No One In Thailand Wants To Listen To The Hard Truth

[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.

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.

.

he doesn't 'confide' anything in me.

and your lame attempt for fishing for a hint from me about where he is or is not doesn't pass the 'fool me' test.

you have no idea of where he is.

and the fact that you seem so obsessed with it is, quite frankly, creepy.

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[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.

.

he doesn't 'confide' anything in me.

and your lame attempt for fishing for a hint from me about where he is or is not doesn't pass the 'fool me' test.

you have no idea of where he is.

and the fact that you seem so obsessed with it is, quite frankly, creepy.

what's creepy is that you seem to so focused on that

fishing? get real...

.

[nurofiend]

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.

.

he doesn't 'confide' anything in me.

and your lame attempt for fishing for a hint from me about where he is or is not doesn't pass the 'fool me' test.

you have no idea of where he is.

and the fact that you seem so obsessed with it is, quite frankly, creepy.

what's creepy is that you seem to so focused on that

fishing? get real...

.

i'm not 'so focused' on it... you brought it up and it's a forum so i made a comment about you bringing it up.

just seems creepy to me.

[rixalex]

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

No, nothing like that at all. If you want to have a discussion on the events of Bloody Sunday 40 years ago, or perhaps the Battle of Trafalgar, go open a thread somewhere else.

[spidermike007]

Truth is rarer and harder to find in this country than gold, diamonds, or rare earth. For some reason, Thai people have a very adversarial relationship with truth. They have a hard time hearing it, and an even harder time speaking it. Face comes into play, but face is merely an excuse to avoid doing any

inner work, and getting to know one's self. Face forces one to not introspect, and get to the bottom of

an issue, and is one of the most corrosive and destructive forces in Thai society. But face aside,

there seems to be little willingness to tell the truth here. Of course, it is the complete opposite of

the great prophet Buddha's teachings, and therefore leaves alot of us perplexed. Just another one of

completely peculiar aspects of life here. It is nearly impossible for me to trust most Thai people.

When they tell me something, it seems to be for expedience, and there usually seems to be little regard

to the future, or the consequences of their actions, or words. But, in general Thai people seem to have

very little vision, or concern about the future.

[Buchholz]

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.

.

he doesn't 'confide' anything in me.

and your lame attempt for fishing for a hint from me about where he is or is not doesn't pass the 'fool me' test.

you have no idea of where he is.

and the fact that you seem so obsessed with it is, quite frankly, creepy.

what's creepy is that you seem to so focused on that

fishing? get real...

.

i'm not 'so focused' on it... you brought it up and it's a forum so i made a comment about you bringing it up.

just seems creepy to me.

LOL... you ignored all my other comments in my reply to you and posted only in regards to that one line AKA "focused on it".

But nevermind, we can move on to return to the thread.

What do you think of Spooner's comments regarding the report?

.

[nurofiend]

i'm not 'so focused' on it... you brought it up and it's a forum so i made a comment about you bringing it up.

just seems creepy to me.

LOL... you ignored all my other comments in my reply to you and posted only in regards to that one line AKA "focused on it".

But nevermind, we can move on to return to the thread.

What do you think of Spooner's comments regarding the report?

.

OH.... LOL

I believe this is the first quote i replied to

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

typical tlansford hypocrisy post...

just another day overseas for him...

.

so the only comments i ignored in your reply were

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

typical tlansford hypocrisy post.. "

sorry for not "focusing on those" also... and just because you added parts to the following posts doesn't make you innocent of starting the off topic nonsense....

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

i'm not 'so focused' on it... you brought it up and it's a forum so i made a comment about you bringing it up.

just seems creepy to me.

LOL... you ignored all my other comments in my reply to you and posted only in regards to that one line AKA "focused on it".

But nevermind, we can move on to return to the thread.

What do you think of Spooner's comments regarding the report?

.

OH.... LOL

so the only comments i ignored in your reply were

any opine regarding the on-topic Spooner comments?

.

[nurofiend]

and now playing the innocent... god it's like dealing with school children.

[Buchholz]

and now playing the innocent... god it's like dealing with school children.

Your on-going trolling and baiting is needless diversion.

For the third time, ANY opine on-topic from you?

.

[nurofiend]

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...

well if you don't like it, go hom........ oh, right.

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[McMagus]

A popularly elected government was dumped in Aus in 1975. I don't remember there being armed protests in Aus following that.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Yep, that it was, I was there and remember it well, but the difference is.. a) It happened once in our political history and most importantly the mechanism used to get rid of the Whitlam government was constitutional, not a military coup orchestrated by the elite. I take your point but not really comparable.

