Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

[Pi Sek]

QUOTE(hanuman1)):" Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me."

That is correct. And I wonder why some of the anti-Red critics on this forum go the lengths they go to.

Take your pick:

1) Because they are closet fascists

2) Because they are right

3) Because they need to justify their correctness

4) Because they don't want unwitting readers to buy into Thaksin's propaganda

In my case, it's a little of #1 & #2 but mostly #4.

Nick Nostitz and others are trying to present evidence of serious wrong-doing by the military (April 2009) which is contrary to what has been reported in the state controlled media. And although everyone is aware that the media here exercises self-censorship in the extreme - we find ourselves under constant attack from those that will only believe the official line despite there being much circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise. It's almost as if their lives depended on the official account of events remaining intact - whatever.

As hanuman1 pointed out - anyone who dares to express any anti-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question. It's almost as if they have a vested interest in retaining a veil of secrecy over events. It's as if their lives depended on it - such is their rabid enthusiasm and zeal to demean any who dare to hold an opposing view.

bulmercke - "anyone who dares to express any anti-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question" - I think this was a typo (change pro-Red for the anti-Red bit)? Well, the way I see it, it goes both ways, and we all know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Doesn't help reconciliation at all.

Anyway, I resent this. I have tried to speak with red shirts about what is right and wrong, what is legal and illegal, who was elected and who wasn't, who shot who... sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. When I have been successful, usually we agree to disagree (as is my cordial relationship with hanuman1). When I have been unsuccessful, I get shouted away because I am not khon Isaan and I don't understand (as is my cordial relationship with my ex-girlfriend).

[TAWP]

As hanuman1 pointed out - anyone who dares to express any anti-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question.

I agree with this. It is if some pro-Red posters have no interest in the truth, just regurgitating the propaganda spouted in the dedicated magazines and radio stations.

And isn't your "truth" merely the propaganda spouted by the government-controlled main stream media here?

Uh, no, as I am not pro-government. I like to call out nonsense and propaganda whoever brings it. It is just that in this forum we have had a series of amazing posters that spout incredible stories with nothing to back them up. So when one calls them out, one gets labeled as being part of 'the other group' [that they hate]. Has nothing to do with reality however.

Edited October 28, 2010 by TAWP

[rubl]

And isn't your "truth" merely the propaganda spouted by the government-controlled main stream media here?

I dislike paraphrasing, but it seems right for this occasion:

And isn't your "truth" merely the propaganda spouted by the Thaksin-controlled red-shirt media here?

Edited October 28, 2010 by rubl

[bulmercke]

T.P.B.S. THAI PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE (Live feed - Viphavadi - Din Daeng - 04.58 - 14 April 2009 - 646,818 views to date)

Note that this video may have been subject to censorship by the MICT in Thailand. Video - first nine seconds missing. The first time I saw this video - on some other video sharing site - I watched it in its entirety and don't recall any part of it as being missing. In fact - the opening seconds showed bodies being loaded into the back of those pick-ups.

LIES - MICT cannot touch YouTube videos!

You clearly claim the full video was uploaded, and seen, by you on YouTube showing these things - so bring it.

Showing a video that shows NOTHING is NOT evidence.

I think it's fairly obvious the video has been doctored. You see trucks and you see bodies in the back. I recall seeing them loading a dead or dead bodies the first time I viewed the footage. Maybe it was a YouTube video or maybe it was on another video sharing site - maybe one that has subsequently been blocked. I don't know. But this is an expurgated cut.

So what we have is you claiming to have seen a video and then you linking a video that doesn't show anything and a claim that 'the evils' have edited it. Reached out to all video-sites and gotten them taken down have they. And their own edited version uploaded. Presumably in other users name.

Story-teller, are we?

This is the video in question. This is the one I saw. However - the highly incriminating first nine seconds is missing from this up-load. I wonder why?

The original video - uncut - may still remain out there on the net but so far I have been unable to locate it.

So you're doggedly sticking to the official story despite there being quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I admire your determination in the face of those who doubt the official version of events of April 2009. And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

[Pi Sek]

Exactly my point.

Edit - referring to #243, not #244

Edited October 28, 2010 by Pi Sek

[Pi Sek]

This is the video in question. This is the one I saw. However - the highly incriminating first nine seconds is missing from this up-load. I wonder why?

