No One In Thailand Wants To Listen To The Hard Truth

[drdoom6996]

The Thai people voted these nice folks in. The Thai people all got at least 500 baht to vote for them. The Thai people are getting exactly what they were paid for. I don't understand what all of us farangs are complaining about. Most of us don't pay taxes. It does not affect our living, drinking, and running around the country playing golf. And what good do you think complaining about it on this page is doing. Nobody cares, especially the Thai people who voted for these nice people. Oh and by the way, I left last month to go and make some money off the Indonesians and won't be back until Christmas. The Thai's have spent what I was planning on making off them on a trip to EUROPE. Have a nice day.

[ikbenhet]

The truth is, truth is a alien (foreign) concept to many Thais.

The truth is, truth is a alien (foreign) concept to many people. anywhere everywhere.

[market trader]

The truth is, truth is a alien (foreign) concept to many Thais.

I am in the midst of a week-long hassle trying to get a visa renewed. I have all the documents, but there is one tiny little thing that they say is needed. In other words, 6 pieces of good ID aren't enough for bureaucrats to believe I am who I am. They want a 7th or an 8th piece of verification, and even the bureaucrats have been tussling among themselves (in my case), some saying it's ok, others saying "no, instructions from Bangkok insist upon ........" It's a bureaucratic nightmare, and it stems from the Thai proclivitiy to never believe anything a stranger says. Their culture is built on (and hobbled by) distrust. All the houses in Thailand have walls and/or barbed wire around them (you see little of that in more trusting societies in the west). Similar for their shops with their ubiquitous metal rolling walls. Ebay never worked in Thailand, because no Thai trusts a stranger to send a product that's paid for. Same reason checks aren't used for everyday purchases - because no one trusts anyone they don't already know.

Ebay never worked here beccause 99% of Thais do not have a credit card

[BeforeTigers]

Thank god I wasn't here yet.

Seems like a very interesting thing to see unfold, as an outsider But then again, I'd have to have an opinion about it- which seems exhausting.

Trying my very best to keep my California political mind out of Thai affairs.

[bigbamboo]

My depression about this country is the extent to which these good Buddhists lie. From Yingluck downwards, corruption, lies, cheating seems to be a way of life. How many farangs have been lied and cheated to by ex-wives? In my case a woman with degrees, a civil engineer and a 'good buddhist' who is now in a senior position in the main government hospital here in Chiang Mai, got lying down to an art form. I don't expect the red kwais to be any different and yes, the lies that they continually spout in defence of that exiled king of all liars is astounding.

Another stab at Thaksin while completely missing the point that there are bigger liars and manipulators than him.

They were liars and corrupt before he came along you know, not his fault he plays their game better than they can now.

Really?

Who?

[Chalard]

Insisting on the truth can be considered cultural insensitivity in this part of the world.

Likewise in Egypt & the Middle East.

[tlansford]

The TRCT's 22 page press release for the 300+ page report is here : http://www.prachatai.com/english/sites/default/files/_ENGLISH_v2%20Sep%2017.pdf

pratchatai English published the HRW take and Andrew Spooner has a 3 part comment at the end :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3382

Spooner makes some pretty hard accusations about the HRW information.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn wrote a release about the report as well - you'll need to google it. He is understandable not complimentary of the report.

The UN's news release on this also : http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42918&Cr=Thailand&Cr1=#.UF3v53_lq8E

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

There are also many statements where one can almost read what they want into it.

It has many points in the release (I haven't seen the report) where I say 'yeah, that sounds good...'.

On the other hand, any time The Nation comes out this hard in favor of something, that is an automatic red-flag to look for more information and more analysis.

Critics of the report note that it is essentially a CYA maneuver for the traditional elite. Given the origins of the TRCT, that doesn't seem like a surprising criticism.

Hope that the links get people started

[Thaddeus]

Hey all, u think, she thinks... it does not change jack shit and u know it...

enjoy what u see or go home...

Thank you for that valuable contribution to this debate.

