Thread: Thai prime minister accused of war crimes

Originally Posted by nostromo

Like, Asia Times is a yellow rag, owned by a yellow bastard.

That's one out of five, what about the other four?
You must be real blind if you can't see that everything published, regardless of source, comes to the same conclusion.
3 independent investigations at that time found that between 2600-3000 persons got killed in the war against drugs and half of them were not proven to be involved in drug business.
That equals 1300-1500 innocently killed and 1300-1500 killed without a trial.

Originally Posted by lom

Originally Posted by nostromo

Like, Asia Times is a yellow rag, owned by a yellow bastard.

That's one out of five, what about the other four?
You must be real blind if you can't see that everything published, regardless of source, comes to the same conclusion.
3 independent investigations at that time found that between 2600-3000 persons got killed in the war against drugs and half of them were not proven to be involved in drug business.
That equals 1300-1500 innocently killed and 1300-1500 killed without a trial.

And what about tens of thousands or more saved from misery and death caused by drugs in the next few years alone?

If you are basically saying all law enforcement is bad, lets just all be hippy fake english teachers and have a joint, it is your opinion. But society can not be built on that.

THAILAND: Extrajudicial killing, impunity

Since February 1, hundreds of alleged drug dealers have been killed in Thailand's latest " war on drugs ";, launched by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

While addressing the drug problem in Thailand is a serious matter, the current government is in effect encouraging the police to sidestep judicial procedure and simply execute alleged offenders.

This also makes it increasingly easy for the police and other authorities simply to do away with anyone they don't like; indeed, some reports indicate that police have planted drugs and then detained or killed alleged 'suspects'.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has requested that a special representative be allowed to visit Thailand to investigate, but has been refused by the Thai authorities.

humanrights.asia

Originally Posted by Mid

The uncle of Chakkraphan Srisa-ard, an innocent victim of the Thaksin Shinawatra government's war on drugs, believes his beloved nine-year-old nephew will finally get justice eight years after his death.

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...gle-truth.html (Thaksin's war on drugs-Uncle's struggle for truth)



(Noon,pictured above, writes to Manchester City)

Now 11, Noon is still confused and traumatised by an event she cannot understand. “What did my granny do wrong?” she asks. “She did not know anything about drugs.”

Holding the hand of her mother Nongkran at the family shop in Baan Laem, in the northern Phetchabun province, Noon says: “I was very young. I did not know anything. But I know now. I am not scared. My grandmother had nothing to do with drugs. I know that.

“Can you find out why she died?” she asks. “Nobody has investigated it here.”

?Why Did Your Police Kill My Granny Mr. Thaksin??


Thailand's war on drugs took it's second innocent victim today, a 16-month-old child; the first a 9-year-old boy. The infant was killed as she slept in her mother's arms. A gunman is alledged to have shot at the mother and killed the baby along with the mother.

Thailand: Child Deaths Pay for War Against Drugs

Bringing in a child who was not even born at the time of events as a witness smells like exploitation. I am very much opposed to child labour.

[QUOTE=StrontiumDog;2062570]

Originally Posted by Scaramanga

SD you are an arsehole with a myopic yellowish view of Thailand.

What you all forget if you where living in the land of smiles at the time is that an independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders.

You have gone far above SD's head here. He really does not know much past the walls of his condo.

[quote=DroversDog;2062580]

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Scaramanga

SD you are an arsehole with a myopic yellowish view of Thailand.

What you all forget if you where living in the land of smiles at the time is that an independent committee probing drug-related killings during the first Thaksin Shinawatra government has found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders.

You have gone far above SD's head here. He really does not know much past the walls of his condo.

And this from the man who believed a sign was photo-shopped onto a boat....

As regards the above point made by Scaramanga, it is actually his complete naivety that is the thing that really stands out....do you really think the police would investigate the police here? And is there such a thing as an independent committee here? I don't recall one.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. Always.

Actually not.....

SD,

While you perhaps said something true, you unmade it.

"continual belief that I am somehow yellow, that just goes to prove how utterly ridiculous and stupid you are."

Everyone knows you are yellow. Can be proved by million posts by you. Now, should you develop a conscience, please do mail it to PO box off Sonthi Island where it will never be collected

Originally Posted by Scaramanga

However Baldrick you tend to forget Mark Abhisit claimed and still claims today that he was registered as a “Foreign Student” during his time in Oxford but his name is clearly written in the City of Oxford Electoral Register as a person eligible to vote.

Something a Foreign Student would not qualify for.

Actually a lot of foreign students do qualify to vote in british elections and when univserities proactively register eligible students, quite a few of these foreign students are very supprised when they get the polling card.

fundamentally the evidence that amsterdam has presented to back up his claim that mark was an 'active' british citizen is nothing of the kind. If he didn't take up the option of having a british passport and used his thai passport to travel, despite all of the visa crap that this would in tail, it would suggest that he saw himself as being as British as lord haw haw.

as with passports, possession of a passport does not mean you are a citizen of the issuing country. A state can issue a passport to a freign national and specify that national's country of origin as their nationality. I believe that such a passport would be of limited use as I understand most countries have immigration rules that they will only accept passports that are being used by citizens of the issuing country.

Originally Posted by hazz

possession of a passport does not mean you are a citizen of the issuing country

e.g. Thaksin has a Montenegro passport (and others no doubt)....

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

As regards the above point made by Scaramanga, it is actually his complete naivety that is the thing that really stands out....do you really think the police would investigate the police here? And is there such a thing as an independent committee here? I don't recall one.

And obviously you deliberately failed to notice any link or my previous references to "War on Drugs" when an independent committee led by attorney general Khanit na Nakhon (NOT the POLICE) was probing drug-related killings during Thaksin's government found no concrete evidence linking senior figures with the murders.

A junta appointed committee could not find any evidence against Thaksin, so how can you or anyone else?

The fact is SD you are an ignorant closest yellow shirt that just hates Thaksin, and the big difference between you and I is that I would not call Thaksin a murderer in the strict legal sense, but I have no hesitation in saying that he presided over a policy that allowed murder. A policy that was approved at the highest level here in Thailand and by the US government.

Originally Posted by hazz

as with passports, possession of a passport does not mean you are a citizen of the issuing country.

We are talking about a British Passport not a Nicaraguan or Panamanian passports that are given away willy-nilly to anyone who invests in their banks and country.

There is a big difference.

However my point has been and I still say it that Mark Abhisit lied about his Nationality and status.

He then admitted publicly for the first time that he holds dual citizenship in Thailand’s Parliament during a debate with the opposition. Something I have no trouble with but I found his lies and avoidance of the question unnecessary and foolish.

But the point is that amsterdam is making a claim that he has evidence that mark was aware of his citizenship and was an 'active citizen' whilst at university.

By amsterdam's own admission mark is on the electoral role, because the univserity supplied a list if eligible students to the local government, as many universities did and do for students living in their accommodation.

It is not uncommon for foreign students to be eligible to vote in the uk, recently we even had a pakistani national, without dual nationality, who could not speak english stand and win a seat in a local government election. The university staff themselves determine who should be on the list at admission based on the records in front of them. It was simply an automatic part of the admission process.

So on that basis, how does this evidence prove that mark knew he was a british citizen whilst at university, it simply shows that the university knew. It also perhaps demonstrates that amsterdam is.... well... a lawyer.

Holding a british passport, filling forms stating he was a british national would be evidence, but this is not.

Originally Posted by hazz

But the point is

the real point I think is that if these posters had the comprehension that they claim, then they would have understood exactly what amsterdam was detailing and would not have required anybody to explain it them.

^^ & ^


Bullshit.

Seems to me, and I have noticed many others have left this forum because it has has become to be a portliness discussion board

^ feel free to join them.

Originally Posted by Scaramanga

^^ & ^


Bullshit.

Seems to me, and I have noticed many others have left this forum because it has has become to be a portliness discussion board

It has become a poinless discussion thread because on the whole its full of people like yourself who are only interested cherry picking in what confirms what they want to believe rather than the reality of it.

Rather than screaming bulshit, why not discuss where you belive i am incorrect in my analysis of what mr amsterdam said.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

And is there such a thing as an independent committee here? I don't recall one.

You really are narrow minded. How many places in the world would you ever get an independent committee? You would be the last person to talk about independence as you lie about your allegiances.

Originally Posted by DroversDog

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The buck stops with the Prime Minister. Always.

Actually not.....

Yet, most refuse to understand the whys and wherefores.

Never reaching beyond the predictable surfaced politics.

Holding a british passport, filling forms stating he was a british national would be evidence, but this is not.

So when he fills out a form where birthplace is required do you think he put Thailand?
His initial denial was purely a political act. His further acts to cover it up was just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by hazz

But the point is that amsterdam is making a claim that he has evidence that mark was aware of his citizenship and was an 'active citizen' whilst at university.

You are confusing right of abode, commonwealth citizenship and British citizenship. Your Paki example is actually a commonwealth citizen and yes can vote and eithen stand for election in the house of commons. A person with only Thai citizenship can not be registered to vote.

Originally Posted by hazz

The university staff themselves determine who should be on the list at admission based on the records in front of them. It was simply an automatic part of the admission process.

So on that basis, how does this evidence prove that mark knew he was a british citizen whilst at university, it simply shows that the university knew. It also perhaps demonstrates that amsterdam is.... well... a lawyer.

So how did the Uni know? Did you read this before you questioned Amsterdams credentials?

The college deduces voter registration eligibility by the nationality put on the enrolment form by the student.

No, it is not automatic if he put down that he was Thai for his nationality.