The coup didn't depose an elected government and no one came to power through the coup.

When the PPP was disbanded by the courts, the PTP were then in government but needed to elect a new PM. They could have called an election, but they chose to go to parliament to elect a new PM, and they lost and Abhisit was elected.

Sent from my HTC phone.

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

[nurofiend]

snip>

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture

<snip

conjecture yes, but more than likely pretty much on the money.

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

[sausageandmash]

Tough titty!

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

[rixalex]

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup.

In a country that has had something like 18 coups, it's hard not to argue that all governments in some way owe their existence to one coup or another.

[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.

so I see that B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z went on a tear but forgot to mention which TRCT committee member he meant when he stated that a TRT co-founder was on the committee.

It he meant the chairman, then no one should confuse him with a possible ally of Thaksin. AFAIK, Abhisit did not appoint any Thaksin allies to the TRCT.

But perhaps B-u-c-h-h-o-l-z will clear that up.

[TheKrayTriplet]

and now playing the innocent... god it's like dealing with school children.

Your on-going trolling and baiting is needless diversion.

For the third time, ANY opine on-topic from you?

.

Sorry to interrupt but opine is a verb, not a noun, even in American English, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/american/opine

[TheKrayTriplet]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

In a way you're right, and so will every other successive party voted in by the public that is not the "democrat" party.

[rkidlad]

Truth hurts.

You know what it can be like sometimes when you try to call a spade a spade here. When you tell your wife or girlfriend something and they put their fingers in their ears singing 'la la la la'.

If Thailand can start accepting the truth and learns to not take itself so seriously, then progress can be made. There are many ways of judging a culture and society. The best way for me is to see if a culture or society is able to make fun of itself and laugh.

Why is it always the Western "truth" that is always used to judge other cultures and societies.

Why does it always fail in every country that the West tries to impose it on ?

[McMagus]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

Why bother ... Wikipedia again ...

'In May 2011, the Pheu Thai Party, which maintains close ties to Thaksin, nominated Yingluck as their candidate for Prime Minister in the 2011 general election.^[5][6] She campaigned on a platform of national reconciliation, poverty eradication, and corporate income tax reduction, but the ruling Democrat Partyclaimed that she would act in the interests of her exiled brother. The Pheu Thai Party won a landslide victory, winning 265 seats in the 500 seat House of Representatives of Thailand,^[7] It was only the second time in Thai political history that a single party won a parliamentary majority, the first party was her brother's party, Thai Rak Tha'i.

Get over it.

[Thai at Heart]

Truth hurts.

You know what it can be like sometimes when you try to call a spade a spade here. When you tell your wife or girlfriend something and they put their fingers in their ears singing 'la la la la'.

If Thailand can start accepting the truth and learns to not take itself so seriously, then progress can be made. There are many ways of judging a culture and society. The best way for me is to see if a culture or society is able to make fun of itself and laugh.

Why is it always the Western "truth" that is always used to judge other cultures and societies.

Why does it always fail in every country that the West tries to impose it on ?

Funny statement. Asian truth is different from western.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[rixalex]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

Why bother ... Wikipedia again ...

'In May 2011, the Pheu Thai Party, which maintains close ties to Thaksin, nominated Yingluck as their candidate for Prime Minister in the 2011 general election.^[5][6] She campaigned on a platform of national reconciliation, poverty eradication, and corporate income tax reduction, but the ruling Democrat Partyclaimed that she would act in the interests of her exiled brother. The Pheu Thai Party won a landslide victory, winning 265 seats in the 500 seat House of Representatives of Thailand,^[7] It was only the second time in Thai political history that a single party won a parliamentary majority, the first party was her brother's party, Thai Rak Tha'i.

Get over it.

What is your point McMagus? Number of seats won determines whether a government owes their position to a coup or not?

[whybother]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

Why bother ... Wikipedia again ...

<snip>

Get over it.

I'm confused. You were saying that the PMs following the coup were there as a direct result of the coup. If the coup didn't happen, Samak, Somchai, Abhisit AND Yingluck wouldn't have been PMs. Now you're saying something changed.

There was a coup. There was an election, and a new PM. There was a change of PM. Then there was another change of PM, but this one was a direct result of the coup. Then there was another election, and a new PM, but this one wasn't a direct result of the coup.

How do you skip 2 PMs to get to "a direct result of the coup"?

[Thai at Heart]

I'm not sure if we could agree on what counts as an 'elected government'....caretaker or not. Wikipedia has this to say...