[Thaddeus]

The TRCT's 22 page press release for the 300+ page report is here : http://www.prachatai...H_v2 Sep 17.pdf

pratchatai English published the HRW take and Andrew Spooner has a 3 part comment at the end :

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/3382

Spooner makes some pretty hard accusations about the HRW information.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn wrote a release about the report as well - you'll need to google it. He is understandable not complimentary of the report.

The UN's news release on this also : http://www.un.org/ap...1=#.UF3v53_lq8E

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

There are also many statements where one can almost read what they want into it.

It has many points in the release (I haven't seen the report) where I say 'yeah, that sounds good...'.

On the other hand, any time The Nation comes out this hard in favor of something, that is an automatic red-flag to look for more information and more analysis.

Critics of the report note that it is essentially a CYA maneuver for the traditional elite. Given the origins of the TRCT, that doesn't seem like a surprising criticism.

Hope that the links get people started

Key words from that post being 'automatic red flag'

[yoshiwara]

My depression about this country is the extent to which these good Buddhists lie. From Yingluck downwards, corruption, lies, cheating seems to be a way of life. How many farangs have been lied and cheated to by ex-wives? In my case a woman with degrees, a civil engineer and a 'good buddhist' who is now in a senior position in the main government hospital here in Chiang Mai, got lying down to an art form. I don't expect the red kwais to be any different and yes, the lies that they continually spout in defence of that exiled king of all liars is astounding.

Another stab at Thaksin while completely missing the point that there are bigger liars and manipulators than him.

They were liars and corrupt before he came along you know, not his fault he plays their game better than they can now.

Really?

Who?

Yes, I would be interested to know who is candidate to be a bigger liar and manipulator than Thaksin.

Funny how this pathetic rationale is used to defend Thaksin as if it is a legitimate argument.

Actually just another attempt to spin the dirt away from him.

I just wonder. Who else apart from Thaksin has used his chauffeur and members of the family to launder funds to avoid taxation? And then fled the country to avoid sentencing.

Anyone?

[Arkady]

What does the TRCT think should have been the response of the government after the red shirt leaders moved the goal posts and decided they didn't want the early elections that were offered by the government? Leave them blockading the centre of town for as long as they pleased to stay there?

What do they think would have happened in a developed democracy after heavily armed men fired at the security forces with assault rifles and grenade launchers from within the red shirt ranks?

[yoshiwara]

Fundamentals of ineptitude and bad judgment aside, once the athorities treated the protesters like lazy inept parents of spoilled children and then finally decided it was time for the kids to go home, there are myriad humane methods for crowd dispersal of which turning a national army on its own citizens with lethal firearms is not one. Period. End of story.

This wasn't crowd dispersal. This was dispersal of a mob within which heavily armed militants roamed taking pot shots at people and buildings. In the West, such a group would be dealt with in a very similar manner, it's just that it wouldn't be soldiers burdened with the task, it would be a section of the police. And nobody would be questioning why the police were turning its arms on its own people.

Doesn't matter whether they are your own people, or whether they are lets say Arab terrorists, if they are shooting at authorities, they will be dealt harshly anywhere in the world.

Something like this you mean, Anyone see any similarities

The point about Bloody Sunday was that it was a peaceful demonstration fired upon by Army troops.

The memory of what happened then should not be confused with Thaksin's violent red rabble in 2010.

[yoon01]

An interesting documentary:

The Revolution Business

http://youtu.be/lpXbA6yZY-8

[Buchholz]

The TRCT's 22 page press release for the 300+ page report is here : http://www.prachatai.com/english/sites/default/files/_ENGLISH_v2%20Sep%2017.pdf

pratchatai English published the HRW take and Andrew Spooner has a 3 part comment at the end :

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3382

Spooner makes some pretty hard accusations about the HRW information.

Such as his laughable denial of reality. Yep, Andrew, none of the Redmob were armed.

