Amnesty For Thaksin Not Wise : Sanan

[Pi Sek]

On the 2 thousands something death linked to the "war on drug", more than half were directly related to drug business. Which doesn't mean the others were innocent by-standers.

In the absence of a properly adjudicated conviction with a concurrent death sentence determination with any of the people that were slaughtered, every one of of those deaths is a homicide.

Actually, JurgenG's figures are very wrong anyway.

The last investigation, which had been shelved by the Samak administration, was reopened in June last year. The previous investigation found that of those killed, approximately 1,400 people (55-60%) were not involved in narcotics. So, more than half were innocent by-standers, which is the opposite of the untruths he (again) posted.

[Ricardo]

Grandma Udom may not be so lucky to escape with her life in the next one.

Grandma Udom and the infamous refrigerator that saved her and her husband's life when a Drug War commando unit mistakenly attacked their house

It was demonstrated on MythBusters that a refrigerator won't stop a bullet. An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

.

On the 2 thousands something death linked to the "war on drug", more than half were directly related to drug business. Which doesn't mean the others were innocent by-standers.

Beside Thaksin was cleared of any wrong doing linked to the "war on drug"

An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

Funny, they look like bullet-holes to me, but if a whacky foreign TV-program says they can't be, perhaps they're only fake police bullet-holes ? So unlucky that the little-old-lady & her husband survived, to tell of their experience, rather than simply swelling the numbers of 'drug dealers' illegally-executed to meet the targets set by the then-government.

As I recall, the investigating-commission reported that about half the dead were totally innocent, but many would feel that even the guilty were entitled to their day-in-court. Some misguided notion of justice, perhaps ?

And who are this "Sondhi's brigade" you refer to ?

[tmd5855]

So speak your mind air your views, but to portray a person who abused the Thai people(with his power) But after taking some flack from posters-you say never mind you still get your pay . whoever is in control-fine but lets all be honest about the ex P.M.s history. So tomorrow I go and rob Bangkok Bank and then run abroad, and abuse from that position, Is that a decent thing --and hope for amnesty

Mr. Thaksin did not rob a bank.

And therein lies the weakness of the arguments from his detractors in this forum. There is an embrace of wild scenarios and fanciful allegations. There is so much visceral hatred that anything goes when discussing the gentleman. I expect one day to read in TVF that he is alleged to have performed human sacrifices and devoured the hearts of babies to gain super natural strength.

He is blamed for everything that upsets people. Yes he has faults and yes he erred. Every political leader has faults and makes mistakes. Yet, Mr. Thaksin is different than the usual leader in that he took it on the chin and didn't fall down. Like a bloodied and battered fighter he stood his ground and fought back as best he could. The manner in which he has been persecuted and used as a whipping boy for the sins of others is precisely why a large number of Thais are willing to forgive his past transgressions.. The Thai government had multiple opportunities to arrest and detain him, yet somehow he managed to be left alone. I offer that some people gambled that it would be better if he was sent to the wilderness than to be a rallying point, a martyr in a Thai prison as a political prisoner. They rolled the dice and lost.

GK,

You put your points on Thaksin and the replies to your abusers and detractors very well, well done Sir.

I agree with the analogy of the fighter standing his ground, taking on all comers, beating them and refusing to go down.

I agree that he believes he has done nothing different than PM's before him and all those that will come after him.

I agree that he believes that all charges and measures taken against him, started for political, selfish and revengeful reasons.

Before I get abused for agreeing with you.

I have no wish to support yellow or red factions or any Thai political party?? Why?? I do not have a vote.

Most (Not all) of the anti-Thaksin posters on here would rage with apoletic fits if any "Johnny Foreigners" back in their own home country (Of origin, i.e where they can vote) called them thick and manipulated because they wanted/wished to vote for/support a political party/leader of their choosing.