The original video - uncut - may still remain out there on the net but so far I have been unable to locate it.

So you're doggedly sticking to the official story despite there being quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I admire your determination in the face of those who doubt the official version of events of April 2009. And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

Yes, but bulmercke... you say you can't find any evidence and then, one sentence later, you talk about "quite a lot of evidence" - but it seems you're the only one who has seen it!

And your last sentence is another one of those "unhelpful" statements. How about something more along the lines of "91 died and exhibits A, B and C suggest that the army was implicit in X number of those deaths" - that would be far more helpful and very difficult for anyone to shoot down, unless it wasn't true.

My gut instinct tells me that either you are telling porkies or maybe your memory has been distorted by post-traumatic stress or something. However, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Maybe you should do the same!

[rubl]

begin removed ...

And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

As the complaint lodged with the ICC says 'on 10th of April 2010 the army fired thousands of rounds into the protesting mass'. 10 reds and 9 bystanders died. My mother can shoot better than that. Massacre, my foot.

The total death toll is 91, including army and police personel. Hundreds were said to be missing, but many 'returned' after a while. Official still 25 missing. May be the yearly road death toll with Songkhran holiday qualifies as a massacre, but completely self-inflicted by the population.

[TAWP]

This is the video in question. This is the one I saw. However - the highly incriminating first nine seconds is missing from this up-load. I wonder why?

The original video - uncut - may still remain out there on the net but so far I have been unable to locate it.

So you're doggedly sticking to the official story despite there being quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I admire your determination in the face of those who doubt the official version of events of April 2009. And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

Official story? Loads of evidence?

I am not sticking to any story, I am asking for evidence. In the real world evidence is needed before one can make accusations. I am merely asking to be convinced.

You fail at that. Sofar you have shown nothing but a non-proven explanation as to why the video doesn't show what you want it to show and then been unable to find any video that shows it.

Are you claiming that user 'demagoguing' is a government employee and uploaded the video-clip. After getting Youtube to take down all other videos of the same type? And manages to blank out the first 9 seconds instead of just cutting it out? Without the voices (in the blanked out video) saying anything incriminating?

I am just trying to figure out exactly what you are claiming and hopefully get you to back it up.

And just for the record, the military didn't 'massacre' any 90 individuals this year. Suicide-by-military in some cases, more like it...

[bulmercke]

This is the video in question. This is the one I saw. However - the highly incriminating first nine seconds is missing from this up-load. I wonder why?

The original video - uncut - may still remain out there on the net but so far I have been unable to locate it.

So you're doggedly sticking to the official story despite there being quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I admire your determination in the face of those who doubt the official version of events of April 2009. And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

Yes, but bulmercke... you say you can't find any evidence and then, one sentence later, you talk about "quite a lot of evidence" - but it seems you're the only one who has seen it!

And your last sentence is another one of those "unhelpful" statements. How about something more along the lines of "91 died and exhibits A, B and C suggest that the army was implicit in X number of those deaths" - that would be far more helpful and very difficult for anyone to shoot down, unless it wasn't true.

My gut instinct tells me that either you are telling porkies or maybe your memory has been distorted by post-traumatic stress or something. However, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Maybe you should do the same!

The evidence comprises the embedded video - and yes that is circumstantial evidence - my testimony from the following morning - the testimony of Nick Nostitz - the testimony of the the monk whose pseudonym is “Sajja” as reported by John Le Fevre - and I'm sure there must be more. I personally haven't started to research into this yet and already there is a strong suggestion that events that morning were not quite as the government would like you to believe.

All governments lie and this government is no exception. Why should anyone believe their line - defend their line - particularly in light of the events of April/May this year.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

All governments lie and this government is no exception. Why should anyone believe their line - defend their line - particularly in light of the events of April/May this year.

With just as much confidence as you I can say 'all opposition parties and their supporters lie.' It's just as true as your statement. Not meaningful for a discussion, but true.

[Pi Sek]

This is the video in question. This is the one I saw. However - the highly incriminating first nine seconds is missing from this up-load. I wonder why?

The original video - uncut - may still remain out there on the net but so far I have been unable to locate it.

So you're doggedly sticking to the official story despite there being quite a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. I admire your determination in the face of those who doubt the official version of events of April 2009. And the fact that the military massacred over ninety this year doesn't come into it?

Who's telling porkies?

Yes, but bulmercke... you say you can't find any evidence and then, one sentence later, you talk about "quite a lot of evidence" - but it seems you're the only one who has seen it!

And your last sentence is another one of those "unhelpful" statements. How about something more along the lines of "91 died and exhibits A, B and C suggest that the army was implicit in X number of those deaths" - that would be far more helpful and very difficult for anyone to shoot down, unless it wasn't true.

My gut instinct tells me that either you are telling porkies or maybe your memory has been distorted by post-traumatic stress or something. However, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Maybe you should do the same!

The evidence comprises the embedded video - and yes that is circumstantial evidence - my testimony from the following morning - the testimony of Nick Nostitz - the testimony of the the monk whose pseudonym is “Sajja” as reported by John Le Fevre - and I'm sure there must be more. I personally haven't started to research into this yet and already there is a strong suggestion that events that morning were not quite as the government would like you to believe.

All governments lie and this government is no exception. Why should anyone believe their line - defend their line - particularly in light of the events of April/May this year.

So, there is no evidence!

- the embedded video shows nothing, except for the title in Thai which reads soldiers fire M16 at red shirts. But the video doesn't show that! So what does this "evidence" say? Nothing!

- the testimony of Nick Nostitz? I think that we've been through that on this very thread. Anyway, there is no "testimony" - just a commentary with a point of view.

- the testimony of an anonymous monk claiming his name is "Truth"? Are you serious?

I'm sure there is other evidence and I'm crying out for something that's comprehensive - but, after 6 months, I've only seen credible evidence on the government's side.

As I said earlier, I'm waiting for the day that we hear Jatuporn tell us, "Don't let facts get in the way of the truth".

[jdinasia]

Hmm sorry Bulmercke's claim of what was in the first 9 seconds of the video does not match what is being said NOR is there physical evidence of it in seconds 10 on .... (no blood on the ground, truck, soldiers)

[Insight]

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

If the topic currently being discussed was who has the larger support between Phua Thai or the Democrats, or even whether the recent Democrat court scandal was indeed a stitch up, perhap the reaction to bulmuckle's claims might be considered irrational. However I consider what bulmercke has been insinuating for some time now far more serious than this - that Thai troops are responsible for a "massacre" of unarmed protesters which occurred in 2009 during the dispersal of the red shirts. If there was solid evidence of this I would certainly reconsider my support for Abhisit for allowing such an atrocity to happen under his watch and be far more sympathetic to the red shirts, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. That's how powerful an accusation such as this could be if proven.

But instead of tangiable proof what do we get? An article (read - a blog submission) by Le Ferve interviewing a monk, which when question we're told we should believe it because he's interviewing a monk. This is then followed by a TVS report of some soldiers with the first six seconds missing, which could of been of the weather for all we know. Then add the usual sprinkle of hearsay to the mix, along the lines of "well the army massacared 91 people this year so it must be true", an accusation itself which is also extremely questionable.

Allegations such as this are extremely damaging, but until more convincing evidence is given it will only inspire feelings of an attempt to dupe - hence the reaction seen so far.

[bulmercke]

Hmm sorry Bulmercke's claim of what was in the first 9 seconds of the video does not match what is being said NOR is there physical evidence of it in seconds 10 on .... (no blood on the ground, truck, soldiers)

That is correct. In the audio at the beginning the presenter mentions that "many people come to block the road" or something along those lines - that is not to suggest that the missing video shows something completely different.

[chantorn]

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

If the topic currently being discussed was who has the larger support between Phua Thai or the Democrats, or even whether the recent Democrat court scandal was indeed a stitch up, perhap the reaction to bulmuckle's claims might be considered irrational. However I consider what bulmercke has been insinuating for some time now far more serious than this - that Thai troops are responsible for a "massacre" of unarmed protesters which occurred in 2009 during the dispersal of the red shirts. If there was solid evidence of this I would certainly reconsider my support for Abhisit for allowing such an atrocity to happen under his watch and be far more sympathetic to the red shirts, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. That's how powerful an accusation such as this could be if proven.