Spooner:

I also call HRW out on their evidence - why does it ignore all the accounts, several by foreign journalists, that state, explicitly, that the Red Shirts were completely unarmed

[hellodolly]

No one knows what the truth is

So many lies .... so many truths ... there is no line between the two

If I told you I had a 42 inch johnson ... who knows if it is the truth

Your significant other.

There is lots of truths on u tube and the fact that the red shirts negotiated a peaceful settlement and then backed out of it when the government excepted it. The truth is and all most every one avoids it is the red shirts started it. Many of the facts will never come out because no one knows who pulled the trigger other than the man that did it. But we know who urged the red shirts to burn down Bangkok who refused to bargain in good faith.

Yes both sides did things wrong but it was precipitated by one side doing illegal things and refusing to obey the law and the police who's job it was to stop them did nothing. Many of the details will never be known. But the major ones are known and the people responsible refuse to admit it and their followers for the most part didn't know any better they thought they were in the rite. Leaving all other aside the invasion of a hospital can only be done by people with no sense of morality. They can not deny it O they can but there is far to many videos out there for them to get away with it.

Stop and think about it. What kind of a person would invade a hospital on video and then say there was nothing wrong with it.

Are these the kind of people we want to run Thailand O wait apparently the Thais want that kind of leadership.

If I recall correctly one of the Cabinet ministers just announced that it was OK to lie if it made people happy. Not sure I think he has the finance portfolio.

Edited September 22, 2012 by hellodolly

[Buchholz]

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

Such as the co-founder, along with Thaksin, of the Thai Rak Thai Party, on the TRCT.

.

[birdpooguava]

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

Such as the co-founder, along with Thaksin, of the Thai Rak Thai Party, on the TRCT.

.

Several of the committee members have direct links with the PAD

[Buchholz]

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

Such as the co-founder, along with Thaksin, of the Thai Rak Thai Party, on the TRCT.

.

Several of the committee members have direct links with the PAD

Who are they and what links do they have to PAD?

.

[YellowFeverCAD]

Goodness it's been months, perhaps six or more since I checked in here, good to see absolutely nothing has changed oddly enough it mirrors the country perfectly.

My wife (thai) and I have moved back to the West and couldn't be happier in every possible sense of the word. Even she has stopped reading the crap about Thailand and when family asks when she plans to visit next her stock answer has gone from "in a couple of years" to "not sure someday" she enjoys the freedom here and sees now why when looking from the outside Thailand appears to be such a bloody mess. The sad part is the reality of how messed up it is, is much worse the how it appears.

Red shirt, PAD, tin pot dictators, it's like a cheap novel.. just glad to be out of it all. After five years living there I was almost starting to believe that cheating people and lying to them were a normal course of action. Plus that fake Thai smile. .. anyone that speaks the language knows whats really behind it.

Good luck to those of you still slogging it out, we gave up, got out and couldn't be happier.. maybe I'll check back in another 6 months.. or 6 years... haha...

[tlansford]

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

Such as the co-founder, along with Thaksin, of the Thai Rak Thai Party, on the TRCT.

.

Several of the committee members have direct links with the PAD

Since buchholz doesn't actually mention who he means, I guess he is talking about the chairman, Kanit Na Nakorn

Sondi was also a Thaksin fan - his paper once called Thaksin "Thailand's best prime minister ever".

Coming back to the TRCT chairman, Kanit Na Nakorn, a former TRT member, was also appointed by the junta to investigate the deaths in Thaksin's war on drugs. I am certain the Junta would have picked a close ally of Thaksin for that task.

But this is a typical post from Buccholz - ignore the actual content and try to discredit the source. Doesn't add anything real to the discussion - especially comments that try to make it look like people on the committee were somehow sympathetic to Thaksin or the UDD when they weren't. Some could call the technique a clever way to disguise a lie as a fact without actually telling the lie - after all, he can always come back and truthfully claim that the chairman was a former TRT member.

The same as I can say that Sondi's paper, The Manager, called Thaksin "Thailand's best prime minister ever". True, yes. BS, yes. If I use the comment to claim that Sondi loves Thaksin today, that would be a lie.

Edited September 22, 2012 by tlansford

[linuxuser010101]

The truth is, truth is a alien (foreign) concept to many Thais.

The truth eludes most people living on this planet!

[chainarong]

No one wants to listen to anything in Thailand, end of story

[easybullet3]

The "Reds" have demonstrated that they don't have any reason or logic..

- So why would they care about some extensive report that states what happened?

[I Like Thai]

The point about Bloody Sunday was that it was a peaceful demonstration fired upon by Army troops.

The memory of what happened then should not be confused with Thaksin's violent red rabble in 2010.

That's how it's seen now, 40 years later. It wasn't seen that way at the time.

http://irishdiplomatichistory.com/wp/?p=1293

According to Prasun Sonwalkar (2005) journalists can rarely be untouched by their socio-cultural background. This influences how certain topics are covered in the press. In particular, news stories on war and conflicts are commonly influenced by the author’s national identity, and, moreover, they are intended for a readership belonging to a specific nation.

This paper compares the news reports published by the British Newspaper The Guardian and the Irish Newspaper Irish Independent on 31 January 1972, the day after “Bloody Sunday”, when on 30 January 1972, 13 civilians were killed by British troops in Londonderry, Northern Ireland. This paper’s aim is it to establish if both newspapers have been influenced by their publications political position and by the journalists and editors’ national identity.

The Guardian is owned by The Scott Trust and is guided by a strong set of principles of the Scott Trust Values which emphasises the importance of free press to this very day. C.P. Scott one of the most prominent editors ofThe Guardian, whose son established The Scott Trust, is famously quoted as having said “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” But how objective can the newspaper report if it operates in line with The Scott Trusts Values and especially C.P. Scott’s ideology? C.P. Scott strongly felt that Irish rebels were authors of their own destruction. From the article on Bloody Sunday to the Lord Widgery report, The Guardian supported the British military operation in Northern Ireland and strongly opposed Irish nationalists.

On the other hand, the Irish Independent is seen as a newspaper which gives its political allegiance to the party Fine Gael. Despite having the reputation of being a nationalist and Catholic paper, the Irish Independent does not support radical ideas and did not take sides with the IRA (Irish Republican Army) during the Northern Ireland conflict. In fact the IRA destroyed the Irish Independent’s printing works in December 1919 as a result of the paper’s criticism of the IRA. (Cotrell P. 2006, p46) Furthermore, did the paper’s unsympathetic attitude towards the Republicans result in the Irish Independent’s editor receiving a death threat from the IRA during the Civil War. (O’Malley E. 1998, p81)

In general, both quality newspapers use the same style of language and have approximately a comparable imagined readership. Therefore, it comes as an even greater surprise that the style of language used in both articles differ significantly, the Irish Independent uses a highly emotionally charged language whereas The Guardian takes a rather dry and factual approach

On 31 January 1972 readers of the Irish Independent were presented with a picture of the terrible shooting which most certainly created anger about the way the British operated in Northern Ireland, whereas The Guardian’s readership read facts which most likely made them believe that British troops were not directly at fault and that the happenings were foreseeable.

Throughout the Northern Ireland conflict The Guardian held an anti-Irish position thus also supporting the key views of its founder C.P. Scott in their article “13 killed as paratroops break riot”. Despite the Irish Independentnot being particularly pro-rebellions and pro-IRA, the article “Army action condemned by Church and State leaders” shows that the newspaper sympathised with the Irish civil rights protesters who were shot dead.

Starting with the headlines of both articles and having a closer look at language and content, it becomes apparent that both differ in such a way as to allow for contradictory meaning to emerge. “Army action condemned by Church and State Leaders” states the Irish Independent – the headline serves as an opinion shaper and creates a blueprint for an attitude the reader can adopt. Additionally “condemned”, a verb with a strong negative connotation, is used and the “Church”, which is of high importance in Catholic Ireland, is mentioned before “State leaders”. The British paper on the other hand writes “13 killed as paratroops break riot” – here the reader instantly receives an explanation for what has happened. Furthermore, The Guardian chooses the noun “riot”, which has a negative tone to it and can be defined as a wild disturbance created by a large number of people, as opposed to a choosing a noun such as “demonstration”, which can be peaceful. Throughout the whole text theIrish Independent speaks of “Derry”, which is the name used by the Irish instead of the official name of the British town Londonderry. Such use can be seen as a feature of ‘Banal Journalism’, a term introduced following Billing’s notion (1995) of ‘Banal Nationalism’. ‘Banal Journalism’ essentially describes the everyday representations such as flags, national anthems, sporting teams within news media which create a sense of belonging and in the case of the use of ‘Derry’ it creates a sense of ‘whose city’ Derry is.

Martin Brennan writer at the Irish Independent speaks of the event as “Bloody Sunday”, “murder” and calls it a “massacre”. The Independent choose to print the following quotes in bold and in slightly bigger font size than the rest of the text – “Mass Murder”, “Real Terrorists”, “Bloody Butchery”, “No Return”, “White Flag”, “No Provocation”, “War Criminals”. These terms are all emotionally charged and accuse the British army of an error despite the fact that no investigation into the incident had taken place at the time of writing the article. The Irish Independentsolely published interviews with eyewitnesses, politicians and the IRA who all describe the shooting in a very colourful way and whose descriptions point towards an act of violence which was not provoked by the demonstrators – interestingly the interviewees also include British public personas.

Furthermore, the comment by The British Government does not show sympathy to the families of those who were killed and is merely a short statement announcing that there will be an investigation. This announcement, however, depicts the British Government negatively since the first interviewee for the Irish Independent, The Bishop of Derry Most Rv. Dr. Farren states that a telegram has been sent to Mr. Heath, the Prime Minister, calling for an immediate and public inquiry. The article by The Irish Independent informs that the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, called Mr. Heath in the evening and that Mr. Heath will receive a full report in the morning and will study them before deciding on further action. On the one hand, a call for urgency from an Irish Catholic priest: “I protest in the strongest possible manner against the action of the army, resulting in so many deaths and injuries. I demand an immediate and public inquiry.” On the other hand, the paper prints a statement by the Prime Minister which does not indicate the same urgency: “They said he would receive fuller reports in the morning when he would study them before deciding what action his Government would take”

Analysing the article written by Simon Winchester for The Guardian, the first two paragraphs are especially striking. The shooting is described as “inevitable” and “universally forecast” which leads the reader to come to the conclusion that there must have been sufficient reason for the British army to act in such a drastic way. After a short summary of the event, the author writes that the army reported two military casualties and adds that 50 to 60 demonstrators were arrested. The Irish Independent briefly mentions the arrests at the very end of their article. The Irish Independent describes the scenario vividly by writing that 20 youths were lined against the wall on their knees and held at gunpoint. Details on how many casualties the British Army suffered are not reported, likewise claiming that the protest march was illegal.

The Guardian states the Army’s official explanation which claims that there had been provocation from the demonstrators. Comparing both the Irish Independent and The Guardian, the newspapers’ interpretations of who is accountable for the shooting are contrary. The Guardian chooses to only publish minuscule parts of the interviews with officials that describe the shooting in an emotional tone but prints long statements of people who voiced their opinion in favour of the British troops, such as the statement by Mr Michael Canavan of Derry Citizens Central Council, and Mr L Thompson, who gives information on hospital admittance after the shooting. Additionally, the newspaper prints an army statement freeing the British Army from sole responsibility. This statement goes as far as to describe the action of speeding into Rossville Street Square with armoured cars, where the protest was underway, as “a tactic we have all seen before “and as “effective”. This statement disregards that civilians were injured and even killed by this military tactic. In summary, the newspaper does in fact print details which indicate that the shooting was a horrible incident but on the other hand, highlights in statements and by means of tone that this incident was not in any way an error by the army.

