Did Thaksin Meet Insurgents? Yes He Did, Many Sources Say

[Buchholz]

the story was picked up by many observers, particularly social networking sites.................

Perhaps then the government's most comprehensive source of news dissemination, Yingluck's Facebook account, could address the issue.

That is, if she doesn't fire her Yingluck Facebook Team... again.

.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

the story was picked up by many observers, particularly social networking sites.................

Perhaps then the government's most comprehensive source of news dissemination, Yingluck's Facebook account, could address the issue.

That is, if she doesn't fire her Yingluck Facebook Team... again.

.

I wasn't aware that "Yingluck's Facebook account" was the "government's most comprehensive source of news dissemination". She has a facebook account sure, so does Abhisit, he wrote his farewell excuses address "from the bottom of his heart" on his "page" but I don't think either of them regard that as a primary source.

Why do you?

[hellodolly]

Once one can raise their sights beyond this media din of anti-Thaksism, there is possibly another angle worth considering. It cannot be argued that Mr. T. represents the electoral majority in Thailand.....right?....Electoral results of the past, including as recently as last year with which he was closely associated, provide irrefutable evidence of it...... Mr. Abhisit does not have comparable credentials........................ Given those facts, and should these anti-Thaksin innuendoes regarding attempts to affect the Southern insurgency be correct.....What would be wrong with that? Just compare the validity of a Thaksin in such discussions compared to any other Thai politician, with perhaps the exception of Ms. Y, and one can understand the cogency of it all................ So when one looks beyond all the media noise and smoke, this is worth considering.........As for those who would suggest that the recent Bangkok bombings have a relationship to all of this, those would be the same people who would be expected to blame Thaksin for an earthquake in Timbuktu.

And was he or was he not responsible for the uprising by the Red Shirt Mob attack of the ASEAN meetings in Pattaya in 2009 or for the 2010 stranglehold and subsequent burning of Bangkok?

Red shirt lovers hate to see this stuff....actual proof that their rhetoric does nothing but prove that they support goons, thugs and terrorists

If in fact they aren't one themselves.

TV has many closet Red Shirt lovers.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Buying votes is not a democracy. Look it up if you think I'm wrong.

I guess you'll be RED when the civil was breaks out!

Neither is what what we have in most native-English countries, although I admit it's marginally better than in Thailand.

And no, couldn't care less one way or the other if it came to that. Just looking at things from what I consider a realistic and pragmatic POV, I think the yellows are just kidding themselves if they think the game wasn't over a long time ago, should just pack their bags and go home let the country get on with the path its chosen let the chips fall where they may rather than continuing the conflict.

If they'd succeeded in winning over the upcountry majority during the ample opportunity the Army bought them, I'd say the same to Thaksin & co.

[xavierr]

PULO may or may not be part of the big picture anymore. However this topic is about the allegations made by the democrats that Thaksin had met and was photographed with the PULO Leader. Strangely enough these allegations have not been proved despite anything you may read on this forum. So your statement about what Thaksin can or cannot buy is a moot point.

Why would Thaksin meet the leader of a movement that has been overtaken by events on the ground? Why is it a big issue for anyone, not only the democrats? Perhaps they both merely seek to give relevance to each other by being in the news.

[Skywalker69]

Of topic, sorry for that.

I think Thaksin as infiltrated TV via Amsterdam's Law Office.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

The red shirts have accepted elections and some politcal status, regretably some violence involved, but the insurgents have achieved nothing but death.......

No condemnation of the insurgents.....only Thaksin for meeting them (if he did)

Anybody? above 5000 deaths I believe......no comments? no comdemnation?..........not important to you?

why?

Totally OT, but I'll bite, if you're really asking rather than just trying to make some point I don't understand:

I think it's because as outsiders, living in a country with much propoganda and little freedom of press aren't quite sure to what extent the troubles in the south are one the one hand

a popularly supported uprising due to historical social injustices inflicted on the local (national-minority) population by a repressive (national-majority)/central government, or

an extreme militant fundamentalist islamic jihad group without popular support, instigated by foreign Al-Quaida type sponsors.

And since we don't know, and probably have no way to get any "objective" facts, we keep our mouths shut about it.

Also since it doesn't affect us much personally.

Just like most people don't care about the Rohingya being pushed back out to sea, or the drug dealers getting summarily executed, or the hilltribes being denied their nationality, or illegal trafficked workers in the fishing industry being kept in slavelike conditions and occasionally thrown overboard.

For myself personally, I believe that the measure taken by western governments to fight "terrorism" have been much more harmful to our culture and civilisation, and actually furthering their cause, than if we simply did our common-sense best to prevent as many deaths as possible but otherwise ignored them. Losing a few thousand citizens once every few years would IMO be a small price to pay for keeping our freedoms intact and preventing the increasing repressiveness of our own governments. Just like we accept many more deaths each year as direct consequences of allowing private ownership of automobiles, legal alcohol, gun ownership (at least in the US), various kinds of pollution and damage to the environment, effects of commercial agriculture etc etc. IMO the attempts at a cure is worse than the problem.

