Dr Tul Cancels Campaign In Khon Kaen

[Jerrytheyoung]

Yes, I do not deny there are probably a lot of poor people in the South and their problems have to be adressed as well. The initial question was: why the Northern people and not the Southern one are demonstrating?

No it wasn't. My original question was of all the 76 provinces, why is it only a small perecentage of people from some of the provinces in Isaan that are protesting?

Not all the provinces in Isaan are represented in this protest. Not even the majority of 'poor' even from Khon Kaen and Udon or Korat are at or even support this demo. Where are the poor from all the other provinces in the North, Central, Eastern and Western provinces (Kanchanaburi, for example)?

That is exactly what the UDD got wrong when they announced their 'million man march' when this kicked off - they thought the rural poor nationwide would come out in support, but they didn't; just those that were controlled by the mafia gangs in a few provinces round Thaksin's home base.

As to a couple of points made by viking79 and another poster - this is dead right: who goes protesting, where and why depends on the local bosses in ANY province. I've been making this point on TV all along: this is not about what the people want, its about what mafia bosses want. It's THEY that are driving this conflict on both sides. Not the ordinary people.

If Team Red win the day as viking79 would have you believe, don't believe for one second that the poor will then have a voice. The few that were organised to come down to BKK will be sent home and told to shut up, while the leaders and thugs fill the roles of the new elite, and everything will remain the same, only worse in terms of freedom of speech and real policies for development of the country as a result of having capable people like Abhisit replaced with thugs like Jaturporn.

Secunded

just a lesson of History, initially in Social movement, it is always a small amount of active people starting the demonstrations and making History: most of people are following the events with some distances... But when the victory is celebrated... everybody is joining.

Example Paris liberation (1944): less than 1% of the population in the active resistance. but few days later, celebration of the Liberation with De Gaulle at Notre Dame: millions of people in the streets.

For more accurate information the total French resistance forces were estimated at 100,000 people in June 44 (to be compared with a total population around 40 millions)

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[dobadoy]

Yes, I do not deny there are probably a lot of poor people in the South and their problems have to be adressed as well. The initial question was: why the Northern people and not the Southern one are demonstrating?

No it wasn't. My original question was of all the 76 provinces, why is it only a small perecentage of people from some of the provinces in Isaan that are protesting?

Not all the provinces in Isaan are represented in this protest. Not even the majority of 'poor' even from Khon Kaen and Udon or Korat are at or even support this demo. Where are the poor from all the other provinces in the North, Central, Eastern and Western provinces (Kanchanaburi, for example)?

That is exactly what the UDD got wrong when they announced their 'million man march' when this kicked off - they thought the rural poor nationwide would come out in support, but they didn't; just those that were controlled by the mafia gangs in a few provinces round Thaksin's home base.

As to a couple of points made by viking79 and another poster - this is dead right: who goes protesting, where and why depends on the local bosses in ANY province. I've been making this point on TV all along: this is not about what the people want, its about what mafia bosses want. It's THEY that are driving this conflict on both sides. Not the ordinary people.

If Team Red win the day as viking79 would have you believe, don't believe for one second that the poor will then have a voice. The few that were organised to come down to BKK will be sent home and told to shut up, while the leaders and thugs fill the roles of the new elite, and everything will remain the same, only worse in terms of freedom of speech and real policies for development of the country as a result of having capable people like Abhisit replaced with thugs like Jaturporn.

Secunded

just a lesson of History, initially in Social movement, it is always a small amount of people starting the demonstrations, most of people are following the events with some distances... But when the victory is celebrated... everybody is joining.

Example Paris liberation (1944): less than 1% of the population in the active resistance. but few days later, celebration of the Liberation with De Gaulle at Notre Dame: millions of people in the streets.

Not really an analogous situation is it Jerry? France was under occupation by armed forces from ANOTHER country, and the local population were in fear of death squads if they dissented. Fear and intimidation were rife, thousans had been murdered and 'disappeared', and everyone knew what happened if you criticsed the occupying forces - the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

[lannarebirth]

is funny to see democrats fail to make army and police do their work of keep them in power.