Contrary to the Irish Independent’s eyewitnesses The Guardian maintains that the demonstrators were in fact provoking the soldiers. After an initial shot was fired, the British Army responded. The Guardian writes that the shot was presumably fired by an IRA man. The fact that a man who is part of a radical group, which may be described as a terrorist organisation opened fire, adds to the overall impression which will emerge in the readers’ minds. The reader is presented with a story, telling of British military action as a response in a dangerous situation. Additionally, the British newspaper chooses to use the word “mob”, which defines a mass of common people and is often informally used to describe an organised gang of criminals, to describe the people that were attacked by their shootings, thereby showing a great lack of respect for the victims and their families.

The Guardian cut Bernadette Devlin’s statement to the mere three words “bloody cold-blooded murder.” In contrast, the Irish Independent printed parts of her statement that unmistakably indicated that there was no justification for the shooting and expressed clearly that she hoped the British Government would remove their military from Northern Ireland: “What happened in Derry today was mass murder by the British army… let no one say they opened fire in retaliation. They shot up a peaceful meeting at “Free Derry Corner” and then they let loose… with bloodthirsty gusto at anybody unfortunate enough to stray into their sight. This was our Sharpville. We will never forget it. There is no point in calling for a whitewashing inquiry. All we can do is stiffen our nerves and continue the struggle to rid ourselves forever of the British Army.” This is exemplary for how both newspapers tried to influence their readers’ opinions. Bernadette Devlin was a Member of Parliament, representing the Mid Ulster constituency and a prominent figure in both Irish and British media. Given the fact that Bernadette Devlin was not only an eye-witness but moreover an MP, it comes as a surprise that such a significant statement is cut by the British press. Bernadette Devlin was undoubtedly controversial. (Hacker C. 1998, p27) While making the front cover of The Guardian with parliamentary correspondent Norman Shrapnel’s (1972) article on 1 February 1972 about punching Reginald Maudling (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) for his comments on Bloody Sunday, Bernadette Devlin is only being quoted with three words in The Guardian’s article the day after Bloody Sunday. Bernadette Devlin´s opinion was undoubtedly authoritative but has been ignored – this only becomes obvious by comparing both articles and goes unnoticed for readers of the respective publication.

Within eleven weeks after the shooting, Lord Chief Justice Widgery produced a report justifying the shooting by providing evidence which concluded that some demonstrators had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon. (Griffith J. 1977, p46-47) Widgery’s report has been widely judged to lack credibility as it was strongly relying on soldiery recollection which conflicted seriously with those presented immediately after the event itself (English R. 2003, p152-153). The investigation is being carried out to this very day by an organisation called the “Bloody Sunday Inquiry”. According to the “Bloody Sunday Inquiry” new evidence and eyewitness reports indicate that there was, in fact, no provocation from the demonstrators (Bloody Sunday Inquiry 2005).

On 15 June 2010 the latest report by Lord Saville, Lord Widgery’s successor, was released. The Northern Ireland Secretary Woodward said in a written statement before publication that, “the report has been long-awaited and it promises to be a hugely significant event in Northern Ireland’s history.” Richard Norton-Taylor (2010), journalist for The Guardian, felt that the completed 5,000 page report severely criticises the soldiers for firing at groups of marchers and for the claims they made in statements afterwards to the military police. The claims that the Saville Report makes contradict the report by Lord Widgery in numerous occasions. The Guardian (Foy H. 2010) published a comparative article in 2010, in which the British newspaper acknowledges that both reports differ substantially when it comes to the question of responsibility, “on the use of Paras”, “on who shot first” and “on false accounts.”

It seems that 40 years after the horrific shooting the Saville Report may not bring the hoped closure to the families and friends of the victims. While the Saville Report may clarify questions surrounding the events of 30 January 1972, it does not act as proof and the contradicting theories, as introduced by the press in the past, appear to have tarnished the truth-value of any new insights relating to the incident. Sonwalkar (2005, p.263) argues that most journalism considered as mainstream journalism is “hegemonic; it caters to the “us” and presents one view as the worldview of an entire society or nation,” and as Fairclough (1995, p.2) points out, the media holds “the power to influence knowledge, beliefs, values, social relations, social identities” due to its “signifying power (the power to represent things in a particular ways) which is largely a matter of how language is used.”

