Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage

[Valentine]

The only difference is:

Farang media is here to make money (more subscription, more ads, etc).

Government media is here to tell the truth (to keep the nation informed).

Instead if trying to stir the pot all the time why don't you post some well thought out comments because you cannot expect anyone to believe that you, seriously believe what you write.

[mca]

Government media is here to tell the truth (to keep the nation informed).

By just starting another LM witch hunt

[jackdawson]

unarmed civilians[/quote}

posters who talk about "unarmed civilians" being killed are being EXTREMELY disingenious .

for this falls under the tenet that "if you play with fire you are likely to get burned"

the "unarmed civilians" were mixing and were admidst EXTREMELY dangerous and volatile armed black shirt thugs (as witnessed by grenade attacks , arson , rampaging of hospitals , road blocks , destruction of private property and babies being held over barricades) .

as things heated up , the "unarmed civilians" had two months to decide whether it was worth risking their life for the (daily 500 baht payments provided by the) montenegran. many / most apparently decided (wisely) it was not and at the end the crowd dwindled to a shadow of what it was when the squatters first moved in to ratchaprasong / lumphini .

considering the hardship they inflicted upon BKK and the violence they propagated , less than 100 dead in returning the central city to it's inhabitants does not seem out of proportion . and perhaps more importantly a lessen was administered .

kudos go out to the thai armed forces for their patience and professionalism .

of course , once the APVs started rolling over the tires and sharpened bamboo sticks, the campers could not retreat to the "safety" of wat pathum FAST enough . saw that one coming from a mile away .

ps that part about an unarmed seh deang (khittiya) being killed was really funny . thanks for the laugh. this guy was provided with a mile of rope and he used it predictably to hang himself .

Edited June 22, 2010 by jackdawson

[Ulysses G.]

All very difficult not to agree with. 

[jayboy]

posters who talk about "unarmed civilians" being killed are being EXTREMELY disingenious .

for this falls under the tenet that "if you play with fire you are likely to get burned"

the "unarmed civilians" were mixing and were admidst EXTREMELY dangerous and volatile armed black shirt thugs (as witnessed by grenade attacks , arson , rampaging of hospitals , road blocks , destruction of private property and babies being held over barricades) .

as things heated up , the "unarmed civilians" had two months to decide whether it was worth risking their life for the (daily 500 baht payments provided by the) montenegran. many / most apparently decided (wisely) it was not and at the end the crowd dwindled to a shadow of what it was when the squatters first moved in to ratchaprasong / lumphini .

considering the hardship they inflicted upon BKK and the violence they propagated , less than 100 dead in returning the central city to it's inhabitants does not seem out of proportion . and perhaps more importantly a lessen was administered .

kudos go out to the thai armed forces for their patience and professionalism .

of course , once the APVs started rolling over the tires and sharpened bamboo sticks, the campers could not retreat to the "safety" of wat pathum FAST enough . saw that one coming from a mile away .

ps that part about an unarmed seh deang (khittiya) being killed was really funny . thanks for the laugh. this guy was provided with a mile of rope and he used it predictably to hang himself .

Much of this is dubious or at least capable of different interpretation.His remarks on Wat Pathum I personally found stomach turning.

What's significant here is that absolutely no mention is made of why the reds were there in the first place (apart from the usual cartoon like explanation).Of course it doesn't much matter what this kind of foreigner thinks one way or the other, but my impression is the uncompromising views expressed are indeed shared by many urban Thais.So where does that leave reconciliation? There seems to be very little generosity of spirit around.

[jackdawson]

why the reds were there in the first place

i don't know how i could have made my reference to their 500 baht a day payments any CLEARER .

reconciliation

is it that unclear ? who want's reconciliation ?

re: wat pathum . maybe the monks will think twice next time about their letting their "sanctuary" being used as a refuge for arsonists, thieves and looters (or didn't u read the piece about booty from central world being found there?)