Better you right book than try to understand thai politik

Chances are I understand Thai politics a whole lot better than you my friend. I read Thai pretty well, we can continue this via PM if you wish - so long as you can actually give some rational argument rather than spout rhetoric.

Here's one question I'd like you to answer, in Thai or English, on the forum or by PM:

There are 76 provinces in Thailand. Why are all the 'poor people' from all the other provinces not at Rajaprasong?

I travel a lot through Thailand and I have observed than Southern Thailand is richer than the Northern regions: rice, two crops per year, Rubber trees better productivity as they are less affected by drought, tourism (Phuket, Krabi, Ko Samui, and now Ko Lippe, Ko Tarutao, Hat Yai for Malaysian people, Trang for Chinese, direct buses to Singapore, kuala Lumpur with money pouring from Malaysia and Singapore...). and now Palm tree culture is starting.

Mangrove sheltering fish and shrimp farms....

I travel a lot too. I have noticed corruption exists in every province I have visited including the south. One thing I think that differentiates the southern people from the north however is, they demand they get something for their tribute. The people in the north seem to be content to see that their puyai are driving nicer cars, live in better houses and send THEIR children to better schools. That sort of thing doesn't fly down south.

[jayboy]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

[pornsasi]

<br />

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

<br /><br />I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Mosley the pro-nazi british during WW2 ? That bad ? ... But anyway even that Dr Tul deserve free speech

[Jerrytheyoung]

just a lesson of History, initially in Social movement, it is always a small amount of people starting the demonstrations, most of people are following the events with some distances... But when the victory is celebrated... everybody is joining.

Example Paris liberation (1944): less than 1% of the population in the active resistance. but few days later, celebration of the Liberation with De Gaulle at Notre Dame: millions of people in the streets.

Not really an analogous situation is it Jerry? France was under occupation by armed forces from ANOTHER country, and the local population were in fear of death squads if they dissented. Fear and intimidation were rife, thousans had been murdered and 'disappeared', and everyone knew what happened if you criticsed the occupying forces - the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

It is difficult to find statistics of old time however some other figures which confirms that initially only a minority of active people are making History through unrests, revolutions...

- The storming of the Bastille (14 july 1789) has been done by a crowd estimated at less than 1000 people, officially around 600 people registered.

- Russian revolution February 1917 has started with a strike of 50,000 workers.

- Paris Commune: only part of Parisians were involved, one monarchist engineer has open the western gate to Versaillais. Estimated around 50,000 "communards" on a 2 millions Paris Population.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[dobadoy]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

And yet even the British National Front party were allowed on a prime time British TV debate show a few months ago, because that's what you do in a democracy. You allow people freedom of speech so others can decide to agree with you that so-and-so is a whack job - you don't get to decide for the rest of the population who is a whack-job and who isn't by declaring who can or cannot speak - unless you are a red-supporter of course, who seem to think that they have exactly this right.

Precisely why I am against them.

[Slip]

^^And Jerry, it must be pointed out to you again, That we are talking about Thailand and the Thais, NOT Cheese eating surrender monkeys.

[hammered]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Ah could we assume that the likes of Jatuporn would also deserve what Moseley got outside of his circle of scumbag admirers bearing in mind of course that there are plenty of decent people in both the red and multicolour movements and we arent trying to label them all;)

[danc]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

And yet even the British National Front party were allowed on a prime time British TV debate show a few months ago, because that's what you do in a democracy. You allow people freedom of speech so others can decide to agree with you that so-and-so is a whack job - you don't get to decide for the rest of the population who is a whack-job and who isn't by declaring who can or cannot speak - unless you are a red-supporter of course, who seem to think that they have exactly this right.

Precisely why I am against them.

...because that's what you do in a democracy. You allow people freedom of speech so others can decide to agree with you that so-and-so is a whack job - you don't get to decide for the rest of the population who is a whack-job and who isn't by declaring who can or cannot speak

I would venture that mass censorship of the media backs up your argument too!....though you wouldn't want a smart-ass like me pointing it out...and yes it was terrible under Thaksin too. Just a thought!

[pornsasi]

<br />^^And Jerry, it must be pointed out to you again, That we are talking about Thailand and the Thais, NOT Cheese eating surrender monkeys. <img src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think flaming is disallowed under TV rules .... Anyway not my biz

[hammered]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

And yet even the British National Front party were allowed on a prime time British TV debate show a few months ago, because that's what you do in a democracy. You allow people freedom of speech so others can decide to agree with you that so-and-so is a whack job - you don't get to decide for the rest of the population who is a whack-job and who isn't by declaring who can or cannot speak - unless you are a red-supporter of course, who seem to think that they have exactly this right.

Precisely why I am against them.

...because that's what you do in a democracy. You allow people freedom of speech so others can decide to agree with you that so-and-so is a whack job - you don't get to decide for the rest of the population who is a whack-job and who isn't by declaring who can or cannot speak

I would venture that mass censorship of the media backs up your argument too!....though you wouldn't want a smart-ass like me pointing it out...and yes it was terrible under Thaksin too. Just a thought!

One of the worst things of this whole period is the complete lack of respect for freedom of speech shown by any side and some of the lies propogated are rerminsicent of 30s Europe in creating hatred. Not picking on any side here but just making a general point. Absolutley no outcome will lead to anyhting except censroship and hate filled rhetoric it seems.

[pornsasi]

<br />

<br /> just a lesson of History, initially in Social movement, it is always a small amount of people starting the demonstrations, most of people are following the events with some distances... But when the victory is celebrated... everybody is joining. <br />Example Paris liberation (1944): less than 1% of the population in the active resistance. but few days later, celebration of the Liberation with De Gaulle at Notre Dame: millions of people in the streets.

<br /><br />Not really an analogous situation is it Jerry? France was under occupation by armed forces from ANOTHER country, and the local population were in fear of death squads if they dissented. Fear and intimidation were rife, thousans had been murdered and 'disappeared', and everyone knew what happened if you criticsed the occupying forces - the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.<br />

<br /><br />It is difficult to find statistics of old time however some other figures which confirms that initially only a minority of active people are making History through unrests, revolutions...<br />- The storming of the Bastille (14 july 1789) has been done by a crowd estimated at less than 1000 people, officially around 600 people registered.<br />- Russian revolution February 1917 has started with a strike of 50,000 workers.<br />- Paris Commune: only part of Parisians were involved, one monarchist engineer has open the western gate to Versaillais. Estimated around 50,000 "communards" on a 2 millions Paris Population.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Salut Jerry , I agree with you , but this forum is about Thailand LOL .

[Jerrytheyoung]

And some more figures....

Beginning of July 1789, the Parisian mob was gathering in an area close to the "Palais Royal", Place Vendome", "Jardin des tuileries" (Some analogy with Ratchaprajong...) in the luxurious core of Paris. The crowd has been estimated to 10,000/ 12,000 people only with Leaders making speeches regularly.

On the other side, the french King Louis XVI was assembling 25,000 soldiers around Paris and Versailles of which 50% were professional mercenaries.

So what happens in Bangkok is in the same scale than other events of this nature.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[Jerrytheyoung]

Salut Jerry , I agree with you , but this forum is about Thailand LOL .

Sorry, but I have to demonstrate to some guys, that historical events are inititiated by a small percentage, they find the mob at Rachaprasong not significant ....

(difficult to find statistics on this kind of events)

[jayboy]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Ah could we assume that the likes of Jatuporn would also deserve what Moseley got outside of his circle of scumbag admirers bearing in mind of course that there are plenty of decent people in both the red and multicolour movements and we arent trying to label them all;)

No of course we're not.We were talking about Dr Tui.This thread completely omitted any reference to this person's belief system.Hopefully I've encouraged a few members to do some research.

[TAWP]

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

[jayboy]

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

[TAWP]

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

You are confused.

It doesn't matter if he is The Devil himself, he still has the right to travel to the town without threat of violence.

You call him a fascist but support actions that are carried out by fascist-like groups, interesting...

His views are not the point, his right to express them is.

[jayboy]

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

You are confused.

It doesn't matter if he is The Devil himself, he still has the right to travel to the town without threat of violence.

You call him a fascist but support actions that are carried out by fascist-like groups, interesting...

His views are not the point, his right to express them is.

So as I expected you duck out of giving a view.His views are precisely the point.I agree also in free speech as a general principle.However, since I was earlier talking about Thammasat in 1976, I wonder whether your apparently unqualified belief in free speech would include the late Khun Samak urging the fascist thugs on to murder university students and radicals?

Edited May 2, 2010 by jayboy

[hammered]

So as I expected you duck out of giving a view.I agree also in free speech as a general principle.However, since I was earlier talking about Thammasat in 1976, I wonder whether your apparently unqualified belief in free speech would include the late Khun Samak urging the fascist thugs on to murder university students and radicals?

I think if we are going to talk about hate speech we need to include sopme of the horrific rhetoric from red speakers not least of all Jatuporn and Nattawut but also Weng as being at least as bad as Tul

[Slip]

<snipped to stay in quote limits>

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

You are confused.

It doesn't matter if he is The Devil himself, he still has the right to travel to the town without threat of violence.

You call him a fascist but support actions that are carried out by fascist-like groups, interesting...

His views are not the point, his right to express them is.

So as I expected you duck out of giving a view.His views are precisely the point.I agree also in free speech as a general principle.However, since I was earlier talking about Thammasat in 1976, I wonder whether your apparently unqualified belief in free speech would include the late Khun Samak urging the fascist thugs on to murder university students and radicals?

Again this happens. Obtuse 'reasoning' by the red shirt apologists. What TAWP is trying to explain to you Jayboy, is that the right to free speech involves letting people say what they want. If at some time society (i.e, the powers that be) decide that what is being said is detrimental to the society, then they will revoke the right to free speech for some individuals, within (hopefully) transparent boundaries. Thai society has not yet decided that the propagation of Dr Tui's views are unacceptable, therefore he is free to speak and travel where he wishes, no matter how repulsive you, I or Tawp may or may not find the man. You're right; the Dr's character is of interest, but not central to the issue. His views are by no means 'precisely the point'

Edited May 2, 2010 by Slip

[TAWP]

You are confused.

It doesn't matter if he is The Devil himself, he still has the right to travel to the town without threat of violence.

You call him a fascist but support actions that are carried out by fascist-like groups, interesting...

His views are not the point, his right to express them is.

So as I expected you duck out of giving a view.His views are precisely the point.I agree also in free speech as a general principle.However, since I was earlier talking about Thammasat in 1976, I wonder whether your apparently unqualified belief in free speech would include the late Khun Samak urging the fascist thugs on to murder university students and radicals?

Nice deflection.

First, are you saying that he has held any speeches of this nature now? That is why you dislike the man?

Secondly, the fact of the matter is that it does not matter if he has, as a free man has the right to travel without being attacked etc.

[jayboy]

Again this happens. Obtuse 'reasoning' by the red shirt apologists. What TAWP is trying to explain to you Jayboy, is that the right to free speech involves letting people say what they want. If at some time society (i.e, the powers that be) decide that what is being said is detrimental to the society, then they will revoke the right to free speech for some individuals, within (hopefully) transparent boundaries. Thai society has not yet decided that the propagation of Dr Tui's views are unacceptable, therefore he is free to speak and travel where he wishes, no matter how repulsive you, I or Tawp may or may not find the man. You're right; the Dr's character is of interest, but not central to the issue. His views are by no means 'precisely the point'

So in Thailand "the powers that be" define what is free speech and what is or isn't tolerated, and what is detrimental to society.And there unwittingly you have identified why Thailand is on the verge of civil war with millions of Thais now prepared to tell the "powers that be" to take a hike.

[jayboy]

Nice deflection.

First, are you saying that he has held any speeches of this nature now? That is why you dislike the man?

Secondly, the fact of the matter is that it does not matter if he has, as a free man has the right to travel without being attacked etc.

You call it a nice deflection, but you are the one avoiding the point.And we still have to hear your views on Dr Tui.I don't suppose we ever will.

First point.His views are on the record, and easily researched.Why are you asking me why I dislike the man? Is it ignorance or do you share his views?

Second point.I agree that he can travel where he likes but if he openly peddles his racist, reactionary and hysterical views I shouldn't lose very much sleep if someone in righteous anger threw something pungent in his direction.

[Slip]

Again this happens. Obtuse 'reasoning' by the red shirt apologists. What TAWP is trying to explain to you Jayboy, is that the right to free speech involves letting people say what they want. If at some time society (i.e, the powers that be) decide that what is being said is detrimental to the society, then they will revoke the right to free speech for some individuals, within (hopefully) transparent boundaries. Thai society has not yet decided that the propagation of Dr Tui's views are unacceptable, therefore he is free to speak and travel where he wishes, no matter how repulsive you, I or Tawp may or may not find the man. You're right; the Dr's character is of interest, but not central to the issue. His views are by no means 'precisely the point'

So in Thailand "the powers that be" define what is free speech and what is or isn't tolerated, and what is detrimental to society.And there unwittingly you have identified why Thailand is on the verge of civil war with millions of Thais now prepared to tell the "powers that be" to take a hike.

In every country the 'powers that be' make these decisions. Like Thailand's government, they are (hopefully) legally in power. Yes, when governments believe that their citizens have crossed a line, they will take action against them. I'm not sure that the revolution you're predicting is quite ready to fly. The millions of Thais who want to tell anyone to go will have an opportunity at the next election like the civilised people that they are. (I believe it might be early due to the adroit handling of Phi Abhisit).

[jackspratt]

You call it a nice deflection, but you are the one avoiding the point.And we still have to hear your views on Dr Tui.I don't suppose we ever will.

First point.His views are on the record, and easily researched.Why are you asking me why I dislike the man? Is it ignorance or do you share his views?

Second point.I agree that he can travel where he likes but if he openly peddles his racist, reactionary and hysterical views I shouldn't lose very much sleep if someone in righteous anger threw something pungent in his direction.

But he can't, can he?

Khon Kaen was not an aberration when it comes to the reds trying to suppress free speech in Issan.

That is why hopes for free, fair and open elections up here are just a pipe dream.

Edited May 2, 2010 by jackspratt

[jayboy]

In every country the 'powers that be' make these decisions. Like Thailand's government, they are (hopefully) legally in power. Yes, when governments believe that their citizens have crossed a line, they will take action against them. I'm not sure that the revolution you're predicting is quite ready to fly. The millions of Thais who want to tell anyone to go will have an opportunity at the next election like the civilised people that they are. (I believe it might be early due to the adroit handling of Phi Abhisit).

I'm puzzled by your response.The "powers that be" aren't normally considered to be represented by just the government in Thailand, or anywhere else for that matter.Free speech is considered a right in democracies and cannot be given or taken away by a government, even accepting your doubtful definition.I didn't predict a revolution, simply pointed out that old style Thai deference is collapsing.And as for the election you comically believe will bring Abhisit a second term....bring it on.

[animatic]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Jayboy, you are the only one, with exception ONE single obviouse quite biased website slagging him.

No sign of ANYONE else saying his is this racist monster. Not common knowledge at all.

I suggest you LINK to these accusations from reputable sources, rather than just say google them.

I did and they ain't there so... Rule 15) I don't see this as true, put up or shut up.

[kissdani]

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Jayboy, you are the only one, with exception ONE single obviouse quite biased website slagging him.

No sign of ANYONE else saying his is this racist monster. Not common knowledge at all.

I suggest you LINK to these accusations from reputable sources, rather than just say google them.

I did and they ain't there so... Rule 15) I don't see this as true, put up or shut up.

http://58.97.5.29/court.html

http://58.97.5.29/www.capothai.org/