Peace TV in plea for UN help

[Bakseeda]

Should it not read..."Piece TV"... Give -us a piece mate ! Prayuth should arrest the whole bag of them and strip them of their assets.... Why have Section 44 and not use it ? Rock on old Tea Bag ..(Cha-o-cha) The majority of us farang crew are right behind you..!

[rubl]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

Correct, the army could not find the camps for the last 10 years. And who was in charge for the last 10 years?

In charge of the army, the generals. Don't believe that politicians were in charge of the military. The generals always have. You don't get politicians causing coups. The generals do that and have done a few times in the last ten years, to be factual. So there is your answer.

I guess ten years and five months ago doesn't count? Still nice birds.

2004-12-06

"Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra mobilized a fleet of some 50 military aircraft, from giant C-130 Hercules to helicopters, to drop the origami birds over the provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala, which have been worst hit by violence. Thaksin had called on Thais to fold a bird for each of the country's 63 million citizens, but ended up with far more as people enthusiastically took up the idea."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/news/06iht-t3_30.html?_r=0

[Lunchbob]

The UN only represents a special, few nations.

[klauskunkel]

The former Democrat MP said he would ask the UN in writing to carefully ferret out the facts behind this letter and not believe all that was said.

UN response: Thank you for your confidence in our ferrets, however, the Thai government does not allow us to employ them, as they take jobs away from the Thai ferrets. Sincerely, Luang Ban

[Lovekorat]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

[trogers]

"To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?"

Are you an ISIS spokesman?

[dominique355]

Can anyone explain to my why Peace TV was shut down and why it was done by the NBCT?

Does the NBCT have to competence to exercise this kind of censorship and what exactly did Chavalit say that triggered the gag order?

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

Correct, the army could not find the camps for the last 10 years. And who was in charge for the last 10 years?

In charge of the army, the generals. Don't believe that politicians were in charge of the military. The generals always have. You don't get politicians causing coups. The generals do that and have done a few times in the last ten years, to be factual. So there is your answer.

"You don't get politicians causing coups."

Suggest you reread the history.

[Godders]

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission recently cancelled Peace TV's broadcasting licence for repeatedly airing content it deemed divisive.

Of course their content is divisive. And so it should be. Otherwise we would end up with the entire world comprising one-party states of the kind Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin wished to inflict upon us all.

Politics is by its nature divisive, pitting proponents of conflicting ideologies against one another and, in a democratic society, allowing the public at large to decide which option they prefer as a system of governance.

If the NBTC is going to ban one TV station on the grounds that it is divisive then it had better also outlaw those run by the state, the army and every other organisation with their own particular axes to grind. We'd be left with little worth watching.

Sooner or later, the current administration will have find a way other than dubious polls to demonstrate that it has public support for the controversial measures currently being imposed with the help of rules and regulations designed to stifle dissent and protest. It is also, whether it likes it or not, going to have to take the international community with it along the rocky road to reform - or suffer the likely consequence of becoming a pariah state.

Cosying up serial human rights abusers such as Myanmar and China in a bid to garner fresh support for some of its least popular policies is unlikely to mitigate the offence already caused to powerful western nations which have traditionally been the Kingdom's loyal friends and allies.Such posturing is unlikely, either, to assure the domestic audience that, when it finally arrives, "Thai-style" democracy will be answer to a fragmented nation's prayers.

What is urgently needed between now and the next general election is for the generals to initiate a public debate across the entire range of the mass media, involving the present leadership, politicians of all major parties and ordinary citizens. They might be pleasantly surprised at the outcome.

[trogers]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

Correct, the army could not find the camps for the last 10 years. And who was in charge for the last 10 years?

In charge of the army, the generals. Don't believe that politicians were in charge of the military. The generals always have. You don't get politicians causing coups. The generals do that and have done a few times in the last ten years, to be factual. So there is your answer.

"You don't get politicians causing coups."

Suggest you reread the history.

No, they use militants...

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.
And why would that be?"

Are you an ISIS spokesman?

Well said 3 times.

[quandow]

<

(in an Australian accent) Now THAT'S a knife!

[Baerboxer]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

A wise man once said something to the effect that he may not agree with what you say, but would defend until death your right to say it.

That was in a more romantic age, when unrestricted warfare, terrorism, WMD, and the channels of social mass media were not available to all the nutters, extremists, criminals and those intent on malevolence.

Use the UK as an example. Should they have allowed Sinn Fein to set up its own TV station, or the UDA, or ISIS or perhaps Argentina so they can broadcast why they really want to steal the Falkland Islands?