'The 2006 Thai coup d'état took place on Tuesday 19 September 2006, when the Royal Thai Army staged a coup d'état against the elected caretaker government of Prime MinisterThaksin Shinawatra'.

I think it is a long bow to draw to say that Abhisit did not come to power directly because of the coup. Had the coup never taken place, and the country had continued on under Thaksin until the next general election, I suspect that Thaksin would have again had a landslide victory. Who knows, it's all conjecture and anyway, I really don't care too much about Thai politics as they are all as corrupt as each other. Not much point in going off topic about coups and their relationship to Australian politics.

Great then. Yingluck owes her premiership to the coup.

Why bother ... Wikipedia again ...

<snip>

Get over it.

I'm confused. You were saying that the PMs following the coup were there as a direct result of the coup. If the coup didn't happen, Samak, Somchai, Abhisit AND Yingluck wouldn't have been PMs. Now you're saying something changed.

There was a coup. There was an election, and a new PM. There was a change of PM. Then there was another change of PM, but this one was a direct result of the coup. Then there was another election, and a new PM, but this one wasn't a direct result of the coup.

How do you skip 2 PMs to get to "a direct result of the coup"?

Yeah, thr CNS was s**t out of luck when the Dems screwed up winning that election.

[atyclb]

Truth hurts.

You know what it can be like sometimes when you try to call a spade a spade here. When you tell your wife or girlfriend something and they put their fingers in their ears singing 'la la la la'.

If Thailand can start accepting the truth and learns to not take itself so seriously, then progress can be made. There are many ways of judging a culture and society. The best way for me is to see if a culture or society is able to make fun of itself and laugh.

Why is it always the Western "truth" that is always used to judge other cultures and societies.

Why does it always fail in every country that the West tries to impose it on ?

I know what you are saying. Westerners should not try to make other societies conform with their own preconceptions of what it is like back home.

The point you are missing is much of Thai society goes against precepts of Buddhism, a very Asian concept. My Japanese friends living in Thailand pretty much echo what is said on these forums.

It can be interesting to observe, and even entertaining.

Those criticizing should be careful of what they hope for, cause if Japanese societal values and education came into effect in Thailand, those walking street prices would skyrocket as well as housing, utilities, etc etc.

Edited September 23, 2012 by atyclb

[Thai at Heart]

Truth hurts.

You know what it can be like sometimes when you try to call a spade a spade here. When you tell your wife or girlfriend something and they put their fingers in their ears singing 'la la la la'.

If Thailand can start accepting the truth and learns to not take itself so seriously, then progress can be made. There are many ways of judging a culture and society. The best way for me is to see if a culture or society is able to make fun of itself and laugh.

Why is it always the Western "truth" that is always used to judge other cultures and societies.

Why does it always fail in every country that the West tries to impose it on ?

I know what you are saying. Westerners should not try to make other societies conform with their own preconceptions of what it is like back home.

The point you are missing is much of Thai society goes against precepts of Buddhism, a very Asian concept. My Japanese friends living in Thailand pretty much echo what is said on these forums.

It can be interesting to observe, and even entertaining.

Those criticizing should be careful of what they hope for, cause if Japanese societal values and education came into effect in Thailand, those walking street prices would skyrocket as well as housing, utilities, etc etc.

Since when there more than version of the truth. It either is or isnt? Values can change truth is still truth.

[thaigold]

I've enough problems in my own county to pretend to advise Thais on their own governance. What the heck do I know? It is their country after-all.

[McMagus]

It's quite amazing how people love to go off topic here. The topic of this thread is whether or not the Thais want to hear the truth, not who came to power because of, or not because of, or maybe because of a coup, or whether any analogies can be drawn to Australian politics. Thai politics is such a joke I suggest we treat it as such and have a good laugh, personally I don't give a rat's ar*e how many coups they have had or are like to have or if the voting system is democratic or whatever ,the great thing is I can choose to go home when I like.

[whybother]

It's quite amazing how people love to go off topic here. The topic of this thread is whether or not the Thais want to hear the truth, not who came to power because of, or not because of, or maybe because of a coup, or whether any analogies can be drawn to Australian politics. Thai politics is such a joke I suggest we treat it as such and have a good laugh, personally I don't give a rat's ar*e how many coups they have had or are like to have or if the voting system is democratic or whatever ,the great thing is I can choose to go home when I like.

You were the one that brought Australian politics into it when you said that parties weren't thrown out office in the US, UK, Aus etc.

You were the one that brought the coup into it when you said Abhisit became PM as a direct result of the coup.

You seem to be the one who loves going off topic.

Sent from my HTC phone.