Pots and kettles anyone?? Where are the stones, just watch that glass house

[ianbaggie]

So speak your mind air your views, but to portray a person who abused the Thai people(with his power) But after taking some flack from posters-you say never mind you still get your pay . whoever is in control-fine but lets all be honest about the ex P.M.s history. So tomorrow I go and rob Bangkok Bank and then run abroad, and abuse from that position, Is that a decent thing --and hope for amnesty

Mr. Thaksin did not rob a bank.

And therein lies the weakness of the arguments from his detractors in this forum. There is an embrace of wild scenarios and fanciful allegations. There is so much visceral hatred that anything goes when discussing the gentleman. I expect one day to read in TVF that he is alleged to have performed human sacrifices and devoured the hearts of babies to gain super natural strength.

He is blamed for everything that upsets people. Yes he has faults and yes he erred. Every political leader has faults and makes mistakes. Yet, Mr. Thaksin is different than the usual leader in that he took it on the chin and didn't fall down. Like a bloodied and battered fighter he stood his ground and fought back as best he could. The manner in which he has been persecuted and used as a whipping boy for the sins of others is precisely why a large number of Thais are willing to forgive his past transgressions.. The Thai government had multiple opportunities to arrest and detain him, yet somehow he managed to be left alone. I offer that some people gambled that it would be better if he was sent to the wilderness than to be a rallying point, a martyr in a Thai prison as a political prisoner. They rolled the dice and lost.

GK,

You put your points on Thaksin and the replies to your abusers and detractors very well, well done Sir.

I agree with the analogy of the fighter standing his ground, taking on all comers, beating them and refusing to go down.

I agree that he believes he has done nothing different than PM's before him and all those that will come after him.

I agree that he believes that all charges and measures taken against him, started for political, selfish and revengeful reasons.

Before I get abused for agreeing with you.

I have no wish to support yellow or red factions or any Thai political party?? Why?? I do not have a vote.

Most (Not all) of the anti-Thaksin posters on here would rage with apoletic fits if any "Johnny Foreigners" back in their own home country (Of origin, i.e where they can vote) called them thick and manipulated because they wanted/wished to vote for/support a political party/leader of their choosing.

Pots and kettles anyone?? Where are the stones, just watch that glass house

Personally i would be more likely to "rage with apolectic fits" if a criminal ex prime minister tried to take control of the country by buying the electorate - but each to his own eh??

[TAWP]

This is the point, as I said I am sympathetic to Thaksin in this one instance, I feel the verdict was biased. Given a fresh trial with no back dated documents, and a truly impartial panel, then if if Thaksin did not accept the verdict this becomes irrelevant, it is how the public view the decision which counts.

If there is no back-dated [faked] documents from the Thaksin-camp then they have no defense, hence he would still be judged as guilty...

Of course no back dated retrospective legislation was used to convict Thaksin, it's all a figment of my imagination. As many people seem to have this same imaginary view of events, it must be another example of a mass hallucination such as occurred at Lourdes

I am going to assume you mean retroactive, not retrospective.

If Thaksin was ever truly retrospective he might stop trying to ruin the nation...

But anyway, no, retroactive laws wasn't needed to convict Thaksin.

[metisdead]

Personal attacks and insulting posts have been removed.

[jdinasia]

So speak your mind air your views, but to portray a person who abused the Thai people(with his power) But after taking some flack from posters-you say never mind you still get your pay . whoever is in control-fine but lets all be honest about the ex P.M.s history. So tomorrow I go and rob Bangkok Bank and then run abroad, and abuse from that position, Is that a decent thing --and hope for amnesty

Mr. Thaksin did not rob a bank.

And therein lies the weakness of the arguments from his detractors in this forum. There is an embrace of wild scenarios and fanciful allegations. There is so much visceral hatred that anything goes when discussing the gentleman. I expect one day to read in TVF that he is alleged to have performed human sacrifices and devoured the hearts of babies to gain super natural strength.

He is blamed for everything that upsets people. Yes he has faults and yes he erred. Every political leader has faults and makes mistakes. Yet, Mr. Thaksin is different than the usual leader in that he took it on the chin and didn't fall down. Like a bloodied and battered fighter he stood his ground and fought back as best he could. The manner in which he has been persecuted and used as a whipping boy for the sins of others is precisely why a large number of Thais are willing to forgive his past transgressions.. The Thai government had multiple opportunities to arrest and detain him, yet somehow he managed to be left alone. I offer that some people gambled that it would be better if he was sent to the wilderness than to be a rallying point, a martyr in a Thai prison as a political prisoner. They rolled the dice and lost.

GK,

You put your points on Thaksin and the replies to your abusers and detractors very well, well done Sir.

I agree with the analogy of the fighter standing his ground, taking on all comers, beating them and refusing to go down.

I agree that he believes he has done nothing different than PM's before him and all those that will come after him.

I agree that he believes that all charges and measures taken against him, started for political, selfish and revengeful reasons.

Before I get abused for agreeing with you.

I have no wish to support yellow or red factions or any Thai political party?? Why?? I do not have a vote.

Most (Not all) of the anti-Thaksin posters on here would rage with apoletic fits if any "Johnny Foreigners" back in their own home country (Of origin, i.e where they can vote) called them thick and manipulated because they wanted/wished to vote for/support a political party/leader of their choosing.

Pots and kettles anyone?? Where are the stones, just watch that glass house

To say that Thaksin didn't "Rob a bank" ---- certainly skips over the verdict and explanation from the courts in the assets forfeiture case. Thaksin indeed DID rob a bank --- he robbed the kingdom treasury.

Feel free to refer back to

(you'll need to keep reading in the thread --- the courts outlined How and how much Thaksin robbed from the people of Thailand)

more here

PS --- I agree with foreigners when they say the people of my country were think and manipulated when the voted for Bush

Edited June 15, 2011 by jdinasia

[rubl]

On the 2 thousands something death linked to the "war on drug", more than half were directly related to drug business. Which doesn't mean the others were innocent by-standers.

Beside Thaksin was cleared of any wrong doing linked to the "war on drug"

An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

2004-07-07 Not Enough Graves

The War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Violations of Human Rights

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/07/07/not-enough-graves-0

(includes link to report)

2004-10-06 Thailand: Anti-Drug Campaign Reaches New Low

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/10/04/thailand-anti-drug-campaign-reaches-new-low

2007-07-31 A fit and proper Premiership?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/6918718.stm

2007-08-16 Thaksin May Yet Pay for Bloody 'War-on-Drugs'

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38910

Nothing personal, but I'd say 'another myth busted'

[jdinasia]

On the 2 thousands something death linked to the "war on drug", more than half were directly related to drug business. Which doesn't mean the others were innocent by-standers.

Beside Thaksin was cleared of any wrong doing linked to the "war on drug"

An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

2004-07-07 Not Enough Graves

The War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Violations of Human Rights

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/07/07/not-enough-graves-0

(includes link to report)

2004-10-06 Thailand: Anti-Drug Campaign Reaches New Low

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/10/04/thailand-anti-drug-campaign-reaches-new-low

2007-07-31 A fit and proper Premiership?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/6918718.stm

2007-08-16 Thaksin May Yet Pay for Bloody 'War-on-Drugs'

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38910

Nothing personal, but I'd say 'another myth busted'

Thaksin wasn't cleared on anything --- as you rightly point out rubl

[anterian]

This is the point, as I said I am sympathetic to Thaksin in this one instance, I feel the verdict was biased. Given a fresh trial with no back dated documents, and a truly impartial panel, then if if Thaksin did not accept the verdict this becomes irrelevant, it is how the public view the decision which counts.

If there is no back-dated [faked] documents from the Thaksin-camp then they have no defense, hence he would still be judged as guilty...