But instead of tangiable proof what do we get? An article (read - a blog submission) by Le Ferve interviewing a monk, which when question we're told we should believe it because he's interviewing a monk. This is then followed by a TVS report of some soldiers with the first six seconds missing, which could of been of the weather for all we know. Then add the usual sprinkle of hearsay to the mix, along the lines of "well the army massacared 91 people this year so it must be true", an accusation itself which is also extremely questionable.

Allegations such as this are extremely damaging, but until more convincing evidence is given it will only inspire feelings of an attempt to dupe - hence the reaction seen so far.

"but until more convincing evidence is given"

So why is the government holding up ALL the investigation reports & autopsies? Does the government have something to hind?

Or is it the Red-shirts is the one that is stopping the reports and autopsies from being published?

[nicknostitz]

Furthermore - i have no problem with people discussing/criticizing my work as long as it stays within limits of politeness and the legally permitted. Everybody is entitled to his views, and to different interpretation of facts. Nevertheless, several of the posts here come very close to libel. Be advised that from now on i will file libel cases when i see comments about me that cross the legally permitted. u.

You need to get thicker skin or expect to not be able to work in any nation outside of Thailand - where you cannot threaten detractors with criminal libel cases.

That libel cases is here a criminal offense is a pathetic joke and an important left-over of the elite-controlled system the Red Shirts say they want to fight.

Just a note...

This is not a question of thick or thin skin. In very few other countries rumor based hate campaigns (often starting off in cyberspace) against journalists go to such lows as here right now, where as a result of such campaigns journalists receive regular death threats as a result of their work.

We work within the law, and the only defense we have is the law.

I disagree that this doesn't happen in other countries (the US is a primary example of where it is organized) and that the intensity of the hate therefor makes it ok for a libel offense to be a criminal matter. The law has been misused too much and your threats to misuse it further doesn't add to your credibility.

Death threats are despicable and already covered by the criminal stature.

Do a good work and let it speak for itself. No need to go after those that say 'bad words'.

The problem here is that death threads do not come from the open - they come from the sly and are almost impossible to pinpoint, but often are the final result of hate campaigns against journalists. What people believe to get away with are slanderous statements. In theory i do agree with you completely that libel should not be a criminal offense. But practically speaking - i am not a gangster who can sort out disrespect with a gun, so the only thing i have left to make people think twice before slandering me is the law. I do not "misuse" the law - i have no political aims against political opponents, i do have to protect me and my family - the exact reason why this law was created. I have stated already - i have no problem whatsoever with people not agreeing with my articles, that is part of the game. If they can prove factually that i am wrong in a point - this only helps me to do a better job.

But unfounded accusations to further their agenda, such as me being bribed, working illegally, and whatever else has been, and is thrown our way, clearly cross the line.

[phiphidon]

Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me.

A classic example of the above from Sum Tum Tiger in a reply to one of my postings;

"Hey Look - Amsterdam has a new mouthpiece - Phiphidon! Welcome! Lets see how long you last...":jap:

It's like it is a game to them, like trying to see who can score the most points. I'm still here though.

[hanuman1]

Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me.

A classic example of the above from Sum Tum Tiger in a reply to one of my postings;

"Hey Look - Amsterdam has a new mouthpiece - Phiphidon! Welcome! Lets see how long you last...":jap:

It's like it is a game to them, like trying to see who can score the most points. I'm still here though.

Yes, that's a particularly odious example you bring up there. But I don't think it's like a game to them. A game suggests either side can win, and this is not the case. People like the one you mention are not here to debate, inform, be informed or suspend their prejudice for one moment. They are here to make themselves feel marginally better by projecting their beliefs 'out there' to the internet. It's like a dog being able to piss on thousands of trees at the same time, and then move on without consequence.

Edited October 28, 2010 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

Hmm sorry Bulmercke's claim of what was in the first 9 seconds of the video does not match what is being said NOR is there physical evidence of it in seconds 10 on .... (no blood on the ground, truck, soldiers)

That is correct. In the audio at the beginning the presenter mentions that "many people come to block the road" or something along those lines - that is not to suggest that the missing video shows something completely different.

Yet you claim that the missing video shows something that has never been reported here(the video) or in the Red press? Your claim is just that .. a claim not represented by any fact or claim. STILL no credible evidence.