Edited June 22, 2010 by jackdawson

[jayboy]

why the reds were there in the first place

i don't know how i could have made my reference to their 500 baht a day payments any CLEARER .

reconciliation

is it that unclear ? who want's reconciliation ?

re: wat pathum . maybe the monks will think twice next time about their letting their "sanctuary" being used as a refuge for arsonists, thieves and looters (or didn't u read the piece about booty from central world being found there?)

You make my point more clearly than you probably understand.

[BNZ]

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

As you requested,  for clarity.

  

Sorry I wrongly presumed you were serious and posed a serious question.

I did obviously pose a serious question several times which you have failed to post proof of and failed to  "..readily admit.. " (see your quote below ) when you are wrong ..if you are wrong in this statement.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

Posting a simple minded asinine reply in an attempt to avoid responsibility displays your

shallowness and lack of credibilty and casts a pall on the genuine Red Shirts of Issan etc, sympathisers, readers and posters on this forum.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

So please let us see the proof of  your "80 unarmed dead civilians" without any further evasion.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

  

Quote; jayboy

"Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

[jayboy]

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

As you requested,  for clarity.

  

Sorry I wrongly presumed you were serious and posed a serious question.

I did obviously pose a serious question several times which you have failed to post proof of and failed to  "..readily admit.. " (see your quote below ) when you are wrong ..if you are wrong in this statement.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

Posting a simple minded asinine reply in an attempt to avoid responsibility displays your

shallowness and lack of credibilty and casts a pall on the genuine Red Shirts of Issan etc, sympathisers, readers and posters on this forum.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

So please let us see the proof of  your "80 unarmed dead civilians" without any further evasion.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

  

Quote; jayboy

"Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

I'm sorry but I don't regard your question as a serious one, given your attitude:

"Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations."

Furthermore if you are disputing a large number (80 seems to be the best estimate) of unarmed civilians were shot dead by the military, I suggest you rewrite history with someone else.

[rogerdee123]

This is off-topic a bit .... but why doesn't BBC and CNN cover this article/topic (see below).

This is a direct result of the Thaksin administration's supply side economics and making credit easy for the "poor" (lower middle class) .... when many of these teachers were encouraged to buy new cars on easy credit without regard to whether they could afford to repay the loans. The car companies really liked this policy and made bundles! This is an example of how Thaksin helped the poor along with his other schemes like the 20 baht health check (which wasn't sufficiently funded by his Govt). Now the current Govt is having to bail out all these poorly thought out (but highly praised by the international press) so-called "help the poor" schemes.

20,000 teachers in the Northeast are in debt crisis

BANGKOK (NNT) – The Committee for Welfare and Security Promotion of Teacher and Educational Personnel unveils that half of teachers’ debts has been repaid and teachers in the Northeastern region are the group with the most serious liability problems.

The Committee for Welfare and Security Promotion of Teacher and Educational Personnel tasked the Teacher Development Center to survey around 700,000 teachers’ obligations around the country, and found about 20,000 of them with serious liabilities requiring urgent assistance, most of them from the Northeast.

During 2000-2010, the figure of formal debts of teachers is around 10 billion THB and some of them can not make settlements, totaling 198 million THB or 0.36%, showing less teachers with debt problems as claimed by several parties.

The Committee therefore views that the committee’s objective should focus on teacher development instead of solving debt problem. Teacher will be educated about accounting to manage their expenditure on the basis of the Sufficiency Economy principle for their better life. However, the group with serious problems must be assisted as well.

[TAWP]

You produced a document, not in English that does not prove your claim. So don't blame others for being confused.

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.

If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

[TAWP]

I don't know who performed the killing of khittiya, but I would sure like to know. I would love to see an investigation into it. Are all sides willing to accept the outcome?

[Ulysses G.]

What's significant here is that absolutely no mention is made of why the reds were there in the first place 

They wanted to return Thaksin to power and everyone knows it. It does not need to be repeated over and over again. 

[rabo]

You produced a document, not in English that does not prove your claim. So don't blame others for being confused.

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

Um, can I use the RPG holes in the Dusit Hotel as evidence? Or that hi-res picture of the dead reporter sleeping with two soldier bodies torn up by shrapnel? Or the videos of black shirts firing M79 grenades? Or the plastic explosives left on the powr pylons?, or the videos of the guys dressed in black shooting guns on April 10? Oh! How bout the video of a soldier laser targeted then shot?

Or you are just looking for 21 to 30 year old males in golf shirts with a particular model/caliber carbine?

[jayboy]

What's significant here is that absolutely no mention is made of why the reds were there in the first place 

They wanted to return Thaksin to power and everyone knows it. It does not need to be repeated over and over again. 

You seem to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.Of course the ambitions of Thaksin represented a major factor.But if you think that's all there is to be said about the red movement you don't understand very much.I can scarcely be bothered commenting on this type of post.Suffice it to say that the government ,notably Abhisit and Korn are not so naive.

[mazeltov]

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.

If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

ermm, in the entry you are quoting i also wrote:

"please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died."

did you read it? did you try to follow my argument? i invested some time to clear your confusion. but if you keep focusing only on parts of my entries and ignoring the context, it will leads to nothing but waste of time.

So i asked for evidence that the dead civilians were armed. I saw many photos of unarmed red shirts and also went a few times to the rally site. lots of unarmed civilians were over there. Any yes i saw also images like the once that you describe.

but honestly that is not a proof that the dead civilians were armed.

According to Govt/CRES the soldiers were "instructed to fire at knee level in order to minimize injuries and deaths." and that there were terrorists, unidentified snipers targeting lives of innocent protesters, innocent people, EMS teams and the press.

So probably these unidentified people, like the once you saw on your images killed the civilians from that death list. you saw the pictures of the suspected killers, but that don't make their victims armed.

is that to confusing for you?

There are a couple of cases where i know, saw or read more details how these people got killed. unarmed people. The youtube video of the young man with the flag who got a head shot. In the moment Seh Daeng ws killed he didn't threaten anybody with a gun. the journalists were probably also not armed. same as the nurse and other para medics. the deaths from the Wat at the last day. the 10/14 years old boy at the road check point. the middle-age woman, a junk collector with an unknown name. Or the cases of were people got shot on their balconies, like Thai pop star Kampan Bazoo, his unarmed friend got killed. the air force sergant who got killed at a road check point, was in plain clothes, probably off duty, kinda a civilian too, an unarmed one.

in many cases we don't know who killed these people, except for the young boy and the air force sgt. both where evidently killed by trigger happy security forces.

So i ask again, do you have any concrete and detailed evidence that the killed civilians were armed?

And who killed them, because the claim that they were armed implied that the security forces fired the deadly shot, right?

And there are rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials, an international law. the govt claimed all actions were according to these rules.

well, i saw a couple of videos that are most likely evidence that people, unarmed people, where shot at and under fire by government forces who actually didn't follow the rules of the use of firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. but i don't want this discuss right now.

[Ulysses G.]

You seem to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

If your posts prove anything at all, it is that I am not alone in that affliction.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[animatic]

You produced a document, not in English that does not prove your claim. So don't blame others for being confused.

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.

If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

cdnvic, he never shows proof,

isn't time for TFV rule 15 to be invoked?

[rubl]

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.

If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

ermm, in the entry you are quoting i also wrote:

"please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died."

did you read it? did you try to follow my argument? i invested some time to clear your confusion. but if you keep focusing only on parts of my entries and ignoring the context, it will leads to nothing but waste of time.

So i asked for evidence that the dead civilians were armed. I saw many photos of unarmed red shirts and also went a few times to the rally site. lots of unarmed civilians were over there. Any yes i saw also images like the once that you describe.

but honestly that is not a proof that the dead civilians were armed.

According to Govt/CRES the soldiers were "instructed to fire at knee level in order to minimize injuries and deaths." and that there were terrorists, unidentified snipers targeting lives of innocent protesters, innocent people, EMS teams and the press.

So probably these unidentified people, like the once you saw on your images killed the civilians from that death list. you saw the pictures of the suspected killers, but that don't make their victims armed.

is that to confusing for you?

There are a couple of cases where i know, saw or read more details how these people got killed. unarmed people. The youtube video of the young man with the flag who got a head shot. In the moment Seh Daeng ws killed he didn't threaten anybody with a gun. the journalists were probably also not armed. same as the nurse and other para medics. the deaths from the Wat at the last day. the 10/14 years old boy at the road check point. the middle-age woman, a junk collector with an unknown name. Or the cases of were people got shot on their balconies, like Thai pop star Kampan Bazoo, his unarmed friend got killed. the air force sergant who got killed at a road check point, was in plain clothes, probably off duty, kinda a civilian too, an unarmed one.

in many cases we don't know who killed these people, except for the young boy and the air force sgt. both where evidently killed by trigger happy security forces.

So i ask again, do you have any concrete and detailed evidence that the killed civilians were armed?

And who killed them, because the claim that they were armed implied that the security forces fired the deadly shot, right?

And there are rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials, an international law. the govt claimed all actions were according to these rules.

well, i saw a couple of videos that are most likely evidence that people, unarmed people, where shot at and under fire by government forces who actually didn't follow the rules of the use of firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. but i don't want this discuss right now.

This discussion has been held in different threads. Opinion going from left to right, up and down. By now there are many video clip (real/doctored) supporting anything you want, wouldn't be surprised to hear about an 'alien invasion' angle. May I speak in general? We've had enough about insinuations that 'on purpose' unarmed citizens were shot. When a protest turns violent you can expect anything. 89 death is 89 too many, but could easely have been thousands if no restraint was shown.

Mods: this discussion should be closed.

[rabo]

ermm, civilians normally don't carry guns. someone who claims the opposite, 'armed civilians has the burden of proof. 'armed' means guilty, that needs evidence, a smoking gun, simple the fact that they were killed isn't evidence enough that they were culprits.

We have already seen lots of images of both armed with (bigger and smaller) guns aswell as clubs, knifes, slingshots, rocket-mortars, smoke-launchers etc etc.

If you want to make belief that none of these items can cause damage or injuries, that say so and I will be happy to prove you wrong.

ermm, in the entry you are quoting i also wrote:

"please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died."

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The red shirts and probably some of the blacks were civilians as well. Many of the reds were unarmed, obviously many were armed. The reds even discarded their red clothing to be indistinguishable from other civilians. These are precisely terrorist tactics, the plan from the beginning was to generate casualties so the government would fall, as was demonstrated on April 10.

Even if you had a way to determine exactly who was who, which you don't, there is no way to separate the responsibility for civilian deaths from the other armed militants.

[Groongthep]

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

I've noticed this too. It's most prevalent on the politically oriented topics but the number of pretenders posting throughout the forums seems to be increasing.

[BNZ]

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

I've noticed this too. It's most prevalent on the politically oriented topics but the number of pretenders posting throughout the forums seems to be increasing.

CORRECTION:

Groongthep. I 'quoted' that from another poster at the bottom of my post #160.

[BNZ]

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

As you requested,  for clarity.

  

Sorry I wrongly presumed you were serious and posed a serious question.

I did obviously pose a serious question several times which you have failed to post proof of and failed to  "..readily admit.. " (see your quote below ) when you are wrong ..if you are wrong in this statement.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

Posting a simple minded asinine reply in an attempt to avoid responsibility displays your

shallowness and lack of credibilty and casts a pall on the genuine Red Shirts of Issan etc, sympathisers, readers and posters on this forum.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

So please let us see the proof of  your "80 unarmed dead civilians" without any further evasion.

Is this the clarity you seek ?

  

Quote; jayboy

"Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not. However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception."

I'm sorry but I don't regard your question as a serious one, given your attitude:

"Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations."

Furthermore if you are disputing a large number (80 seems to be the best estimate) of unarmed civilians were shot dead by the military, I suggest you rewrite history with someone else.

I assure you my question is indeed serious

You have flippantly re-posted the same statement and continual previous evasion of posting the proof is also serious as it is in violation of ThaiVisa rules, to-wit "...post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate.."

The onus is upon you to supply  proof.

[jayboy]

You have flippantly re-posted the same statement and continual previous evasion of posting the proof is also serious as it is in violation of ThaiVisa rules, to-wit "...post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate.."

The onus is upon you to supply  proof.

Remind me, what was your question again.

I think you will find on closer study of the Thai Visa rules that it is not compulsory to respond to inanities.

[chantorn]

Get over it.

Watch Thai TV.

[animatic]

Get over it.

Watch Thai TV.

Hi P. Chantorn.

Have you been on vacation?

I missed your random non-sequeteurs breaking up the madness here.

[jayboy]

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

[hammered]

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

An interersting read indeed. Only one real criticiism of it is that around the world history showed the middle and lower urban classes united to win demands from feudal and ruling elites often helped by a pliant peasantry and then the middle and lower classes generally came into conflict later as opposed to Stent's claim that the lower classes stood up to a united elite and middle class around the world. That is historically inaccurate for most of the world.

I dont buy into your theory of highly educated and high achieving foreigners by the way. That is to assume high achieving is definable in career terms rather than personal ones;)

[rabo]

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand's Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

An excellent and well thought out article, one that may be a bit painful for anyone with polarized views irrespective of color. His pre-Thaksin evaluation of the state of Thai society and culture is, I feel, as close to reality as one can get in a couple of pages. His treatment from the Thaksin years to the present seems a bit soft on one side although he has all the right pieces in the right places and does not loose his logical way. As he continues with what he would hope to see, there is perhaps a bit to add.

His view of Abhisit as a bit wet behind the ears and unlikely to be effective may no longer apply. Nothing can change us like facing insurmountable crisis and I imagine Abhisit is not the person he was a couple of months ago. I don't know if he used the crying towels sent to mock him by the red leadership but with in a month, the same red leadership was fractured and many were shaking in their boots. If anyone doubts Abhisit's hand in this, just think back to early April and Abhisit's public scolding of Anupong, one of the most powerful men in Thailand.

Although Thai politics is corrupt across the board, the future I would like to see is one where the corrupt realize they must now adopt at least the image of a cleaner politics with a new generation of leaders like Abhisit. It will take a long time but hopefully some of the image will rub off.

This would also include new leadership for those trying to bring about change. Although red leadership is more than just Thaksin, it was fashioned by him and reflects the old style bomb something and lie methods of yesteryear. I hope the forces of change can now find a new style leader to compete with Abhisit's squeaky clean and honest image. Granted, new style leaders will be operating in a sea of muck and will need the skills to survive.

In the end, the future of Thailand belongs to all Thai and change will not come from blowing up the place and tearing down the house, but from grasping the tenuous threads of good that lead to the future. And like the author says, this will take time.

As for your obsession with educational levels, the first thing that an Ivy League PhD physicist with straight A's will tell you, it's not the education but experience and the will to see things the way they are.

Your entire educational premise is easily discarded. If it were true, there would be little sense in giving a vote to the rural masses.

Edited June 24, 2010 by rabo

[thaihome]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

How can someone say they are describing Thai politics and not mention once, except to describe one as “one of Thailand’s more unsavory politicians” the role of the rural faction leaders? To ignore the rural faction leaders also ignores how Thaksin was able really able to form the TRT and later win control of the Parliament. It had nothing to do with his policies. The rural poor did not “vote for Thaksin”, the voted for MP candidates that the local faction leader chose. He also plays down the demagoguery the community radios stations and the “Red Schools” used in “political education” of the rural poor. Nor does he address in any of his paths to reconciliation what must be done to control the rural factions leaders. He fails to explain why Abhisit is unable to visit areas of the North and Northeast due to the rabid, hate filled propaganda that has been going on for over a year now, making Abhisit the devil incarnate and cause of all their troubles.

The other telling item is his use of the word “amat”. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism” in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the “elite” and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH