Abhisit, Suthep: Death Before Amnesty Bill, No Compromises To Whitewash Thaksin

[Thait Spot]

Does anyone know what the exact communiqué was from the CRES to the RTA?

Was it an authorisation to use live ammunition in self defence?

Was it an order to clear protesters with the use of arms?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

The pro-bono Red Shirt propagandist will tell you that means Abhisit ordered the murder of innocent, unarmed Red Shirts.

That seems to be very straight forward to me.

I can't imagine how that directive, coupled with a man running out of a building and into ongoing crossfire could be construed as murder by anyone let alone somebody who is the head of the DSI.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[whybother]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

[Thait Spot]

This will be a hard concept for Thaksin and his PTP lackeys to understand - that someone would take a stance on a moral position where there is no benefit to themselves.

I don't see any Democrat Minister taking a moral stand. Mores the pity.

As for former PM Abhisit he appears to have broken all of the rules of moral conduct in his handling of the Redshirt demonstration in the Thai Capital thus being directly or indirectly responsible for much loss of life. Given his illustrious UK education at the seat of the greatest law makers on the planet his actions puzzle law abiding members of the Thai public.

Of course they are taking a moral stand and one to be applauded by the nation.

Ever since Thaksin, Chalerm's sons, Arisman and the rest set the tone for fleeing from justice for enough time to get things illegally "fixed" the whole criminal population flees justice from murderers to bus drivers.

Aphisit's and Suthep's stand is truly admirable.

The reason those with a red affiliation don't like it is that it shows that one side has morals that Thai children can take example from at a time when corruption is so widely accepted. The other side doesn't despite having their "government" in power and their arms around a few authorities' throats.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

Nonsense.

The fleeing has been happening way before Thaksin came along. It's the way it has always been.

Chuan Leekpai's (Abhisit's mentor) own brother fled the country after allegedly embezzling from a Thai bank. Chuan also has a conviction from the National Anti-Corruption Commission for undeclared shares in a co-operative.

Suthep brought down Chuan's administration in the 90's with his corruption.

One side has morals? History says otherwise.

The "Johnny threw a stone at me so I threw one back" defence is also a disease in Thailand.

You don't believe the actions of the politicians influence those of the public? You don't think that setting an example is as important for the country's leaders as it is for someone like John Terry?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[jayboy]

BTW the Economist article on k. Thaksin getting a bit desperate seems to have caught the attention of Robert A. and the PPT. Robert A. phrases it as 'PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand'. Just check out on http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/

Interesting how for years the usual suspects insisted the Economist was not to be trusted, indeed ( no kidding) was in the pay of Thaksin.Now that the Economist has published a piece that the usual suspects find favourable,do we hear an apology for their traducement in the past of an internationally respected journal? We do not - just the telling silence of the intellectually dishonest.

[rixalex]

BTW the Economist article on k. Thaksin getting a bit desperate seems to have caught the attention of Robert A. and the PPT. Robert A. phrases it as 'PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand'. Just check out on http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/

Interesting how for years the usual suspects insisted the Economist was not to be trusted, indeed ( no kidding) was in the pay of Thaksin.Now that the Economist has published a piece that the usual suspects find favourable,do we hear an apology for their traducement in the past of an internationally respected journal? We do not - just the telling silence of the intellectually dishonest.

When it comes to opinion pieces in papers or magazines, i don't think expressing either agreement or disagreement with one from a certain publication, ties you into continuing to agree or disagree with all future opinion pieces, lest you be guilty of contradicting yourself. We hear often enough do we not what propaganda filled rubbish The Nation is, but doesn't stop the same people quoting from this publication when it suits their needs. BP might be off limits but plenty of other sources one can draw from if one is so fundamentally opposed to The Nation.

Anyway, as you imply in yourself a level of trust and faith held for certain publications that you maintain no matter whether you agree or not with their most current musings, am i to take it that this Economist article to which you refer carries your full endorsement?

[OzMick]

[

Of course they are taking a moral stand and one to be applauded by the nation.

Ever since Thaksin, Chalerm's sons, Arisman and the rest set the tone for fleeing from justice for enough time to get things illegally "fixed" the whole criminal population flees justice from murderers to bus drivers.

Aphisit's and Suthep's stand is truly admirable.

The reason those with a red affiliation don't like it is that it shows that one side has morals that Thai children can take example from at a time when corruption is so widely accepted. The other side doesn't despite having their "government" in power and their arms around a few authorities' throats.

Mr. Thaksin was never accused of using the military against the civilian population. Nor have any of the others you mention.

There are some who blame Mr. Thaksin for the casualties, as the country attempted to stop the narco terrorist drug cartels from taking control of Thailand. There were multiple investigations, none of which Mr. Thaksin fled from. The two main investigations occurred while Mr. Thaksin was in the country. None of the investigations were able to support charges against Mr. Thaksin.

There is a distinct difference between using a nation's military against its civilian population and allegations related to civil and common criminal allegations.

Talk Bai? Kru Se? Ring any bells?

Are you applauding the individuals I mentioned for fleeing the country for lesser crimes than Abhisit and facing significantly less sanction than death? If so I'd have great difficulty accepting that as logic,

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

The atrocities in the South you mention we're committed by the Thai military and Thaksin had no direct responsibility,though he made some shameful comments afterwards.

Personally I don't see any courage in the stand taken by Abhisit and his charming sidekick Suthep.They will never be arrested and will never spend a day in prison.They know that and it rather demolishes the bravery aspect.It's just part of the Thai version of Game of Thrones.

you are, of course, right - thety will never face a court because the charges are nonsense. Would you care to comment, in your self-claimed unbiased manner, on the use of the legal system to smear political opponents?

[rixalex]

Personally I don't see any courage in the stand taken by Abhisit and his charming sidekick Suthep.They will never be arrested and will never spend a day in prison.They know that and it rather demolishes the bravery aspect.It's just part of the Thai version of Game of Thrones.

I rather think were it your own neck on the line, and with the likes of Chalerm currently carrying a lot of political clout and having a say, direct or otherwise, in your fate, you might be somewhat less flippant about it all.

You think that the judicial system has been bent against Thaksin, yet you dismiss the idea of it being bent against Abhisit as a ridiculously implausible joke. In the scheme of things, doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

[theslime]

Personally I don't see any courage in the stand taken by Abhisit and his charming sidekick Suthep.They will never be arrested and will never spend a day in prison.They know that and it rather demolishes the bravery aspect.It's just part of the Thai version of Game of Thrones.

I rather think were it your own neck on the line, and with the likes of Chalerm currently carrying a lot of political clout and having a say, direct or otherwise, in your fate, you might be somewhat less flippant about it all.

You think that the judicial system has been bent against Thaksin, yet you dismiss the idea of it being bent against Abhisit as a ridiculously implausible joke. In the scheme of things, doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

And it all goes on and on,pressure on the judges by Politicians. Red, Yellow, Third Hand or Green hand

[rubl]

BTW the Economist article on k. Thaksin getting a bit desperate seems to have caught the attention of Robert A. and the PPT. Robert A. phrases it as 'PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand'. Just check out on http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/

Interesting how for years the usual suspects insisted the Economist was not to be trusted, indeed ( no kidding) was in the pay of Thaksin.Now that the Economist has published a piece that the usual suspects find favourable,do we hear an apology for their traducement in the past of an internationally respected journal? We do not - just the telling silence of the intellectually dishonest.

It would have been more 'intellectually honest' if you have added present company excluded, dear jayboy. Now your post can be seen as implicitly suggesting I'm one of those who insisted in not trusting theEconomist. Furthermore just saying doesn't mean it's true. Unless you can dig up a few examples, preferably from more than one poster as you mention ''usual suspects".

All in intellectual fairness of course

[rubl]

The atrocities in the South you mention we're committed by the Thai military and Thaksin had no direct responsibility,though he made some shameful comments afterwards.

Personally I don't see any courage in the stand taken by Abhisit and his charming sidekick Suthep.They will never be arrested and will never spend a day in prison.They know that and it rather demolishes the bravery aspect.It's just part of the Thai version of Game of Thrones.

No direct responsibility?

"In July 2005, Thaksin Shinawatra, then Prime Minister of Thailand, assumed wide-ranging emergency powers to deal with the insurgency. In September 2006, Army Commander Sonthi Boonyaratkalin was granted an extraordinary increase in executive powers to combat the unrest"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency

Did k. Tarit really say

"DSI chief Tarit Pengdith on Thursday said Abhisit and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also set to be charged, had repeatedly used the armed forces against civilians, showing "an intention to endanger life"."

