D S I Probes Accuracy Of Truth For Reconciliation Commission Of Thailand Report On Deaths

[TheKrayTriplet]

Democrat legal adviser Ramet Rattanachaweng urged DSI secretary-general Tarit Pengdith to think twice about taking criminal action against Abhisit over the death of a taxi driver believed to have been shot by Thai troops.

"You have options whether you want to retire happily or unhappily. Do not blindly serve politicians and ignore what is right, otherwise your organisation could face demise and your [credibility will be bankrupt]," he said.

Interesting choice of words from the "democrat" legal advisor. Now to me that sounds like a threat from people outside of the political arena. That wonderful idiom comes to mind , "The Great and the Good".

I think "Do not blindly serve politicians and ignore what is right" is a more relevant quote for the DSI chief to take note of.

i love the how the DSI is suddenly the subject of ridicule among ye, was there this ridicule back in 2010 post protests? was there.....heck.

that's just a guess though.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[khunken]

^^

TheKrayTriplet

I have no idea what the relevance of your comments about bail for red-shirts is to the topic. I don't believe your assertion either.

My opinion on the TRCT is based on (1) the number of people & organisations inside & outside Thailand that have made the same assertion; (2) a brief reading of the report; & (3) the fact that PTP & the red-shirts can't accept it.

Have you read the report?

No, I don't read thai. I have read several english language reports that basically lean to the fact that it is a toothless bland document. Perhaps after your brief reading of all 255 odd (I'm sure I read 356 pages somewhere) pages you could point out some areas where it obviously stands out as one of the fairest and credible (in whose eyes one wonders) reviews of the events of 2010. And of course where you feel it was imperfect for balance of course. Perhaps you could tell me what it has to say on army snipers for example?

So you think it's a toothless bland document. Not much point in wasting time telling you anything then.

[TheKrayTriplet]

^^

TheKrayTriplet

I have no idea what the relevance of your comments about bail for red-shirts is to the topic. I don't believe your assertion either.

My opinion on the TRCT is based on (1) the number of people & organisations inside & outside Thailand that have made the same assertion; (2) a brief reading of the report; & (3) the fact that PTP & the red-shirts can't accept it.

Have you read the report?

No, I don't read thai. I have read several english language reports that basically lean to the fact that it is a toothless bland document. Perhaps after your brief reading of all 255 odd (I'm sure I read 356 pages somewhere) pages you could point out some areas where it obviously stands out as one of the fairest and credible (in whose eyes one wonders) reviews of the events of 2010. And of course where you feel it was imperfect for balance of course. Perhaps you could tell me what it has to say on army snipers for example?

So you think it's a toothless bland document. Not much point in wasting time telling you anything then.

Why did I kind of guess you'd say that? Perhaps I shouldn't have left you a cop out - though I am interested in what the report says about army snipers - in the interests of credibility if you know what I mean.

[khunken]

^^

TheKrayTriplet

I have no idea what the relevance of your comments about bail for red-shirts is to the topic. I don't believe your assertion either.

My opinion on the TRCT is based on (1) the number of people & organisations inside & outside Thailand that have made the same assertion; (2) a brief reading of the report; & (3) the fact that PTP & the red-shirts can't accept it.

Have you read the report?

No, I don't read thai. I have read several english language reports that basically lean to the fact that it is a toothless bland document. Perhaps after your brief reading of all 255 odd (I'm sure I read 356 pages somewhere) pages you could point out some areas where it obviously stands out as one of the fairest and credible (in whose eyes one wonders) reviews of the events of 2010. And of course where you feel it was imperfect for balance of course. Perhaps you could tell me what it has to say on army snipers for example?

So you think it's a toothless bland document. Not much point in wasting time telling you anything then.

Why did I kind of guess you'd say that? Perhaps I shouldn't have left you a cop out - though I am interested in what the report says about army snipers - in the interests of credibility if you know what I mean.

I think I know what you mean & it's not credibility.

I've stated what I think of the report (& the DSI which is just following orders as it did with the previous government, by the way) & you've stated your opinion. That's my lot.

[TheKrayTriplet]

No, I don't read thai. I have read several english language reports that basically lean to the fact that it is a toothless bland document. Perhaps after your brief reading of all 255 odd (I'm sure I read 356 pages somewhere) pages you could point out some areas where it obviously stands out as one of the fairest and credible (in whose eyes one wonders) reviews of the events of 2010. And of course where you feel it was imperfect for balance of course. Perhaps you could tell me what it has to say on army snipers for example?

So you think it's a toothless bland document. Not much point in wasting time telling you anything then.

Why did I kind of guess you'd say that? Perhaps I shouldn't have left you a cop out - though I am interested in what the report says about army snipers - in the interests of credibility if you know what I mean.

I think I know what you mean & it's not credibility.

I've stated what I think of the report (& the DSI which is just following orders as it did with the previous government, by the way) & you've stated your opinion. That's my lot.

So would I be right in thinking that this report that you state is the

most fair and credible of all reports

of the events of 2010 has slight imperfections such as the fact that it manages to comment on the events of 2010 without making

any

mention of army snipers in the report?

Just a thought.