What Do You Want Pm Abhisit To Do Now?

[Publicus]

Stopping Thailand's endless battle of the yellow and red shirts

Thursday, April 15, 2010

THE LATEST political crisis in Thailand is a particularly tragic instance of political blowback. Three times in the past four years, Thais opposed to the populist movement of Thaksin Shinawatra precipitated the downfall of democratically elected governments by creating chaos in the streets of Bangkok. Now the current government, backed by that same alliance of the middle class, business and traditional elites, has itself been cornered by the same tactics.

Last Saturday, the Thai army, which refused to act against the anti-Thaksin "yellow shirts" even when they shut down Bangkok's international airport, tried to disperse the pro-Thaksin "red shirts" from their month-old street camps. The result was the worst political violence in two decades, with 23 protesters and soldiers killed -- and a retreat by the security forces. That leaves the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with few options other than what he and his coalition should have embraced in the first place: free elections.

Neither side in Thailand's class-based political conflict is a paragon of democracy. Mr. Thaksin, who now lives in exile, was a bad prime minister from 2001 to 2006. He violated press freedoms and allowed massive violations of human rights by security forces. The root of Thailand's years of conflict, however, is the unwillingness of the old establishment to accept that Mr. Thaksin has the support of the country's majority. After a military coup removed the populist leader in 2006, his supporters easily won the election that was eventually held in December 2007. After two more prime ministers were forced from office by demonstrations and questionable court rulings in late 2008, Mr. Abhisit brought the anti-Thaksin forces to power without calling a new election. He has resisted holding one since, for the obvious reason that Mr. Thaksin's supporters probably would win once again.

Mr. Abhisit is now suggesting that he could call an election at the end of this year. That stall is dangerous and unlikely to work. The army commander suggested Monday that it might be necessary to meet the protesters' demand that the parliament be dissolved and a new election called immediately. Meanwhile, Mr. Abhisit's party is under threat of being forced from office by a court order -- just like the past two pro-Thaksin prime ministers.

What ought to be clear by now is that anti-democratic tactics, from military intervention to street barricades to convenient court edicts, will not end Thailand's turmoil. The only solution is for both sides to accept that elections should decide who governs Thailand -- and that both winners and losers should respect basic political and civil rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

good article - good bedtime reading material for the yellow posters who feel it 'may all be over soon'

Could/would you kindly do me the service of naming three or four "yellow posters" so I might better be able to keep up with the postings here? Thx. (No need to be concerned about my request as I'm certain my name isn't on your list .)

[Brocher]

Could/would you kindly do me the service of naming three or four "yellow posters" so I might better be able to keep up with the postings here? Thx. (No need to be concerned about my request as I'm certain my name isn't on your list .)

I suggest you don't waste your time replying to the person who posts as ChiangMaiFun - he obviously worships at the shrine of his god Thaksin and is a true and fervent believer so logic, reason and facts will have absolutely no effect on him. He reminds me of the guy from Jehovah's witnesses who used to visit me in the UK to explain his 'religion' - being of an inquiring mind I was curious. My mother was worried sick that I was being converted. No chance, but I do like to hear the other person's point of view before making my mind up about anything. THAT GUY HAS A TOTALLY CLOSED MIND!!!

[LaoPo]

Mr Shawn Crispin is on the payroll of the Hong Kong registered, but having editorial-offices-based in Bangkok also, Asia Times (online) Ltd which shares are held by a British Virgin Islands' company of which the shareholder(s) is/are mysterious and not disclosed.....

But, it is no secret that AT Online was built on the debris of Sondhi Limthongkul's (yes, the one of PAD) printed edition of AT (part of Manager Media Group) which went under after the 1997 crisis, losing enormous amounts of money and Sondhi ended up with heavy and huge debts, which debts in fact, were the start of the end of the mutual very-close friendship between Thaksin and Sondhi.

In fact, the M group of Sondhi had a stunning debt of Baht 20 Billion; Manager Media had Baht 4.7 Billion in debts.

Love and Hate are close....

Sondhi declared himself bankrupt for three years and didn't pay back his debts...

Although denied, many believe that AT Online (together with sister publications, also Chinese targeted) is still owned and controlled by PAD's Sondi Limthongkul (and/or family).

Therefore, Mr Shawn Crispin's articles have to be taken with a grain of salt...YELLOW biased salt, and the so called "facts" written by him are, at least, "painted" a little and certainly anti-red and pro-yellow and PRO Abhisit's (DEMOCRATS) government.*

But, he's a sharp journalist, writing in a style where he is sometimes quoting sources (if he wants) but many times quoting "anonymous" sources WITHOUT mentioning names or sources.

* "The Manager Group furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic crisis during its time in office from late 1997 to 2000."

Source: The Nation (nice reading stuff)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov29.php

&

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov30.php

To be or not to be– that is the question: I'm sure Khun Abhisit has heard those famous words more than once during his education in England...and so did Mr. Crispin and Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul....

it's all in the game................the game of politics and interests and (biased) people behind media sources. It's funny to watch the ever changing interests of those same Media sources and the KEY Players as well....

LaoPo

[Publicus]

Mr Shawn Crispin is on the payroll of the Hong Kong registered, but having editorial-offices-based in Bangkok also, Asia Times (online) Ltd which shares are held by a British Virgin Islands' company of which the shareholder(s) is/are mysterious and not disclosed.....

But, it is no secret that AT Online was built on the debris of Sondhi Limthongkul's (yes, the one of PAD) printed edition of AT (part of Manager Media Group) which went under after the 1997 crisis, losing enormous amounts of money and Sondhi ended up with heavy and huge debts, which debts in fact, were the start of the end of the mutual very-close friendship between Thaksin and Sondhi.

In fact, the M group of Sondhi had a stunning debt of Baht 20 Billion; Manager Media had Baht 4.7 Billion in debts.

Love and Hate are close....

Sondhi declared himself bankrupt for three years and didn't pay back his debts...

Although denied, many believe that AT Online (together with sister publications, also Chinese targeted) is still owned and controlled by PAD's Sondi Limthongkul (and/or family).

Therefore, Mr Shawn Crispin's articles have to be taken with a grain of salt...YELLOW biased salt, and the so called "facts" written by him are, at least, "painted" a little and certainly anti-red and pro-yellow and PRO Abhisit's (DEMOCRATS) government.*

But, he's a sharp journalist, writing in a style where he is sometimes quoting sources (if he wants) but many times quoting "anonymous" sources WITHOUT mentioning names or sources.

* "The Manager Group furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic crisis during its time in office from late 1997 to 2000."

Source: The Nation (nice reading stuff)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov29.php

&

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov30.php

To be or not to be– that is the question: I'm sure Khun Abhisit has heard those famous words more than once during his education in England...and so did Mr. Crispin and Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul....

it's all in the game................the game of politics and interests and (biased) people behind media sources. It's funny to watch the ever changing interests of those same Media sources and the KEY Players as well....

LaoPo

Just some observations, LaoPo:

1) Many of us are 'on the payroll of' without being suspected of anything, without being shady or suspicious characters or guilty of anything.

2) Many corporations in many countries, to include especially those with advanced economies, are privately held so have shareholders or even directors who are unidentified to the public and to competitors, but not to government regulators.

3) It is no secret that is terminology which would not be used in genuine and open discourse because it clearly and almost always implies something is awry when it well may not be so.

4) Although denied many believe that sounds like a rerun of McCarthyism....it is vague, imprecise, suggestive......sort of like, "Are you still beating your wife?"

5) It's been long established policy and everyday practice in English speaking cultures for mass media news organizations print, broadcast and online to rely on sources who can provide information of value in return for anonymity of both name and title in an organization whether public, private or in between. The policy and practice is recognized by the courts in common/case civil law and is necessary a pillar of English language journalism. You have stated elsewhere and in the past that your native language is other than English so you can be allowed something of a pass on this one but, given items 1-4 not a full and free pass. (Your English BTW is awfully good.)

Yours is a post of innuendo and suggestive vagueries which I welcome because it provides the occasion to read you again (always such a delight to me) and to point out a pattern of pedestrian flaws of thinking and language that are cliched.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Publicus

[LaoPo]

Mr Shawn Crispin is on the payroll of the Hong Kong registered, but having editorial-offices-based in Bangkok also, Asia Times (online) Ltd which shares are held by a British Virgin Islands' company of which the shareholder(s) is/are mysterious and not disclosed.....

But, it is no secret that AT Online was built on the debris of Sondhi Limthongkul's (yes, the one of PAD) printed edition of AT (part of Manager Media Group) which went under after the 1997 crisis, losing enormous amounts of money and Sondhi ended up with heavy and huge debts, which debts in fact, were the start of the end of the mutual very-close friendship between Thaksin and Sondhi.

In fact, the M group of Sondhi had a stunning debt of Baht 20 Billion; Manager Media had Baht 4.7 Billion in debts.

Love and Hate are close....

Sondhi declared himself bankrupt for three years and didn't pay back his debts...

Although denied, many believe that AT Online (together with sister publications, also Chinese targeted) is still owned and controlled by PAD's Sondi Limthongkul (and/or family).

Therefore, Mr Shawn Crispin's articles have to be taken with a grain of salt...YELLOW biased salt, and the so called "facts" written by him are, at least, "painted" a little and certainly anti-red and pro-yellow and PRO Abhisit's (DEMOCRATS) government.*

But, he's a sharp journalist, writing in a style where he is sometimes quoting sources (if he wants) but many times quoting "anonymous" sources WITHOUT mentioning names or sources.

* "The Manager Group furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic crisis during its time in office from late 1997 to 2000."

Source: The Nation (nice reading stuff)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov29.php

&

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov30.php

To be or not to be– that is the question: I'm sure Khun Abhisit has heard those famous words more than once during his education in England...and so did Mr. Crispin and Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul....

it's all in the game................the game of politics and interests and (biased) people behind media sources. It's funny to watch the ever changing interests of those same Media sources and the KEY Players as well....

LaoPo

Just some observations, LaoPo:

1) Many of us are 'on the payroll of' without being suspected of anything, without being shady or suspicious characters or guilty of anything.

2) Many corporations in many countries, to include especially those with advanced economies, are privately held so have shareholders or even directors who are unidentified to the public and to competitors, but not to government regulators.

3) It is no secret that is terminology which would not be used in genuine and open discourse because it clearly and almost always implies something is awry when it well may not be so.

4) Although denied many believe that sounds like a rerun of McCarthyism....it is vague, imprecise, suggestive......sort of like, "Are you still beating your wife?"

5) It's been long established policy and everyday practice in English speaking cultures for mass media news organizations print, broadcast and online to rely on sources who can provide information of value in return for anonymity of both name and title in an organization whether public, private or in between. The policy and practice is recognized by the courts in common/case civil law and is necessary a pillar of English language journalism. You have stated elsewhere and in the past that your native language is other than English so you can be allowed something of a pass on this one but, given items 1-4 not a full and free pass. (Your English BTW is awfully good.)

Yours is a post of innuendo and suggestive vagueries which I welcome because it provides the occasion to read you again (always such a delight to me) and to point out a pattern of pedestrian flaws of thinking and language that are cliched.

1. Payroll: nothing wrong with being on a payroll, but Mr Crispin is hardly an unbiased journalist for an unbiased news source. It's a -yellow- colored source to say the least.

2. Shareholders of a HK registered company: maybe Thai regulators can identify the shareholder(s) of AT Online ? Would be interesting to find out but I doubt very much that they could, knowing British Virgin Islands' regulations a bit.

I'm sure Mr. Sondhi was smart enough not to register the shares in his -personal- name.

A normal HK/Thai news source (as Manager Media once was....) wouldn't need a shady and mysterious route via the British Virgin Islands.

3. It's no secret: If you know your facts about Sondhi and AT/Manager Media Group you will know I'm writing facts.

In FACT, the AT Online publishers write about that connection themselves; check your facts if you want and look it up at their own website

If you can't find it yourself I'm more than willing to provide that link for you; but..doing some homework yourself can't hurt you.

4. Although denied many believe that:...yes, you could say that; the same could be said about Mr. Crispin's story, written for Asia Times Online when he writes about his anonymous sources: "vague, imprecise, suggestive"...as well as VERY suggestive and vague writing also indeed.

5. I provided sources and links; you didn't.

But if Mr. Crispin writes about -anonymous- sources it's all right with you...it's acceptable since it: "..... is necessary a pillar of English language journalism..."

A journalists' article, quoting "anonymous" sources is a pillar in English Language Journalism" and accepted in civil courts?

Oh dear.....

LaoPo

[Roadman]

...going back to the thread topic

For me, my original choice still stands...to disperse the Reds with battons and shields and arrest the Reds leadership and their goons with whatever it takes. Sae Deaung is Ex-Army and the Army should deal with him in the best way it sees fit...laoo dae khon khap.

What intrigues the most is the assumption expressed a few times that Pinnochio is done and quatered no matter what the outcome.

So what do I want Pinnochio to do now. Just what he is doing. Running the country economically while Anupong cleans up this mess with whatever force he needs. There are hand guns being openly displayed by black goons at their barricaded parameters in a city of the world. Don't tell them when. Hit at the best time of day or night that the civilian body count and that includes the Isaanite protestors can be minimised. Thailand has the governance it needs right now.

After then reading above, the edit was to add the opening...

Edited April 22, 2010 by Roadman

[Publicus]

From the Thai military and also from intellgence sources domestic and foreign comes the sober discovery that the colonel killed on April 10 and the two other equally high ranking army officers who were "maimed" by sophisiticated sniper fire were on the list of officers to receive top ranking positions in the coming October reshuffle, and whom were openly close to army deputy commander Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha who is slated to succeed Gen Anupong as Army Supreme Commander when Anupong exits to mandatory retirement in October (if Anupong isn't gone before then).

The conclusion is that the sophisiticated, precision hits of the three officers is as political as they were tactical. The three were hit by high powered sniper shots that were laser guided by "spot and shot" teams of Reds. The effective sniper shootings of the three top ranking and tracked to higher position officers also succeeded in breaking the military chain of command on April 10th, thus resulting in essentially leaderless troops who were reduced to firing at will and at random, producing more civilian casualties and deaths than otherwise likely would have occurred.

........

VERY interesting and informative post but why on earth can't the government get those facts, especially about the sniper teams, disseminated to the world media? Their public relations skills are non existent while Thaksin has an army of PR people around the world beavering away on his behalf, spreading his lies and propaganda

Because these are NOT "facts" - they are wild speculation, at best.

All previous reports on the death of the colonel and the injuries to other two officers were very clear - they were the result of an M-79 grenade (an inaccurate weapon, as I have already commented). There was a lot of speculation about who fired it, some knowledgeable and/or informed, most simply absurd, but there were no reports that they were hit by sniper fire.

Now suddenly they were hit by "laser guided" sniper fire from ""spot and shot" teams of Reds" for motives that are "as political as they were tactical"??

What absolute and utter garbage.

Lasers are used to light up targets by the military in two main ways. Firstly, for laser guided munitions such as Cruise missiles and "smart" bombs, by a spotter on the ground for weapons fired from some distance away. Secondly to assist combat shooting at relatively short range, where there is little variation between the laser and the bullet track. While a laser designator could be used to point out an individual for a target it it could be counter-productive for a sniper team as it would not only give the target a warning that he was being targeted ("what's that little green spot on your chest?") but also identify the firer's position if seen. Outside of science-fiction there is no such thing as "laser guided" sniper fire - it is not even in the same category as the "super-power rifles" previously reported. Its simply garbage.

You're hollering and spewing forth at the wrong guy.......talk to the veteran journalist here in East Asia, Shawn Crispin, whom I mention in another of my posts above, because as I clearly note above my post is predicated on his story published yesterday in a news journal that is regionally focused. You can have the great pleasure and high privilege of blowing and blustering at a working journalist at a big time regional news journal that he's full of shyt about the stories he writes and the sources he has. You might even get off in bellowing to Mr. Crispin that he's been drawing a salary as a journalist on a fraudulent basis for a very long time now.

I wanted to post Shawn Crispin's story to this board but a Mod I'd consulted and I were unable to clarify whether that legally would be possble, so I faithfully and accurately paraphrased the information Crispin wrote except in a few instances when I presented verbatum a sentence or two Mr. Crispin himself wrote. Shall I look forward to being blowtorched by you for the latter too?

I'm sure you can find Shawn Crispin's contact information if you wish to do so.

[Publicus]

Mr Shawn Crispin is on the payroll of the Hong Kong registered, but having editorial-offices-based in Bangkok also, Asia Times (online) Ltd which shares are held by a British Virgin Islands' company of which the shareholder(s) is/are mysterious and not disclosed.....

But, it is no secret that AT Online was built on the debris of Sondhi Limthongkul's (yes, the one of PAD) printed edition of AT (part of Manager Media Group) which went under after the 1997 crisis, losing enormous amounts of money and Sondhi ended up with heavy and huge debts, which debts in fact, were the start of the end of the mutual very-close friendship between Thaksin and Sondhi.

In fact, the M group of Sondhi had a stunning debt of Baht 20 Billion; Manager Media had Baht 4.7 Billion in debts.

Love and Hate are close....

Sondhi declared himself bankrupt for three years and didn't pay back his debts...

Although denied, many believe that AT Online (together with sister publications, also Chinese targeted) is still owned and controlled by PAD's Sondi Limthongkul (and/or family).

Therefore, Mr Shawn Crispin's articles have to be taken with a grain of salt...YELLOW biased salt, and the so called "facts" written by him are, at least, "painted" a little and certainly anti-red and pro-yellow and PRO Abhisit's (DEMOCRATS) government.*

But, he's a sharp journalist, writing in a style where he is sometimes quoting sources (if he wants) but many times quoting "anonymous" sources WITHOUT mentioning names or sources.

* "The Manager Group furiously attacked the Democrat-led government over its management of the economic crisis during its time in office from late 1997 to 2000."

Source: The Nation (nice reading stuff)

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov29.php

&

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sondhi/nov30.php

To be or not to be– that is the question: I'm sure Khun Abhisit has heard those famous words more than once during his education in England...and so did Mr. Crispin and Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul....

it's all in the game................the game of politics and interests and (biased) people behind media sources. It's funny to watch the ever changing interests of those same Media sources and the KEY Players as well....

LaoPo

Speaking of media and key players, I'm also watching a baseball game on tv and I just saw a double play.

Shawn Crispin continues to write well researched and salient stuff and given he knows Thailand well I continue to recommend him, especially in the present circumstances. Anonymous sources in journalism are central to getting to some measure of the truth in the game of politics and government. However we're well past the usual and ordinary game playing......we're facing a deadly serious crisis.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Publicus

[sbk]

Given the highly inflammatory nature of some posts and posters in the News forum, we are instituting a zero tolerance policy with regards to posting inflammatory comments, comments advocating violence, trollish comments, and flames. You will receive an automatic posting rights suspension for this behavior in the News forum. Bear that in mind when posting

[Crushdepth]

New zero-tolerance poll:

What do you want Abshit to do now?

a) Call interflora, send Jatuporn and buddies some flowers.

b Go to protest site and cuddle Weng until he wants to leave.

c) Think pure thoughts and chant for 20 minutes.

d) My option isn't listed, but I'm sure its nice.

It would be interesting if there was some way to see changes in the voting trend over time. I think a few days ago the first 2 options were fairly even, looks like last night flushed public opinion of the red camp down the toilet.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Crushdepth

[LaoPo]

Speaking of media and key players, I'm also watching a baseball game on tv and I just saw a double play.

Shawn Crispin continues to write well researched and salient stuff and given he knows Thailand well I continue to recommend him, especially in the present circumstances. Anonymous sources in journalism are central to getting to some measure of the truth in the game of politics and government. However we're well past the usual and ordinary game playing......we're facing a deadly serious crisis.

Of course he does...of course; he writes what you want to read: biased news

And, anonymous sources in journalism are only acceptable in very rare and special cases, but NOT as a common practice, which Mr. Crispin is doing in every single article he writes.

Check more of his articles yourself.

BTW: not a single word anymore about your 5 points to which I answered in detail ?

LaoPo

[steven100]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

[ChiangMaiFun]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

[steven100]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

Has there been any problems in china since then ? No

the defence rests your honour ...

[ratcatcher]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

Has there been any problems in china since then ? No

the defence rests your honour ...

Good point, actually, had this been China, Thaksin would probably have been executed by now. No?

[steven100]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

so what do you suggest ?

come on red shirts ... stop throwing granades and killings innocent people .. come on ... just hold the city hostage ...

Be good now .... no fighting !!!

Sorry ..... disagree !!

[sotsira]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

Has there been any problems in china since then ? No

the defence rests your honour ...

Good point, actually, had this been China, Thaksin would probably have been executed by now. No?

Had this been China then we would all be living in a communist state with no democracy and under a regime.

How many of you would still want to live here?

That's the whole reason all the red's are in Bangkok in the first place fighting for democracy and freedom of speech, unlike China.

Edited April 23, 2010 by sotsira

[dobadoy]

What do I want Abhisit to do now?

Sack Anupong. The guy is the ultimate 'watermelon', and much of the chaos and deaths that have ensued are down to his treason in refusing to uphold the laws of the land and instead play his own game.

Anupong fiddles, while Rome burns.

Edited April 23, 2010 by dobadoy

[dobadoy]

I don't really see how Abhisit or the Military can use force at this juncture. I don't doubt the ability to shut these protests down, but the cost could be too high for the country to bear. Every day that the government stands strong and nobody is injured or killed is a victory.

Either the reds will run out of steam, or they will be caught bombing or firing a grenade, or they will become outwardly aggressive or violent with authorities (more than mere skirmishes). If any of the latter two occurs it will be time to move in. Until such time they must wait.

I do understand and almost agree with you. Althought I am not sure the answer, I do find myself wondering when is the right time to disperse this unlawful assembly? There have been numerous acts of violence from indivuals (Red and those against) to the Reds working in Mobs which include storming the Parliment Grounds to pouring blood (biological agent) in the streets and on police. Any law they are made aware of, they flagarenty break. The have comendeared police and military vehicles, pushed and chased police and military ....

Bottom, line is even if somebody dies the reply will be it was a fake Red who did it or just not sanctioned blah blah blah. So, of course then is not the time to act against the entire illegal assembly. This mentality will go on forever.

The facts remain that numerous people have been injured and deprieved of their freedoms and parts of BKK are in Chaos while the citizens are living in fear of what is next.

Again, I am not sure of the answer of when the right time is but I do know you cannot continue to move the goal post and cannot come and tell prosters that you have no intention of forcing them to disperse.

How prescient these two posts turned out to be from two weeks ago

Edited April 23, 2010 by dobadoy

[Publicus]

Speaking of media and key players, I'm also watching a baseball game on tv and I just saw a double play.

Shawn Crispin continues to write well researched and salient stuff and given he knows Thailand well I continue to recommend him, especially in the present circumstances. Anonymous sources in journalism are central to getting to some measure of the truth in the game of politics and government. However we're well past the usual and ordinary game playing......we're facing a deadly serious crisis.

Of course he does...of course; he writes what you want to read: biased news

And, anonymous sources in journalism are only acceptable in very rare and special cases, but NOT as a common practice, which Mr. Crispin is doing in every single article he writes.

Check more of his articles yourself.

BTW: not a single word anymore about your 5 points to which I answered in detail ?

LaoPo

Sometimes I like to read biased news.....I'll catch a news report of an issue from Beijing and a news report of the same issue from Washington, knowing that each has a bias. Some people make it a point to expose themselves to opposing points of view and good for them/us.....dunno about you however in this particular department, i.e., classic Western liberalism.

You're dead wrong in your thinking about anonymous sources in the culture of English language journalism - absolutely and completely wrong. Regardless of the particular native English speaking country, anonymous sources are the common, normal and accepted practice in English language journalism. Indeed, in the US I'm protected by the First Amendment and the ontological body of case (common) law since the newspaperman John Peter Zenger in 1734 beat the Crown's charges of lible (and sedition) when the New York jury decided that Zenger's denunciations of the British sovereign were true so therefore declared him not guilty. It's the law I don't have to reveal my sources in a civil case (opposite in a criminal case). Shawn Crispin observes the common and culturally/legally accepted practice of regularly using anonymous sources. Smell the coffee. We're talking about English language journalism, not beastialty. There isn't anything naturally, legally or inherently wrong with it.

I read your statements in response to the five points I singled out from a previous post of yours, and so did anyone else who happened upon it. You lost on each point. Case closed.

Have a nice day.

[JohnLeech]

Because these are NOT "facts" - they are wild speculation, at best.

.............. Outside of science-fiction there is no such thing as "laser guided" sniper fire - it is not even in the same category as the "super-power rifles" previously reported. Its simply garbage.

LASER GUIDED BULLETS, US ARMY

Here's a picture of a US Army Laser Guided Bullet Rifle. These were first fired in early 2009.

Laser scopes (un-guided bullets) have been around for a long time to "improve the accuracy of long range sniper shots".

Most important though is that lasers woudl have been useful in taking out specific targets under the conditions present that night. A close in spotter with a laser could help to identify which personnel were to be hit, either with a sniper gun or grenade.

The exact details however are not important. The identity of the 3 senior military commanders targeted and killed is sufficient to make the conclusion it was well planned and more than just a tactical strike.

You have misunderstood the design and purpose of the XM-25, which you have pictured. The XM-25 rounds are not laser guided; a laser is used to measure the exact distance to the intended target and the round is then designed to explode at the set range, for example on hitting a target after going through a wall. This has nothing to do with laser guidance, and trials, in any case, are not due to be complete for at least two more years.

You have also misunderstood how laser sights are used, particularly by the military. Lasers do not allow for windage or bullet drop, knowledge of which is the key to good sniping, so lasers are primarily used by sniper teams to measure the distance to their target - I may be out of date, but I know of no infantry sniper rifles equipped with a laser sight as standard, and if they were so equipped they would be unlikely to use visible light.

I am not questioning that laser markers could have been used "under the conditions present that night" or that they "would have been useful" in identifying a target. What I am questioning is the massive jump from what was first reported as the result of an accidental discharge to something where these officers (who were not actually that senior in rank in the higher echelons of the Army) were deliberately targeted for political ends so that they could not be promoted to key posts.

The evidence does not support the conclusion, which is why the exact details are important if you are to make a rational conclusion based on the evidence (rather than speculate and jump to a convenient conclusion which is totally unsupported by the facts). If you read the reports of the incident and look at any of the videos it is clear that the M-79 grenade hit the roof of the HQ tent, bounced off, and exploded when it hit the ground. Regardless of who fired it and even aaccepting that it was deliberate, given the choice of weapons available and the apparent significance of those targeted this does not indicate a "well planned" precision strike against specific individuals carried out by highly trained military specialists.

I am not criticising Shawn Crispin as a journalist - I know nothing about him as a journalist to criticise. What I am saying is that whoever wrote about laser guided sniper rounds and the precision targeting of the three officers lacks the most basic understanding of military equipment, technology and training. In short, its simply garbage.

[Siam Simon]

Speaking of media and key players, I'm also watching a baseball game on tv and I just saw a double play.

Shawn Crispin continues to write well researched and salient stuff and given he knows Thailand well I continue to recommend him, especially in the present circumstances. Anonymous sources in journalism are central to getting to some measure of the truth in the game of politics and government. However we're well past the usual and ordinary game playing......we're facing a deadly serious crisis.

Of course he does...of course; he writes what you want to read: biased news

And, anonymous sources in journalism are only acceptable in very rare and special cases, but NOT as a common practice, which Mr. Crispin is doing in every single article he writes.

Check more of his articles yourself.

BTW: not a single word anymore about your 5 points to which I answered in detail ?

LaoPo

Sometimes I like to read biased news.....I'll catch a news report of an issue from Beijing and a news report of the same issue from Washington, knowing that each has a bias. Some people make it a point to expose themselves to opposing points of view and good for them/us.....dunno about you however in this particular department, i.e., classic Western liberalism.

You're dead wrong in your thinking about anonymous sources in the culture of English language journalism - absolutely and completely wrong. Regardless of the particular native English speaking country, anonymous sources are the common, normal and accepted practice in English language journalism. Indeed, in the US I'm protected by the First Amendment and the ontological body of case (common) law since the newspaperman John Peter Zenger in 1734 beat the Crown's charges of lible (and sedition) when the New York jury decided that Zenger's denunciations of the British sovereign were true so therefore declared him not guilty. It's the law I don't have to reveal my sources in a civil case (opposite in a criminal case). Shawn Crispin observes the common and culturally/legally accepted practice of regularly using anonymous sources. Smell the coffee. We're talking about English language journalism, not beastialty. There isn't anything naturally, legally or inherently wrong with it.

I read your statements in response to the five points I singled out from a previous post of yours, and so did anyone else who happened upon it. You lost on each point. Case closed.

Have a nice day.

In the UK, anonymous sources are only useful to 'colour' existing hard evidence, and rightly so. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could make up a story 'quoting' anonymous sources as their only evidence. Unfortunately for them, they would usually and rightly have their <deleted> sued-off. Case closed. Have a good one.

[LaoPo]

I read your statements in response to the five points I singled out from a previous post of yours, and so did anyone else who happened upon it. You lost on each point. Case closed.

You're far from being a -fair- judge, closing a debate-case or not.

Your weakest point Publicus is that you -always- write your own opinions but shove it upon everyone else as if they're laws and facts. They're not, far from it.

YOU supplied 5 points to which I answered in detail with FACTS...pure and 100% facts, to which you are not able to answer with facts yourself, as usual.

Just a simple opinion that I lost but without giving the details WHY I lost per #. That's weak, very weak in a normal debate.

You never write proven facts, just your opinion(s) without any facts or links but based upon the biased news sources you read, see or hear.

You lost on all counts and you mainly did so because you are badly informed about the background of Asia Times Online and Mr. Crispin, working for them and who's writing as the owner(s) please; after all, it's his bread; Thai Yellow bread in (t)his case

And you swallow Mr. Crispin's yellow bread as truth and facts.

I just had a quick search on a few articles by Crispin and it's absolutely unbelievable that a journalist writes so many times "quoting" sources without any names, even in unimportant cases., that it is extremely absurd that his editor (if he has one....) accepts this kind of writing as serious journalism.

But, it's AT Online...and as long as our audience is eating our bread, who cares...?

Have a nice weekend.

LaoPo

[RussellHantz]

Since a lot of the circumstances under which members had voted have now changed I suggest to the mods to close this thread and open a new poll.

[ChiangMaiFun]

This is what I originally said at the start of the fighting. If this was done at the start there may have been success and less fatalities!!

Bring out the tanks !

Once tanks start rolling into the crowds of red shirts they will soon disperse !

Then get the water cannons out and give them an early Songkran !

Have the tanks fire a few over head warning shots !! that'll surely work !

And of course , find the leaders and put em' in jail.

oh yea that should solve it - do what China did at tiananmen square - kill a few, should be ok, lock em up - throw away the key - job done! wow that was easy... now they will all go away and be quite right? WRONG

Has there been any problems in china since then ? No

the defence rests your honour ...

You want Thailand to be like China? NO - prosecution wins

Edited April 24, 2010 by ChiangMaiFun

[JohnLeech]

You never write proven facts, just your opinion(s) without any facts or links but based upon the biased news sources you read, see or hear

Well, that's news - I thought he just made it up as he was going along, rather than actually basing it on any supposed "news source".

[Publicus]

I read your statements in response to the five points I singled out from a previous post of yours, and so did anyone else who happened upon it. You lost on each point. Case closed.

You're far from being a -fair- judge, closing a debate-case or not.

Your weakest point Publicus is that you -always- write your own opinions but shove it upon everyone else as if they're laws and facts. They're not, far from it.

YOU supplied 5 points to which I answered in detail with FACTS...pure and 100% facts, to which you are not able to answer with facts yourself, as usual.

Just a simple opinion that I lost but without giving the details WHY I lost per #. That's weak, very weak in a normal debate.

You never write proven facts, just your opinion(s) without any facts or links but based upon the biased news sources you read, see or hear.

You lost on all counts and you mainly did so because you are badly informed about the background of Asia Times Online and Mr. Crispin, working for them and who's writing as the owner(s) please; after all, it's his bread; Thai Yellow bread in (t)his case

And you swallow Mr. Crispin's yellow bread as truth and facts.

I just had a quick search on a few articles by Crispin and it's absolutely unbelievable that a journalist writes so many times "quoting" sources without any names, even in unimportant cases., that it is extremely absurd that his editor (if he has one....) accepts this kind of writing as serious journalism.

But, it's AT Online...and as long as our audience is eating our bread, who cares...?

Have a nice weekend.

LaoPo

The only journals in the UK I spend any time reading are the Economist, the FT and the Guardian which hardly ever use anonymous sources because freedom of the press laws in the UK often can be less than free, even draconian in comparason and contrast to those of the US. If you read the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Podunk Kansas Daily Bugle to include anything in between you'd find anonymous sources are the normal, common, routine everyday legally and culturally sanctioned and protected policy and practice. Shawn Crispin is an adherent of this school of journalism.

You can and do condemn him for it, but you not only disagree with his style, you sternly disagree with whatever the content he consistently and rationally presents in his body of work and over time. You moreover reject this particular school of journalism, which is your perogative, as my perogative is to practice and to honor it because I fully accept it as a valid approach both to checking government power, authority and their abuses by governments but also as a valid aproach to exposing sham leaders and movements anywhere - but especially in locales where freedom of press suffers from specific prohibitions regardless of how or why the freedom may be only limited to specific instances.

As to the 5 points matter, I decide as does every poster how I shall use my time at TVF and whether or not I'll engage in an extended discourse of value or whether I will terminate any further discussion of another posters fixations and wishes to pursue points which may have some particular value to the poster, but concerning which I've made my statements and have made myself clear. That you disagree is not necessarily a basis to require, obligate, impell or move me to further respond. People who read my 5 points and your response have seen the nub of the disagreement and can make their own conclusions, considering especially that my decision is confidently to allow you to post the last word in the matter.

My point is clear: you misunderstand the value, purpose and rationale that makes the use of anonymous sources by the practitioners of a certain school and philosophy of journalism as natural and as normal as breathing. The onus of accepting the fact and reality is on you - my only self-perceived obligation is to point that out to you, that you need to be exposed to the particular philosophy of journalism that values and accepts anonymous sources, and perhaps to encourage you to consider it as a pov towards journalism that either you haven't been much exposed to or one from which you arbitrarily and irrationally recoil, reject.

This beef between us in this matter is simply predicated on the fact I'm comfortable with Mr. Crispin's style and approach to journalism and you are not. To reiterate, I've made myself clear and you've stated your view and opinion and explicitly, above and beyone all else, your dislike of the content of Mr. Crispin's news pieces and any analysis which per se he may present beyond his news reportage.

As a postscript I would add that in the world there are several theories of journalism, such as the theocratic theory (Iran, the Vatican etc), the authoritarian and heavily censoring theory (PRC, Burma etc), the Libertarian theory (USA, Australia etc) and others. Then, apparantly, there is the pedestrian view of journalism which says Shawn Crispin is a supposed yellow journalist who, perhaps worse, uses anonymous sources and therefore is an invalid practioner or model in both respects.

Learn and move forward or get left behind.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Publicus