[jayboy]

You think that the judicial system has been bent against Thaksin, yet you dismiss the idea of it being bent against Abhisit as a ridiculously implausible joke. In the scheme of things, doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

You have much to learn about the way power and barami works in Thailand.No well informed Thai I know believes for a second Abhisit/Suthep will serve any time at all.They know it too hence the display of pointless bravado.

Where on earth did you get the idea I think the judicial system is any fairer now than under the last government? It's true however the Constitutional Court is very much the too of its masters.

[jayboy]

No direct responsibility?

No, not for the incidents themselves.These were were the work of the Thai military who were subsequently absolved of all responsibility in the time honoured way these generals shrug off responsibility for crimes.Of course Thaksin as PM had indirect responsibility and a more honourable man would have sought out those senior army officers responsible or even resigned himself.But Thai politicians tend not to be honourable men, and Thaksin is no exception to that rule.

[jayboy]

It would have been more 'intellectually honest' if you have added present company excluded, dear jayboy. Now your post can be seen as implicitly suggesting I'm one of those who insisted in not trusting theEconomist. Furthermore just saying doesn't mean it's true. Unless you can dig up a few examples, preferably from more than one poster as you mention ''usual suspects".

All in intellectual fairness of course

Apologies.It was not meant to be a personal reference and indeed I cannot recall you ever mentioning The Economist one way or the other.

[rubl]

You think that the judicial system has been bent against Thaksin, yet you dismiss the idea of it being bent against Abhisit as a ridiculously implausible joke. In the scheme of things, doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

You have much to learn about the way power and barami works in Thailand.No well informed Thai I know believes for a second Abhisit/Suthep will serve any time at all.They know it too hence the display of pointless bravado.

Where on earth did you get the idea I think the judicial system is any fairer now than under the last government? It's true however the Constitutional Court is very much the too of its masters.

Not pointless bravado, just caching in on a political opponent's gaffe.

As for the judicial system, that's not part of the topic.

[rubl]

No direct responsibility?

No, not for the incidents themselves.These were were the work of the Thai military who were subsequently absolved of all responsibility in the time honoured way these generals shrug off responsibility for crimes.Of course Thaksin as PM had indirect responsibility and a more honourable man would have sought out those senior army officers responsible or even resigned himself.But Thai politicians tend not to be honourable men, and Thaksin is no exception to that rule.

Jayboy, plain and utter 'nightsoil of a well fed male oxen'.

To repeat:

Did k. Tarit really say

"DSI chief Tarit Pengdith on Thursday said Abhisit and his deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, who is also set to be charged, had repeatedly used the armed forces against civilians, showing "an intention to endanger life"."

[rixalex]

You think that the judicial system has been bent against Thaksin, yet you dismiss the idea of it being bent against Abhisit as a ridiculously implausible joke. In the scheme of things, doesn't sound at all far-fetched to me.

You have much to learn about the way power and barami works in Thailand.No well informed Thai I know believes for a second Abhisit/Suthep will serve any time at all.They know it too hence the display of pointless bravado.

Ah ha, that old chestnut reference, to conveniently back up your own beliefs, about well informed Thais who always seem amazingly to be on permanent stand-by, ready to chip in with their comments via yourself... almost as if they are stood looking over your shoulder right now as we speak.

Where on earth did you get the idea I think the judicial system is any fairer now than under the last government? It's true however the Constitutional Court is very much the too of its masters.

Didn't say anything of the sort with regards your own views of the judicial system. I wondered why someone who believes so confidently that the system was bent against Thaksin to bring about his conviction, is equally confident that the same system can't be bent against Abhisit.

[jayboy]

BTW the Economist article on k. Thaksin getting a bit desperate seems to have caught the attention of Robert A. and the PPT. Robert A. phrases it as 'PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand'. Just check out on http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/

Interesting how for years the usual suspects insisted the Economist was not to be trusted, indeed ( no kidding) was in the pay of Thaksin.Now that the Economist has published a piece that the usual suspects find favourable,do we hear an apology for their traducement in the past of an internationally respected journal? We do not - just the telling silence of the intellectually dishonest.

When it comes to opinion pieces in papers or magazines, i don't think expressing either agreement or disagreement with one from a certain publication, ties you into continuing to agree or disagree with all future opinion pieces, lest you be guilty of contradicting yourself. We hear often enough do we not what propaganda filled rubbish The Nation is, but doesn't stop the same people quoting from this publication when it suits their needs. BP might be off limits but plenty of other sources one can draw from if one is so fundamentally opposed to The Nation.

