Thread: Abhisit Vejjajiva has been invited to deliver a speech on good governance

Royal Thai Army's prestige went down the drain

heres a good read about the military, from 1932 to the present

Calgary some of these posters are the perfect example of not seeing what is directly in front of them and avoiding the real issues of what goes on in Thailand and the rest of the world by repressive forces, unfortunately the bigger picture is somewhat blurred by there ignorance. its a shame, but hey were not all the same.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Cthulhu you remind me of a guy on forums not so long ago that would provoke persons on the forums then report them to the Thai authorities, some of your so called discussions have gone a little near the knuckle.

That is why I asked who this guy was, before deciding to "ignore' him from this forumn.

When I saw him reiterating that most egregious and most cynical of all PADitisms, that Red Shirts shot each other at R'song, is when I took notice of this guy.

The disrespect this shows for both the dead and the good people struggling against elitist tyranny is beyond the pale.

Accordingly, I have put him on ignore, as such extremist Amart villification of my friends, the Red Shirts, is something no amount of discourse can ameliorate.

Your suspicion of motives indicated in your quote above, dovetails with what caused me to eliminate him from my participation on this forumn.

I notice he went overboard attacking me after that, although the 'ignore' feature prevented me from reading any of it.

I also noticed Bobcock sympathising with him, and joining him. This reminded me of the MO over on another Board whereby internal operatives will pile on anyone who exposes their agenda, in an effort to paint that individual not only as having aberational thinking but also personal characteristics.

Anyway, I find my enjoyment on this discussion Board enhanced when I exercise some selectivity.

I assume Yasojack in the rural NE as well, but then again he's already established to accepting tea monies himself, while complaining about the corrupt Abhisit (who has no record of bribery or corruption).

Yasojak is an illiterate idiot, even Calgary is better off without this pompous fool.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Yasojak is an illiterate idiot, even Calgary is better off without this pompous fool.

Wow, you are setting the bar pretty low.

I do notice a alarming trend of similarities amongst all these Farang RedShirt supporters - notably a shaky relationship with the truth, an alarming tendency towards verbal hostility and violence, as well as being challenged in social skills.

I've made the comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy nutcases before (or, really, any conspiracy nutcases), and it would appear that there is something there, in terms of these folks all seemingly having the same social and emotional disorders. The shoe fits.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

The independent (as decided by these two idiots) journalists I saw speak were:

Marc Westoff
Nirmal Ghosh
Brad Cox
Masaru Goto
Olivier Sarbil
Todd Ruiz

I cannot confirm the spellings.

The spellings are correct - thank you!

Olivier Sarbil & Todd Ruiz:

Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news and business from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

...correspondents are inside a tent with the infamous paramilitaries, dubbed ''men in black'' by the media, as they prepared for war.

They let us inside their secret world on one condition: if we took any pictures, they would kill us.

These were not the regular black-attired security guards employed by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, or UDD, anti-government protest group who generally didn't carry guns. These were the secretive and heavily armed agent provocateurs whose connections, by their own admission, run to the top of the UDD, also known as the red shirts.

Absent Khattiya's leadership, discipline inside the red fortress was on the decline. Alcohol flowed freely, fueling tempers and fist-fights. Earlier in the day a Ronin fighter fired an Israeli-made TAR-21 assault rifle, seized from the army in April, at an army helicopter overhead.

''Not Terrorists Not Violent; Only Peaceful and Democracy,'' read a banner hanging outside the barrier of jumbled tires. Inside, it was an open secret who the gunmen were; no less secret were the perimeter bombs, connected by dirty gray cables

Excellent article on the nature of the "Black Shirt" heavily armed agent provocateurs that Seh Daeng trained. Worth reading.

More:

Steph's Blog: BANGKOK - DAY 10

Among the panel members were two freelancers, journalist Kenneth Todd Ruiz and Olivier Sarbil, a photojournalist. It was believed that they were the only ones who were in the tent with the infamous para-militaries, dubbed ''men in black'' by the media, as they prepared for war. The group allowed them inside their secret world with one condition: if they took any pictures, they would be killed.

Masaru Goto - Seh Daeng shot pictures & writing:

http://www.newssafety.org/news.php?n...d-media-safety

Both sides used automatic weapons. The Red Shirts used M 79 grenade launchers and killed many, wounding several journalists, during their street battles with the military.

The Thai army deployed snipers in the streets to shoot the armed protesters, but many reports say that they shot unarmed people.

A member of The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)
shoots at soldiers during a clash with government forces.

http://www.reportageonline.com/2010/...iland-divided/

Afterwards, a Thai television reporter asked me if I thought Thailand had just been immersed in civil war.

I replied: “I’ve seen demonstrators throw grenades and Molotov cocktails, indiscriminately killing civilians. I’ve seen unarmed civilians shot down by military snipers, shot down like animals while crossing the road. Yes, I think this was civil war.”

OnAsia Images (Photography from Asia)

It appears there is plenty of evidence and support, from independent, non-affiliated journalists, that RedShirt protesters engaged in, and contributed to the killing of civilians.'

Undoubtedly, this evidence and testimony will be selectively ignored by Yasojack, Tomtam, Calgary, et al....

FCCT account:

Men in Black! « Bangkok in Development

The first hour we were watching video footage by two BBC correspondences Alastair Leithead and Rachel Harvey, German freelance journalist and blogger Florian Witulski (vaitor), Brad Cox, Andrew Buncombe, Marc Westhoff, and pictures by Masuru Goto.

This just to confirm the legitimacy of the sources that BobCock provided.

Then the panel started and was mostly concerned with the Men in Black, Black Shirts etc.

Todd Ruiz (he spoke also for Olivier Sarbil) started and said that he personally saw 12 armed militia in the red camp and heard only about 30 more in total. He refused the numbers of 500 which some reporters gave out such as BBC or Dan Rivers.

The camp mostly had families with grandmothers, children etc.

He also stated that most of the MIBs were actual members from the military and they are back in their barracks now.

Marc Westhoff had another story about the MIBs: He interviewed a red shirt who was saved by Men in Black from a dangerous spot with firing. He said these men had M79 grenade launchers and other sophisticated weaponry you dont even get on the black market. They were definitely not from the Se Daeng Borderguard but highly trained speacial forces.

Originally Posted by tomta

Your speculation seems to be that the "men in black" did the sniping and killing of those who they were supposedly allied with in order to ensure the propaganda victory.

Tom, I have only discussed the fighting between the 'men in black' and the thai army. Clealy these people did exist as ghosts and figments of the imagination don't toss grandees into the operational command tents and they don't engage in firefights with the thai army. If you believe that I was suggesting that the men in black were deliberately shooting the red shirts, then really you need stop reading what you would like people to have written and start reading what they have. For the record I don't believe that either side of the firefights engaged in deliberate targeted civilians for killings sake, given the layout if the democracy monument and the numbers of people there there would have been far more deaths if this had been the case. I do believe that both sides participated in a firefight with little regard for the impact of this on the unarmed civilians around them and the people resoncible for this owe us all an explanation.

Originally Posted by tomta

The Democrats gained in the sense that they continued in government and were able to crush what could possibly have grown into a wider insurrection.

Agreed, and in 2009 they were exceptionally successful. Hence the motivation on their part to repeat this again in 2010 and the strong motivation on the part of thaksin, the UDD and allied groups to ensure that this did not happen again

Originally Posted by tomta

Your speculation assumes that the hypothesized renegade army group and their leaders were so supremely confident that they could cause all the havoc, kill those supposedly on their side,

Actually no I haven't said this

Originally Posted by tomta

]get out without being shot or seen in a situation where media were all over the place, and not have any of their men killed or captured thus completely winning the propaganda battle.

Not really much a risk here, as with the armed elements of the UUD protest proper; their presence would be denied, any caught would be disavowed and any hard evidence would be described as a fit up.

All of the actors involved in the april 10th clashes did so for two out comes. the dispersant of the protest or its continuation; propaganda was very secondary to this objective.

Without the presence of the 'men in black' it is highly likely that the protest would have been dispersed and there would have been a repeat of 2009. Their presence prevented this and allowed the protests to continue, but at a cost in lives on the day and initiating the chain of events leading to may.

I cannot see any reason for the 'men in black' to be there at the behest of the dems, the army command or the special people. The only people who benefited were those who's interests laid with the continuation of the protest. That would be thaksin, his patronage network and the UDD.

If you can come up with a coherent, logical explanation why anyone else would want the 'men in black' to be there shooting up the army and killing those in the command control tent…. please tell us.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news and business from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

Quoting Asia Times, PAD, brings up memories... Dont be a silly boy.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Tom

Don't try to play that game with me there's a good chap.

At no time have I commented on the murders at the temple.

Not saying you did old boy. My retort was a broad overview of this thread (so get over yerself..). But you didn't answer the question. A good kicking was the least that prick received, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Tom

Don't try to play that game with me there's a good chap.

At no time have I commented on the murders at the temple.

Not saying you did old boy. My retort was a broad overview of this thread (so get over yerself..). But you didn't answer the question. A good kicking was the least that prick received, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree that Supreme Aerobics Commander Seh Daeng deserved exactly why he received.

