Thaksin To Attend Human Rights Violation Hearing In US

[ballpoint]

The U.S. and Thailand do have an extradition treaty. However, I really don't believe the present government wants Thaksin here in Thailand, even if in jail. Surely there would be a revolution to free him from prison and this time Bangkok and most of Thailand would be burned to the ground. You can bet all government buildings in northern & northeastern Thailand would be looted and burned.

As we learned when the terrorist Red Shirts occupied Bangkok for almost three months, the military is weak and cannot be trusted. There are far too many Red Shirts & other Issan peasants in the military. The police are infiltrated with Thaksinites also. As long as Thaksin lives he will spend every waking hour, every dollar (baht) trying to ruin the reputation of this country. Any other country would have done away with him a long time ago.

That's an oft given opinion, but surely if Thaksin himself believed that then he'd make a big ceremony of coming back, being put under arrest and sit back waiting to be busted out? If what you say is true then the loss of face given by images of himself in hand cuffs and even a short time in prison must be too great for this arrogant man to bear. Either that or he fears the reds will bump him off and use him as a matyr.

[jayboy]

Thaksin regarded it as a good occasion to provide the United States with the other side of the story of what had taken place in April and May, the Thai government having already given information to the US administration and Congress.

Pretty sure the "other" side of the story needs to be told by the other side. Does Thaksin think he'll do a better job than D. Rivers?

Asked whether Thaksin would be able to attend, Thani said it was up to the US authorities to decide whether to allow him into the country.

Asked whether Thailand would seek his extradition if the former prime minister entered the country, Thani said the Office of the Attorney-General (OAG) would be responsible for making such a decision.

However, Sirisak Tiyapan, director of the OAG's International Affairs Department, said it would be for the Foreign Ministry and the Police Commission to request extradition. Unless the two agencies made such a request, the OAG has no authority to do anything, he said.

"The Foreign Ministry and the police have done nothing [in this regard] so far," he said.

This crap makes me nauseous.

Maybe just pull it together and arrest him and do your jobs.

Certainly Dan Rivers was in the pocket of Thaksin & his Red Shirt terrorists. Most one-side reporting I have ever seen. I always knew - by living in the U.S. until two years ago - that CNN was a very unreliable source of "news." But, I had believed the BBC to be a little more accurate with it reporting. But after the Red Shirts occupation of Bangkok, I now know the BBC is as bad as CNN and set out from the beginning taking the side of the violent revolutionists (Thaksinites). No reporting was more pro-Thaksin, more UDD, more PTP, more full of lies and anti-government than was the reporting of Dan Rivers. I saw the little scumbag somewhere in the Middle East on TV just the other day. As much money as Thaksin paid him I would think he could retire comfortably in his mansion in northern Thailand. CNN International and the BBC along with Dan Rivers are disgraceful!

An extreme example perhaps but does indicate the treatment meted out to foreign journalists by the obsessives if they dare to depart from the "approved line", particularly when they point out some home truths.It's odd that people like this who express themselves like this who lie (Rivers in the pay of Thaksin!) and bluster are surprised when the CNN,BBC etc ignore their absurd and paranoiac complaints.

[Snowdog]

It makes you wonder (just a little bit) if THIS might be the payoff for Victor B.

Extradition of Thaksin to Thailand from the US? It would make me proud

I couldn`t agree more.I hope he is arrested on the spot for terrorism charges and sent back to Thailand

[Pi Sek]

Certainly Dan Rivers was in the pocket of Thaksin & his Red Shirt terrorists. Most one-side reporting I have ever seen. I always knew - by living in the U.S. until two years ago - that CNN was a very unreliable source of "news." But, I had believed the BBC to be a little more accurate with it reporting. But after the Red Shirts occupation of Bangkok, I now know the BBC is as bad as CNN and set out from the beginning taking the side of the violent revolutionists (Thaksinites). No reporting was more pro-Thaksin, more UDD, more PTP, more full of lies and anti-government than was the reporting of Dan Rivers. I saw the little scumbag somewhere in the Middle East on TV just the other day. As much money as Thaksin paid him I would think he could retire comfortably in his mansion in northern Thailand. CNN International and the BBC along with Dan Rivers are disgraceful!

An extreme example perhaps but does indicate the treatment meted out to foreign journalists by the obsessives if they dare to depart from the "approved line", particularly when they point out some home truths.It's odd that people like this who express themselves like this who lie (Rivers in the pay of Thaksin!) and bluster are surprised when the CNN,BBC etc ignore their absurd and paranoiac complaints.

I agree that this is an extreme example. But nonetheless, Dan Rivers wasn't telling the whole story, was he... why not?

[Buchholz]

Recently the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship filed a case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) claiming the current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, is guility of crimes against humanity perpetrated during the crackdown.

Interesting how Thaksin's reply "mangled" a purported claim into a recognized certainty:

"I welcome the fact that the US authorities have recognised that the horrific human rights atrocities that occurred in April and May this year"

Now it's Noppadon's turn to "mangle" logic as he infers that Thailand can control the issuance of American visas:

Mr Noppadon said Mr Thaksin has already applied for the US entry visa, at the same time, blaming the Thai government and foreign ministry for their alleged attempt to obstruct the issuance of a US visa for the deposed premier.

[Buchholz]

So now that we know he's using a Montenegrin passport and has applied for a visa (both according to Noppadon, but without saying where the visa application was made), we re-visit the directions from the cognizant Embassy in Serbia.

With the clock ticking, we recall

U.S. Embassy Serbia (for Montenegrin citizens)

Visas - How to Apply

If you plan to travel to the U.S. you should have in mind that visa interview time may be from a few days to few weeks away, so please plan ahead.

which may provide an easy out for the USA to avoid any entanglement in the affair....

"Sorry, we can't issue you a visa on such short notice... Please Plan Ahead, next time."

[philw]

Certainly Dan Rivers was in the pocket of Thaksin & his Red Shirt terrorists. Most one-side reporting I have ever seen. I always knew - by living in the U.S. until two years ago - that CNN was a very unreliable source of "news." But, I had believed the BBC to be a little more accurate with it reporting. But after the Red Shirts occupation of Bangkok, I now know the BBC is as bad as CNN and set out from the beginning taking the side of the violent revolutionists (Thaksinites). No reporting was more pro-Thaksin, more UDD, more PTP, more full of lies and anti-government than was the reporting of Dan Rivers. I saw the little scumbag somewhere in the Middle East on TV just the other day. As much money as Thaksin paid him I would think he could retire comfortably in his mansion in northern Thailand. CNN International and the BBC along with Dan Rivers are disgraceful!

An extreme example perhaps but does indicate the treatment meted out to foreign journalists by the obsessives if they dare to depart from the "approved line", particularly when they point out some home truths.It's odd that people like this who express themselves like this who lie (Rivers in the pay of Thaksin!) and bluster are surprised when the CNN,BBC etc ignore their absurd and paranoiac complaints.

I agree that this is an extreme example. But nonetheless, Dan Rivers wasn't telling the whole story, was he... why not?

Perhaps he was just relating "the story " as he, and his team, perceived it.

That's what writers, journalists and news reporters do, isn't it ?

It's absurd to suggest that Rivers was in the pay of Thaksin.

Personally I think AJ gave better coverage however, BBC and CNN put out a lot of, in my opinion, balanced footage and it's interesting that they are now criticised for " showing favour to reds......."

On another subject, we owe Assange a debt of gratitude.

Truth will eventually out................

[Buchholz]

one criminal defendant speaks up for another...

Pheu Thai Chairman Defends Thaksin

A Pheu Thai Party senior defends fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra for his trip to testify on the red-shirt protest crackdown with a human rights commission in the United States, saying it will be for the best interest of the country.

Pheu Thai Party Chairman General Chavalit Yongjaiyudh has defended ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, stating that Thaksin is a responsible individual and his testimony on the government's crackdown on the red-shirt protests with the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or CSCE, will be for the best interest of the country.

As for the Thai authorities seeking Thaksin's extradition, he said it is the responsibility of related agencies.

Chavalit also pointed out that the government's investigation into the facts about the casualties during the May crackdown has been slow and he believed the government is waiting for the right time to disclose the facts.

The Pheu Thai Chairman himself is under an investigation by the National Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly ordering police to use force against the People's Alliance for Democracy protesters outside Government House on October 7, 2008.

-- Tan Network 2010-12-09

[Buchholz]

one criminal defendant speaks up for another...

Pheu Thai Chairman Defends Thaksin

and now, one banned from politics for electoral fraud speaks up for another...

Thaksin's Close Aide Slams Government

The legal adviser to ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra claims the government is trying to prevent Thaksin from entering the United States to brief a human rights panel on the controversial crackdown on red-shirt protesters.

Noppadon Patthama, legal adviser for fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, said the United States Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or CSCE, has already sent the invitation to Thaksin requesting that he meet with the panel on December 14 to brief it on the May crackdown on red-shirt protests, violence in the southern border provinces and violations of human rights in Thailand.

Noppadon claimed that the government is attempting to block Thaksin's visit to the United States, but Thaksin is seeking a visa to the US from the country where he is residing.

He urged Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya to provide his own explanation along with the ousted premier's to the US panel so that it will receive complete information.

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party chairman General Chavalit Yongjaiyudh has defended Thaksin, stating that the latter is a responsible individual and his testimony on the government's crackdown on the red-shirt protests with the CSCE will be for the best interest of the country.

-- Tan Network 2010-12-08

[whybother]

If Thaksin was invited by a US senate committee, would the Thai government have ANY chance of stopping him getting a visa?

They would have more chance of getting the committee to withdraw their invitation.

[jdinasia]

Meanwhile, Pheu Thai Party chairman General Chavalit Yongjaiyudh has defended Thaksin, stating that the latter is a responsible individual and his testimony on the government's crackdown on the red-shirt protests with the CSCE will be for the best interest of the country.

Yes, Thaksin is certainly responsible.

[jdinasia]

Perhaps he was just relating "the story " as he, and his team, perceived it.

That's what writers, journalists and news reporters do, isn't it ?

It's absurd to suggest that Rivers was in the pay of Thaksin.

Personally I think AJ gave better coverage however, BBC and CNN put out a lot of, in my opinion, balanced footage and it's interesting that they are now criticised for " showing favour to reds......."

On another subject, we owe Assange a debt of gratitude.

Truth will eventually out................

Ummmm

Dan wasn't very balanced in his reporting. Granted he stated "in the middle of a firefight" but he only managed to show government troops firing and never bothered showing us the damage done by the redshirt ordnance. The imagery and stories were about violence from the government lines (other people seem to have managed to get behind red lines).

That you state they are "now" criticised indicates that you missed out on all the criticism of CNN and the Beeb at the time. They were criticised heavily during the time that the government security forces were trying to clear out the Reds.

[animatic]

The absurdities mount at an astounding pace.

[oldsailor35]

This is a trap. This is the 2nd half of the Bout-Thaksin exchange deal. Thai government jet may be parked in US waiting already.

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

Edited December 9, 2010 by oldsailor35

[oldsailor35]

Thaksin is many things, but he is not an idiot. He will not go the US. This is a non-story.

Possibly.

But if he does go to the US, says his piece and departs it will be hard for his enemies to claim he is permanently on the run from one third world dump to another.It will be hard for Thailand to pretend most countries don't consider any extradition request politically motivated and it will be hard for those forum members whose main interest is castigating Thaksin that the wider world shares their views.In fact quite a few people will have egg on their faces, especially little Kasit (not so much Abhisit who is not pushing the matter so much)

If - assuming Thaksin does travel to the US - the Thais say that for some technical reason an extradition request was not served (for Thailand and the US have a valid treaty) you can be sure they have been told in advance by the State Department they are wasting their time.If Thaksin doesn't travel then not only does he seem rather cowardly but in addition I think that this will be evidence that extradition proceedings represent a clear and present danger for him - somewhere, sometime.

Just speculation on my part and we will soon know the score.I do feel that Thailand (and Abhisit) has a lot of goodwill internationally so perhaps Thaksin will be shipped back to Bangkok.I honestly don't know - nor do I suspect do most other people.

No - not at all!! If he says his piece the world will question why a US Govt office would summon a wanted terrorist criminal to give evidence against the "friendly to the US Government". It will also question little Shinawatras own actions whilst in power. The fact is Khun t is a fugitive for the rest of his life. My final comment - you seem to think that ts has some sort of moral code when he has shown time and time again that he is a bare faced liar, and not embarrased by his own stupid anti human conduct. My own feeling is that all of this is just hot air from ts's publicity department and his two small minded lawyers. As one poster said he will withdraw stating he is doing it to save everyone trouble. No one will have egg on their faces except for him who already sports a whole omelette on his fizog!!

To me it appears that Khun Taksin is seen as a Terrorist/Criminal, only in the eyes of the minority ruling party and its supporters

[Ricardo]

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

"If as I am told" ... you are being told untruths, former-PM was at-best an unelected caretaker-PM, in September 2006.

"The government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military", sorry but both the current & indeed the previous two governments, all result from democratic elections.

"deliver him over to the ruling junta", are you certain that you're not confusing Thailand with neighbouring Burma ?

[jdinasia]

This is a trap. This is the 2nd half of the Bout-Thaksin exchange deal. Thai government jet may be parked in US waiting already.

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

1) You were told lies/fallacies. Thaksin was a caretaker PM who had quit and returned to the position extra-constitutionally. Due to the elections that were held and that failed to seat a government the entire caretaker government was extra-constitutional. The people that are elected by the citizens of Thailand are the parliament and the senate. Thaksin dissolved parliament.

2) There is no "ruling junta" in Thailand. There were fresh elections that have returned a succession of three coalition governments. The members of parliament have voted for the PM each time. First Samak, then Somchai, and now Abhisit.

3) Thaksin signed off on the illegal land deal in RachadaPisek. As PM of the country that was abuse of power. Thaksin has at least 6 outstanding warrants for his arrest, is a convicted criminal on the run from the law, and is wanted for funding terrorism.

4) What appears to you as how Thaksin is seen is really irrelevant. (Same as how I see him is irrelevant--- if he can't get a visa to the UK/US/Oz/Germany etc ....) His ability to travel to most of the "civilized" world has been severely curtailed. HK and the UAE have told him to stop sending out political messages from their countries. He obtained Montenegrin citizenship? because they have a constitutional law stating they will NOT extradite etc.

[Pi Sek]

Perhaps he was just relating "the story " as he, and his team, perceived it.

That's what writers, journalists and news reporters do, isn't it ?

It's absurd to suggest that Rivers was in the pay of Thaksin.

Personally I think AJ gave better coverage however, BBC and CNN put out a lot of, in my opinion, balanced footage and it's interesting that they are now criticised for " showing favour to reds......."

On another subject, we owe Assange a debt of gratitude.

Truth will eventually out................

Ummmm

Dan wasn't very balanced in his reporting. Granted he stated "in the middle of a firefight" but he only managed to show government troops firing and never bothered showing us the damage done by the redshirt ordnance. The imagery and stories were about violence from the government lines (other people seem to have managed to get behind red lines).

That you state they are "now" criticised indicates that you missed out on all the criticism of CNN and the Beeb at the time. They were criticised heavily during the time that the government security forces were trying to clear out the Reds.

Oh! I have philw on ignore (for repeatedly asking for "evidence" after he has been shown it hundreds of times - I have 2 individuals on my ignore list), so I didn't read his reply.

But, yes, the CNN and BBC were both heavily criticised for romanticising the protests as a "fight for freedom" or something.

e.g. May 13

The BBC and CNN were reporting about soldiers using live ammunition and making unwarranted arrests on ‘democracy fighters’; meanwhile other international and local news media showed gun battles between Red Shirts and soldiers and a group of Red Shirts hijacking a civilian aid truck (suspecting it was military), with one of the workers being mobbed and shot at pointblank range.

e.g. 16 May

The BBC and CNN continued their sympathy with the protestors and of their fierce criticism of the government, despite many Bangkok residents in the protest area pleading for army assistance when the Red Shirts started setting fire to apartment blocks – while the diplomatic community had ‘expressed concern’ there was certainly no call to say that the government were acting inappropriately.

e.g. 18 May

Amnesty International condemned the Thai government’s reckless use of lethal force against unarmed people who posed no threat whatsoever. This prompted many complaints on user-driven Internet media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and discussion forums for the BBC’s and CNN’s ‘woeful’, ‘poorly researched’ and ‘misrepresented’ news coverage, as many believed Amnesty International’s comments to be based on these reports. CNN’s reports changed their mood shortly after this, as they finally acknowledged that negotiations had failed due to ever-changing demands from the Red Shirts and they acknowledged the videos of protesters armed with heavy weaponry such as M16 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers.

e.g 24 May

Due to further CNN reports going against physical evidence exposed to the press and their hints that the King should be more involved in politics, the Thai Foreign Ministry wrote a letter of complaint to the news agency, specifically referring to CNN as "on par with tabloid journalism".

e.g. 2 June

After the 31 May - 1 June censure debate, Abhisit met CNN’s Bangkok Correspondent Dan Rivers, who had been targeted inside Thailand for the most criticism for inaccurate reporting and possible bias, along with US senator Jim Webb about controversial news reports on the situation in Thailand and leaked video footage of black shirt snipers which was left unreported until just before the debate.

[Pi Sek]

This is a trap. This is the 2nd half of the Bout-Thaksin exchange deal. Thai government jet may be parked in US waiting already.

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

1) You were told lies/fallacies. Thaksin was a caretaker PM who had quit and returned to the position extra-constitutionally. Due to the elections that were held and that failed to seat a government the entire caretaker government was extra-constitutional. The people that are elected by the citizens of Thailand are the parliament and the senate. Thaksin dissolved parliament.

2) There is no "ruling junta" in Thailand. There were fresh elections that have returned a succession of three coalition governments. The members of parliament have voted for the PM each time. First Samak, then Somchai, and now Abhisit.

3) Thaksin signed off on the illegal land deal in RachadaPisek. As PM of the country that was abuse of power. Thaksin has at least 6 outstanding warrants for his arrest, is a convicted criminal on the run from the law, and is wanted for funding terrorism.

4) What appears to you as how Thaksin is seen is really irrelevant. (Same as how I see him is irrelevant--- if he can't get a visa to the UK/US/Oz/Germany etc ....) His ability to travel to most of the "civilized" world has been severely curtailed. HK and the UAE have told him to stop sending out political messages from their countries. He obtained Montenegrin citizenship? because they have a constitutional law stating they will NOT extradite etc.

Yes, sorry oldsailor35, it is not as you were told. Out of interest, who told you?

A big problem with a lot of the Red Shirt support is this... try posing any of the above answers to your questions to a Red Shirt supporter and see how much logic you can get out of them.

The common response is "no, the ruling elite class is lieing and it is just as I have told you". Press them further and you'll get boos and foot-clappers.

[SamritT]

The table have turn. Perhaps Mark should go instead. That also save on interpreter.

[oldsailor35]

People in the US, DC and the Thai community in LA do not feel the same about Thaksin as the Expat community here at Thaivisa does ...

Yes, they've been much more vociferous for a long time.... for example, in 2006:

Thai nationals in the United States will stage a rally this Sunday to demand ousting of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, according to Thaitown USA News, a leading online news outlet popular among Thais living abroad.

The group that called themselves, "People's Alliance for Thai Democracy in the US" will gather in front of Thai Consul General office at about 11am (US Westcoast time), reported the agency in its website, www.thaitownusa.com.

Meanwhile, Thammasat University alumni in the US have gathered signatures of Thais in the US to oust Thaksin. They said they solicited the signatures to help the present Thammasat students who are also gathering signatures for the same purpose.

I remember a rumour flying around about an incident involving Thaksin in a Thai restaurant in London before he was booted out the country. Apparently a significant number of the Thai patrons in the restaurant took exception to his presence.

Absolutely no sources I can cite as to whether the rumour has any truth, but was entertaining nevertheless...

Sitting in a London restaurant, those Thais would probably be from the ' Hi so' component of Thai society very well off and not from the poorer part of the Thai community. So its obvious that they would not want to be around Khun Thaksin. For goodness sake ! dont you understand, they would all be Yellow shirts, the opposite to the Thaksin redshirts...........Duhhhhhhhhhhh

[oldsailor35]

Perhaps he was just relating "the story " as he, and his team, perceived it.

That's what writers, journalists and news reporters do, isn't it ?

It's absurd to suggest that Rivers was in the pay of Thaksin.

Personally I think AJ gave better coverage however, BBC and CNN put out a lot of, in my opinion, balanced footage and it's interesting that they are now criticised for " showing favour to reds......."

On another subject, we owe Assange a debt of gratitude.

Truth will eventually out................

Ummmm

Dan wasn't very balanced in his reporting. Granted he stated "in the middle of a firefight" but he only managed to show government troops firing and never bothered showing us the damage done by the redshirt ordnance. The imagery and stories were about violence from the government lines (other people seem to have managed to get behind red lines).

That you state they are "now" criticised indicates that you missed out on all the criticism of CNN and the Beeb at the time. They were criticised heavily during the time that the government security forces were trying to clear out the Reds.

Yes, but in todays Bangkok Post it is revealed that the army were inside those burned buildings with pics showing no fire at that time ?????

[oldsailor35]

The absurdities mount at an astounding pace.

So it seems...............amazing Thailand.

[oldsailor35]

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

"If as I am told" ... you are being told untruths, former-PM was at-best an unelected caretaker-PM, in September 2006.

"The government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military", sorry but both the current & indeed the previous two governments, all result from democratic elections.

"deliver him over to the ruling junta", are you certain that you're not confusing Thailand with neighbouring Burma ?

Well, everybody appears to have a different opinion as do yourself. But i am surprised as i was convinced that Khun Thaksin was correctly elected to the position of PM. As for subsequent PM's one i note was overthrown because he had a TV Cooking show (Hilarious)..............Others are on trial for illegally using vast amounts of donated and undeclared money, charges , i am told that will be thrown out. Really i do wonder.

Sorry but i cannot understand all this so will just stand back , watch and scratch my head.

Edited December 9, 2010 by oldsailor35

[Sao Jiang Mai]

For someone who doesn't understand you seem to be pretty sure of your opinions. Firstly, he was elected PM, at the time of the coup he was not. Secondly Samak was not kicked out for cooking, but for taking money for it, forging documents and then lying about it, and thirdly the case was thrown out because of technicalities, so if you have proof that the Dems deserved to be dissolved, please tell us.

[jdinasia]

Sitting in a London restaurant, those Thais would probably be from the ' Hi so' component of Thai society very well off and not from the poorer part of the Thai community. So its obvious that they would not want to be around Khun Thaksin. For goodness sake ! dont you understand, they would all be Yellow shirts, the opposite to the Thaksin redshirts...........Duhhhhhhhhhhh

Ummm There are MANY not _hi-so Thais in the UK and the US and in fact in MANY places in the world. Many Thais in the UK are students, married to UK citizens, UK dual citizens etc ... Your conceptions of who what and why really need to be thought over.

Samak was not "overthrown" because of a cooking show. Samak was tossed out for several charges relating to his working another job other than as PM. (Forgery and perjury). Samak would have been able to step right back in as PM if he could have been elected by parliament again. Sadly for Samak, Thaksin wanted his brother-in-law as PM. Nobody was on trial for "using vast amounts of money". The Democrat party was facing charges that have been dismissed for allegedly accepting illegal campaign contributions.

If you are unaware that Thaksin dissolved parliament in 2006 and was thus a caretaker PM, and that those elections he called failed to seat a government, and that the time allowed in the 1997 constitution for a caretaker government to rule had elapsed, and that he had publicly stepped down as caretaker PM and then took it back up .... well then ... you are correct it IS too confusing for you

[rixalex]

For someone who doesn't understand you seem to be pretty sure of your opinions.