Anyway, as you imply in yourself a level of trust and faith held for certain publications that you maintain no matter whether you agree or not with their most current musings, am i to take it that this Economist article to which you refer carries your full endorsement?

The Economist is a leading publication with a tremendous reputation and a very specific view of the world, sometimes irritatingly opinionated I agree but always thoughtful and well researched.Its line on Thailand has been entirely consistent as far as I can see.I have no idea what you mean by giving my full endorsement.I read, I sometimes agree or I sometimes disagree.The article under discussion was perfectly fair in my viewIt would not for a second however occur to me to say certain parties had paid to secure the magazine's line - and that is exactly what the usual suspects have argued in the past.

You are presumably having a little joke in invoking The Nation.I don't wish to be disrespectful so will just say I have seen better newspapers.

[jayboy]

Ah ha, that old chestnut reference, to conveniently back up your own beliefs, about well informed Thais who always seem amazingly to be on permanent stand-by, ready to chip in with their comments via yourself... almost as if they are stood looking over your shoulder right now as we speak.

Pointless discussion.Anyone can pretend to be anything on a forum like this.I have no idea what your background is in Thailand at all or who you know.I'm certainly not going to start bragging about my own experience.

[MAJIC]

Reconciliation bill even if it is passed, has nothing to do with the crime against humanity

committed. The persons in charge of ordering heavily armed soldiers to open fire on unarmed

civilians will still be brought to justice - amnesty are only for the victims or political prisoners

who are still on trials and in prisons. People will never allow reconciliation with murderers.

So, please explain what order was given

Until a trial exposes what transpired during PM Abhisit's residence in the 11th Infantry Barracks of Bangkok we will never know exactly how or why the Thai Army were mobilized into a civil war footing by the then PM Abhisit. At best the outcome shamed Thailand as unarmed citizens fell to the Thai Army fusillades. Above all the bereived hunger for knowledge of how Ex PM Abhiisit may try to justify his actions

We know why the Army were mobilised: Because the Police refused to do their job,and clear the streets,basic history of the 2010 Terrorism campaign in Bangkok,by the Red Shirts.

[MAJIC]

[

Of course they are taking a moral stand and one to be applauded by the nation.

Ever since Thaksin, Chalerm's sons, Arisman and the rest set the tone for fleeing from justice for enough time to get things illegally "fixed" the whole criminal population flees justice from murderers to bus drivers.

Aphisit's and Suthep's stand is truly admirable.

The reason those with a red affiliation don't like it is that it shows that one side has morals that Thai children can take example from at a time when corruption is so widely accepted. The other side doesn't despite having their "government" in power and their arms around a few authorities' throats.

Mr. Thaksin was never accused of using the military against the civilian population. Nor have any of the others you mention.

There are some who blame Mr. Thaksin for the casualties, as the country attempted to stop the narco terrorist drug cartels from taking control of Thailand. There were multiple investigations, none of which Mr. Thaksin fled from. The two main investigations occurred while Mr. Thaksin was in the country. None of the investigations were able to support charges against Mr. Thaksin.

There is a distinct difference between using a nation's military against its civilian population and allegations related to civil and common criminal allegations.

So it's OK to use the Police instead to slaughter 2500,of the people with no evidence or proof of drug charges,dead men don't have the option of a Court Trial either.

[theslime]

BTW the Economist article on k. Thaksin getting a bit desperate seems to have caught the attention of Robert A. and the PPT. Robert A. phrases it as 'PPT Rips the Economist for its Myopic Coverage of Thailand'. Just check out on http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/

Interesting how for years the usual suspects insisted the Economist was not to be trusted, indeed ( no kidding) was in the pay of Thaksin.Now that the Economist has published a piece that the usual suspects find favourable,do we hear an apology for their traducement in the past of an internationally respected journal? We do not - just the telling silence of the intellectually dishonest.

When it comes to opinion pieces in papers or magazines, i don't think expressing either agreement or disagreement with one from a certain publication, ties you into continuing to agree or disagree with all future opinion pieces, lest you be guilty of contradicting yourself. We hear often enough do we not what propaganda filled rubbish The Nation is, but doesn't stop the same people quoting from this publication when it suits their needs. BP might be off limits but plenty of other sources one can draw from if one is so fundamentally opposed to The Nation.