Hey I'm Tom, you're Tom Boy.

???

A piece of advice - less booze when posting.

Okay Daffy.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

It appears there is plenty of evidence and support, from independent, non-affiliated journalists, that RedShirt protesters engaged in, and contributed to the killing of civilians.' Undoubtedly, this evidence and testimony will be selectively ignored by Yasojack, Tomtam, Calgary, et al....

No, Chthulu, apparently you do not read anything I write. You tell me I will deny this or that as if you are telepathic. Obviously you are not. There is credible but inconclusive evidence - no bodies, no prisoners - that elements associated with the Redshirts and also possibly associated with the Army attacked and fought against the army. I have seen the evidence you gave in this post and I saw it two years ago.It's interesting but still mixed and inconclusive. But useful in building up a bigger picture of the truth.

But for me there is also the fact that the army denies killing or wounding anyone. This is clear and obvious, repetitively stated by the army and a point at whioch the law can begin to assert itself (you might say like many do that law in Thailand is hopelessly corrupt and that you might as well forget about it). But I don't agree. You may think this is a strawman. I think that the army as an organ of the state (not criminals as the "men in black" would be) have to adhere to higher standards than criminals. And they must put themselves up for judgement by those standards, not hide like criminals as they now do.We expect criminals to hide and lie. We do not expect state officials to do this (as a matter of theory not necessarily practice). The army must reveal what happened . In every detail. Why they did things, what went wrong and right with their operational plans, who they killed or injured, how these events happened, what their operational plans were, who devised these plans, who gave them their instructions, what was their chain of command, what went wrong and what went right. Until they do that, they are a fundamentally criminal organization which is outside the law.If you have seen any detailed explanation by the army of what happend in April/May 2010 I would love to see it.They haven't done this. Sabang rightly keeps hammering this point -it is utterly and absolutely clear that an army unit shot people who were in a declared safe area at the Wat. Why does the army protect these rogue soldiers (if indeed they are rogues and did this on their own initiative). If the army continues to protect those of their members who committed crimes, they are criminal accomplices. By not seeking to establish the truth of what happened, by denying access to the truth, the general officers of the army are not not acting as public servants; they are acting as criminals.

Just by the way, I support the redshirt cause and no doubt this may bias me as your convictions and political ideas may bias you. I think they were right to protest. I think the government they voted for had been stolen from them several times. I hope that they realize that it is better to have faith in themselves than in charismatic but crooked leaders like Thaksin. I think many of them do.But that does not mean that I am not interested in finding out the truth about what happened in those fast disappearing days.Your telepathic pwoers are not as good as you think they are/

Oh, and the thread was about Abhisit's speech about good governance. The Abhisit government's tolerance of the army's refusal to give a full account of what happened constitutes bad governance. The Abhisit government's constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation committee to find out what happened and why and to heal the rifts in society was a good and necessary idea. But it was undertaken cynically by rendering it pointless and powerless by not giving it powers to subpoenae witnesses . And so the army - the obvious witnesses just ignore the requests from this committee. Bad governance.

And bad governance continues unabated for probably different reasons under the presentgovernment. Although, there is one thing which makes it possible that they could achieve good governance - they were elected rather than installed.

Originally Posted by longway

I dont see anyone here denying the army killed most of the people who died ( you misunderstand the poster you quoted),

If I did misunderstand the post I was quoting, let me rectify that. I do not think that anyone here on this forum believes that the army was not responsible for at least some of the deaths and injuries. My main point is that against all logic and evidence the army continues to deny this. Because they are clearly lying in this instance, I feel more suspicious and less inclined to believe other things they say. The army is a major witness to what happened and they are not a credible witness. But thye are an important and influential witness that controls much of the information about these events.

Don't feed the Daffy Duck troll Tomta

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Yes, I agree that Supreme Aerobics Commander Seh Daeng deserved exactly why he received. __________________

You approve of assassination? You approve of murder?

Originally Posted by longway

Nice to see a reasoned rebuttal for once.

Thank you, Longway.

Good post tomta, a bit of intelligent thinking cant hurt anyone. Yes it can hurt and you are right on the spot....

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

It appears there is plenty of evidence and support, from independent, non-affiliated journalists, that RedShirt protesters engaged in, and contributed to the killing of civilians.' Undoubtedly, this evidence and testimony will be selectively ignored by Yasojack, Tomtam, Calgary, et al....

No, Chthulu, apparently you do not read anything I write. You tell me I will deny this or that as if you are telepathic. Obviously you are not. There is credible but inconclusive evidence - no bodies, no prisoners - that elements associated with the Redshirts and also possibly associated with the Army attacked and fought against the army. I have seen the evidence you gave in this post and I saw it two years ago.It's interesting but still mixed and inconclusive. But useful in building up a bigger picture of the truth.

But for me there is also the fact that the army denies killing or wounding anyone. This is clear and obvious, repetitively stated by the army and a point at whioch the law can begin to assert itself (you might say like many do that law in Thailand is hopelessly corrupt and that you might as well forget about it). But I don't agree. You may think this is a strawman. I think that the army as an organ of the state (not criminals as the "men in black" would be) have to adhere to higher standards than criminals. And they must put themselves up for judgement by those standards, not hide like criminals as they now do.We expect criminals to hide and lie. We do not expect state officials to do this (as a matter of theory not necessarily practice). The army must reveal what happened . In every detail. Why they did things, what went wrong and right with their operational plans, who they killed or injured, how these events happened, what their operational plans were, who devised these plans, who gave them their instructions, what was their chain of command, what went wrong and what went right. Until they do that, they are a fundamentally criminal organization which is outside the law.If you have seen any detailed explanation by the army of what happend in April/May 2010 I would love to see it.They haven't done this. Sabang rightly keeps hammering this point -it is utterly and absolutely clear that an army unit shot people who were in a declared safe area at the Wat. Why does the army protect these rogue soldiers (if indeed they are rogues and did this on their own initiative). If the army continues to protect those of their members who committed crimes, they are criminal accomplices. By not seeking to establish the truth of what happened, by denying access to the truth, the general officers of the army are not not acting as public servants; they are acting as criminals.

Just by the way, I support the redshirt cause and no doubt this may bias me as your convictions and political ideas may bias you. I think they were right to protest. I think the government they voted for had been stolen from them several times. I hope that they realize that it is better to have faith in themselves than in charismatic but crooked leaders like Thaksin. I think many of them do.But that does not mean that I am not interested in finding out the truth about what happened in those fast disappearing days.Your telepathic pwoers are not as good as you think they are/

Oh, and the thread was about Abhisit's speech about good governance. The Abhisit government's tolerance of the army's refusal to give a full account of what happened constitutes bad governance. The Abhisit government's constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation committee to find out what happened and why and to heal the rifts in society was a good and necessary idea. But it was undertaken cynically by rendering it pointless and powerless by not giving it powers to subpoenae witnesses . And so the army - the obvious witnesses just ignore the requests from this committee. Bad governance.

And bad governance continues unabated for probably different reasons under the presentgovernment. Although, there is one thing which makes it possible that they could achieve good governance - they were elected rather than installed.

I would agree with much of what you have said, apart from the first paragraph. Someone attacked the thai army, started a firefight during which someone killed and incapacitated most of the officers in charge of the operation. That combined with the film footage is very good evidence of the existence of the mysterious 'men in black'. I suppose you could suggest the the thai officers killed and injured were perhaps part of a suicide pack, or perhaps playing a game of pass the grenade.

The evidence for the existence of the men in black is every bit as good as the evidence that some soldiers spent several hours shooting up a temple and the people hiding in it in may.

Originally Posted by hazz

Tom, I have only discussed the fighting between the 'men in black' and the thai army. Clealy these people did exist as ghosts and figments of the imagination don't toss grandees into the operational command tents and they don't engage in firefights with the thai army. If you believe that I was suggesting that the men in black were deliberately shooting the red shirts, then really you need stop reading what you would like people to have written and start reading what they have. For the record I don't believe that either side of the firefights engaged in deliberate targeted civilians for killings sake, given the layout if the democracy monument and the numbers of people there there would have been far more deaths if this had been the case. I do believe that both sides participated in a firefight with little regard for the impact of this on the unarmed civilians around them and the people resoncible for this owe us all an explanation.

OK, I accept that, Hazz. But this has been an idea that has been thrown around for a long time by many parties. I'm sorry that I mistakely attributed it to you.

Originally Posted by hazz

Agreed, and in 2009 they were exceptionally successful. Hence the motivation on their part to repeat this again in 2010 and the strong motivation on the part of thaksin, the UDD and allied groups to ensure that this did not happen again

Possible hazz, but I have to agree that this is pure (but legitimate) speculation. Unless you are in a particularly privileged position where you would know exactly what these people's motivations were. The conditions in 2010 were different than 2009. Things had changed and hotted up and on the basis of this one could speculate differently. but they're still only speculations. Nothing wrong with that though, most of us have incomplete evidence on all of these events and to come up with a plausible story that might approach the truth we have to speculate. Me, as much as you.I'm not claiming to be in any sole possession of the truth.