Of course no back dated retrospective legislation was used to convict Thaksin, it's all a figment of my imagination. As many people seem to have this same imaginary view of events, it must be another example of a mass hallucination such as occurred at Lourdes

I am going to assume you mean retroactive, not retrospective.

If Thaksin was ever truly retrospective he might stop trying to ruin the nation...

But anyway, no, retroactive laws wasn't needed to convict Thaksin.

Retrospective ...looking backwards. Retroactive an action applied to the past. I think both applied. Retroactively re designated an agency then retrospectively view that redesignated agency:D Yes no retroactive laws were needed, just a retroactive redesignation of who controlled an agency.

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

[lannarebirth]

After her first visit to southern Thailand went smoothly, the Pheu Thai Party's number 1 party-list candidate reiterated that the party is not focused on merely providing amnesty for her brother, but is offering to cure Thailand of its current economic and social problems.

[

Double standards like amnesty for criminals, especially wealthy criminals, IS Thailands number one social problem.

Edited June 15, 2011 by lannarebirth

[jdinasia]

I am going to assume you mean retroactive, not retrospective.

If Thaksin was ever truly retrospective he might stop trying to ruin the nation...

But anyway, no, retroactive laws wasn't needed to convict Thaksin.

Retrospective ...looking backwards. Retroactive an action applied to the past. I think both applied. Retroactively re designated an agency then retrospectively view that redesignated agency:D Yes no retroactive laws were needed, just a retroactive redesignation of who controlled an agency.

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

They changed "facts"? LOL

I am amazed, on occasion of how gullible people can be. Factual findings are just that ... factual. You, sir are fudging the "facts."

Please feel free to refer back to the court's findings in the cases that have already been prosecuted against Thaksin ... there are more to come unless he gets an amnesty (which will imho lead to more bloodshed in Thailand) or unless he stays out of the country for long enough that the clock runs out on him.

Very simply, the fact is that he has been found guilty. (more than once, but only once so far in criminal court) The reason they picked that case to do first is that it was black-letter-law. He was an office holder, he signed the paperwork, it was abuse of power. The civil case laid the groundwork for even more abuse of power cases that afaik have not been sent to the courts yet. Even in a country where legal precedent is not a determining factor in how the next similar case is decided, the Supreme Court's near unanimous decision to reject an appeal in the assets forfeiture case AND the findings of the court in that same case means that more convictions are almost certain. There is in fact a Sword of Damocles hanging over Thaksin and he strung it up by the horsehair himself. (think Cicero)

[rubl]

begin removed ...

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

(rubl: the you refers to TAWP)

The part 'they changed the facts' needs some explanation, a bit of proof would be nice also. IMHO.

[tmd5855]

[quote name='ginjag' timestamp='1308112080' post='44900

Personally i would be more likely to "rage with apolectic fits" if a criminal ex prime minister tried to take control of the country by buying the electorate - but each to his own eh??

I agree that he is a criminal, as found by existing laws?

He is an ex-prime minister by a criminal act, unless you think a military coup removing an elected goverment/prime minister is legal??

Buying the electorate?? Promising tax cuts, benefits, job relocation or direct money handoutshas always gone on in the West, only it is more subtle and discreet.

If an electorate of a country where I have no say, no vote and I am only a visa dependent visitor, decided to elect a criminal?

That is their business, none of mine. I and others on TVF, cannot change the direction of Thai politics?

Images of King Canute spring to mind

[whybother]

I agree that he is a criminal, as found by existing laws?

He is an ex-prime minister by a criminal act, unless you think a military coup removing an elected goverment/prime minister is legal??

<snip>

Actually, he is ex-PM by his own hand.

He dissolved parliament in Feb 2006, which made him care-taker PM. He couldn't form government after the election in April 2006, because there were some seats where no one was elected (the only person running didn't get 20% of the vote). Then the whole election was invalidated because of EC irregularities. And that's ignoring that he resigned (actually gave his resignation to the King) from being care-taker PM a couple of days after the election.

[anterian]

begin removed ...