Or America - should the allow Iran Peace TV; ISIS Evangelical TV or US Oil Companies Environmental TV - all spouting propaganda, twisted messages and outright lies?

[Robby nz]

<

(in an Australian accent) Now THAT'S a knife!

Don't forget the catapult that shoots ping pong bombs.

[Robby nz]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

Correct, the army could not find the camps for the last 10 years. And who was in charge for the last 10 years?

For most of that time Thaksin and his proxy parties, but I suppose that doesn't count when your one of his supporters.

[jayboy]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

A wise man once said something to the effect that he may not agree with what you say, but would defend until death your right to say it.

That was in a more romantic age, when unrestricted warfare, terrorism, WMD, and the channels of social mass media were not available to all the nutters, extremists, criminals and those intent on malevolence.

Use the UK as an example. Should they have allowed Sinn Fein to set up its own TV station, or the UDA, or ISIS or perhaps Argentina so they can broadcast why they really want to steal the Falkland Islands?

Or America - should the allow Iran Peace TV; ISIS Evangelical TV or US Oil Companies Environmental TV - all spouting propaganda, twisted messages and outright lies?

Broadly speaking yes provided that these media outlets remained within the law.Difficult to control anyway.Your question presupposes the people are incapable of discerning the difference between propaganda and opinion - a very common view among the crazies.

A different situation would be the government and army media outlets in Thailand which really do 24/7 spout propaganda, twisted messages and outright lies.In the case of the army stations - which would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilised world - these should be closed down or sold to third parties immediately.As for government propaganda the position is also different.Personally I have no objection to this government broadcasting its propaganda PROVIDING there are plenty of stations with alternative viewpoints.I think it's reasonable that media should not be dominated by a single or a very few presences, and this could be dealt with by law when democracy is restored.

[rubl]

Can anyone explain to my why Peace TV was shut down and why it was done by the NBCT?

Does the NBCT have to competence to exercise this kind of censorship and what exactly did Chavalit say that triggered the gag order?

For answers to the first three questions just read the recent three or four topics on "Peace TV" (including this one).

As for what was on the taped Chavalit interview, I've been asking the same question for a week already but the only answer I got was that Eric Loh seems to have said to have watched it. No idea what it was.

[than]

Peace TV in plea for UN help

Lol, red shirts forget modo from thier lovely guru-leader : "UN is not my father"

Edited May 5, 2015 by than

[rubl]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

A wise man once said something to the effect that he may not agree with what you say, but would defend until death your right to say it.

That was in a more romantic age, when unrestricted warfare, terrorism, WMD, and the channels of social mass media were not available to all the nutters, extremists, criminals and those intent on malevolence.

Use the UK as an example. Should they have allowed Sinn Fein to set up its own TV station, or the UDA, or ISIS or perhaps Argentina so they can broadcast why they really want to steal the Falkland Islands?

Or America - should the allow Iran Peace TV; ISIS Evangelical TV or US Oil Companies Environmental TV - all spouting propaganda, twisted messages and outright lies?

Broadly speaking yes provided that these media outlets remained within the law.Difficult to control anyway.Your question presupposes the people are incapable of discerning the difference between propaganda and opinion - a very common view among the crazies.

A different situation would be the government and army media outlets in Thailand which really do 24/7 spout propaganda, twisted messages and outright lies.In the case of the army stations - which would not be tolerated anywhere in the civilised world - these should be closed down or sold to third parties immediately.As for government propaganda the position is also different.Personally I have no objection to this government broadcasting its propaganda PROVIDING there are plenty of stations with alternative viewpoints.I think it's reasonable that media should not be dominated by a single or a very few presences, and this could be dealt with by law when democracy is restored.

Broadly speaking "Peace TV" was deemed to stray outside the acceptable, outside the law. Even in the 'civilised' world TV channels are more and more under observation, even the private owned ones. That translates into "first warnings, then temporary bans, then closure". That's what happened with "Peace TV".

As for 'downright lies', strange you were so quiet when the previous government was at it. Do I detect a certain bias there, or are lies only lies when you disagree?

Anyway, "Peace TV" asking the UN to help, that's nice. Can someone remind me what happened the last few times the UDD asked or petitioned the UN. Wasn't that SFA?

[mikemac]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

................................"At least they have clarified their priorities".................................

As you have clarified yours. Any excuse will do it seems.

........................."but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years."...........................

The Shins were in power for most of those 10 years, why wasn't the camp found on their watch ?

Perhaps the camp was not as noticeable as some loudmouth redshirt nutter with a microphone.

[Roadman]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

Yes I know. the Army has to do everyone's job...including the police.

[halloween]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

".....unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war."

You know why they were shut down then.

[baboon]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

................................"At least they have clarified their priorities".................................

As you have clarified yours. Any excuse will do it seems.

........................."but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years."...........................

The Shins were in power for most of those 10 years, why wasn't the camp found on their watch ?

Perhaps the camp was not as noticeable as some loudmouth redshirt nutter with a microphone.

Are you saying the Shinawatra family are anything to do with these camps, yes or no?

[halloween]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

................................"At least they have clarified their priorities".................................

As you have clarified yours. Any excuse will do it seems.

........................."but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years."...........................

The Shins were in power for most of those 10 years, why wasn't the camp found on their watch ?

Perhaps the camp was not as noticeable as some loudmouth redshirt nutter with a microphone.

Are you saying the Shinawatra family are anything to do with these camps, yes or no?

It's just business.

[baboon]

What is?

[mikemac]

Amazing , send the army in to close down a TV station for promoting the Shins , but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years. At least they have clarified their priorities

................................"At least they have clarified their priorities".................................

As you have clarified yours. Any excuse will do it seems.

........................."but cant find an illegal holding camp for refugee hostages in a place where they are supposed to have been fighting a war for 10 years."...........................

The Shins were in power for most of those 10 years, why wasn't the camp found on their watch ?

Perhaps the camp was not as noticeable as some loudmouth redshirt nutter with a microphone.

Are you saying the Shinawatra family are anything to do with these camps, yes or no?

Don't even bother replying to my comments anymore until you learn how to read and comprehend English, and stop twisting my words.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the language would see that I was referring to to facts the camps were not "found", as in .................."found on their watch ?"...................

As usual when you have nothing better to say you twist peoples' words to suit your needs.

[baboon]

^^

Where did I twist your words? I merely asked you a question which you have chosen not to answer, giving me the suspicion that you were trying to create an unwarranted link between the two.

What are my 'needs', in your opinion?

Edited May 5, 2015 by baboon

[sweatalot]

The red shirts are the same as the SA (sturmabteilung), Hitler's private militia. The red shirt also use reverse psychology calling their TV station "Peace TV". The "Rajprasong Siege", or should we call it the "Thaksin Failed Putsch" was nothing but peaceful.

Absolutely.

Some time ago I read an analysis of Hitler using his SA to come to dictatorship.

If there weren't the names Hitler and SA mentioned I would have thought it's about the

Red Shirts and their wannabe dictator.

[sweatalot]

In my I suppose, naive view, in a democracy, if such really exists anywhere, organisations, TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Red or yellow has nothing to do with it if you're talking about the democratic process.

People speak their opinions and then the populace decide.

On that basis Peace TV have the right to an opinion and the right to express it unless it encourages violence, revolution or outright civil war.

Every 'democracy ' has it's share of ' nutcases' but they are mostly allowed to speak and when they do they are exposed for what they are.

If that right is denied then the country is living in a police state where everything is controlled by the state.

People show pictures of red shirted individuals with machete's. Is it not true that those with yellow shirts wield a different kind if 'machete'. This isn't all one sided. There are good and bad on both sides.

To me the only reason for closing an organisation that communicates to the people is because you don't want the message to get out.

And why would that be?

Only because you are terrified about the reaction or support it may receive.

So this has only one agenda.

Oppression and self interest.

People are being badly advised.

The only effective way to handle opposition is to let people have opinions and air them, present rational and logical argument against them which doesn't involve a bomb, gun or a machete, and wait for the outcome.

That way you can disprove the argument against you in a democratic way

If you cannot do that then you have lost, and the people will not agree by majority.

And therein lies the reason

But as for the UN?

A toothless old lion that has no influence, people ignore and usually turn up when it's all over.

If they were expecting action from that lot they are deluded, but if they did it just to get attention then it worked.

TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Freedom to lie, brainwash and incite unrest? Democracy can only exist when the people understand it and want it.

Abusing the name for getting yourself rich is not democracy

TV stations or whatever have the right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what democracy is?

Not in the case of attacking democracy by brainwashing lying and inciting unrest - if they succeed who will protect the rights?

[halloween]

What is?

"It's just business." is an expression used by Mafia families to explain their morally reprehensible actions. it is often preceded by "nothing personal." when you are about to get whacked.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=It%27s+Just+Business