Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists

**The Bold Rodney** · 26-11-2010, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The DSI-led investigation believes that the deaths were caused by government troops.

Could be right...so that's 4 autopsies concluded or do they have to do these 4 again to obtain the results the elite really want to hear?

Maybe the deaths due to high velocity ammunition was a clue?

Maybe film footage of the troups firing their assault rifles at the crowd was another clue?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The agency initially divided the causes of the 89 deaths into three groups.

1) Suicide. 2) Accidental Death. 3. Death by Misadventure.

This is such an important investigation of national concern and they publish this rubbish? I notice they were careful enough not to proceed the word committee by "independent"!

I think this illustrates exactly what's wrong in Thailand today and it's rotten to the core no matter which side you supposedly support!

**Panda** · 26-11-2010, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ I think you may have finally completely lost it LB.

You have taken on this struggle to such a personal degree and romanticised it, did you change nationality along the way too? And it appears that you've swallowed the Robert Amsterdam phrase book and are incapable of producing words of your own.

The re-framing of reality is complete it appears.

Bizarre!

Yes, you would think such thinking bizarre I'm sure.

Most people from western democracies would find it bizarre that the military could walk in with guns and tanks and seize political power every 4 or 5 years in a so called democracy.

Of course you, SD and Butters think thats all perfectly normal and acceptable.
Its a matter of opinion who's lost the plot there mate.

**DroversDog** · 26-11-2010, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Of course you, SD and Butters think thats all perfectly normal and acceptable.
Its a matter of opinion who's lost the plot there mate.

You forgot TH

**StrontiumDog** · 26-11-2010, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ I think you may have finally completely lost it LB.

You have taken on this struggle to such a personal degree and romanticised it, did you change nationality along the way too? And it appears that you've swallowed the Robert Amsterdam phrase book and are incapable of producing words of your own.

The re-framing of reality is complete it appears.

Bizarre!

Yes, you would think such thinking bizarre I'm sure.

Most people from western democracies would find it bizarre that the military could walk in with guns and tanks and seize political power every 4 or 5 years in a so called democracy.

Of course you, SD and Butters think thats all perfectly normal and acceptable.
Its a matter of opinion who's lost the plot there mate.

Ahhh, the other lost it case arrives....

Shock!

**Butterfly** · 26-11-2010, 07:56 PM

^ welcome to the alternate reality of mentally disconnect and socially impaired farangs SD

Panda and friends are so disconnected from reality, probably socially impaired and isolated among natives, that they can't no longer think logically.

Culture Shock maybe ?

**Bettyboo** · 26-11-2010, 08:05 PM

^ you may want to re-read what you write.

Claiming others are disconnected from reality is pretty funny stuff...

SD's word 'framing' or he said 're-framing' is a good one. It's a major problem here (the major problem?) that a certain group frame the dialog to suit their needs, and have been doing so for decades... I had some very interesting conversations today with senior folk on just this subject; they have PhD's in this area (from top universities; one was that bloody French place - Sorbonne!) and they fully support the facts that Panda and others were laying down. I was pleasantly surprised that these folk teach important subjects in important places at high levels... seems like there may be some hope after all.

**Butterfly** · 26-11-2010, 08:13 PM

^ everyone is entitled to their opinions. Some very intelligent academics and scholars are also Nazi supporters, others are die hard Communists and Stalinist. Imagine that.

your point again ? what was that ?

**Bettyboo** · 26-11-2010, 08:23 PM

^ do you like a Wimpy, Papillion?

**StrontiumDog** · 29-11-2010, 10:43 PM

Roger Arnold - Bangkok Street Protests

Roger's footage is a detailed diary of events in Bangkok during the final week of the anti-government protests in May 2010. Close, immediate and dramatic, we see the conflict from both the perspective of the protestors' and the Thai army.

Roger Arnold is a freelance photographer, cameraman and journalist currently based in Thailand. He has travelled and photographed in more than 50 countries and his work has appeared in print, TV and internet outlets around the world.

For more information on the awards visit our website: Home | The Rory Peck Trust and Facebook page: Rory Peck Awards | Facebook

**Rural Surin** · 29-11-2010, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ everyone is entitled to their opinions. Some very intelligent academics and scholars are also Nazi supporters, others are die hard Communists and Stalinist. Imagine that.

Some circles of scholarship might find the dogmatic position of entrench political identities and philosophies to be backward, less social.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 10:35 AM

No, it is not. His work is built on his reputation for getting the clients desired result. He is effectively a whore. Amsterdam is a special new breed of international 'super' lawyer who has represented an array of corporate and political clients. He needs to win his cases or the work dries up.....However, as I'm sure you are aware, there is no case and he isn't even in Thailand, so he is at liberty to say what the hell he wants, with no repercussions....and you guys just lap it up. Hilarious. Would you believe anyone else in such a position? He can say what he wants, with no responsibility, no one to challenge him, no consequences....it is the antithesis of all that is democratic (Oh and fair and reasonable, just, correct, responsible, equitable etc). But you guys lap it up....just how sad is that...

He's doing his job pretty well you might say....he has a lot of folks totally fooled, forgetting the source of the information they devour with such fevour.

Worth every penny...!

Btw, Surely you aren't defending lawyers?

Really?

It seems like the reality distortion field is strong today. Red shirts defending lawyers....what's next, mass murderers are just misunderstood? Politicians are honest? Up is down and down is up?

**Thaihome** · 03-12-2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Most of what Amesterdam writes can be dismissed because it is littered with fallacy agruments such as half truths, cheery picking, generalizations, bandwagon, repetition, error of fact, red herrings, emotive language, fallacy of origins and two wrongs make a right.

Thaihome, it would advance the argument considerably if you could reference those criticisms directly to Amsterdam's statements.

Why not start by listing the factual errors in the major document his firm has written, the White Paper called The Bangkok Massacres: A Call for Accountability
I have read it carefully and I haven't been able to identify any factually incorrect claims. Perhaps you can help me?

"For four years, the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right — the right to self-determination through genuine elections based on the will of the people."

This is the opening sentence of the Executive Summary of this “white paper” that you have read carefully and can find no “factually incorrect claims”. If you see nothing factually incorrect in that claim, there is very little reason to discuss anything further with you.

Nevertheless, I will cite two examples from just the first page of 77 page document showing the fallacy arguments I mentioned.

This claim of lack of a "right to self-determination through genuine elections based on the will of the people" is classic fallacy argument of Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam), if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.

The fact is an election was held in December 2007. This election was monitored and reported on by The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL). The conclusion of that report is that the elections were far from perfect but does include the line:
“The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) commends the Election Commission on holding Thailand’s elections, the results of which generally reflect the will of the people. “

The fact is that the Members of Parliament elected in December 2007 are still sitting in Parliament. Any member that was unseated due to any court decision has been replaced in a by-election. The majority of those elected members voted for Abhisit to be Prime Minister in December 2008.

The fact is the people of the districts whose MP’s joined the coalition that elected Abhisit as PM have not participated in the UDD protests and there has been no move by the voters in those districts to remove their MP’s because the did join the coalition. There is ample evidence these voters are satisfied with their representation and will re-elect these same MP’s again in the next general election.

So, wouldn’t a factually correct version of that sentence be:

In past 4 years Thailand has had one general election and several by-elections which according to at least one International Election Monitoring organization is acknowledged to represent the will of the people.

First sentence of the second paragraph:

When the successor to Thai Rak Thai managed to win the next national election in late 2007, an ad hoc court consisting of judges hand-picked by the coup-makers dissolved that party as well, allowing Abhisit Vejjajiva’s rise to the Prime Minister’s office.

A classic example of the Argument by Selective Observation, pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of data that may contradict that position.

