant.

[Bukseeda]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin.

[Ulysses G.]

The Yellow Shirts – a reactionary coalition

The yellowshirts make up a broad alliance which includes high ranking members of the military, the monarchy and the King's central advisors, the misnamed Democrat Party and large sections of the Thai bourgeoisie and urban professional stratum. They are fervently anti-democratic and have fascistic tendencies as detailed by the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Yellow Shirts' militant protests earlier this year propelled the current coalition of parties to power. Although this loose alliance has being able to mobilize significant numbers in street protests and occupations, the Yellow Shirts and their allies have shown strong contempt for the popular vote. The Yellow Shirts are avowed monarchist who have both called for royalist intervention against the democratically elected Peoples Power Party (the successor of the outlawed Thaksin led TRT party), and for a greater constitutional role for both the monarchy and military (see: Thai PM consults king over escalating protests). Yellow Shirt's leaders have also called for anti-democratic measures including making both houses of parliament largely appointed rather than directly elected (As detailed in Rifts behind Thailand's political crisis).

[Ulysses G.]

Firstly, the key PAD leaders, in particular Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, an ascetic former military general and mayor of Bangkok who played a key role in the anti-government protests back in 1992, remained virulently opposed to allowing any of Mr Thaksin's associates a role in government.

They rejected last December's election victory by the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party (PPP), arguing it was achieved by vote-buying (the impartial Election Commission contradicts this view). They have now refined their argument to propose rural voters in Thailand are too poorly educated to be allowed to elect a parliament, and that it should be a largely appointed body instead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584369.stm

[caf]

As you refuse to respond to my repeated questions on the matter, you leave me no choice but to assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is simply something you have no belief in.

I believe in the concept under perfect circumstances, but I do not cry when a known terrorist is taken out by a drone without a trial by law or a child molester is stabbed in prison. Heroin and speed dealers who sell to children deserve to die for their crimes.

The world is not all black and white.

So who decides then, Ulysses? If someone claimed you were a "known" drug dealer or "known" child molester it would be ok to terminate you without a fair trial would it?

You have a problem with having a fair justice system administered by judges with the right of a defence and appeal. But would want to see what? A system where nominated people could make judgments outside the court system. Would you be one of the chosen people who had the right to decide a persons fate.

Is the answer to my second question yes or no?

[Ulysses G.]

As you refuse to respond to my repeated questions on the matter, you leave me no choice but to assume that "innocent until proven guilty" is simply something you have no belief in.

I believe in the concept under perfect circumstances, but I do not cry when a known terrorist is taken out by a drone without a trial by law or a child molester is stabbed in prison. Heroin and speed dealers who sell to children deserve to die for their crimes.

The world is not all black and white.

You have a problem with having a fair justice system administered by judges with the right of a defence and appeal. But would want to see what? A system where nominated people could make judgments outside the court system.

I have no problem at all with a "fair justice system", but do you think that it exists in this part of the world?

If major criminals can simply buy their way out of being convicted - like a major arms dealer is reputed to have recently done - can we blame responsible leaders from also abusing the system in order to remedy poisonous social ills?

That is often how it is done here.

[rixalex]

Evidence that the Thai people supported Thaksin's War on Drugs that has been on here many times before. Thanks for searching monkfish. I wonder how rixalex will try to distort this?

A poll of 2,000 odd people in Bangkok tells you how 2,000 odd people in Bangkok felt.

It gives an indication of nationwide feeling granted, but indications are not the same as facts. Do you understand the distinction?

I don't dispute that execution without trial, otherwise known as the war on drugs, didn't have some public support - i do dispute a claim that most Thai people strongly supported it as being a fact. It's not a fact. It's your belief. See the difference?

Speaking of beliefs, it's my belief that a lot of Thai people who did support it at the time were unaware of exactly what it involved and what they were actually supporting. They were led to believe that it was simply getting tough - giving the police the instruction to get out there and arrest suspected drug dealers, and should those suspects resist arrest, should things get ugly, the police were allowed to use deadly force - but as a last resort. That was the perception amongst Thais i know - it was my own perception too. The reality as we now know was quite different.

As per TRT's usual operating procedure, the thing was full of propoganda and spin, right from the name, "war on drugs". "Execution without trial" would have been more fitting, and i bet the results of a poll on that with 2,000 Bangkok people would have had a different outcome.

[cdnvic]

This isn't even about the original topic anymore. Get back on track please.

[Ulysses G.]

In other words, I am basically correct that they supported Thaksin's War on Drugs, but you feel that if the world were a better place, the Thai people should agree with you.

Yes, I get where you are coming from.

No, the government should not use such strong force against the reds when the yellows were treated with kid gloves.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[mca]

Just because a majority supports something is irrelevant.

You're not General Sonthi Boonyaratglin by any chance are you?