Anyway, as you imply in yourself a level of trust and faith held for certain publications that you maintain no matter whether you agree or not with their most current musings, am i to take it that this Economist article to which you refer carries your full endorsement?

The Economist is a leading publication with a tremendous reputation and a very specific view of the world, sometimes irritatingly opinionated I agree but always thoughtful and well researched.Its line on Thailand has been entirely consistent as far as I can see.I have no idea what you mean by giving my full endorsement.I read, I sometimes agree or I sometimes disagree.The article under discussion was perfectly fair in my viewIt would not for a second however occur to me to say certain parties had paid to secure the magazine's line - and that is exactly what the usual suspects have argued in the past.

You are presumably having a little joke in invoking The Nation.I don't wish to be disrespectful so will just say I have seen better newspapers.

The Economist told the Irish to eat grass in the great famine.

[marshbags]

So it's OK to use the Police instead to slaughter 2500,of the people with no evidence or proof of drug charges,dead men don't have the option of a Court Trial either.

Well said and highlighted Majic.

Many of those murdered were totally innocent and in no way connected to drugs ect. ect.

Well above the red statistics in relation to deaths and injuries.

The indiscriminate, evil, inhuman EJK's / cold blooded murders, of not only genuinelly innocent bystanders is beyond the bounds of understanding and justified excuse, unlike what is being constantly alledged by the hypocritcal red supporters on this thread and elsewhere in relation to the taxi driver who supposedly ran out to see what was happening ???

marshbags

P.S.

Unlike being the active aggressors on the Thaksin ordered drug eliminations and then turn a blind eye to all the red shirt did in 2010, again due to who's behalf they were going balistic for ( Thaksin ) the police have shown they put the interest of an exiled fugitive based alledgedly in Dubia above those of honest law abiding Thai based citizens.

Edited December 9, 2012 by marshbags

[BirdsandBooze]

If Abhisit received the death penalty the British government would petition to have it commuted to a prison sentence, the same as they would for any British national.

[yoshiwara]

Ah ha, that old chestnut reference, to conveniently back up your own beliefs, about well informed Thais who always seem amazingly to be on permanent stand-by, ready to chip in with their comments via yourself... almost as if they are stood looking over your shoulder right now as we speak.

Pointless discussion.Anyone can pretend to be anything on a forum like this.I have no idea what your background is in Thailand at all or who you know.I'm certainly not going to start bragging about my own experience.

'Well informed Thais' will be so grateful.

Edited December 9, 2012 by yoshiwara

[yoshiwara]

What he did that appeals to many thais is that he implemented some populist policies that a portion of the populace believes was for the benefit of the poor.

The condemnation he receives from farangs is earned because a majority of farangs have the ability to see past egocentric propaganda and detect the fraud and lies.

Considering most 'farangs' do not know a thing about Thai history, cannot speak fluent Thai, don't read or watch local media (because they cannot understand it), do not understand the nuances of Thai culture (or Thai-Chinese culture to be more precise) I don't think the majority of 'farangs' have the ability to see much at all.

Most 'farangs' arrived during or after Thaksin's tenure and that's all they know. He's their bogeyman. They hated him when he was in power, and why not? Under his watch not many things improved for the self-important Western expat community; visa laws were tightened, bars and entertainment venues were closed earlier and Purachai went on his campaign against immorality. They see Thailand changing and they resented it.

Like some Dracula unexpectedly rising from the dead, the citing of Purachai as the leader of a campaign against immorality to be waved as a flag by one of the forum Thaksin apologists is a sight to behold. Purachai's greatest contribution to the development of Thai society was his fervent campaign against spaghetti straps being worn by young ladies which would inevitable lead them towards untold debauchery.

[FarangTalk]

What he did that appeals to many thais is that he implemented some populist policies that a portion of the populace believes was for the benefit of the poor.

The condemnation he receives from farangs is earned because a majority of farangs have the ability to see past egocentric propaganda and detect the fraud and lies.

Considering most 'farangs' do not know a thing about Thai history, cannot speak fluent Thai, don't read or watch local media (because they cannot understand it), do not understand the nuances of Thai culture (or Thai-Chinese culture to be more precise) I don't think the majority of 'farangs' have the ability to see much at all.

Most 'farangs' arrived during or after Thaksin's tenure and that's all they know. He's their bogeyman. They hated him when he was in power, and why not? Under his watch not many things improved for the self-important Western expat community; visa laws were tightened, bars and entertainment venues were closed earlier and Purachai went on his campaign against immorality. They see Thailand changing and they resented it.

Like some Dracula unexpectedly rising from the dead, the citing of Purachai as the leader of a campaign against immorality to be waved as a flag by one of the forum Thaksin apologists is a sight to behold. Purachai's greatest contribution to the development of Thai society was his fervent campaign against spaghetti straps being worn by young ladies which would inevitable lead them towards untold debauchery.

I am not a Thaksin apologist.

I merely recognise and point out the hypocrisy of those obsessed by the man.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect App

[rubl]

Considering most 'farangs' do not know a thing about Thai history, cannot speak fluent Thai, don't read or watch local media (because they cannot understand it), do not understand the nuances of Thai culture (or Thai-Chinese culture to be more precise) I don't think the majority of 'farangs' have the ability to see much at all.

Most 'farangs' arrived during or after Thaksin's tenure and that's all they know. He's their bogeyman. They hated him when he was in power, and why not? Under his watch not many things improved for the self-important Western expat community; visa laws were tightened, bars and entertainment venues were closed earlier and Purachai went on his campaign against immorality. They see Thailand changing and they resented it.

Like some Dracula unexpectedly rising from the dead, the citing of Purachai as the leader of a campaign against immorality to be waved as a flag by one of the forum Thaksin apologists is a sight to behold. Purachai's greatest contribution to the development of Thai society was his fervent campaign against spaghetti straps being worn by young ladies which would inevitable lead them towards untold debauchery.

I am not a Thaksin apologist.

I merely recognise and point out the hypocrisy of those obsessed by the man.

My dear FarangTalk, nothing in your posts quoted here points to any hypocrisy. Opinion yes, some either you or me might not like maybe, but hypocrisy?

Mind you, as I'm also not a Thaksin apologist, I may have missed something here. I've only been here since 1994, so I'm more than willing to accept the well founded explanation of even another farang who just might be the opposite of what you described (don't know, don't understand, can't speak the lingo, etc., etc.)

BTW didn't a Pheu Thai MP encourage Thai females to do some horizontal studying for an easy life?

Oh, another 'by the way', the topic is 'death before amnesty bill'. Nothing to do with k. Purachai, although the 'wake up 6AM to start the temple tour' may make people wonder how much worse death can be

Edited December 9, 2012 by rubl

[valerian]

What he did that appeals to many thais is that he implemented some populist policies that a portion of the populace believes was for the benefit of the poor.

The condemnation he receives from farangs is earned because a majority of farangs have the ability to see past egocentric propaganda and detect the fraud and lies.

Considering most 'farangs' do not know a thing about Thai history, cannot speak fluent Thai, don't read or watch local media (because they cannot understand it), do not understand the nuances of Thai culture (or Thai-Chinese culture to be more precise) I don't think the majority of 'farangs' have the ability to see much at all.

Most 'farangs' arrived during or after Thaksin's tenure and that's all they know. He's their bogeyman. They hated him when he was in power, and why not? Under his watch not many things improved for the self-important Western expat community; visa laws were tightened, bars and entertainment venues were closed earlier and Purachai went on his campaign against immorality. They see Thailand changing and they resented it.

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

[theslime]

What he did that appeals to many thais is that he implemented some populist policies that a portion of the populace believes was for the benefit of the poor.

The condemnation he receives from farangs is earned because a majority of farangs have the ability to see past egocentric propaganda and detect the fraud and lies.

Considering most 'farangs' do not know a thing about Thai history, cannot speak fluent Thai, don't read or watch local media (because they cannot understand it), do not understand the nuances of Thai culture (or Thai-Chinese culture to be more precise) I don't think the majority of 'farangs' have the ability to see much at all.

Most 'farangs' arrived during or after Thaksin's tenure and that's all they know. He's their bogeyman. They hated him when he was in power, and why not? Under his watch not many things improved for the self-important Western expat community; visa laws were tightened, bars and entertainment venues were closed earlier and Purachai went on his campaign against immorality. They see Thailand changing and they resented it.

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

Good quote, now we know that in order to get your point across you call people dumb and naive, talk about dumb and naive.

[OzMick]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

Good quote, now we know that in order to get your point across you call people dumb and naive, talk about dumb and naive.

Sounds like a pretty good theory to explain the phenomenon. Do you have a better explanation?