The Country's Rural Poor Want A Voice, With Or Without Mr. Thaksin. Opinion

[anotherpeter]

Anyone who has any interest in Thailand should watch this. http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.svl=mainNav#/view/547910

Can only watch it with a Aus IP.

But great viewing if you get the chance.

Edited April 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[garyh]

Anyone who has any interest in Thailand should watch this. http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.svl=mainNav#/view/547910

Can only watch it with a Aus IP.

But great viewing if you get the chance.

I am not sure which episode it is but you should be able to see it here if you can view ABC Australia's Asian broadcast. http://australianetwork.com/guide/00001737.htm

[anotherpeter]

Anyone who has any interest in Thailand should watch this. http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.svl=mainNav#/view/547910

Can only watch it with a Aus IP.

But great viewing if you get the chance.

I am not sure which episode it is but you should be able to see it here if you can view ABC Australia's Asian broadcast. http://australianetwork.com/guide/00001737.htm

Given the content, and the fact that they said they made it without the use of ABC Bangkok staff or the knowledge of many Thais (forget the exact wording, but they said it clearly at the start of the episode), there will be no way they think about showing it on Aus network shown into Thailand.

[geriatrickid]

The WSJ is a very RIGHT WING American newspaper. It is fitting the pattern of being pro-red, pro-Thaksin that most RIGHT WING Americans tend to follow here, while IGNORING the dark, negative aspects of the Thaksin movement (as well as his clear record of actually being anti-democratic). Do not take that piece as the American view, it is a right wing opinion piece. They heard the PR key words democracy and they eat it up, completely uncritically. If/when the red mobs take over and install an anti-democratic Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Peron strong man type leader here, you can sure they will change their tune, but by then it will be too late.

Jingles, can you and your gang please make up your minds and try and develop a consistent position.

On some days, those that agree with some of the UDD positions are called communists, left wing pinkos, maoists and sympathizers of castro et al. Now that the WSJ has voiced an opinion that is slightly sympathetic to the plight of the disenfranchised impoverished protestors, UDD supporters are called right wing reactionaries.

Had the WSJ carried an opinion that came down heavy upon the protestors you would be crowing about it, holding it up as proof hat the UDD and the protestors are evil etc. Please accept the fact that the is a large groundswell of understanding and sympathy for the Red Shirts.

[geriatrickid]

Given the content, and the fact that they said they made it without the use of ABC Bangkok staff or the knowledge of many Thais (forget the exact wording, but they said it clearly at the start of the episode), there will be no way they think about showing it on Aus network shown into Thailand.

Oh dear, that's right. Mr. Abhisit, the champion of justice and freedom won't allow any dissenting views now.

And Mr. kasit wonders why foreign governments won't help out his government.

[KKvampire]

Of course the bigest fallacy of all by the Red shirt leaders of deception fed by Thasksin, misleading their follwers this is about "democracy" They dont give a monkeys about democracy.

[garyh]

Given the content, and the fact that they said they made it without the use of ABC Bangkok staff or the knowledge of many Thais (forget the exact wording, but they said it clearly at the start of the episode), there will be no way they think about showing it on Aus network shown into Thailand.

Oh dear, that's right. Mr. Abhisit, the champion of justice and freedom won't allow any dissenting views now.

And Mr. kasit wonders why foreign governments won't help out his government.

It has only a little about Abhist.

[anotherpeter]

Given the content, and the fact that they said they made it without the use of ABC Bangkok staff or the knowledge of many Thais (forget the exact wording, but they said it clearly at the start of the episode), there will be no way they think about showing it on Aus network shown into Thailand.

Oh dear, that's right. Mr. Abhisit, the champion of justice and freedom won't allow any dissenting views now.

And Mr. kasit wonders why foreign governments won't help out his government.

Nothing to do with Abhisit. Nothing to do with Thaksin. It's higher up than both of them.

But, since you brought it up, I haven't seen Abhisit taking people to court because they disagree with him. Something Thaksin was very good at.

Edited April 15, 2010 by anotherpeter

[Jingthing]

Given the content, and the fact that they said they made it without the use of ABC Bangkok staff or the knowledge of many Thais (forget the exact wording, but they said it clearly at the start of the episode), there will be no way they think about showing it on Aus network shown into Thailand.

Oh dear, that's right. Mr. Abhisit, the champion of justice and freedom won't allow any dissenting views now.

And Mr. kasit wonders why foreign governments won't help out his government.

Nothing to do with Abhisit. Nothing to do with Thaksin. It's higher up than both of them.

But, since you brought it up, I haven't seen Abhisit taking people to court because they disagree with him. Something Thaksin was very good at.

Indeed the Washington Post editorial had its appraisal of Thaksin today --

Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006. He violated press freedoms and allowed massive violations of human rights by security forces.

[animatic]

Oh dear, that's right. Mr. Abhisit, the champion of justice and freedom won't allow any dissenting views now.

And Mr. kasit wonders why foreign governments won't help out his government.

Nothing to do with Abhisit. Nothing to do with Thaksin. It's higher up than both of them.

But, since you brought it up, I haven't seen Abhisit taking people to court because they disagree with him. Something Thaksin was very good at.

Indeed the Washington Post editorial had its appraisal of Thaksin today --

Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006. He violated press freedoms and allowed massive violations of human rights by security forces.

There is a substantially difference between allowing dissenting views,

and allowing those advocating violent over throw of the nation,

because one minority is not in power at the moment.

The Washington Post got it right.

Edited April 15, 2010 by animatic

[geriatrickid]

The Thaksin hating contingent needs to practice what it preaches.

If Mr. Thaksin curbed free speech, then it was wrong and I condemn it.

Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place. It is wrong and I condemn it.

There, see. Consistency. Unfortunately, not one of you people that despises the UDD has the moral integrity to condemn the current actions of the government that act to suppress freedom of information.

Unlike Jingles I will not condemn the Washington Post for its opinion. I welcome it. In the case of Jing Thing, he dismissed the WSJ as a right wing mouthpiece. I will not dismiss the Washington Post as a left wing mouth piece. Know why? Because I respect the right of a newspaper to state an opinion when the paper has a history of fairness. Both the WP and WSJ have an integrity that is unquestionable.

Once again the hypocrisy of the group filled with fear and loathing of the UDD protestors is evident when Mr. Thaksin's decision to seek legal redress against those who's statements he felt were false. This is what the court system is in place to for. If someone feels he has been wronged he seeks redress through the court system. It is up to the judiciary to determine the merits of the case, not you. Mr. Thaksin had every right to proceed with a case. If the case was unfounded, the courts had the option of dismissing the case. Strange how you do not protest charges of lesse majeste. I take it the court system is only valid when you the great enlightened plantation masters so decide and it works in your favour. Too bad. Deal with it.

[yoshiwara]

The Thaksin hating contingent needs to practice what it preaches.

If Mr. Thaksin curbed free speech, then it was wrong and I condemn it.

Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place. It is wrong and I condemn it.

There, see. Consistency. Unfortunately, not one of you people that despises the UDD has the moral integrity to condemn the current actions of the government that act to suppress freedom of information.

Unlike Jingles I will not condemn the Washington Post for its opinion. I welcome it. In the case of Jing Thing, he dismissed the WSJ as a right wing mouthpiece. I will not dismiss the Washington Post as a left wing mouth piece. Know why? Because I respect the right of a newspaper to state an opinion when the paper has a history of fairness. Both the WP and WSJ have an integrity that is unquestionable.

Once again the hypocrisy of the group filled with fear and loathing of the UDD protestors is evident when Mr. Thaksin's decision to seek legal redress against those who's statements he felt were false. This is what the court system is in place to for. If someone feels he has been wronged he seeks redress through the court system. It is up to the judiciary to determine the merits of the case, not you. Mr. Thaksin had every right to proceed with a case. If the case was unfounded, the courts had the option of dismissing the case. Strange how you do not protest charges of lesse majeste. I take it the court system is only valid when you the great enlightened plantation masters so decide and it works in your favour. Too bad. Deal with it.

If, if, if..............

You would think Thaksin was innocent until proved guilty of anything.

A meally-mouthed defence of Thaksin.

Predictable.

[ChiangMaiFun]

The WSJ is a very RIGHT WING American newspaper. It is fitting the pattern of being pro-red, pro-Thaksin that most RIGHT WING Americans tend to follow here, while IGNORING the dark, negative aspects of the Thaksin movement (as well as his clear record of actually being anti-democratic). Do not take that piece as the American view, it is a right wing opinion piece. They heard the PR key words democracy and they eat it up, completely uncritically. If/when the red mobs take over and install an anti-democratic Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Peron strong man type leader here, you can sure they will change their tune, but by then it will be too late.

hang on - the other day you said reds were Maoist - now they are right wing? so left or right?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Indeed the Washington Post editorial had its appraisal of Thaksin today --

Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006. He violated press freedoms and allowed massive violations of human rights by security forces.

and of course the US are right about everything right? I mean they are experts at foreign policy (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) so an American provincial newspaper is now hailed by the yellows here as correct as it says Thaksin was a bad prime minister in a country far, far away...? joking right? and for balance I would not quote them if they were the opposite way round either - for it matters not a jot.

[LomSak27]

The US Republican right wing types have never supported the Reds. Jingthing posts it up and we are supposed to assume it is fact. Imagine a Fox News watcher supporting the Reds

What is noteworthy is that a right wing US paper owned by that Murdoch aussie guy, dares state that the poor want a voice in government, something they have traditionally never had. You can bet all Yellow PAD Dem party supporters here got a case of hives when they read it, and if you don't like US papers then find a copy of the Guardian or Age sit yourself in a pit with some Leo and have at it mate.

[anotherpeter]

The Thaksin hating contingent needs to practice what it preaches.

If Mr. Thaksin curbed free speech, then it was wrong and I condemn it.

Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place. It is wrong and I condemn it.

There, see. Consistency. Unfortunately, not one of you people that despises the UDD has the moral integrity to condemn the current actions of the government that act to suppress freedom of information.

Unlike Jingles I will not condemn the Washington Post for its opinion. I welcome it. In the case of Jing Thing, he dismissed the WSJ as a right wing mouthpiece. I will not dismiss the Washington Post as a left wing mouth piece. Know why? Because I respect the right of a newspaper to state an opinion when the paper has a history of fairness. Both the WP and WSJ have an integrity that is unquestionable.

Once again the hypocrisy of the group filled with fear and loathing of the UDD protestors is evident when Mr. Thaksin's decision to seek legal redress against those who's statements he felt were false. This is what the court system is in place to for. If someone feels he has been wronged he seeks redress through the court system. It is up to the judiciary to determine the merits of the case, not you. Mr. Thaksin had every right to proceed with a case. If the case was unfounded, the courts had the option of dismissing the case. Strange how you do not protest charges of lesse majeste. I take it the court system is only valid when you the great enlightened plantation masters so decide and it works in your favour. Too bad. Deal with it.

"Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place."

What if these websites and news sources play doctored video/audio that makes it sound like Abhisit ordered troops to kill people? Do you condone that?

If they are showing biased *news*, what tv station doesn't.

If they are inciting violence and telling *obvious* lies, why shouldn't they be shut down?

[sotsira]

The Thaksin hating contingent needs to practice what it preaches.

If Mr. Thaksin curbed free speech, then it was wrong and I condemn it.

Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place. It is wrong and I condemn it.

There, see. Consistency. Unfortunately, not one of you people that despises the UDD has the moral integrity to condemn the current actions of the government that act to suppress freedom of information.

Unlike Jingles I will not condemn the Washington Post for its opinion. I welcome it. In the case of Jing Thing, he dismissed the WSJ as a right wing mouthpiece. I will not dismiss the Washington Post as a left wing mouth piece. Know why? Because I respect the right of a newspaper to state an opinion when the paper has a history of fairness. Both the WP and WSJ have an integrity that is unquestionable.

Once again the hypocrisy of the group filled with fear and loathing of the UDD protestors is evident when Mr. Thaksin's decision to seek legal redress against those who's statements he felt were false. This is what the court system is in place to for. If someone feels he has been wronged he seeks redress through the court system. It is up to the judiciary to determine the merits of the case, not you. Mr. Thaksin had every right to proceed with a case. If the case was unfounded, the courts had the option of dismissing the case. Strange how you do not protest charges of lesse majeste. I take it the court system is only valid when you the great enlightened plantation masters so decide and it works in your favour. Too bad. Deal with it.

"Mr. Abhisit has acted to suspend websites and news sources that are critical of his position or that show pictures of the events that took place."

What if these websites and news sources play doctored video/audio that makes it sound like Abhisit ordered troops to kill people? Do you condone that?

If they are showing biased *news*, what tv station doesn't.

If they are inciting violence and telling *obvious* lies, why shouldn't they be shut down?

"if they are inciting violence?" "telling obvious lies?"

Where's the proof?

This is a case of you said this, and they said that, tit for tat,

It's common political practice, just as geriatrikid says, you can't have one rule for yellows and another for the reds.

They have both proven in the past 2 years that they will do, and say anything, to condemn the other.

My view is that this is not just about Thaksin and the reds wanting him back in power, the problem goes far deeper than that and way above Thaksin.

Just think about why Thailand has had so many coups, and in how many years, then you might see the full picture.