Considering that at the time of reporting no inquiry had been conducted, it can be conclusively argued, that both the Independent’s and The Guardian’s initial reporting of the events are biased accounts of Bloody Sunday. More importantly, these contradictory reports can be considered as having had an influence on how the masses made sense of the shootings. As a result, the truth of what happened on the 30 January 1972, Bloody Sunday, may never fully come to light and if so they may never be accepted as an authoritative explanation.

Yet, it is striking that, today, The Guardian is able to suggest that the shooting was illegal. 40 years later, on the day of the shooting, the Guardian (Stoddard K. 2012) criticised its own reporting of Bloody Sunday. Both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have taken the necessary steps towards peace. In retrospect both Irish and British newspapers, accept the shooting of 13 and injuring of 17 civilians as an act against humanity. Today’s press representation concerning the Northern Ireland troubles indicate that not only have both countries’ governments come to an agreement, but that both nation’s citizens have largely accepted the troubles as part of their history, and have let go of hostile feelings of guilt, anger and injustice.

[Noistar]

The "Reds" have demonstrated that they don't have any reason or logic..

- So why would they care about some extensive report that states what happened?

If I may differ?

The "Reds" do have a reason and logic - unfortunately it is simplistic.

They are part of the Democratically elected Government. Things like this report and 'rule of law' stand in the way of their 'utopia', so that is why they care.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Noistar

[Buchholz]

Personally, I find many of the comments in the press release from the TRCT to be amazing given that this committee was formed by Abhisit from his allies.

Such as the co-founder, along with Thaksin, of the Thai Rak Thai Party, on the TRCT.

Several of the committee members have direct links with the PAD

But this is a typical post from Buccholz - ignore the actual content and try to discredit the source.

Do you mean like you just did in the first quote ?

typical tlansford hypocrisy post...

just another day overseas for him...

.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

Do you mean like you just did in the first quote ?

typical tlansford hypocrisy post...

just another day overseas for him...

.

is the irony lost on you that you've basically ignored his post by snipping most of it (as usual)?

i happen to know where he is, but that's up to him to disclose that information.

and why he would disclose his location just to humour you and your mates on this forum, i have no idea..... well sorry that's a lie, i do have an idea... guess that's why he doesn't

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[BrianCR]

The truth is, truth is a alien (foreign) concept to many Thais.

My depression about this country is the extent to which these good Buddhists lie. From Yingluck downwards, corruption, lies, cheating seems to be a way of life. How many farangs have been lied and cheated to by ex-wives? In my case a woman with degrees, a civil engineer and a 'good buddhist' who is now in a senior position in the main government hospital here in Chiang Mai, got lying down to an art form. I don't expect the red kwais to be any different and yes, the lies that they continually spout in defence of that exiled king of all liars is astounding.

Wow, you do have a depression!! Do you believe this doesn't happen in a western country? My ex-wife took me cleaners, she was bloody British, and could have taught the Thai;s something about lying!!!!

[BrianCR]

P.S At least they look better so it's money well spent

[Buchholz]

Do you mean like you just did in the first quote ?

typical tlansford hypocrisy post...

just another day overseas for him...

.

is the irony lost on you that you've basically ignored his post by snipping most of it (as usual)?

i happen to know where he is, but that's up to him to disclose that information.

There was no need to repeat his off-topic Sondhi rant.

What was left was attacking my post for doing the same as he had done, by casting aspersions on the "messenger".

If the panel was so biased, why did they wait for the findings to get published before attacking these "messengers"?

He's railing against the TRCT report the same as the Red Shirt Leaders are and their Red Shirt supporters like that Andrew Spooner character.

He no doubt backs Spooner's claim that all of the Red Shirts were unarmed on Post # 74.

That's wonderful he confides in you with his personal life. Where he is is not as important as where he is not. Here.

Still, it's not as important as his hypocrisies and revisionism.

.