Quite.

Frankly, the "i'm new to all this and am completely neutral" pretence is a tired charade as see-through as cling-film.

[Ricardo]

To me it appears that Khun Taksin is seen as a Terrorist/Criminal, only in the eyes of the minority ruling party and its supporters

There is no "minority ruling party", merely a majority coalition-government led by one of the larger minority parties, as were the previous two coalition-governments.

If as i am told. Khun Taksin was a legally elected prime minister of Thailand and was removed from the prime ministership by an illegal military coup, i ask two questions....

1) Why would the USA hand him over to the government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military.

2) Why would the USA deliver him over to the ruling junta in direct contravention of article 1 of the Thai/America extradition agreement i.e. No extradition when it is established that extradition sought is for political purposes.

Having read about the controversial "Land deal" between the Wife of Khun Taksin and the government . I see that the land was bought through auction and she was the highest bidder.

Just asking these questions because i am genuinely CONFUSED !

I am in no way taking part with either side, but as i say quite confused.

"If as I am told" ... you are being told untruths, former-PM was at-best an unelected caretaker-PM, in September 2006.

"The government which was put in place by and on behalf of the military", sorry but both the current & indeed the previous two governments, all result from democratic elections.

"deliver him over to the ruling junta", are you certain that you're not confusing Thailand with neighbouring Burma ?

Well, everybody appears to have a different opinion as do yourself. But i am surprised as i was convinced that Khun Thaksin was correctly elected to the position of PM. As for subsequent PM's one i note was overthrown because he had a TV Cooking show (Hilarious)..............Others are on trial for illegally using vast amounts of donated and undeclared money, charges , i am told that will be thrown out. Really i do wonder.

Sorry but i cannot understand all this so will just stand back , watch and scratch my head.

I agree that there are many opinions, however you seem to be taking too much of what you're told by one side, at face value.

Perhaps you should not be so-easily "convinced that Khun Thaksin was correctly elected to the position of PM", now that you've seen a number of dissenting opinions ? If you wish to be seen as "in no way taking part with either side", that is.

It would indeed be hilarious, if PM-Samak had been overthrown "because he had a TV Cooking show", in fact he lost the job because he was ruled to have lied to the court about not being paid for it, and the only reason he wasn't immediately reappointed PM again thereafter, is that someone decided they wanted a new nominee-PM, who just happened to be Thaksin's brother-in-law. Funny coincidence that. One might equally argue that, far from being fired "because he had a TV Cooking show", he was in fact proving too independent of his nominee-boss.

It's a fascinating situation, well worth standing back & watching for a few years, before rushing to any conclusions.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The absurdities mount at an astounding pace.

Indeed.

[animatic]

The absurdities mount at an astounding pace.

Indeed.

It sometimes still amazes me that so many still don't understand :

The easily verifiable facts of the 2006 coup and Thaksin's status at the time.

And at present.

The current status of Thaksin vis a vis his SELF ENFORCED exile from a very small charge.

The easily verifiable facts about Samak's departure as PM.

And with the PPP connections directly to violent attacks on PAD at government house.

That Samak tried to use as an excuse for a State Of Emergency.

The fact his proxy party PPP shot itself in the foot in the election it won, and made their dissolution inevitable.

And their leaders NOT calling for elections, which opened the door to a coalition being formed by the Dems.

PTP thought they could do it, and when they couldn't they cried foul.

The reasons Newin left PTP for the Dems.

The actual reasons and legitimate methods for the current coalition taking power, it's make up and legality

--------------

Hitler had it right.

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. "

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge. "

"It is not truth that matters, but victory. "

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. "

"The art of leadership...

consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. "

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."

"All great movements are popular movements.

They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. "

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

"As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid. "

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise. "

----------------------------------

The man was loathsome, but he did understand manipulating the masses very well.

And we see these principles of power and control in play here daily.

Mostly coming from red land, but not exclusively.

There is of course a level of Mao 101 at play there too.

Edited December 10, 2010 by animatic