And I guess my question is, why are you yourself personally upset about this particular problem?

[rubl]

I wasn't aware that "Yingluck's Facebook account" was the "government's most comprehensive source of news dissemination". She has a facebook account sure, so does Abhisit, he wrote his farewell excuses address "from the bottom of his heart" on his "page" but I don't think either of them regard that as a primary source.

Why do you?

It shouldn't, but as you may remember a number of times news was dissiminated through our PM's facebook account. You may not remember, that does happen.

I'm not going to search for that again, feel free to do so yourself.

BTW I just watched the 2012 BBC documentary "How God made the English", it explains a lot without really trying to justify (too) much.

[OZEMADE]

it makes Thailand look incredibly stupid, and caused the unnecessary loss of many lives.

Not the first time that either or both of those conditions occurred with Thaksin.

.

If anyone other than Thaksin had gone to Kuala Lumpur, nothing would have been said and there would be no news. All I have seen in these reports is what the SOURCE said, or what the RELIABLE source said. Why can’t these sources be mentioned by name, where is the proof.

Thaksin Lawyer has stated Thaksin did go to Malaysia but did not have Peace talks with anyone. Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so.

I personally believe that the Democrats are stirring the pot, to discredit Yingluck and throw suspicion on Thaksin that the bombing in the south was a result of him having the alleged peace talk meeting.

Any bombings that were carried out would have taken a lot of planning (months)and would be time consuming, not a five minute job and not just after Thaksin had allegedly just had a meeting.

[rubl]

If anyone other than Thaksin had gone to Kuala Lumpur, nothing would have been said and there would be no news. All I have seen in these reports is what the SOURCE said, or what the RELIABLE source said. Why can’t these sources be mentioned by name, where is the proof.

Thaksin Lawyer has stated Thaksin did go to Malaysia but did not have Peace talks with anyone. Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so.

I personally believe that the Democrats are stirring the pot, to discredit Yingluck and throw suspicion on Thaksin that the bombing in the south was a result of him having the alleged peace talk meeting.

Any bombings that were carried out would have taken a lot of planning (months)and would be time consuming, not a five minute job and not just after Thaksin had allegedly just had a meeting.

"Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so."

K. Thaksin did not admit nothing, he denied everything. To link that to "I'm not in any official capacity" is ludicrous. As if that has ever stopped him from his self-styled 'free roving Thai ambassador' function.

Edited April 13, 2012 by rubl

[OZEMADE]

If anyone other than Thaksin had gone to Kuala Lumpur, nothing would have been said and there would be no news. All I have seen in these reports is what the SOURCE said, or what the RELIABLE source said. Why can’t these sources be mentioned by name, where is the proof.

Thaksin Lawyer has stated Thaksin did go to Malaysia but did not have Peace talks with anyone. Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so.

I personally believe that the Democrats are stirring the pot, to discredit Yingluck and throw suspicion on Thaksin that the bombing in the south was a result of him having the alleged peace talk meeting.

Any bombings that were carried out would have taken a lot of planning (months)and would be time consuming, not a five minute job and not just after Thaksin had allegedly just had a meeting.

"Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so."

K. Thaksin did not admit nothing, he denied everything. To link that to "I'm not in any official capacity" is ludicrous. As if that has eve

r stopped him from his self-styled 'free roving Thai ambassador' function.

Mate I can only quote what I read in the Nation? You know how truthful their RELIABLE sources are. It must be true. See link.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thaksin-met-with-PULO-leader-Democrat-30179680.html

[rubl]

If anyone other than Thaksin had gone to Kuala Lumpur, nothing would have been said and there would be no news. All I have seen in these reports is what the SOURCE said, or what the RELIABLE source said. Why can’t these sources be mentioned by name, where is the proof.

Thaksin Lawyer has stated Thaksin did go to Malaysia but did not have Peace talks with anyone. Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so.

I personally believe that the Democrats are stirring the pot, to discredit Yingluck and throw suspicion on Thaksin that the bombing in the south was a result of him having the alleged peace talk meeting.

Any bombings that were carried out would have taken a lot of planning (months)and would be time consuming, not a five minute job and not just after Thaksin had allegedly just had a meeting.

"Thaksin himself has also admitted that he did not have peace talks with anyone as he is not in any official capacity to do so."

K. Thaksin did not admit nothing, he denied everything. To link that to "I'm not in any official capacity" is ludicrous. As if that has eve

r stopped him from his self-styled 'free roving Thai ambassador' function.

Mate I can only quote what I read in the Nation? You know how truthful their RELIABLE sources are. It must be true. See link.

http://www.nationmul...t-30179680.html

My excuses and no offence meant. I should have phrased my reply somewhat differently as I know the quote was literally from theNation article.

Edited April 13, 2012 by rubl