A few facts that were not included in this sentence which contradicts the circumstance it attempts to portray.

The successor to the TRT did not win the election. They won the most seats in Parliament but did not win enough to control a majority. The formed a coalition with a number of smaller parties to control Parliment.

When the court ruled to dissolve the PTP, based on overwhelming evidence of vote buying (a case highlighted by ANFREL in the report a sign of successful enforcement) all the non-executive Members of Parliament were allowed to join other parties without losing their seats. Few actual MP's were unseated.

Most of the MP's joined the PPP, but several factions instead joined the BJT and along with the Chart Thai factions joined the Democrats in a coalition that elected Abhisit PM.

Subsequently, by-elections were held to replace the unseated MP’s and the members of the coalition won 21 of the 29 seats, thereby increasing the majority in Parliament.

So wouldn’t a sentence[s] containing all the data be along the lines of:

The successor to Thai Rak Thai, after failing to win control of Parliament in the next national election in late 2007, formed a coalition. Later, based on overwhelming evidence of the Deputy Party leaders attempt to bribe local government officials, an ad hoc court, consisting of judges hand-picked by the coup-makers, dissolved that party but allowed most MP’s to keep their seats. In the resulting political scramble a number of dissatisfied factions joined the Democrat Party in electing Abhisit Vejjajiva’s to the Prime Minister’s office. Subsequent by-elections to replace the party executive members of the successor party have resulted in increasing the majority of the Democrat led coalition.

So, there you have a two examples, without going any further then the first page.

TH

**Scaramanga** · 03-12-2010, 10:42 AM

To make things worse the Thai embassy in Rome sent Fabio Polenghi's sister an invitation to celebrate HM's birthday.

**Butterfly** · 03-12-2010, 10:49 AM

nice argument TH, but again you are arguing with uneducated fools, no doubt explaining their association with a certain crowd

so a bit pointless at the end

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 10:50 AM

^^ Indeed Scara, I found that very very odd.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 11:04 AM

Nice reply TH....love this line...and it is well chosen to reinforce my above argument too....

"For four years, the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right — the right to self-determination through genuine elections based on the will of the people."

I'd love to know what all those by-elections next week are....

The thing is, when the elections are held next year, which even PT seems to think they will be (as demonstrated by the uptick in activity), will someone come along and call Amsterdam on this bullshit?

No

And will the myopic red shirt crowd fess up and admit to being wrong....

No

And will any lessons be learnt by the red shirts...?

No

And will paranoid delusions of a persecutory nature be continued to be vomited forth by the same red shirt fans...?

Yes.

I still recall have a heated debate here with a few red shirts about the phantom deaths of the Songkran riots in 2009. Oh how they believed Jatuporn's bullshit (for which he is in court at the moment!!). But despite my being an eye-witness to events....they still believed Jatuporn. There is no proof of any deaths at that time...nor has any ever been forthcoming, but still I'm sure some here still believe it.

As it was with that, so it will be with this.

I would say it is fair and reasonable to be mindful of those who are without a shred of integrity....

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 11:40 AM

No, just calling it as it is....

But please feel free to attack the poster and not address the post....

Oh look, you just did.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 12:14 PM

"If you're not with us, you must be against us"

Ahhh, the profound thinking of those with bias....

**DroversDog** · 03-12-2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

"If you're not with us, you must be against us"

Ahhh, the profound thinking of those with bias....

I could not care where you stand. The one thing that you are not is unbiased, though you claim you are.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 12:44 PM

Maybe, just maybe....I might claim I'm unbiased....because <drumroll>......I am!!!!!

yes, I know, that goes against your views and doesn't fit with your paradigm of how things should be.

BUT....

Maybe, just maybe....you and others who are very much biased, misperceive my intentions/actions/words because of your bias...you see it as an attack...but it isn't.

Nah, how could I possibly know what I'm doing...? I must be mistaken.

Instead, claiming I'm unbiased must be some huge conspiracy or trying to lull you guys into some weird false sense of security.

Really...you and others have claimed I'm biased, even calling me a PAD supporter at times....

Now, think on this for a bit....

Why would I claim to be unbiased...? What would be my reasoning? My motivation?

Why would I do such a bizarre (to you and a few others) thing....

Why would I secretly be biased but claim to be unbiased...?

You have to admit it would be a pretty weird thing to do....

So, come on, you (or someone) please supply me with a credible reason as to why I would say I am unbiased, when in fact you seem to think I'm not...

I simply can't wait.......

Oh and as an aside, seeing as none of you have met me or know who I am, how is it that you think know me sooooooooo well, but I apparently don't know my own mind or my own thinking....

You have to admit...it would be a little odd....

Looking forward to the insights....baited breath and all that...

**DroversDog** · 03-12-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Maybe, just maybe....I might claim I'm unbiased....because <drumroll>......I am!!!!!

No you are in denial.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

yes, I know, that goes against your views and doesn't fit with your paradigm of how things should be.

Sorry, but your statements do show obvious bias. Again I really don't give a toss what side you are on. I treat you with equal contempt.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

BUT....

Maybe, just maybe....you and others who are very much biased, misperceive my intentions/actions/words because of your bias...you see it as an attack...but it isn't.

Sorry I don't see it as an attack. I respect far more of what Butterfly and TH has to say as they don't pretend. I don't see what they say as an attack.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Nah, how could I possibly know what I'm doing...? I must be mistaken.

Ah, do I have to bow to you self perceived superior intellect.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Instead, claiming I'm unbiased must be some huge conspiracy or trying to lull you guys into some weird false sense of security.

Really...you and others have claimed I'm biased, even calling me a PAD supporter at times....

No you may not think you are biased, but what you write contradicts your thinking on bias.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

You have to admit it would be a pretty weird thing to do....

The world is full of weirdo's.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 01:14 PM

ROTFL

I think my point is proven.....

I'm in denial....

Denial of what???????????

Is there a group I can attend....a bit like AA....I can stand up and say "I'm a forum poster and I'm in denial of my bias".

I obviously need the help....

Really, think about what you are writing, it is sooooooo bizarre!

Why would I be in denial of my postings? Why??????????

For what possible reason?

Come on...humour me....

**DroversDog** · 03-12-2010, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Thaihome

"For four years, the people of Thailand have been the victims of a systematic and unrelenting assault on their most fundamental right — the right to self-determination through genuine elections based on the will of the people."

This is Thai History. Nothing new here. The only part incorrect is the number of years. I would not limit it to 4. When the army orders its soldiers to not vote for a particular party then it is hardly could be called a fair election.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 01:35 PM

^^ It happens in other 'democracies' too......

The Sun newspaper ( a Murdoch owned paper) famously credits itself with 'advising' its readership on who to vote for...they claim to have been a massive influence in the past, on who was elected in the UK. English politicians have also courted them for that very reason.

The various interested parties (read; religious groups) in the US elections also 'advise' (but it is in effect an order) their flock on who they should vote for.....Murdoch and his financial support of the republican party is also a well known example of how things work....he uses the media there too, to suggest, cajole, or tell others on how to behave.

People are sheep.

Ah, democracy...it is lovely isn't it...

Here it is blatant. In the west it is sophisticated. The result is the same.

**StrontiumDog** · 03-12-2010, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

SD, why do you even bother talking to Red nutters who only interact with slagdogs and petty criminals

and vote BNP of course, what else

I'm interested in their mindset. I'm curious. I also like to dispel a few myths a long the way

.

Just how do such people arrive at the conclusions they do?

It is an ongoing piece of research.

Thus far the results are inconclusive, as it appears they are unaware of why they think the way they do....( I ask for credible rationalisations, I get name calling...).

The research continues.

Thread: Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions