At Least Three Dead In Bomb Blast At Bangkok Apartment Building

[Pi Sek]

Where are the idiot UDD supporters now? Whenever evidence comes out that shows that there are indeed links of violent incidents with UDD, they either go quiet or try to divert the conversation subject to something else, or claim it's all just propaganda from a dictatorship government who has complete control of the media.

In the spirit of our learned 'article-meister' Buchholz, I would humbly like to request that you provide any evidence you may have linking the construction of this bomb with the UDD leadership.

If merely asking for such evidence makes me an 'idiot UDD supporter', then Hello, here I am.

He said linking to the UDD, not the leadership. Links to the UDD...? Well, he was a known red shirt militant, caught on camera in a red shirt with thousands of other red shirts, hurling a grenade in Chiang Mai.

Nevertheless, please remember that the UDD leadership threatened exactly this - bomb attacks. No need to post 'evidence', it's all over the Internet and these fora. And in the act of blowing himself up, the militant in question was preparing bombs in an anonymously-rented room filled with anti-monarchy pro-Thaksin propaganda media. I don't think he paid for all this himself.

Please don't refer to yourself as an 'idiot', you're clearly fairly intelligent no matter your opinion. :jap:

But re-read what you've written - "asking for such evidence makes me an 'idiot UDD supporter'" - and wonder why an intelligent person might post this, given the above. This is where all these 'paid PR people' claims are coming from.

[Siripon]

Where are the idiot UDD supporters now? Whenever evidence comes out that shows that there are indeed links of violent incidents with UDD, they either go quiet or try to divert the conversation subject to something else, or claim it's all just propaganda from a dictatorship government who has complete control of the media.

Well, the old "The government did it to discredit the Red Shirts/UDD" never seems to run out of style.

Once you swallow the Vast Government Conspiracy* then anything and everything can be spun to fit in that narrative.

*As opposed to the actual, more mundane criminal conspiracy from certain "political" elements.

It's hard to use the 'fake red' excuse in this case, though I notice the desperate Jatupon tried to link Samai to the Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan as they share the same surname!

[pedro01]

Where are the idiot UDD supporters now? Whenever evidence comes out that shows that there are indeed links of violent incidents with UDD, they either go quiet or try to divert the conversation subject to something else, or claim it's all just propaganda from a dictatorship government who has complete control of the media.

In the spirit of our learned 'article-meister' Buchholz, I would humbly like to request that you provide any evidence you may have linking the construction of this bomb with the UDD leadership.

If merely asking for such evidence makes me an 'idiot UDD supporter', then Hello, here I am.

He said linking to the UDD, not the leadership. Links to the UDD...? Well, he was a known red shirt militant, caught on camera in a red shirt with thousands of other red shirts, hurling a grenade in Chiang Mai.

Nevertheless, please remember that the UDD leadership threatened exactly this - bomb attacks. No need to post 'evidence', it's all over the Internet and these fora. And in the act of blowing himself up, the militant in question was preparing bombs in an anonymously-rented room filled with anti-monarchy pro-Thaksin propaganda media. I don't think he paid for all this himself.

Please don't refer to yourself as an 'idiot', you're clearly fairly intelligent no matter your opinion. :jap:

But re-read what you've written - "asking for such evidence makes me an 'idiot UDD supporter'" - and wonder why an intelligent person might post this, given the above. This is where all these 'paid PR people' claims are coming from.

Look - unless you get the guy to confess post-mortem, there's no way any red-apologist is going to do anything other than piss in the wind over this.

[Pi Sek]

Where are the idiot UDD supporters now? Whenever evidence comes out that shows that there are indeed links of violent incidents with UDD, they either go quiet or try to divert the conversation subject to something else, or claim it's all just propaganda from a dictatorship government who has complete control of the media.

Well, the old "The government did it to discredit the Red Shirts/UDD" never seems to run out of style.

Once you swallow the Vast Government Conspiracy* then anything and everything can be spun to fit in that narrative.

*As opposed to the actual, more mundane criminal conspiracy from certain "political" elements.

It's hard to use the 'fake red' excuse in this case, though I notice the desperate Jatupon tried to link Samai to the Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan as they share the same surname!

Khun Siripon, I hadn't heard this... are you serious?

Jatuporn really shouldn't open his mouth in public in the future. It's like a super-extreme case of "the boy crying wolf". It amazes me that some people still listen to what he says, let alone take him seriously. What a complete fool.

[hanuman1]

Links to the UDD...? Well, he was a known red shirt militant, caught on camera in a red shirt with thousands of other red shirts, hurling a grenade in Chiang Mai.

Thank you for your wise reply.

Just one question. Does your statement above mean:

a) he was like the thousands of other red shirts

OR

b ) thousands of other red shirts were like him

I'm not playing word games here or trying to be funny, I think there is a distinction to draw between a person who considers it acceptable to murder people and a person who doesn't.

As long as you're not branding everyone in a red shirt as a terrorist, or even a knowing terrorist supporter, then we're pretty much on the same page.

As for incitement to commit such acts, of course anyone who is an accessory to such terrible acts should be held accountable. But legally it becomes difficult to ascertain at what point someone becomes an accessory. The principle behind accusing UDD leaders of being an accessory to murder or whatever else is the same as that used by people who accuse Marilyn Manson of turning people into Satanists or Grand Theft Auto (a video game) of encouraging carjackings. Yes, they have these effects on a few people - always only a very few, but nevertheless those 'accessories to immorality/illegality' are still not held as being worthy of being banned.

If, for example, there was a taped phone conversation or written evidence that a UDD leader gave specific instructions about weapons, targets, timing etc to the perpetrators, the case would be clear cut. But what we're dealing with here involves establishing legal responsibility, which is often a very difficult thing to do and which people with a lynch-mob mentality simply refuse to be bothered contemplating.

Edited October 7, 2010 by hanuman1

[neverdie]

It seems the red apologists are a bit light on the ground.

[Insight]

It's no wonder those links took you "seconds" to find - they're a load of <deleted>, specifically as support for what you are alleging can happen here. Care to go back and highlight one single case where libel action has been taken against somebody who has made so-called libellous remarks against another user by using that user's anonymous Internet pseudonym only (i.e. "Siam Simon", "TallForeigner")? It's unlikely you'll find one as no working court system in the world, including Thailand, would allow for such a ridiculous case. If you fail in this task - which you will - care to highlight a post of mine you regard as "propaganda" ?

I presume what is really happening here is that your employers have had a particularity bad day attempting to deal with this pretty catastrophic PR disaster, which has then prompted you to reach for the big red shirt book on ethics to mitigate the damage through threatening phony legal action against posters attempting to describe exactly what they see.

Just as I thought you would, you failed even to read the links I provided for you. The Canadian link answers your question. If you bother to spend a short time Googling (which I know you won't), you will find plenty more on such internet libel cases.

Highlight a post of yours I regard as propaganda? . Lets just say about 95% of the ones in the News Clippings section.

As regards to "employers" and "PR", I rarely post on TV: I don't have the time. You certainly do: You post all day long, most days of the week, most of the year. Hmmmm..... .

Now, please provide me with that info about Thai libel law that backs up your childish and dangerous claims.

Frank D'Addario ousted founder of Environmental Management Solutions Inc., has obtained a court order compelling a financial news website to identify a number of individuals who posted remarks about him on the site's message board.

You clearly have comprehension problems - the guy in the Canadian article looks like he was clearly identified by his real name to me.

I have a heavy online presence owing to my work as an engineer (who is quite familiar with many a Google API FYI).

You accuse me of propaganda yet you can't even find one post of mine to attribute as propaganda...?

As for the rest of your post, sue me

Edited October 7, 2010 by Insight

[AleG]

If, for example, there was a taped phone conversation or written evidence that a UDD leader gave specific instructions about weapons, targets, timing etc to the perpetrators, the case would be clear cut. But what we're dealing with here involves establishing legal responsibility, which is often a very difficult thing to do and which people with a lynch-mob mentality simply refuse to be bothered contemplating.

There's the videos of some of the red leaders giving a laundry list of places to destroy in case the government stepped in to stop the protest. Giving it to a very enthusiastic and large crowd I should point.

Now, maybe it's just me, but if I go to a political rally to hear some leader speech (because there are some points of his agenda I agree with or whatever), and the guy whips out a list of places to destroy and organizations to target, goes on about burning down a city and so on and so forth, again, it maybe just me and my silly beliefs, but at that point I'd get up and leave in disgust. Others may opt to shake that plastic clapper and continue to think those leaders are people to look up to for inspiration and guidance.

[Buchholz]

It's hard to use the 'fake red' excuse in this case, though I notice the desperate Jatupon tried to link Samai to the Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan as they share the same surname!

hahahaha... I was wondering when that might come up and what fool would attempt to make a connection. It's right on cue that it would come from the moron Jatuporn.

The goofball never fails to disappoint.

[chantorn]

Q Where are the idiot UDD supporters now?

A Exclude those that are dead, the remainders are all in jail already.

[hanuman1]

Now, maybe it's just me, but if I go to a political rally to hear some leader speech (because there are some points of his agenda I agree with or whatever), and the guy whips out a list of places to destroy and organizations to target, goes on about burning down a city and so on and so forth, again, it maybe just me and my silly beliefs, but at that point I'd get up and leave in disgust. Others may opt to shake that plastic clapper and continue to think those leaders are people to look up to for inspiration and guidance.

Whether you left in disgust or not would depend on how passionate you were about your cause. To get to the point of cheering at the idea of burning down buildings one would assume people felt pretty strongly about something.

Now you may think that level headed individuals who know right from wrong would NEVER allow themselves to get that carried away. And yet we see plenty of evidence in this very forum of that happening on a regular basis. Witness the hardcore anti-red obsessives whose indignation - whether caused by personal loss, perceived injustice or whatever else - has led them to call for nothing less than lynchings and further violence by way of retaliation.

[Pi Sek]

Links to the UDD...? Well, he was a known red shirt militant, caught on camera in a red shirt with thousands of other red shirts, hurling a grenade in Chiang Mai.

Thank you for your wise reply.

Just one question. Does your statement above mean:

a) he was like the thousands of other red shirts

OR

b ) thousands of other red shirts were like him

I'm not playing word games here or trying to be funny, I think there is a distinction to draw between a person who considers it acceptable to murder people and a person who doesn't. As long as you're not branding everyone in a red shirt as a terrorist, or even a knowing terrorist supporter, then we're pretty much on the same page.

As for incitement to commit such acts, of course anyone who is an accessory to such terrible acts should be held accountable. But legally it becomes difficult to ascertain at what point someone becomes an accessory. The principle behind accusing UDD leaders of being an accessory to murder or whatever else is the same as that used by people who accuse Marilyn Manson of turning people into Satanists or Grand Theft Auto (a video game) of encouraging carjackings. Yes, they have these effects on a few people - always only a very few, but nevertheless those 'accessories to immorality/illegality' are still not held as being worthy of being banned.

If, for example, there was a taped phone conversation or written evidence that a UDD leader gave specific instructions about weapons, targets, timing etc to the perpetrators, the case would be clear cut. But what we're dealing with here involves establishing legal responsibility, which is often a very difficult thing to do and which people with a lynch-mob mentality simply refuse to be bothered contemplating.

Hi Hanuman, thanks for the courtesy of speaking reasonably with me... rare to see these days.

I didn't say that either he was like thousands of other red shirts, or that thousands of red shirts were like him. However, he was with thousands of other red shirts. At the end of the day, the odds are that he was not holding back that day and all I saw were other red shirts condoning his violent action. The ones that weren't were just saying that he wasn't a real red shirt; the the reds were all patting him on the back that day. So, unfortunately, the UDD very much encouraged violent and heavily-armed actions.

So, it's difficult for me (who is admittedly not pro-red, despite totally understanding that the reds have a valid point) and many totally neutral parties to accept that the hardcore reds (who are less than 5,000 nationwide) and the not-moderate-but-not-yet-hardcore reds (let's say another 20,000 - being very generous) are not knowing terrorist supporters. Unfortunately for the rank-and-file UDD supporter (who are around 100,000 in number), this much smaller group of UDD supporters are knowing terrorist supporters.

As for equating responsibility of video games etc to responsibility of UDD leaders, I'm sorry I can't agree. The UDD leaders decided to substitute their civil duty of doing the right thing by the majority of their supporters for hard cash pushed towards them by those who had a much more sinister agenda. I don't think I need to elaborate but, in the interests of clarity, I will - Thaksin paid these people (along with his "political party") to serve his own interests after he was thrown out by what I call (and I recognise that you will disagree) a "necessary coup". Even if it was most certainly undemocratic, as PM Abhisit has been pointing out all along since the day it happened.

"If, for example, there was a taped phone conversation or written evidence that a UDD leader gave specific instructions about weapons, targets, timing etc to the perpetrators, the case would be clear cut."

The leaders did exactly that - without re-listening to the many media all over the Internet, "Don't wait for the signal. Gather at your provincial halls and burn them down. You'll know when, don't wait for our order. When the operation begins, the whole of Thailand will burn. Siriraj hospital, government house, all mosques, the army's barracks, Central World - none of them will be standing."

This makes the case absolutely clear cut and any claim by ANY UDD leader, or even supporter, that the UDD leadership should not be 100% responsible, as they actually said they will accept, is yet more hot air.

And finally, from something I wrote back in April/May:

There is a genuine Red Shirt cause, and it’s one that’s quite understandable all over the world: the injustice of inequality. They don’t want double standards to apply as has been the case for many; grievances represented by, for example, the Yellow Shirt leaders’ seeming impunity and Kasit’s appointment as foreign minister. A big problem with their argument is, with this protest, that they want the Law to be applicable to all, but they then insist on impunity; the protesters sleep in the street, the leaders sleep in one of Thaksin’s 5-star hotels; the rice-milling network, whose elite are protected by a “loans for farmers” scheme under Thaksin, actually keeps most of the Red Shirt supporters poor; the protesters risking their lives in the line of fire were being paid 1,000 Baht per day, the leaders who were shepherding them were being paid 5 million Baht per day. The party championing their cause is led by a man whose children were acquitted of murder for dubious silences from key witnesses.

[geriatrickid]

It seems the red apologists are a bit light on the ground.

It is not a question of a lack of redshirt sympathizers, but is instead a reflection of the fact that a handful of rude, belligerent and in some cases mentally deficient TVF members see any questions asked as an opportunity to compensate for their own personal failures in life to heap scorn and abuse upon those that ask the question(s).

The reality is that no sane, rational person is going to support or condone a bombing, intentional or accidental. If a redshirt was responsible then I am quite certain that most redshirt sympathizers as do the members of the redshirt movement itself condemn and regret such activity. The act was wrong.

However, the issue that arises is that if the investigation is not thorough and reaches conclusions affixing "blame" without substantive evidence to support the conclusion, then the process is flawed. It usually takes a week if not weeks to collect specimens and analyze residue and fragments. This isn't CSI on television where a lab tech puts a sample in a machine and everything comes out in seconds. Specimens have to be prepared and that takes time. The tests take time to run. Autopsies take time. Shortly after the blast there were announcements as to what happened. Incredible as that does not occur in those nations with a track record of dealing with bomb explosions.

One can have an idea, and one can suspect the type of explosive based upon past experience. Usually, these expectations are proven true, but again it takes time. In this specific case, there were almost immediate announcements providing definitive statements on the type of explosive used and how the devices were rigged. Simply put, it's a near impossibility to do that. Yes, it seems it was a bomb. And based upon past experience one can suspect the materials and format used. However, until the residues and fragments are collected and analyzed, nothing more can be stated. Therefore, the statements made by the police officials in this matter become suspect. It is too convenient that the bomb format is explained so clearly and quickly. It is quite legitimate then to wonder if the authorities had an informant, or were aware of what was going on beforehand or even had a role in the event. It would not be the first time a government agency incited trouble in an attempt to disrupt the activities of a protest movement. The FBI did that in the 60's, the RCMP burnt down private property in an attempt to discredit separtists in Canada, the German federal police were accused of inciting violent confrontations at their G-8 meetings etc. etc.

I believe that a proper and professional investigation needed to be conducted first before definitive public statements were made. The failure to do so introduces reasonable doubt. One does not convict when there is reasonable doubt, and yet the usual gang at TVF has come running to lay the blame. There is a concept societies ruled by law follow; Due process. It should be followed. Neglecting that means that there is a possibility that the actual culprits could still be walking around, ready to undertake further acts of violence. The intent of an investigation isn't to just create a photo opp where people can point, but to prevent new vrimes. It seems a usual practice that the Thai authorities stop once they get to the photo opp part of the process.

[hammered]

Even the red supporters I talk to think this was a red own goal, and a very big one at that

[Buchholz]

but, but.... it wasn't us...

Red Shirt Core Leader and Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan rails against ties between the red shirt movement and the recent explosion in Nonthaburi province, claiming the group's adherence to peaceful means.

Red-shirt Leader Denies Movement's Link to Blast

Jatuporn Prompan, red-shirt core leader and Pheu Thai Party MP, refuted speculation that members of his movement were part of the explosion in a make shift bomb assembly facility in an apartment building in Nonthaburi province.

Jatuporn affirmed that his group's movement is based on civility, but conceded that he could not speak for all of its many members as some may have their own grudges.

He called on the group to use restraint, saying that weapons would not bring about their objective.

Jatuporn continued that the government should work more closely with army intelligence units to better monitor the situation.

He elaborated that the nation is now facing different groups of violence instigators, each with its own motive, and called on the Democrat Party to be more devoted to its work to safeguard the public.

The red shirt leader warned that Bangkok could become a city of strife like in the three southern border provinces.

He suggested police work on their own investigations and not hand them over to the Department of Special Investigation, alleging the agency is bogged down by politics.

Jatuporn alleged that the explosion in Nonthaburi may have been staged to justify the recent arrests of 11 men in Chiang Mai.

He claimed one of the four casualties in the incident was a distant relative of Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-07

[Buchholz]

yes, it was...

Blast Victim Confirmed as Red-shirt Supporter

The national police office confirmed the red-shirt supporter suspected to be assembling the bomb that exploded in his apartment room in Nonthaburi was among the dead found in the building wreckage.

Spokesperson for the National Police Office, Police Major-General Prawut Tawornsiri said verification of the fingerprints from the fourth dead body retrieved from the wrecked apartment building confirmed it was Samai Wongsuwan, the tenant of Room 202 where the explosion took place Tuesday's evening.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-07

[gemini81]

It seems the red apologists are a bit light on the ground.

I noticed too! Well the government set up conspiracists can't say a whole lot about this one can they?! Finally, less headache. Sad for the others, but at least this little hellraiser reaped what he sowed.

[hyperdimension]

He called on the group to use restraint, saying that weapons would not bring about their objective.

That's a bit late isn't it, after all the destruction and loss of lives that the UDD themselves caused.

The red shirt leader warned that Bangkok could become a city of strife like in the three southern border provinces.

That sounds a lot like Thaksin's threat of guerilla warfare some months ago.

Edited October 7, 2010 by hyperdimension

[AleG]

Now, maybe it's just me, but if I go to a political rally to hear some leader speech (because there are some points of his agenda I agree with or whatever), and the guy whips out a list of places to destroy and organizations to target, goes on about burning down a city and so on and so forth, again, it maybe just me and my silly beliefs, but at that point I'd get up and leave in disgust. Others may opt to shake that plastic clapper and continue to think those leaders are people to look up to for inspiration and guidance.

Whether you left in disgust or not would depend on how passionate you were about your cause. To get to the point of cheering at the idea of burning down buildings one would assume people felt pretty strongly about something.

Now you may think that level headed individuals who know right from wrong would NEVER allow themselves to get that carried away. And yet we see plenty of evidence in this very forum of that happening on a regular basis. Witness the hardcore anti-red obsessives whose indignation - whether caused by personal loss, perceived injustice or whatever else - has led them to call for nothing less than lynchings and further violence by way of retaliation.

Getting to the point of condoning, instigating or taking part of the sort of violence we saw during the Red Shirt riot is, in my opinion, ipso facto evidence of not having a level head. How people get from being a perfectly normal individual to a street savage could be explained to continuous propaganda and brain washing by self appointed (more like externally contracted actually) leaders hammering their hatred, lies and manipulations over days, weeks and months on end on easily suggestible people.

[rubl]

but, but.... it wasn't us...

Red Shirt Core Leader and Pheu Thai MP Jatuporn Prompan rails against ties between the red shirt movement and the recent explosion in Nonthaburi province, claiming the group's adherence to peaceful means.

Jatuporn Prompan, red-shirt core leader and Pheu Thai Party MP, refuted speculation that members of his movement were part of the explosion in a make shift bomb assembly facility in an apartment building in Nonthaburi province.

Jatuporn affirmed that his group's movement is based on civility, but conceded that he could not speak for all of its many members as some may have their own grudges.

He called on the group to use restraint, saying that weapons would not bring about their objective.

Jatuporn continued that the government should work more closely with army intelligence units to better monitor the situation.

He elaborated that the nation is now facing different groups of violence instigators, each with its own motive, and called on the Democrat Party to be more devoted to its work to safeguard the public.

The red shirt leader warned that Bangkok could become a city of strife like in the three southern border provinces.

He suggested police work on their own investigations and not hand them over to the Department of Special Investigation, alleging the agency is bogged down by politics.

Jatuporn alleged that the explosion in Nonthaburi may have been staged to justify the recent arrests of 11 men in Chiang Mai.

He claimed one of the four casualties in the incident was a distant relative of Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-07

I admire the way k. Jatuporn is good at alleging, causing doubt, somehow not really (but almost) suggesting that it must have been the government again as usual. He could become a rich stand-up comedian in the States I think.

If really a bad apple in the family tree I'm sure k. Jatuporn can soon deliver a tape with proof. Oh what the heck, he can probably come with a tape anyway

[Throatwobbler]

Talking of vivid fantasies, care to name your source of this "urea" theory? You mentioned the specialists were discussing it.

Latest from Twitter says It's likely to be C4 or TNT.

Isn't Twitter the prankster's best friend? It was used to announced that Justin Bieber was dead. Twitter also announced that Bill Cosby was dead.

I don't think anyone with common sense is going to rely on twitter. Oh wait,, that's why users are called twits.

If I put out a twit news flash that I have discoveredThaksin's diabolical plans to conquer Botswana, are you going to believe it? How about if I announce that the Jonas Brothers just left a geat big turd on Thom Yorke's doorstep and challenged droopy to a battle of the bands?

It's also used by a (very) large number of journalists to communicate breaking news.

You should at least attempt to scratch the surface of such tools before you go mocking them. To the people who are somewhat familiar with such technology, it's shortcomings and how to avoid them, you've just projected yourself as a complete ignoramus.

Edit Unnecessary flame removed by self.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Throatwobbler

[Throatwobbler]

Where is Tallforeigner now.

What I find difficult to understand is how people can still support a violent organisation.

To me any group that has it's leaders preach violence from the stage, examples calling on all their members to bring a litre of petrol to Bangkok and if they don't get what they want then they will burn the city to the ground. Calling on it's supporters to burn every mosque in Thailand, certain hospitals etc.

Then have some members of the group follow this up. Examples, obviously the burning of Bangkok. A year earlier hijacking a gas tanker and trying to blow it up outside a residential block. The beating to death of an old man in Chiang mai, etc etc.

This to me is a violent group. I know a lot of the reds don't act this way and want peaceful protests, but until they can break away from these people then they are indeed a violent group. If they could break away and protest peacefully, including letting people in their own areas disagree with them, then I might support them. Until that day I can not.

I find it disgusting to find any people on here defending this mob. You are a disgrace to our race. Let's hope you don't breed.

[Buchholz]

Spokesperson for the National Police Office, Police Major-General Prawut Tawornsiri said verification of the fingerprints from the fourth dead body retrieved from the wrecked apartment building confirmed it was Samai Wongsuwan, the tenant of Room 202 where the explosion took place Tuesday's evening.

The Nation this morning confirms as I suspected, that the fingerprint matchn came from comparing Samai's known prints (from crimes he committed previously in Chiang Mai) and the prints lifted off the severed arm found in the room.

[Siam Simon]

It's no wonder those links took you "seconds" to find - they're a load of <deleted>, specifically as support for what you are alleging can happen here. Care to go back and highlight one single case where libel action has been taken against somebody who has made so-called libellous remarks against another user by using that user's anonymous Internet pseudonym only (i.e. "Siam Simon", "TallForeigner")? It's unlikely you'll find one as no working court system in the world, including Thailand, would allow for such a ridiculous case. If you fail in this task - which you will - care to highlight a post of mine you regard as "propaganda" ?

I presume what is really happening here is that your employers have had a particularity bad day attempting to deal with this pretty catastrophic PR disaster, which has then prompted you to reach for the big red shirt book on ethics to mitigate the damage through threatening phony legal action against posters attempting to describe exactly what they see.

Just as I thought you would, you failed even to read the links I provided for you. The Canadian link answers your question. If you bother to spend a short time Googling (which I know you won't), you will find plenty more on such internet libel cases.

Highlight a post of yours I regard as propaganda? . Lets just say about 95% of the ones in the News Clippings section.

As regards to "employers" and "PR", I rarely post on TV: I don't have the time. You certainly do: You post all day long, most days of the week, most of the year. Hmmmm..... .

Now, please provide me with that info about Thai libel law that backs up your childish and dangerous claims.

Frank D'Addario ousted founder of Environmental Management Solutions Inc., has obtained a court order compelling a financial news website to identify a number of individuals who posted remarks about him on the site's message board.

You clearly have comprehension problems - the guy in the Canadian article looks like he was clearly identified by his real name to me.

I have a heavy online presence owing to my work as an engineer (who is quite familiar with many a Google API FYI).

You accuse me of propaganda yet you can't even find one post of mine to attribute as propaganda...?

As for the rest of your post, sue me

One thing's for sure: You definitely have a heavy online presence on TV's News Clippings threads, and an extremely one-eyed presence it is, too.

Either you have comprehension problems or (more likely) you are just being selective with your assessment as usual (ie: posting propaganda). Your assertion that people who hide behind internet noms-de-plume on message boards will not be identified and sued anywhere in the world is exposed by the news story that you partially quoted: The plaintiff obtained an injunction compelling a website's admin to identify the posters who'd defamed him. No more hiding behind an online persona for those posters, then. Wrt the plaintiff's identity, it doesn't matter if they have not been named, the issue is whether they can be identified. So, say a poster on here has been to a TV meet up, or has placed personal info on their profile which makes them identifiable to some other posters (as many have), then a.n.other poster makes an unprovable allegation about that poster, that poster has been defamed to the posters who know that poster. The only issue is whether the law classes it as libel or slander (due to the nature of chatrooms and message boards).

Now, show me the internet opt-out part of Thai libel law.

[rubl]

Just as I thought you would, you failed even to read the links I provided for you. The Canadian link answers your question. If you bother to spend a short time Googling (which I know you won't), you will find plenty more on such internet libel cases.

Highlight a post of yours I regard as propaganda? . Lets just say about 95% of the ones in the News Clippings section.

As regards to "employers" and "PR", I rarely post on TV: I don't have the time. You certainly do: You post all day long, most days of the week, most of the year. Hmmmm..... .

Now, please provide me with that info about Thai libel law that backs up your childish and dangerous claims.

Frank D'Addario ousted founder of Environmental Management Solutions Inc., has obtained a court order compelling a financial news website to identify a number of individuals who posted remarks about him on the site's message board.

You clearly have comprehension problems - the guy in the Canadian article looks like he was clearly identified by his real name to me.

I have a heavy online presence owing to my work as an engineer (who is quite familiar with many a Google API FYI).

You accuse me of propaganda yet you can't even find one post of mine to attribute as propaganda...?

As for the rest of your post, sue me

One thing's for sure: You definitely have a heavy online presence on TV's News Clippings threads, and an extremely one-eyed presence it is, too.

Either you have comprehension problems or (more likely) you are just being selective with your assessment as usual (ie: posting propaganda). Your assertion that people who hide behind internet noms-de-plume on message boards will not be identified and sued anywhere in the world is exposed by the news story that you partially quoted: The plaintiff obtained an injunction compelling a website's admin to identify the posters who'd defamed him. No more hiding behind an online persona for those posters, then. Wrt the plaintiff's identity, it doesn't matter if they have not been named, the issue is whether they can be identified. So, say a poster on here has been to a TV meet up, or has placed personal info on their profile which makes them identifiable to some other posters (as many have), then a.n.other poster makes an unprovable allegation about that poster, that poster has been defamed to the posters who know that poster. The only issue is whether the law classes it as libel or slander (due to the nature of chatrooms and message boards).

Now, show me the internet opt-out part of Thai libel law.

Whereas I cannot give you a pointer, but it seems that Thai defamation laws are indeed draconian. That's one of the reasons politicians and other fools in Thailand like to accuse someone whose name starts with an ...

Begin of September 'The Criminal Court has sentenced Sondhi Limthongkul, a People's Alliance for Democracy leader, and Sarocha Porn-udomsak, a key PAD figure, to six months in jail, suspended for two years, after finding them guilty of defaming former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.'

You might wonder why k. Thaksin sometimes says he has no faith in the Thai judicial system

[Siam Simon]

Whereas I cannot give you a pointer, but it seems that Thai defamation laws are indeed draconian. That's one of the reasons politicians and other fools in Thailand like to accuse someone whose name starts with an ...

Begin of September 'The Criminal Court has sentenced Sondhi Limthongkul, a People's Alliance for Democracy leader, and Sarocha Porn-udomsak, a key PAD figure, to six months in jail, suspended for two years, after finding them guilty of defaming former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.'

You might wonder why k. Thaksin sometimes says he has no faith in the Thai judicial system

Personally, I would be quite happy to see Sondhi and Thaksin legal each other into oblivion.

[hanuman1]

Now, maybe it's just me, but if I go to a political rally to hear some leader speech (because there are some points of his agenda I agree with or whatever), and the guy whips out a list of places to destroy and organizations to target, goes on about burning down a city and so on and so forth, again, it maybe just me and my silly beliefs, but at that point I'd get up and leave in disgust. Others may opt to shake that plastic clapper and continue to think those leaders are people to look up to for inspiration and guidance.

Whether you left in disgust or not would depend on how passionate you were about your cause. To get to the point of cheering at the idea of burning down buildings one would assume people felt pretty strongly about something.

Now you may think that level headed individuals who know right from wrong would NEVER allow themselves to get that carried away. And yet we see plenty of evidence in this very forum of that happening on a regular basis. Witness the hardcore anti-red obsessives whose indignation - whether caused by personal loss, perceived injustice or whatever else - has led them to call for nothing less than lynchings and further violence by way of retaliation.

Getting to the point of condoning, instigating or taking part of the sort of violence we saw during the Red Shirt riot is, in my opinion, ipso facto evidence of not having a level head. How people get from being a perfectly normal individual to a street savage could be explained to continuous propaganda and brain washing by self appointed (more like externally contracted actually) leaders hammering their hatred, lies and manipulations over days, weeks and months on end on easily suggestible people.

So what if easily suggestible people form a considerable voting block at elections. They are only easily suggestible because of the failings of previous governments. Is their vote less valid than that of anyone else's? They have a say in this country's future. You do not. It's called democracy. Any questions?

[whybother]

So what if easily suggestible people form a considerable voting block at elections. They are only easily suggestible because of the failings of previous governments. Is their vote less valid than that of anyone else's? They have a say in this country's future. You do not. It's called democracy. Any questions?

You're quite correct. They have democracy. What are the red shirts really fighting for then?

[Buchholz]

Police on lookout for man, woman in Muslim headscarf

A man with a woman in a Muslim headscarf - seen frequently with the tenant of a Nonthaburi apartment room where a powerful explosion occurred on Tuesday - are the latest target of interest in the search for people involved, the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) said yesterday.

"The two people helped carry large bags from a pickup truck to Room 202. We need to verify their identities and locate them," said CRES spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd at a press conference.

The fourth and last body found at the Samarn Metta Mansion belonged to Samai Wongsuwan, who rented Room 202 where the explosion happened, said police spokesman Prawut Thawornsiri. Official confirmation of the body's identity is awaiting DNA-based verification.

When announcing the body was Samai's, police relied initially on his inked fingerprints on Chiang Mai police records, following indictments against him for possessing explosives and attempted murder. The prints matched three fingers on a left arm found at the scene.

A DNA test later proved the arm belonged to the body, meaning the fingers were Samai's - based on the police records carrying his fingerprints.

Police have also been told four or five people were seen visiting Samai or entering or exiting the room. Their investigation and interviews of witnesses covered the time when he rented the room around two weeks ago up to hours before the explosion, said deputy police chief Pol General Phanuphong Singhara na Ayutthaya.

"We know their addresses or locations and will soon meet them for interviews, [treating them] as innocent," he said. Phanuphong added that police also had details of vehicles used by visitors to the apartment. One had been linked to certain bomb-related incidents in the past.

Phanuphong said it could take police some time to identify the man and the Muslim-dressed woman and their roles in the incident.

The Department of Special Investigation is expected to make a request soon to take over the apartment bombing case from police, as the incident carried evidence and involved various activities indicating acts of terrorism. DSI director-general Tharit Phengdit repeated the DSI's warning of escalation of violence through underground operations until the year-end.

The DSI have arrested a former paramilitary ranger allegedly serving with a group of infamous "men in black" as the triggerman of an M79 grenade launcher. Aram Saeng-arun was arrested recently while in hiding in Ubon Ratchathani, and was scheduled to be flown to Bangkok last night.

The Interior Ministry yesterday instructed all 76 provincial governors to stay alert and not take leave at least until the end of October, especially those 48 transferred to new provinces.

Two dummy grenades were found 400 metres from the home of Deputy Prime Minister Trairong Suwankhiri in Soi Prachachuen 31 in Bang Sue district before noon yesterday. Prachachuen police doubted it was meant as a bomb threat against the Democrat Party executive because of the distance from his home.

The grenades are US-made vintage model MK-2, with the explosives removed and detonators inactive, used as dummies in Army combat training.

-- The Nation 2010-10-08

[Insight]

Frank D'Addario ousted founder of Environmental Management Solutions Inc., has obtained a court order compelling a financial news website to identify a number of individuals who posted remarks about him on the site's message board.

You clearly have comprehension problems - the guy in the Canadian article looks like he was clearly identified by his real name to me.

I have a heavy online presence owing to my work as an engineer (who is quite familiar with many a Google API FYI).

You accuse me of propaganda yet you can't even find one post of mine to attribute as propaganda...?

As for the rest of your post, sue me

One thing's for sure: You definitely have a heavy online presence on TV's News Clippings threads, and an extremely one-eyed presence it is, too.

Either you have comprehension problems or (more likely) you are just being selective with your assessment as usual (ie: posting propaganda). Your assertion that people who hide behind internet noms-de-plume on message boards will not be identified and sued anywhere in the world is exposed by the news story that you partially quoted: The plaintiff obtained an injunction compelling a website's admin to identify the posters who'd defamed him. No more hiding behind an online persona for those posters, then. Wrt the plaintiff's identity, it doesn't matter if they have not been named, the issue is whether they can be identified. So, say a poster on here has been to a TV meet up, or has placed personal info on their profile which makes them identifiable to some other posters (as many have), then a.n.other poster makes an unprovable allegation about that poster, that poster has been defamed to the posters who know that poster. The only issue is whether the law classes it as libel or slander (due to the nature of chatrooms and message boards).

Now, show me the internet opt-out part of Thai libel law.

Your distorting facts again - something you have a bit of a talent for. The identity of the plaintiff was no secret to the users when they were defaming him. The users were not referring to an online pseudonym but a real person, hence why the case had grounds. For all we know you and TallForeigner could be a fragment of the forum admin's imagination - I don't care, but bringing a case against somebody by their pseudonym alone will get nowhere. Frankly you'll probably get laughed out of a lawyers office anywhere in the world. Why not try it?

I visit this site frequently during the day time because it's bookmarked and as you've somewhat figured, living here for over 9 years, having a family here and wanting to see the country prosper, it's a topic I feel strongly about. It's seriously not much effort to review a bookmark once every hour or so.

TallForiegner has previously admitted financial motivations for supporting the red shirts, and when I returned your baseless accusation about being paid to post and challenged you the same you failed to respond. I therefore presumed the answer was one that you were least prepared to give - that you are.

Have I got it wrong? See you in court.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Insight