[jdinasia]

Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me.

A classic example of the above from Sum Tum Tiger in a reply to one of my postings;

"Hey Look - Amsterdam has a new mouthpiece - Phiphidon! Welcome! Lets see how long you last...":jap:

It's like it is a game to them, like trying to see who can score the most points. I'm still here though.

Yes, that's a particularly odious example you bring up there. But I don't think it's like a game to them. A game suggests either side can win, and this is not the case. People like the one you mention are not here to debate, inform, be informed or suspend their prejudice for one moment. They are here to make themselves feel marginally better by projecting their beliefs 'out there' to the internet. It's like a dog being able to piss on thousands of trees at the same time, and then move on without consequence.

And posts like the above are just ad hominem attacks that do not address anything of value either. They fall right in with the others that you complain about. The topic here seems to be the Reds being told "no protesting" during the UN chief's visit It was wise of the General to make it clear that the cycle of protests funded by Thaksin and beating down on BKK is no longer going to be tolerated

[bulmercke]

Hmm sorry Bulmercke's claim of what was in the first 9 seconds of the video does not match what is being said NOR is there physical evidence of it in seconds 10 on .... (no blood on the ground, truck, soldiers)

That is correct. In the audio at the beginning the presenter mentions that "many people come to block the road" or something along those lines - that is not to suggest that the missing video shows something completely different.

Yet you claim that the missing video shows something that has never been reported here(the video) or in the Red press? Your claim is just that .. a claim not represented by any fact or claim. STILL no credible evidence.

How do you know this particular broadcast on TPBS (the video) has never been reported in the Red-Shirt press? There are several such publications - or rather there were - and I doubt whether you have ever looked inside the pages of any. Nearly 700,000 views for that video. I bet that has garnered a lot of talk amongst Thais.

Anyway - the bottom line is that I have previously seen the entire video with the missing nine seconds of footage. And it clearly supports my claim. I felt fortunate to locate this video after all this time but was equally disappointed that it wasn't there in its entirety.

You either believe me or you don't.....and unfortunately in your case....you don't.

[jdinasia]

Yet you claim that the missing video shows something that has never been reported here(the video) or in the Red press? Your claim is just that .. a claim not represented by any fact or claim. STILL no credible evidence.

How do you know this particular broadcast on TPBS (the video) has never been reported in the Red-Shirt press? There are several such publications - or rather there were - and I doubt whether you have ever looked inside the pages of any. Nearly 700,000 views for that video. I bet that has garnered a lot of talk amongst Thais.

Anyway - the bottom line is that I have previously seen the entire video with the missing nine seconds of footage. And it clearly supports my claim. I felt fortunate to locate this video after all this time but was equally disappointed that it wasn't there in its entirety.

You either believe me or you don't.....and unfortunately in your case....you don't.

Hmmm correct I don't believe you. I have plenty of back issues of Voice of Taksin here if you'd like to peruse them. During each and every crisis I have had TV's on multiple channels.

The important thing about your claim to this video ----- a total lack of physical evidence of your claims to what it represents. No visible bodies, no blood on the street, no blood on the truck, no blood on the soldiers. Just a claim that something happened that isn't supported by ANY fact

[hanuman1]

It was wise of the General to make it clear that the cycle of protests funded by Thaksin and beating down on BKK is no longer going to be tolerated

I think people from all sides of the argument expect there to be more protests at some point, which means the General has already backed himself into a corner whereby either there will be more guaranteed deaths, or he will end up looking silly for not living up to what he promised.

Of course, not living up to what one promises is a common trait of politicians the world over and Police, Army and Political figures in this country often put their foot in their mouths and end up looking stupid by speaking prematurely or irresponsibly about certain matters.

What concerns me more though, is that wise or unwise, it is a General who is going on about what is or isn't going to be tolerated. Please remind me - who's in charge of this country?

[jdinasia]

It was wise of the General to make it clear that the cycle of protests funded by Thaksin and beating down on BKK is no longer going to be tolerated

I think people from all sides of the argument expect there to be more protests at some point, which means the General has already backed himself into a corner whereby either there will be more guaranteed deaths, or he will end up looking silly for not living up to what he promised.

Of course, not living up to what one promises is a common trait of politicians the world over and Police, Army and Political figures in this country often put their foot in their mouths and end up looking stupid by speaking prematurely or irresponsibly about certain matters.

What concerns me more though, is that wise or unwise, it is a General who is going on about what is or isn't going to be tolerated. Please remind me - who's in charge of this country?

The General made a statement about a given event. Protest during the visit of the UN chief. In a specific place. BKK. That place is still covered by the SoE. That clearly makes it HIS purview. Suthep could have said it instead and it would have been no more palatable to the pro-reds on this board. Abhisit was staying above the fray in what amounted to a State visit as one would expect in any similar situation anywhere.

With the history of the Red shirt violent protests and Thaksin's desperation to change the power structure currently in place in Thailand, it would be unreasonable to expect anything different wouldn't it? The Reds have shown their willingness not only to disrupt major events like the ASEAN conference in Pattaya, or to destroy public and private property (Songkran 2009, May 2010) and to threaten death to those that oppose them (Arisaman and the other red leader's speeches from the red stages). They have shown their willingness to directly attack the PM with physical violence.

While on some very basic levels I have a great deal of empathy for several of the "red" issues. I have absolutely no sympathy or empathy for the likes of Arisaman, Jatuporn, Sae Daeng, Mor Weng, Isaan Rambo, etc etc etc etc

If there was EVER a redshirt cause that wanted better education, better infrastructure, more opportunity, and more equality it was certainly bought out by the pro-Thaksin agenda. The Reds will never have any credibility until they let that man come back and serve his time AND be tried for his other cases that cannot proceed under Thai law until he appears in court once to face the charges as required by Thai law.

Edited October 28, 2010 by jdinasia

[bulmercke]

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes' date=' any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance.[/b'] Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

If the topic currently being discussed was who has the larger support between Phua Thai or the Democrats, or even whether the recent Democrat court scandal was indeed a stitch up, perhap the reaction to bulmuckle's claims might be considered irrational. However I consider what bulmercke has been insinuating for some time now far more serious than this - that Thai troops are responsible for a "massacre" of unarmed protesters which occurred in 2009 during the dispersal of the red shirts. If there was solid evidence of this I would certainly reconsider my support for Abhisit for allowing such an atrocity to happen under his watch and be far more sympathetic to the red shirts, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. That's how powerful an accusation such as this could be if proven.

But instead of tangiable proof what do we get? An article (read - a blog submission) by Le Ferve interviewing a monk, which when question we're told we should believe it because he's interviewing a monk. This is then followed by a TVS report of some soldiers with the first six seconds missing, which could of been of the weather for all we know. Then add the usual sprinkle of hearsay to the mix, along the lines of "well the army massacared 91 people this year so it must be true", an accusation itself which is also extremely questionable.

Allegations such as this are extremely damaging, but until more convincing evidence is given it will only inspire feelings of an attempt to dupe - hence the reaction seen so far.

"but until more convincing evidence is given"

So why is the government holding up ALL the investigation reports & autopsies? Does the government have something to hind?

Or is it the Red-shirts is the one that is stopping the reports and autopsies from being published?

chantorn - as far as I know there was no investigation or inquiry into the events of 13 April 2009 at Viphavadi.

As for the events of April/May this year - and I quote Nick Nostitz again:

"I am eagerly awaiting the results of the DSI investigation, especially if the government and the military will allow their findings to be made public, and to be forwarded to the prosecution and in the end to the court - 24 October 2010"

>>>>>>>>>>

Lots of questions. I expect the DSI is under tremendous pressure to produce the report the military and government expects - i.e. that the Red-Shirts themselves were responsible for most of the deaths.

However - they could also possibly be compromised and prejudiced in order to produce a report with much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties. And ambiguous evidence introduced which wouldn't point the finger at one side or another - a sort of indeterminate - get off the hook - sort of report.

And if any of these cases did eventually go to court then I'm sure the military would make dam_n sure that whatever court it was - it found in favour of the government and the military. After all - the military control this country just as they have done so for many years previously.

Edited October 28, 2010 by bulmercke

[bulmercke]

jdinasia said:

"The General made a statement about a given event. Protest during the visit of the UN chief. In a specific place. BKK. That place is still covered by the SoE. That clearly makes it HIS purview. Suthep could have said it instead and it would have been no more palatable to the pro-reds on this board. Abhisit was staying above the fray in what amounted to a State visit as one would expect in any similar situation anywhere."

jonclark(post#29)said:

"A general telling the public not to demonstrate....hmm surely it's the governments job to do that, as the army (in any democratic country, or a country that aspires to be democratic) is subserviant to the civillian adminstration and as such should keep its snout out of civillian matters, which is what a public demonstration is.

As far as i'm aware (and i may be wrong) in european or N. american countries the army would never dream of telling people if and when it can demostrate.

The words of the general show just how democratic Thailand is and it is something that both red and yellow should be deeply worried about."

>>>>>>>>>

No guesses for which position I agree with. Further Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha sees himself as a strongman determined to crush the Red-Shirt movement into oblivion.

The words of the general show quite clearly who is REALLY in charge of things....and it isn't Abhisit.

[bulmercke]

Sorry. Double post.

Edited October 28, 2010 by bulmercke

[bulmercke]

Thai prime minister accused of war crimes

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Old Etonian prime minister of Thailand, was accused of crimes against humanity during military operations to break up the Bangkok riots earlier this year in a complaint lodged on Tuesday at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent - 26 October 2010 - Telegraph.co.uk

Mr Abhisit, who is expected to host David Cameron during the UK prime minister's holiday in Thailand at Christmas, was accused of ordering a military operation against Red Shirt demonstrators that left 90 dead and more than 1,800 injured.

The embattled Thai leader was one of 15 senior figures, mostly from the military, said to be responsible for targeted assassinations, torture, illegal detention and inhumane acts by military forces by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.

Supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the ex-prime minister deposed in 2006, blockaded the centre of Bangkok in an attempt to force Mr Abhisit's government – which was installed under heavy military and royalist pressure on MPs – to resign. After weeks of turmoil, the army moved in to clear the streets of protesters. Parts of Bangkok were declared a "live fire zone".

The opposition report said activists had documented the execution of a number of people by army snipers. Among the victims were Major-General Khattiya Sawasdipol, known as Seh Daeng, or "Commander Red", three nurses working in a temple and Fabio Polenghi, an Italian photographer.

Under ICC rules, the chief prosecutor has eight weeks to examine the petition before deciding on whether or not to bring charges. Mr Abhisit is also facing a court verdict that could see his Democrat Party dissolved, a development that would also trigger his resignation.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

No guesses for which position I agree with. Further Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha sees himself as a strongman determined to crush the Red-Shirt movement into oblivion.

The words of the general show quite clearly who is REALLY in charge of things....and it isn't Abhisit.

The general has been appointed, reports to his political boss the Minister of Defense and indirectly the PM.

The general's words simply indicate he conforms to the part

"The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) bans all gatherings but will allow a representative of any group to hand in letters to the UN chief if they wish, said Gen Prayuth."

Under the watchfull eye of police still a few hundred protesters had gathered and were NOT dispersed as could legally have been done.

So what's your problem, bulmercke?

[bulmercke]

begin removed ...

No guesses for which position I agree with. Further Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha sees himself as a strongman determined to crush the Red-Shirt movement into oblivion.

The words of the general show quite clearly who is REALLY in charge of things....and it isn't Abhisit.

The general has been appointed, reports to his political boss the Minister of Defense and indirectly the PM.

The general's words simply indicate he conforms to the part

"The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) bans all gatherings but will allow a representative of any group to hand in letters to the UN chief if they wish, said Gen Prayuth."

Under the watchfull eye of police still a few hundred protesters had gathered and were NOT dispersed as could legally have been done.

So what's your problem, bulmercke?

jonclark(post#29)said:

"A general telling the public not to demonstrate....hmm surely it's the governments job to do that, as the army (in any democratic country, or a country that aspires to be democratic) is subserviant to the civillian adminstration and as such should keep its snout out of civillian matters, which is what a public demonstration is.

As far as i'm aware (and i may be wrong) in european or N. american countries the army would never dream of telling people if and when it can demostrate.

The words of the general show just how democratic Thailand is and it is something that both red and yellow should be deeply worried about."

>>>>>>>>>>

That's the problem.