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

(rubl: the you refers to TAWP)

The part 'they changed the facts' needs some explanation, a bit of proof would be nice also. IMHO.

Facts based on science can be shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory. Facts can also be changed by human perceptions, for example holocaust deniers. Past events can be reinterpreted, past decisions can be reversed. Facts are not carved in stone. At the time of the land purchase the selling agency had a management committee which was not appointed by the government. At the time of the trial this fact was reassessed and changed, it was determined that it was a government agency. Thus by changing the facts Thaksin became guilty. All perfectly legal and above board, no laws were changed, just one fact.

Why do I have to provide proof, you are the ones contesting my statement? Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law, but the tactic used was unethical. Many more able people than me feel the same, the issue is not one of law but of ethics. The anti-Thaksin brigade such as yourself seem to have the philosophy, the end justifies the means. Globally this seems to be an increasing trend, it is a totalitarian approach which you seem to approve of, but it worries me.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

(rubl: the you refers to TAWP)

The part 'they changed the facts' needs some explanation, a bit of proof would be nice also. IMHO.

Facts based on science can be shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory. Facts can also be changed by human perceptions, for example holocaust deniers. Past events can be reinterpreted, past decisions can be reversed. Facts are not carved in stone. At the time of the land purchase the selling agency had a management committee which was not appointed by the government. At the time of the trial this fact was reassessed and changed, it was determined that it was a government agency. Thus by changing the facts Thaksin became guilty. All perfectly legal and above board, no laws were changed, just one fact.

Why do I have to provide proof, you are the ones contesting my statement? Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law, but the tactic used was unethical. Many more able people than me feel the same, the issue is not one of law but of ethics. The anti-Thaksin brigade such as yourself seem to have the philosophy, the end justifies the means. Globally this seems to be an increasing trend, it is a totalitarian approach which you seem to approve of, but it worries me.

You wrote 'they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied', so of course I ask which facts. The philosophical part is irrelevant here. The land belonged to the government, so k. Thaksin should not have got involved. Simple.

[anterian]

begin removed ...

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

(rubl: the you refers to TAWP)

The part 'they changed the facts' needs some explanation, a bit of proof would be nice also. IMHO.

Facts based on science can be shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory. Facts can also be changed by human perceptions, for example holocaust deniers. Past events can be reinterpreted, past decisions can be reversed. Facts are not carved in stone. At the time of the land purchase the selling agency had a management committee which was not appointed by the government. At the time of the trial this fact was reassessed and changed, it was determined that it was a government agency. Thus by changing the facts Thaksin became guilty. All perfectly legal and above board, no laws were changed, just one fact.

Why do I have to provide proof, you are the ones contesting my statement? Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law, but the tactic used was unethical. Many more able people than me feel the same, the issue is not one of law but of ethics. The anti-Thaksin brigade such as yourself seem to have the philosophy, the end justifies the means. Globally this seems to be an increasing trend, it is a totalitarian approach which you seem to approve of, but it worries me.

You wrote 'they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied', so of course I ask which facts. The philosophical part is irrelevant here. The land belonged to the government, so k. Thaksin should not have got involved. Simple.

"The philosophical part is irrelevant here." Exactly so, which is why I cannot be bothered to debate this further with you :jap:

The philosophical aspect of ethics is clearly alien to you.

I'm sure you will want to have the final word in this non debate, so over to you Sir

[ginjag]

begin removed ...

You are trying to fudge the facts. I never claimed laws were changed, they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied.

(rubl: the you refers to TAWP)

The part 'they changed the facts' needs some explanation, a bit of proof would be nice also. IMHO.

Facts based on science can be shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory. Facts can also be changed by human perceptions, for example holocaust deniers. Past events can be reinterpreted, past decisions can be reversed. Facts are not carved in stone. At the time of the land purchase the selling agency had a management committee which was not appointed by the government. At the time of the trial this fact was reassessed and changed, it was determined that it was a government agency. Thus by changing the facts Thaksin became guilty. All perfectly legal and above board, no laws were changed, just one fact.

Why do I have to provide proof, you are the ones contesting my statement? Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law, but the tactic used was unethical. Many more able people than me feel the same, the issue is not one of law but of ethics. The anti-Thaksin brigade such as yourself seem to have the philosophy, the end justifies the means. Globally this seems to be an increasing trend, it is a totalitarian approach which you seem to approve of, but it worries me.

You wrote 'they changed the facts so that the laws could be applied', so of course I ask which facts. The philosophical part is irrelevant here. The land belonged to the government, so k. Thaksin should not have got involved. Simple.

Good easy answer, It's known as total abuse of power, greed, ego, as in the U.K. t.v. show " family Fortunes" .I do admire him for his financial abilities . Had he used his brain for the benefit of his beloved country, and not his or his cronies pockets, manipulating the poor, gagging the media so anything reported was for his gain, oh I remember, not wanting to be one sided, the facts made me think this way, and I wasn't PAID OFF to have this opinion.

[TAWP]

anterian>> You bring up an accusation against the courts and then refuse to even explain what 'facts' they changed so they could find him guilty?

Yes, you are making yourself very credible...

[jdinasia]

Facts based on science can be shown to be wrong, for example the phlogiston theory. Facts can also be changed by human perceptions, for example holocaust deniers. Past events can be reinterpreted, past decisions can be reversed. Facts are not carved in stone. At the time of the land purchase the selling agency had a management committee which was not appointed by the government. At the time of the trial this fact was reassessed and changed, it was determined that it was a government agency. Thus by changing the facts Thaksin became guilty. All perfectly legal and above board, no laws were changed, just one fact.

Why do I have to provide proof, you are the ones contesting my statement? Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law, but the tactic used was unethical. Many more able people than me feel the same, the issue is not one of law but of ethics. The anti-Thaksin brigade such as yourself seem to have the philosophy, the end justifies the means. Globally this seems to be an increasing trend, it is a totalitarian approach which you seem to approve of, but it worries me.

You have now changed the yardstick (again) --- YOU made the claim that the "facts" were changed, now you are claiming it is an "ethical" question. You talk about a 'totalitarian' approach and yes, that is exactly why so many people oppose Thaksin's authoritarian CEO approach to governance. No "fact" was changed, and proving a negative is nigh on impossible. Your claim should be either provable or not. (It isn't -- it is a simplistic argument that works on the masses but when asked for proof ..... the argument vanishes.

We can leave it at your statement of fact and leave out your biased opinion. "Thaksin was convicted legitimately and by the letter of the law."

[hellodolly]

Pheu Thai Not Focused Solely on Amnesty Plan

After her first visit to southern Thailand went smoothly, the Pheu Thai Party's number 1 party-list candidate reiterated that the party is not focused on merely providing amnesty for her brother, but is offering to cure Thailand of its current economic and social problems.

After Pheu Thai Party number 1 party-list candidate Yingluck Shinawatra visited the southern provinces of Yala, Narathiwat, and Pattani yesterday, she said she received a warm welcome from southerners.

She thanked everyone that was receptive to Pheu Thai although she does not hope to win MP seats in area as they are not Pheu Thai strongholds.

Meanwhile, she refused to comment on Democrat Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban's criticism that southerners will not vote for her party because they remembered the harsh rule under her brother Thaksin Shinawatra's administration.

She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens.

Yingluck also denied that Pheu Thai intended to steal the limelight from the Democrat Party, which is scheduled to host a major rally in the area on June 21.

The PM candidate also reiterates that Pheu Thai's first action as government will not be to issue an amnesty decree.

She insists that her party will work to solve every problem, and said building national reconciliation is among one of those efforts.

She also asked that every party respect the majority of voters by letting the winning party form the next government.

-- Tan Network 2011-06-15

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

[hellodolly]

Grandma Udom may not be so lucky to escape with her life in the next one.

Grandma Udom and the infamous refrigerator that saved her and her husband's life when a Drug War commando unit mistakenly attacked their house

It was demonstrated on MythBusters that a refrigerator won't stop a bullet. An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

.

On the 2 thousands something death linked to the "war on drug", more than half were directly related to drug business. Which doesn't mean the others were innocent by-standers.

Beside Thaksin was cleared of any wrong doing linked to the "war on drug"

An other myth propagated by the Sondhi's brigade BUSTED

Funny, they look like bullet-holes to me, but if a whacky foreign TV-program says they can't be, perhaps they're only fake police bullet-holes ? So unlucky that the little-old-lady & her husband survived, to tell of their experience, rather than simply swelling the numbers of 'drug dealers' illegally-executed to meet the targets set by the then-government.

As I recall, the investigating-commission reported that about half the dead were totally innocent, but many would feel that even the guilty were entitled to their day-in-court. Some misguided notion of justice, perhaps ?

And who are this "Sondhi's brigade" you refer to ?

Don't get sucked in by Thaksin's lackey where he states a TV show showed a refrigerator would not stop a bullet.

It did not show that a refrigerator could not slow one down enough to make them harmless. Which in all likely hood is what happened.

Does any one know how many dummy accounts the money to pay the wages of these hucksters goes through from Thaksin to them?

[themockrat]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

[whybother]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

You checked ALL of their passports??? (besides the fact that they probably don't ALL have passports to check)

[jdinasia]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

You need to go back an reread what he wrote. It is obvious he knows something you don't but I don't see any way to correct that deficiency

[themockrat]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

You need to go back an reread what he wrote. It is obvious he knows something you don't but I don't see any way to correct that deficiency

I did read it. And he basically wrote that she doesn't know anything about the South and justified it by saying that it was because she said "We are all Thai". If that makes sense to you..

[jdinasia]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

You need to go back an reread what he wrote. It is obvious he knows something you don't but I don't see any way to correct that deficiency

I did read it. And he basically wrote that she doesn't know anything about the South and justified it by saying that it was because she said "We are all Thai". If that makes sense to you..

Keep blinking

It makes sense to me because I know something about the history of the restive South, and how her brother/surrogate father/clone exacerbated the problem. Even though there are rural poor and farmers in the South, it is a reasonable assumption that no Thaksin proxy party will ever be representing (via an MP slot) any rural population from the South. BTW -- while it is basically correct to say "We are all Thais" much of the lower 4 provinces are not populated by ethnic Thais.

I am not sure that the Dems will pull ALL 53 MP positions available from the South this time but they should get almost all of them.

[hellodolly]

anterian>> You bring up an accusation against the courts and then refuse to even explain what 'facts' they changed so they could find him guilty?

Yes, you are making yourself very credible...

He is not interested in facts as he has shown on previous posts his interest lies in

The philosophical aspect of ethics

[ratcatcher]

She said

"She reaffirms that her party is sincere towards people in the South, saying that everyone is Thai and there is no need to discriminate against fellow citizens. "

Kinda like saying there is no problem in the southern provinces. We are all Thai.

Not a heck of a lot of knowledge of what is happening down south.

So are you saying the people in the South are not Thais? What are you suggesting? That they're illegal immigrants living in Thailand? I don't know, but her suggestion that they're Thais makes sense to me. Last time I checked, they all had Thai passports. But maybe you know something I don't.

I think hellodolly is making the point that to colour all Thai citizens the same is quite wrong. Yes, nationally they are all technically Thai citizens assuming they have I.D. etc, but she was generalizing.

Most of Isaan is Lao, or Khmer, in fact there are more Lao in Thailand than Laos. There are over 3 million Malays in southern Thailand so yes, there' s no common group and after her brother's mishandling of earlier events, she's just saying "Hey, let's forget the dead and all be friends". Just like the Red shirts forgive the opposition of last May 2010.