New Mandala

78 responses so far ↓

• 1 David Brown // May 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  Jim thanks

  great

  a. to see a report from the field

  b. and that the people are not inimidated

• 2 sam deedes // May 4, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  Ha! First episode of Kasit’s “Information Avalanche” to set the peasants straight, eh? ISOC’s “rural project” off to a fine start!

• 3 Vichai N // May 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  I jumped to the last paragraph and read: “It seems people need a little more convincing these days as the government turns increasingly to jackboot tactics such as forced closure of opposition voices wherever they can, including local radio stations, web-sites, black-listing of individuals, disappearances, and fear tactics against pro-democratic supporters and their families.”

  Almost scared me to death. I thought Thaksin Shinawatra had succeeded to return to power.

• 4 t4e // May 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  ISOC (will soon) have unlimited ‘budget” (unaudited in name of national security) to use more than videos (read “arms”) to persuade unbelievers/infidels in North/Isaan etc.

• 5 Portman // May 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  “When the ISOC showed the media’s heavily cut-and-pasted version of a video clip of events showing so-called Red Shirt “violence” (actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) more than half the attendees walked out.”

  This is highly opinionated. Where is your evidence that the unpleasant aspects of the red shirts’ assault on Bangkok were in fact perpetrated by “Abhisit’s agent provocateurs”, whoever these may be, or by Newin’s Blue shirts? In your view can the red shirts can do no wrong at all?

• 6 David Brown // May 5, 2009 at 12:06 am

  Portman,

  In your view is Jim Taylor’s staterment a reasonable mirror image of the government propaganda on the Songhkran Day events?

  Do you believe the government propaganda entirely?

  Do you know of any way that we can be assured of truthful details of the events with peoples names, times and their allegiances?

  For example, have you seen or heard of any details of the bodies and people that we saw loaded into army minivans in the early hours of 13th and where they were taken? were they taken to an army base, were they taken to hospital or taken to Kanchanaburi as someone suggested? where are they now? have the families been discovered and informed?

  the government has the opinion that the army did no wrong, why isnt it a reasonable position for someone to have a different opinion when we know that the army used live ammunition and at least shot into busses, and witnesses have claimed they shot people?

• 7 Jim Taylor // May 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  In fact, the latest figures show that 156 persons are still missing between 13-16 April army & blue shirt onslaught. As for the evidence of provocation…let me give one brief example of the buses: It was public knowledge that Newin wanted to purchase new buses and Min of Interior Chaovarat Chanweerakul (in charge of the blue shirts) called the Transport Department to send buses to Chonburi to pick up his supporters and bring them to Bangkok. There was no report of any buses coming back to the depot or being highjacked. The next day we saw the incident involving these same buses in Bangkok. They had arrived at the site driven by one person each bus and were not stopped by the army anywhere on route to the site of conflict. The buses that were subsequently burned were by a single person each bus who illegal photo images have since revealed were known agents of the government. My suggestion to doubters: do not believe everything you read and question the sources of information and its linkages.

• 8 David Brown // May 5, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  hi Jim,

  thanks for the very interesting update

  will appreciate if you can point ua at any sources of this and related information, its OK in Thai or English

• 9 Dickie Simpkins // May 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  Jim,

  156 people missing –> First time I have heard or seen such a figure. Can you please tell me the ’source’ of information; or was it spoken word from some Red Stage?

  Regarding Interior Ministry Movements and buses –> seem very ‘conspiracy theorist’ to me. Odd especially when Dr. Weng is one of those people who has a record of sending buses to soldiers as a tactic.

  “Photo images have revealed…” ?? Can you provide a link? Or cut and paste such photograph that you have seen, I would like to see also…

  regarding not believing information…. I agree with you here, people should use their own minds and request hard evidence, and not let anyone get away with unsubstantiated statements.

  I wouldn’t believe the government, especially the military as they have a known record of lying.

  However, the Red Leadership are not any better.

• 10 Portman // May 5, 2009 at 6:43 pm

  Jim Taylor #7

  “My suggestion to doubters: do not believe everything you read and question the sources of information and its linkages.”

  Excellent advice Jim and as good a place as any to start doubting what you read is your article.

• 11 Vichai N // May 5, 2009 at 7:18 pm

  Thanks Dickie Simpkins . . . I was going to ask Jim Taylor, eminent anthropologist from the University of Adelaide, whether or not he could back up his ‘156 people missing’ assertion?

  Jim Taylor writes to give the impression that he speaks from “facts” or that his information is first hand.

  I am beginning to wonder whether all anthropologists from Australia are like Jim?

• 12 Portman // May 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm

  Vichai N #11

  Funny that no one saw any of the 156 shot or carted off. In 1992 there were also lot of missing people, although most showed up again within a few months, but there were also quite a few bodies and witnesses to shootings that gave credence to the idea that some of the missing had been killed, rather than just tired of sending money home. Perhaps the 156 is another of Jim’s postmodernist imaginings.

• 13 Jim Taylor // May 6, 2009 at 1:35 am

  This is the problem: as soon as one proposes alternative insights these are immediately deemed ridiculous (and “where’s the [real] evidence”?) by the pro-yellow camp which has made a speciality of mass producing incredulous amounts of media fiction for more than five years now. People these days are understandably confused. So there can never be compromise since truths/facts were distorted by the Thai media in the hands of the amaat and their military and political pals. If I disclose my sources, these sites & my informants who prefer to remain anonymous, would be targeted (so it is a catch 22 really isn’t it? Damned if you do: damned if you don’t).
  The problem is information tends to move quickly as lines are cut by the ICT and its massive bureaucracy of hackers and evidence once it appears tends to quickly disappear. Jatuporn has said he will disclose further evidence about Newin and the buses on the meeting scheduled for the 10 May. If readers are interested- keep an eye on that. Are the Reds lying? Did they resort en masse to violence as the Thai media portrayed? Or just, maybe, it was fiction. To give one scenario: The Reds were dispersed at 0400 hours on 13 April when there were no free news reporters there. Those there at that time were authorised by the military and government. There were two lines of army: First the shooters then the cleaners. The work of the cleaners was to dispose immediately of the bodies on army trucks and wash the street down with water tanks standing ready for that purpose.
  So this begs a question: What would the Reds gain by following the well documented violence of the radical “Yellow” conservatives? I doubt very much and the Red leaders were conscious of this easily turning against them. We will never really know will we? Especially given the current atmosphere of mass produced media lies and institutionalised propaganda since late 2006.
  As for the numbers of those still missing? Readers can check with the Student Association of Thailand who also announced this at a merit-making ceremony for those killed by the army and those still reported missing in Din Daeng last week. Readers could also check credible Thai sites such as “thaienews.blogspot.com”. They also have good links.

• 14 maverick263 // May 6, 2009 at 2:02 am

  @ David Brown:

  just for history of internet, i’d like to ask you:

  “For example, have you seen or heard of any details of the bodies and people that we saw loaded into army minivans in the early hours of 13th and where they were taken? were they taken to an army base, were they taken to hospital or taken to Kanchanaburi as someone suggested? where are they now? have the families been discovered and informed?

  the government has the opinion that the army did no wrong, why isnt it a reasonable position for someone to have a different opinion when we know that the army used live ammunition and at least shot into busses, and witnesses have claimed they shot people?”

  a) who is these “we” that _allegedly_ “saw bodies loaded etc…”? i try my best, since 3 weeks now, i cd not find any evidence. you tell me here, in public, that you actually witnessed it?

  a1) that’s not to say it didn’t happen i just ask you… in whose name you’re speaking when you use that term “we”

  a2) i can’t remember where but if you’d press me i’ll search my files; yes, there had been voices by diplomats & journalists that indeed one might assume that people may have been killed.

  a2I) but, i’m sorry, i have to dismiss what you may call “an argument” when going on, “where are they now? have the families been discovered and informed?”

  as… indeed, where are they now? maybe they’re just alive na? i’m sorry Dave, this is just disinformation. neither udd nor puea thai came up with eye-witnesses or evidence.

  do you?

  *…

  b) “the government has the opinion that the army did no wrong, why isnt it a reasonable position for someone to have a different opinion ”

  that’s rhetoric, not logic, thank you

  *…

  c) “when we know that the army used live ammunition and at least shot into busses, and witnesses have claimed they shot people?”

  this topic has been discussed on nm in detail. but again,

  c1) yes, “live ammunition” was used — but if it would have been used “in general”…, na, Dave… let’s don’t even imagine the bloodshed

  c1I) btw… i wonder how you’d feel Dave, being some soldier, private, military human resources… in these situations. tell me, how would you feel?

  c2) yes, it’s known they shot into buses. bullets were found in bank buildings too i wonder if you believe this is some kind of “game” na? that there’s some “score” to challenge? bullet count body count bus count hospital count… — & the winner is who, pls?

  *…

  d) just for sake of internet history that i object to your mind-set

• 15 maverick263 // May 6, 2009 at 2:14 am

  @ Jim Taylor

  ain’t it “funny” to see your second post destroys any kind of “trust” in your ability to report on events?

  don’t get me wrong, obviously you’re convinced that “the story of truth” must be told. what if… this story is just made up in your mind? a handicap we all share

• 16 David Brown // May 6, 2009 at 10:43 am

  Portman #12 Vichai #11

  funny, people did see bodies being collected and carted away….
  you can also see them…. see:

  http://www.nowpublic.com/world/monk-i-saw-thai-army-shoot-monk-and-people-din-daeng
  which contains link to the following:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_vjXQntWeQ

  this video was taken at Din Daeng, before dawn, 13 April 09 after the soldiers advanced on the protesters, it includes footage of soldiers loading apparently dead(?) and wounded into 3 army medical minibusses…

  I suspect these are related to, perhaps following, events eyewitnessed by the monk

  it would be nice to link this to where the minibusses took the
  people/bodies, for example correlating with the time the dead/injured arrived at hospital(s), whether they were taken into the local army camp, the crocodile farm in time for morning breakfast or taken to Lopburi……

  the video is widely available and I believe was presented in parliament, have you heard or seen any specific explanation of this apparent cleanup?

• 17 Vichai N // May 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  I am pissed at Jim Taylor and I am pissed at the whole Red Shirt leadership.

  I’ll quote Jim Taylor: “If I disclose my sources, these sites & my informants who prefer to remain anonymous, would be targeted (so it is a catch 22 really isn’t it? Damned if you do: damned if you don’t).” This is bullshit Jim T and you know it!

  If as you (and the Red Shirt leadership) claimed there were hundreds of dead Red Shirts carted off by the military (with that much dead, surely there would 5-fold more in number of Red Shirts injured and maimed, would it?) during the protests, it behooves upon the Red Shirt leadership to make sure that the Thai military/government accepts accountability for such atrocity without pussyfooting or need-to-cover-my-ass theatrics! And damn them too if they don’t with urgency.

  Surely with the resources of Thaksin and the Red Shirts (their inside connections to the military, police et al) they would contrive the appropriate device to reveal ‘the truth’ as David Brown and Jim Taylor so indignantly seem so sure of.

  I said I saw the videos, including the repeats fromDavid Brown (#16). And I repeat these videos are disturbing . . . very disturbing. Yet these videos too are inconclusive unless backed up by witnesses or more substantial proof.

  If the Red Shirt leadership do not possess the wherewithal and the courage most of all to gather and present the formal evidence(s) (isn’t Thaksin the master of the media, and isn’t Thaksin the master of organization for shock-and-awe effects?) at the Thai parliament (they said many times they would didn’t they) or through the many international media sympathetic to their cause, then all is bullshit and I am more sorry for the Red Shirts followers (paid or sincere) for being let down by their leaders because of cowardice.

• 18 antipadshist // May 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  I express my RESPECT to Jim Taylor for daring to express the alternative opinion – alternative to the “official truth”.

  BTW, Jim perhaps a bit off-topic (although you did mention that army hass a history of cover up facts) – yesterday there was some discussion on one of Thai Forums about some guys (some people who find things under the sea to resell – like “sea-scavengers” ? ) finding few sunk containers under the sea. these containers were checked and apparently they are sort of missing / dissapeared sinc events of 1992. so far only 1 was opened – and … it was full of sceletons.
  naturally it is not reflected in Thai MSM.

  now, regading this Jim’s story and additional comments – it is good to see that there are some people as him who are well capable of telling the truth and standing up to all those who would attack him.

  I would not start here all over again fighting with Portman and his buddies (like maverick), coz obviously it is useless and pointless. coz even when sufficient evidences are presented (as in another thread – to Portman about LIVE bullets) – they still would neve admit they were wrong, but continue to eel-out from the true facts.
  there is a saying about these people : “even if you piss into their eyes – they’ll say it is God’s dew” hahaha

  I’ll just wait till May 11 (and may be till PT investigation is done too) – and THEN I’ll challenge all these twitty-twatty chaps to at least COMMENT on that.

  lastly, Jim – don’t bother so much about petty attacks on you by these guys: “dogs bark and caravan goes on”.

  keep digging up !

• 19 Portman // May 6, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  David Brown #16

  Congratulations on your oft repeated crocodile farm remark. It has even been translated into German as a commentary alongside the video clip you cite that purports to show the reptiles’ morning treat being loaded into the trucks. Unfortunately that is the only thing that is remarkable about the clip. Compared to the clip of Thaksin’s 500 baht announcement with 645,000 odd views, the crocodile food clip has only drawn 15,000. Surely it would have also gone viral, if people thought it was convincing evidence of red shirts being put to use as raw material for the croc skin handbags to be sported by wealthy khunyings. In the film the military are shown loading 4 or 5 people on stretchers into their pick-up truck ambulances as the commentator comments that these are injured people from both the rioters’ and the military side. As for the monk, his evidence is also unconvincing. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he exists at all, he said he wasn’t sure whether the people he claimed to have seen being loaded into trucks were alive or dead.

  Vichai is right. Given Thaksin’s still massive available wealth and all his connections in the military and police, as well as Chalerm Yoobamrung’s expertise on these matters, it seems unbelievable that he cannot come up with any better evidence of the bodies he mentioned on television than the crocodile clip, the anonymous monk’s statement, the fake shooting of the man being pulled out of a bus who was actually hit on the head by an MP etc. Surely alongside such a large number of deaths as claimed there would have been an even larger number of bullet wound injuries? Where are all of those people? Do you want us to believe they were fed to the crocs while still alive or did they make the shorter journey to Siam Paragon to be put out of their misery by the sharks in the basement?

  Antipadsiht #18

  I pointed out from the beginning that the military admitted it used practice rounds which are also live rounds and just as lethal as combat ammunition at the relatively short ranges separating the army and the rioters.

• 20 nobody // May 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm

  While the factual elements of the report are appreciated, some of the unsubstantiated claims seem to detract from the piece to the point where its presence on what is described as an academic site seems bizarre.

  While attacking the propoganda tactics of ISOC is a reasonable thing to do the effort is undermined by, in the way it is written, what seems like direct unsubatantiated rumour and propoganda by the writer himself.

  There are elements of the Songkran day incident that need to be clarified and sorted out in a transparent manner. If the writer has any evidence, preferably multi level proof that colloborates other evidence, then I am sure there are more than a few media outlets (international if local is not trusted) that would be willing to run the story apart from any interest here. However, considering the current state of tension in Thailand if there is no evidence and this is just rumour or even worse another sides spin then it is irresponsible to make the claim. I hope this is not the case as clarifying what happened away from the spin of any side is really where this needs to go.

  I wholeheartedly disagree with what ISOC are doing here and once again thank the writer for the segment of his report that covered that aspect.

  As an addendum having read through all the comments now I find the writers defence of no evidence astounding and verging on the level of conspiracy theory that even Thanong on acid couldnt reach. I understand the writer is meant to be an academic. It seems the level of academia has plunged since I left college, admittedly a long time ago, if the controversial elements of this piece and subsequent comments are intended as academic commentary rather than direct propoganda, which must on its own now at least reach the level of what ISOC are doing, and which I add yet again totally undermines the factual report part assuming that is really factual which unfortunately I now start to have doubts over with this writer who seems set on a course to pathologically discredit himself and even damage the reputation of this site as academic.

• 21 Jim Taylor // May 6, 2009 at 5:18 pm

  Nobody? (That sums it up!) Actually, academic credibility is about truths and a need for a professional ethics (something that the Thai media and their supporters have lost). “Nobody” does not seem to appreciate the real lived danger out there right now to those in the Red Shirt membership who reveal their first hand experiences. So belittling my comments undremines your own credibility in the reproduction of govt fiction. My argument holds: if the political environment in Thailand now was such that it was really able to support freedom (alternative voices?), equality and impartial justice – then people who provide information to people like me would not feel that they have to hide, ask for discretion or use electronic sites which reveal these facts only to have them deleted by ICT’s army of censors as soon as they appear: Right? People like “Nobody” live in a world of fiction in a web that they spin themselves from material they chose to use.
  As anthropologist I would not place the life of my informants at risk however slight for my own gain- though some political scientists may have a different viewpoint??

• 22 nobody // May 6, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Jim Taylor. So now it is attack the messenger and not the message?

  I did not attack you report on the meeting except to state that other parts of your piece based on unsubstantiated rumour and gossip undermined it and would finally leave me questioning it. I also thanked you for that report.

  I do question your credibility when unsubstantiated rumour is part of a piece and not even noted as such but presented to come across as fact. When you talk of academic credibility being about truth, how does this gossip fit in?

  So you are in Thailand and have sources that you dont want to name. Fine, but please do us the service of stating such when you publish the allegations these people make as it is effectively hearsay. All of us foreigners in Thailand have “sources”. Some of them may claim to know things. Maybe they do. However, surely it is not right to present unproven and provocative allegations that some claim are the propoganda of one side anyway without making it clear that is what they are, or are you doing anything different from ISOC as you seemingly attempt to influence thought here. In doing so I am a little surprised that you seem perplexed that people would ask for evidence not just take your word for it. “It seems people need a little more convincing these days”.

  Quite how you conclude I am reproducing government propoganda when I criticse ISOC too and basically just question a lack of evidence? Surely evidence is a cornerstone of everything we hold dear in a democracy, or maybe you would disagree with this.

  I also note while criticising the military, Abhisit and Newin and I am sure they deserve criticism for some of the things they have done, some of which I dont doubt we dont know about, even if they havent quite achieved the level of repression and supreme control of all local and international media and every camera equipped phone and digicam in the area while with more efficiency than the militaries of the US or China etc massacring and diappearing people in droves that your conspiracy entails, that you do not reserve any criticism for the violent actions of the elements of the red shirts that conducted violent acts. Surely there is already enough evidence that this happened for at least some criticism after all even Charan admitted the red violence was a mistake(paraphrasing from memory).

  There are two sides or even more to every story and you are giving one uncritically from what I see. Is that truth, propoganda, campaigning for ones personal beliefs or weighted academic assessment or something else?

  I could add information from my sources which include family members at Din Daeng flats, but I wont because that too would be hearsay. Needless to say though there are versions very different from yours.

  For clarification I am not an anthropologist or politcal scientist but just a humble person living in Thailand and someone who has for quite some time not that any of that should adjust any weight to any comment I or anyone else makes.

• 23 Dickie Simpkins // May 6, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  Jim,

  Your ’sources’ have hard evidence, or just more hearsay?

  I don’t believe the reds, and I don’t believe the military/government.

  however, as an academic, you should be held to higher standards than using only eye-witness accounts as factual evidence. Then we are only left with “he-said, she-said” bullshit (pardon my language).

  The only fact is that no one except people involved knew exactly what happened at Din Daeng that morning.

  The rest of us are relying on our biases to fill up the half-truth we know into the ‘truth’.

  David Brown does with his insistence and “confirmation” of dead bodies being loaded into pickup trucks, and Portman’s steadfast belief that ‘practice’ rounds were used even while faced with a military general stating live full-metal-jacket rounds were used.

  And unfortunately, even you are doing when you insist as a fact that the ‘blue’ were instigators. It would be better for you to use the word ‘allegedly’ when discussing about the government. By making the statement as a ‘fact’ you are being intellectually dishonest, then to turn around and claim that the truth you know is the only truth smacks of blind partisanship and faith.

  Not very becoming of an anthropologist. You’re the type of classroom professor where the ‘A’ students opinions simply mirror your own. You will use the flimsiest excuses to mark down the grades of people whose opinion don’t match yours.

  Oh, I heard it from a former student of yours, I can’t tell you who, cuz I must protect my source whose career depends on it. But I can say he Aced your class because he knew your type and knew your game. He decided to keep silent and not share information with anyone because he didn’t want people to fail your class or come back and haunt him in his career.

  Do you get how weak your argument is yet?

  Personally, I don’t doubt Abhisits sincerity. The Blue shirt causing the whole mayhem is very believable, as Newin has a history of instigating violence, as he did against the PAD when they were protesting against Phra Viharn. And the military led by seemingly a very politically hungry man like Anupong doesn’t heed well.

  While me thinking it is believable does not make it “true” by any status.

  Antipadshit:

  while you are correct to state that there are alternative viewpoints to the ‘official truth’ (which is probably a cover-up). Exactly what the cover up is, we don’t know….

  it could be that there were deaths (but I don’t really believe it, and if so, I don’t think it would be more than a handful)

  it could be that the Blue Shirt disguised came to setup the militia to make the situation go out of hand… which is more believable as it is a ‘3rd hand’ theory. –> The Red Shirt leadership will have to share some blame if this is true, as they should’ve condemned the independent behavior of their supporters immediately and kept them in control. By allowing anarchy, they paved the way for the 3rd hand to enter… khao chai mai?

  But to believe words, just words, out of each side is 1. Intellectually Dishonest, 2. Gross incompetence, 3. preferring to remain ignorant… take your pick.

• 24 Dickie Simpkins // May 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  In the paragraph “I don’t doubt Abhisit’s sincerity” I wanted to finish with the sentence, “We can all assume that Abhisit is definitely not in control of the government, which is why he should end the farce and call and election”

  Since I’m writing a new post anyways, I point to the LM cases (against Prachathai, Sulak, and BBC ‘raid’) wherein Abhisit had no idea what is going on. Again shows his ‘government’ is not in charge of anything.

• 25 Jim Taylor // May 6, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  Nobody- we are all “nobody”- but some of us a least do not hide behind web psydonyms: If I were spinning tales then I would be pretty stupid to use my real name eh? (Oh- Ok, so I am stupid?) The argument goes nowhere does it? So you would rather believe the Thai English-language print media because it has credibility? Does it? The point is I am not asking anyone to believe what I say but feel free to read and investigate for themselves, and ask the question: “could there be any truth in this?”. I have a key informant currently in a vulnerable position in Thailand who confided in me and in fact was there on the 13th (as on the 1st May ISOC Chiangmai conference) – as were thousands of others in fact. Their stories were ignored by the media heavily censored by the state. So they resorted to blogs on resistance web sites many of which were been tracked and disappeared notlong after they appeared. So what can I say? why would the apparatus of the state be so frightened by these other truths? Ask yourselves that question rather than becoming infatuated with personal attacks on the messenger: That is a Sondhi media tactic: attack the personality (as with Thaksin & Red Shirt leaders) and discredit through as much fiction & spin as possible. Do that as often as you can and, guess what? People will believe you…

• 26 David Brown // May 6, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  hmmm… lot of words about establishing credibility and evidence…

  its not easy when there is a media blackout in Thailand on everything except the government story

  there is explicit blackout through banning and now defacto banning of all explicit redshirt media including D Station and the regional community radio stations, plus censorship and self-censorship of the Thai and English media and the Internet in Thailand

  the latest example is the sacking of the editor and deputy editor by the owner of Matichon for being too supportive of the redshirts…
  some redshirts had commented that Matichon occassionally published some information that never appeared on other media but apparently that was seen as “dangerous” to the government “massive media operation to tell the real story”

  The statement:
  “Surely with the resources of Thaksin and the Red Shirts (their inside connections to the military, police et al) they would contrive the appropriate device to reveal ‘the truth’ ”
  seems to be a story put out by Sondhi Lim and the government to scare people into thinking there is lots of redshirts “truth” being published and skewing peoples minds (proof and evidence? compare with extremely large “resources”, money and military assistance, of the PAD)

  The military “sufficiency communities project” means there are many redshirts being visited and invited to “discussions” about right actions and thoughts right now

  I think Thailand is in a very dangerous situation right now, with Nepal, Cambodia, Laos and of course Burma as indicators of possible futures for the “Kingdom” after the peaceful or turbulent succession occurs

  What sort of Thailand do you want to live in?

  btw… my reference to the crocodile farm is derived from the stories from 1976… its probably quite unlikely that anyone has been recently fed to the crocs, but who really knows?

• 27 Jim Taylor // May 6, 2009 at 11:32 pm

  Here are some electronic sites readers may like to check out:
  Try Ning’s UDDtoday for video clips:
  http://uddtoday.ning.com/video/video/listForContributor?screenName=1gdw6r62ec0nd

  Also, check out the following:
  http://www.prachataiwebboard.com/webboard/wbtopic2.php?id=800153
  Here someone posted that from 9-15 april there were 156 cases reported missing to DSI through Duangprateep Foundation and House # 111 Foundation. This person asked the so called “cyber worriers” to spread this information as it has been blocked.

  Another website shows pictures of red shirt people getting together at Din Daeng to dedicate merit to those people who died during the Songkran period protest:
  http://prachachonthai.com/webboard/index.php?topic=498.msg1503;topicseen#new

  Comments from the right wing please??

• 28 nobody // May 7, 2009 at 4:00 am

  Jim Taylor again attack the messenger rather than the message.

  Some of us live in Thailand and have to be careful of what is said.If one wants to say that is hiding behind pseudonyms then fine. You accuse me of doing what you say you are protecting your sources from. Why because someone disagrees with you should they identify themselves publically but it is too dangerous for your sources to do so?

  Just because someone says something you do not agree with doesnt mean that they want their name associated with what is said.

  Personally I am happy to identify myself openly to you in private but being someone who criticises other things that are more contentious I have no desire to put at risk me and my family.

  Note: not only red cadres are at risk from making free speech comments

  I would also appreciate a response to my comments rather than just yet another attack on me although I appreciate that you may well be a campaign mode foreigner supporting the red side and therefore expect little.

• 29 nobody // May 7, 2009 at 4:07 am

  Jim Taylor I note that by your listing of sites above you now identify yourself as a UDD operative and renounce any claim to be an academic.

  Personally I find it sad that a so called academic will succumb to being a propoganda operative for one side in this brutal power struggle. However, ………..

• 30 land of snarls // May 7, 2009 at 6:06 am

  Simmer down, guys. Jim, your report at the head of this thread is interesting & useful; thanks. The discussion is also interesting & informative, for me particularly, since I’ve been away for the last few weeks, & unable to follow what’s been going on.

  re. the slagging match: I think we all know the degree of deceit that is routinely employed in Thailand in media reports, in government statements (as yr report shows), as well as in all manner of explanations & justifications of even the simplest of new policies, stuff-ups, etc., even in ordinary workplaces, schools, retail stores, & homes. Lying is a cultural institution. This leads to a situation where nobody really believes anyone about anything. But they pretend to! (Dickie, you are joking, aren’t you, when you say, ” I don’t doubt Abhisits sincerity”?) So, it’s useful if stuff like Jim’s statements re. the dead are attributed, even if actual names can’t be given. The info re. your main source, plus the websites given, is quite acceptable, given the circumstances. Obviously we can’t take it as proven, but at least we can give it a ‘possible’ rating, if we’re so inclined (& I am now), & be on the lookout for more tangible evidence.

  The video frankly doesn’t prove anything either. In a more lawful society, reporters would have followed the van(s) & reported, & there would have been proper follow-up. As it is, they merely show that there were several people brought to the ground in a state where they had to be carried to the vans. In a country where we do know that the military & police do often kill citizens & get away with it, & people do often ‘disappear’ permanently, & there are no signs that this will ever change, regardless of who’s in power, it’s reasonable to conclude that they just may have been murdered. As far as numbers are concerned, there’s nothing concrete to go on yet, but if nobody says anything we’ll never know. So do tell stuff like this, & do tell, to the extent you can, where you got it. And a bit of healthy skepticism will help. TKNS is a useful model.

  re. your put-down of contributors who use ‘web psydonyms’ (sic): not everyone has a well-established university behind them. Most contributors to this site use false names, even those who look ‘real’ ( Ralph Kramden – ‘The Honeymooners,’ 1960s Yank comedy series; Dickie Simpkins – NBA player). It doesn’t take a genius to understand why, in a country that is getting to be like Stalinist Russia. I’m surprised that you can defend the anonymity of your ‘source’ & then attack someone else who may also have a lot to lose, for wanting to post anonymously.

• 31 Jim Taylor // May 7, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  Actually I have no problem with pseudonyms as “Nobody” said: living in Thailand one as to be careful. That is my point: Why is it not safe now? Has Abhisit created a new Stalinist (”Land of Smiles”) social and political environment in his attempt at the coercive muting all Other truths and disparate voices? I also have as much, if not more, to risk than Nobody [et al], by disclosure. But I stand by a conviction that following comment made in a Dhamma talk by the late oft-quoted famous hermit monk Luang Phor Ruesii Ling Dam that we are now in the period of the “White Crow” (Yuk Kaa-khao). This is where that which is actually right is deemed wrong, and conversely that which is wrong is estolled as being right. This is a period of confusion; a web of deceit that has been spun to serve the interests of a few.

• 32 Vichai N // May 7, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  Tks ’snarls’ for trying to cool tempers.

  But I think Jim Taylor was into deliberate misrepresentation when he started his post # 7 with “IN FACT, the latest figures show that 156 persons are still missing . . .” then carried on by passing information as if his report comes from first hand source.

  Jim Taylor likes to repeat that he is an anthropologist from Adelaide as if his title or his nationality could impress!

  (BTW I said it before and I’ll say it again, Jim Taylor is Thaksin’s handyman if you have been following all his posters)

• 33 Jim Taylor // May 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  Vichai N- we know where you are coming from!! These missing figures that you mention do come from my first-hand sources (who wish to remain anonymous), the posting #26 is an attempt to find some uncensored cyber links to show doubters…However as we know, alternative truths are so effectively muted by this fictitious fascist state and its representatives. All this and more has nothing to do with (a) my being an anthropologist, and (b) someone who thinks Thaksin actually did more for Thailand than other PM since or after…And so what if I were a Thaksin “handyman” (whatever that means!!) -is that a problem??? [- in fact I am only a "handyman" for my wife, my kids, my kru-ba-ajaan, and my employer]) 5-5-5-5-5

• 34 nobody // May 7, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  Jim Taylor I will add that anonymity was equally if not more important during the tenure of Thaksin. A lot of peole got killed then that there was direct evidence of being killed and contrary to the meme not all were drug dealers or terrorists. I take it that you condemn those acts of state brutality under declared government policies of the time. I would also be interested in knowing how those events affect your assessment of the PM of the time as having done more for the country than any other PM.

  Anonymity is also something that will need to be maintained imho if Jakrapob manages to overthorw everything and install his or his leaders new regime which wont be a period of enlightenment in my judgement.

  At no point do I say things are wonderful now. they are not.

  On a more general point postings on blogs/forum of a politcal nature are more often done anonymously than openly worldwide even in so called free countries.

  Im not sure who has the most to lose as that is probably a value judgement we all make and Im sure to us and our families we all independently feel we have more to lose than another.

• 35 Vichai N // May 7, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  A ‘handyman’ according to dictionary.com is “a person hired to do various small jobs.”

  There are very very few ‘prouds’ to be called ‘Thaksin handymen’. That leaves me wondering therefore how a proud anthropologist from Adelaide ended up very busily doing ’small handy jobs’ for Thaksin? I do hope you are not doing hand jobs purely out of conviction Jim Taylor . . .because you will be missing out on big juicy Thaksin handouts.

  Thaksin and his handy men will do try very hard with disinformation to disfigure Thailand as an ultra-fascistic state where an honorable Thaksin or his likes, could be unfairly and unjustly persecuted merely because Thaksin and his likes had the courage to challenge an entrenched elite-favoring pro-monarchy corrupt establishment.

  Come to think of it what Jim Taylor espouses is exactly the same theme regurgitated over and over again at New Mandala under the direction of Andrew Walker & Nick Farrely.

• 36 Nicholas Farrelly // May 7, 2009 at 6:16 pm

  Vichai N.,

  We’ve missed you!

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 37 Jim Taylor // May 7, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  [Aside] Readers need to be careful now of criticising the “independent” (5,5,5,5!!) Thai court; see below showing constitutional court representatives going to the police station to make a case to sue a person posting a blog insulting the court on the Sae-Daeng’s webboard. [BTW/Great stuff on this site- and in my view the guy, eccentric yes, is absolutely spot-on in his analyses].

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajOpvOiGRoA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboard%2Esae%2Ddang%2Ecom%2FReadTopic%2Ephp%3Fno%3D14419&feature=player_embedded

• 38 Dickie Simpkins // May 7, 2009 at 6:37 pm

  Snarls #30,

  From the point wherein I claim to ‘know’ Jim Taylor’s student, I was joking.

  From claiming Abhisit’s sincerity, I was joking.j

  For claiming that Jim Taylor’s “sources” and “evidences” being weak and possibly fabricated, I was serious. His evidences would not even hold ground at a court in Adelaide.

  My point is that while there are many plausible stories and scenarios, there are just stories and scenarios. I watched an episode of CSI wherein they said there is no crime if there is no ‘body’. Unfortunately that is how justice works.

  Why does it matter? Because of ‘burden of proof’.

  Government claims ‘Red Shirts’ brought gas tanks and trucks –> more proof is needed beyond just ‘Chaiyasith Shinawat’ sits in the board of Siam Gas. Until then, the 3rd hand theory of government-sponsored ‘blue’ shirts is plausible and an acceptable alternative truth.

  ‘Red Shirt’ claims bodies were taken by the military –> more proof is needed beyond just fuzzy images taken from far away vdo cameras. You are right that good journos or investigative ones should’ve followed them; but lack of such evidence just means that the government/military receive benefit of doubt. As such, the alternative (alternative for this site it seems) truth that the military hauled injured people to the hospitals and would to most neutrals be acceptable.

  Lest anyone forget, Infantry units are made up of boys between 17 till 22 years old, most just doing their conscription duties, and a majority too are from Isan, and many whose families are ‘red shirt’ sympathizers. ‘If’ there were dead bodies in the “hundreds” as claimed by Jim Taylor (and a very weak link to his ’source’ at Prachathai) there would be without a doubt leaks and evidences at a mass scale.

  I’m not so naive to believe not a single person got killed either. I really wish I got the taxi drivers name who told me he was at Din Daeng that fateful morning. I don’t think he will be following the Reds too close anymore, as he did feel used by them; as such, I don’t like to quote him too much as a ’source’, but having heard a first hand account from him (including his tail of survival), I must say I really believe him when he told me that the deaths “if any” (as he was too far to be sure they were dead), was no greater than 5.

  As for my choice of a name:
  1. I have viewpoints that could endanger myself of people I am close to. I dislike that Thailand has no ‘free speech’ in particular relating to their institutions, and the fact that people use these institutions to cloak themselves from dissention.

  2. Dickie Simpkins is one of the few NBA players to receive a 3 peat of championships… thats more than Allan Iverson has ever received for example…. so you gotta love a guy with a name like Dickie!

  To conclude:

  Jim Taylor will be much better off if he put himself in the high standards he claims the government/military to keep. His ’sources’ without ‘evidence’ should take a note from Nick Nositz report and use terms like ‘alleged’ and ‘while there is no hard evidence, I’m inclined to believe because….’

  Nick isn’t even an academic and his ability to use evidence and source citations is a world away from University of Adelaide Professor Jim Taylor.

• 39 Colum Graham // May 8, 2009 at 12:55 am

  Dickie Simpkins, Colonel Jeru, I am impressed by Jim Taylor’s nationality and title. In these trying economic times, “the worst recession that we will face in our lifetime”(TM), I have to be impressed by everyone. Especially those who pay Australian tax.

  I have to say that thus far, Jim Taylor’s heels and peach skirt are so much sexier than the cottage cheese thighs sitting on a Patpong curb displayed by yourselves. I’m not too sure when commenting on this website became an endeavor of legal consciousness. Perhaps everyone has realised that we’re in “the worst recession that we will face in our lifetime” (TM) and therefore, sphincters have tightened accordingly.

  Articulating history immediately, I would have thought, is a hugely difficult thing to do, and impossible on such a large scale as a fortnight long revolt —- which is why first hand reports, such as the one provided by Nick Nostitz, are ever more valuable. All I find the lovely Jim Taylor to be doing is iterating a liberal view, that one should be open to questioning everything – all the ‘established facts’, he simply suggests things to counter what is immediately being considered as the history. Surely you can’t imagine Jim Taylor wandered under the NM bridge conscious of trolls who would only let him pass with referencing? Vichai N, Jeruchai whoever you are – (a satirical character invented by the NM writers(?) ) for “the worst (mental) recession we will face in our lifetime”(TM), my grandad was a better grandad than your grandad.

• 40 Jim Taylor // May 8, 2009 at 1:20 am

  Dickie…so many holes in your mailing I don’t know where to start [and I’ll ignore the facetious remarks- it says a lot about you), so lets look at just a couple: you attempt to ridicule alternative comments because they do not sit comfortably with your outlook and conditoned viewpoint- like the current politics in Thailand. FYI, the army were hardened border professionals consisting of regiments largely from Sakaew and Prachinburi – not kids from the Northeast as you claim. As for the court system, of course you are quite right, no “normal” court would make a judgement on flimsy evidence that is why you have to question: (a) is there any truth behind these allegations, (b) if you think there could be then investigate further where you are able to given the censorship in place, and see if there is a cover up, and (c) consider that even if there were substantial evidence at hand, which has happened numerous times over the past few years, would a Thai court, given the present constitution, actually make a fair, unbiased and reasoned decision? (use some discriminating wisdom and not get sucked into the current fiction)

• 41 maverick263 // May 8, 2009 at 5:05 am

  if i may be allowed,

  @ jim taylor, c.31:

  “Has Abhisit created a new Stalinist (”Land of Smiles”) social and political environment in his attempt at the coercive muting all Other truths and disparate voices?”

  this is really happening, right now, right?

  i’m not even going to argue. others much better capable to do tried to show again & again that “thai political” “situation” is a “fragile” one. many different powers na.

  & you just go ahead and _PUBLICLY_ _CLAIM_ abhisit created a “stalinist” order?

  *…

  @ c.33, you speak of, “…effectively muted by this fictitious fascist state and its representatives.”

  so by now abhisit is not only stalinist but also fascist.

  & i guess if i disagree with throwing around strong pejorative labels… i’ll be included, by guilt of association?

  *…

  & now,

  if i say i appreciate people like Dickie Simpkins, c.38; nobody, c.34; land of snarls, c.30; Vichai N —

  does that imply that these people i never met before all belong to that same same stalinist/fascist group?

  just because they don’t share your notions? just because they insist on some ethical standards?

• 42 Dickie Simpkins // May 8, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  Jim Taylor said, “you attempt to ridicule alternative comments because they do not sit comfortably with your outlook and conditoned viewpoint- like the current politics in Thailand”

  Actually if you go through my postings in the past couple of years at NM, you will find more than enough evidence to the contrary. My outlook on life changes constantly in the face of new evidence and experiences. If anything I am ‘conditioned’ to about Thai politics is that everyone is a liar; I don’t believe this ‘civil war’ is anything to do with left/right politics, and labels are unfair in this scenario. You have people of all political spectrum siding themselves with both sides. The best way I describe Thailand’s political turmoil is that its a war between 2 sets of elite with a different ‘head’ to their respective patronage system.

  I don’t have a ‘horse’ in this race, and whoever “wins” this power play will make absolutely no difference in my daily life. The best thing for me is for the players involved to come up with a good solution to this mess, and I can go back to doing what I do best and not worry about road closures/port closures/government changing/airport closures/etc.

  In fact, throughout this thread, you have been unable to even accept the plausibility of stories or viewpoints other than your own or even the fact that an ‘alternative truth’ may exist that is different from your beliefs. Secondly, you have been unable to “prove” allegations that you threw out there, and instead preferred to attack the credibility of dissenting opinion, even naming names and making conclusions about people whom you have never met.

  Regarding the army/infantry: I am not aware of the locality of the infantry that was in Bangkok, and I won’t pretend to know. If you know something that I don’t, then I won’t argue. That is not the kind of person I am.

  Again Jim: Ask yourself this, if you’re casting me as a rabid Royalist/Elite/Rightist/whatever, how come I go around giving rave reviews to Nick Nositz’s report? Is it because I don’t believe that 156 people died and were put into trucks? Seriously… who is arguing viewpoints that doesn’t sit comfortable with their outlook and conditioned viewpoint?

  I really think you should hold yourself to the standard you demand others hold to.

  Final note RE: Thai courts. That is why I didn’t use Thai Courts as an example of where your ‘evidence’ would hold weight. Of course in Thailand, it is a kangaroo court, and this is true before Thaksin, during Thaksin, and after Thaksin. In Australia/US/England/Western World courts are still more impartial and the different systems of court and appeal system with evidence and constitution makes for a better judicial system than Thailand. You’re from Adelaide, where courts are more fair than here. Would your evidence sit and be accepted by a judge in Adelaide? So… what was your point?

• 43 Colum Graham // May 8, 2009 at 3:26 pm

  maverick263, there was no claim that I can see – there was only a question asked. Surely you can see how the fascist label can be applied — to both parties even. My reading of the situation is that Jim Taylor is simply asking people to question things and this has resulted in him being lampooned with questions directed at himself. At least with this seemingly unpopular line taken, there attempts to answer the questions being asked.

  But I fail to see how ad hominem attacks on Jim Taylor are conducive to a better understanding of the situation. Vichai N, it’s so lovely scoffing about being handymen… railing against purported experts and so on, because really what are these people employed for other than to be heretical liberal democratic stooges? You speak for all Thais once more?! Why don’t you challenge Abhisit for PAD leadership.. I’d vote for you free of charge!

  The direction this post has moved in is evidence of nobody having any grand perspective about what is going on. As Jim says: it’s a confusing time…

  If tax leaching underlings like myself wish to learn anything I think it’s better for all people with considerable regional experience to stick around rather than be put off by people with little better to do than savage opinions with their own disjointed hyperbole. Perhaps Dickie Simpkins, Vichai, maverick263 and so on are all emeritus professors who all have ‘considerable regional experience’, and not tax leaching underlings? Why can’t they, this anonymous professorial circle, treat Jim Taylor with the respect they seem to demand themselves? It must be dementia!

• 44 Colum Graham // May 8, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  Dickie Simpkins, the pot calling the kettle black.

• 45 Dickie Simpkins // May 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  Colum #44:

  No.

  More like:

  “the pot calling the kettle calling the pot black”

• 46 Dickie Simpkins // May 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  Colum #43:

  You’re right, as Jim also has said, it is a confusing time.

  Also, I do mind being lumped with Vichai N, and I haven’t gone so far to call anyone “Thaksin’s Lackey” or come up with some weird sorry name.

  However, I do have problem with Jim’s assertion of ‘fact’ that 156 people died, and his other opinions and assertions that he is passing on as the ‘truth’.

  His point on ISOC’s non-credibleness did not need for him to insert ‘facts’ that he cannot prove.

  I don’t care if you don’t respect me, besides, I’m not an academic nor am I an opinion-maker or political consultant/etc.

  If Jim had simply been ‘asking people to question things’ I would commend him. If he set up different scenarios as ‘probabilities’ and ‘possibilities’ you would probably see me here defending him against Vichai N., et al.

  But instead, Jim decided to throw opinions and rumors around as “facts”.

  I advise you to go read “Nick Nositz’s” first hand account on the red shirt movement (if you haven’t done so already), and you will see how clearly he differentiates ‘hearsay’ from fact, and leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion. Jim however, has not left that window open, he simply states that his “sources” provide the ‘truth’ and as such, everyone who doesn’t believe him (or dare question him) is a close-minded rightist bigot.

  So my question then is, how is that different from PAD/Sondhi who claims Red Shirt are all paid?

  For example:

  “Before a number of leaders walked out they raised a question to be passed to the army boss General Anupong: “when Somchai was elected PM why did he force him to resign and yet this time he did not do the same thing?””

  —> Valid point that needs to be questioned and applauded. Why did Anupong have double-standards?? Its a question that can lead readers to very obvious conclusions, that are all valid.

  But “(actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) ”

  —> Is an plausible opinion inserted as ‘fact’ because of the word ‘actually’ instead of the the world ‘likely caused by…’

  the word ‘actually’ doesn’t let a reader decide, it tells him an opinion based on sources he ‘heard’ (which are partisan sources mind you)

  Again I state, if he tried to pass these ‘facts’ or ‘allegations’ in an Adelaide court of law (since Thai courts are run by kangaroos), would he be able to prove his facts?

  If not, then he should do the intellectually honest thing and reword himself accordingly. He is an academic, and he knows what I am saying.

  Its sad that such a good first hand account loses all credibility because of one word.

• 47 nganadeeleg // May 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm

  Why can’t they, this anonymous professorial circle, treat Jim Taylor with the respect they seem to demand themselves?

  Perhaps because they are getting tired of hearing about leaked sources, informants etc, and how great Thaksin was (without conceding that he ever did anything wrong – legally, ethically or morally).

  Jim, can you offer anything more on this snippet from the past:
  Leaked sources indicate that Thaksin’s billions have been used by these same people taken out of his domestic bank accouts (at the time frozen) so Thaksin had to be found guilty at any cost- even changing the law and emplacing judiciary that were anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat (who were in alliance with the military for their own ambitions). Thaksin therefore has to be found guilty and he must be imprisoned.

  I’m not saying it not true, or true, but I’m sorry ‘leaked sources’ just isn’t enough for me, and I’m not evenclose to being an academic!
  Once you come good on that one, I’m sure you will have all the respect you deserve.

• 48 antipadshist // May 8, 2009 at 8:49 pm

  @Dickie Simpkins #23

  I made a reply to your comment (#23) but probaby NM moderators decided against posting it.

  alrigh, I’ll not repeat all that again (shame, it was a very nice detailed answer to you) , but just say this :

  you accuse me of being “intellectually dishonest” because you claim that I “believe” words. pls point to me ANY single place here where I use word “believe” ?

  it looks like you slant me for something you IMAGINE I said !

  at the same time – you say thing like :

  “I don’t doubt Abhisit …”

  which practically means : “I believe Abhisit”

  because doubt = disbelive, and “don’t doubt = believe”

  see dictionary, particularly what is Antonym for word “doubt” !

  so, WHO is “intellectually dishonest” ?

• 49 Colum Graham // May 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  nganadeeleg, if this were a scoop, ‘leaked sources’ wouldn’t be enough for me either. But what is written isn’t an ‘exclusive’, ‘read all about it’ type of article. It’s a reflection. It is a reflection with a particular bias, of course. But I find that perfectly understandable. What occurs after the initial post is not so relevant because they are responses to individuals. I am far from being an academic too. If people are tired, why don’t they drop it?

  Dickie, there are many articles which require proper referencing. A comment or a brief reflection are hardly articles which require referencing. Jim could be saying ‘in fact’, in regards to what he believes to be facts. Then it is his belief against one who has a different belief from facts. The facts surrounding the events, the 156(?) deaths are not established, and personally I don’t think it helps making claims to any truth when there is no or little evidence. That’s not to say that there isn’t any evidence(?) Obstinance on either side is equally culpable. But if you think you can pursue this beyond the face value of what Jim says then you’re only going to dig yourself into a hole. It’s good you’re thinking about it though!

  I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! The irrationality is what lumps people into the lunatic basket. This is a forum where you can post anonymously. What more can you expect?

• 50 Jim Taylor // May 8, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  To Dickie and his mates who insist on deflecting from the issues raised in my original posting: maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too (& like for instance about Newin seen & photographed on a motorbike organising blue shirts at Pattaya), ask more open-ended questions among a wider range of informants, rely less on the now disgraced English language propagandised mouthpieces for the government (you know which pieces I am talking about), give more credit to possibilities raised in blogs that do not necessarily affirm with you own prejudices, learn to listen more- and then…and then -you may just actually come to know as much as I know!! 5-5-5-5!! And if you friend Abhisit calls for free and fair elections, reverts to the 1997 democratic Constitution, prosecutes as promised earlier the PAD leadership in accordance with the current law, and overhauls the stacked judiciary, – then I will be the first to kiss his feet!! Thanks guys- I enjoyed the banter!!

• 51 land of snarls // May 8, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Jim: Q:”Has Abhisit created a new Stalinist (”Land of Smiles”) social and political environment in his attempt at the coercive muting all Other truths and disparate voices?”
  A: No. He hasn’t created it. It’s been shaping up this way for a long time, way before Mark Veg, who is merely opportunistically, cynically & perversely perpetuating a situation handed to him on a silver platter – just as his antecendents have always done.

  I find the preponderance of posts on this site which imply that there are 2 sides (goodies & baddies) in the current Thai situation extremely naiive. The truth is that there are many ’sides,’ & they’re all controlled by the ‘baddies’ (i.e. the elements which lie, cheat, extort, siphon funds, employ brutal violence, and appear to be only interested in grabbing power so that they can be the inheritors of this viciously corrupt & lawless state.). If there were ‘goodies’ in Thailand, an unrealistically simplistic view, they would be those who are powerless & could never have aspirations in that direction.

  Your apparent alignment with the Reds is ridiculous. (If you were ‘Thaksin’s handyman,’ OF COURSE it would be a problem. I don’t believe you are, but how could you possibly make a statement like that?) Your lack of distance, as a social scientist, in describing the current events, destroys your credibility & brings no credit to the reputation of your institution. As does your promiscuous & convoluted use of language (One expects a senior Humanities academic to be relatively literate.).

• 52 Regular Reader // May 9, 2009 at 1:00 am

  Colum Graham #48, I don’t think it makes any difference whether or not Jim Taylor is an academic, or hides behind a pseudonym (as most of us do).
  The problem with him, unlike Nick is that he is stating “he said, she said” type of hear-say, as fact. Nick is much more careful about what he says.
  He admits he has sympathy for the UDD/Red cause and how they have generally gone about their business.
  He does have more “hard” evidence (his photos) than Jim. (And, yes, we all know “photos can lie”).He was also from his accounts, “there” during a lot of the big incidents.
  But, he is also honest enough, to say, for example, he was not at the location of the Din Deang Tankers and so, can only relay what he was told.
  On the other hand, Jim continually turns hear-say into fact.
  Maybe he doesn’t mean to. Maybe it’s just his was of expressing himself.
  But as Dickie, correctly points out, this would have a very hard time, standing up in a court in his home town – Adelaide.

• 53 Regular Reader // May 9, 2009 at 1:44 am

  Colum Graham #48 you said :
  “I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! ”
  It would seem to me, you might be suffering the very common complaint here in Thailand, of paying “respect” to the “arjarn”(Jim Taylor) ,at all times – even when you might not agree with what he, or she says.
  It sounds like you are saying, “they are an “arjarn” – therefore, they must know more”.
  All we “mere mortals” are doing here (on this post), is not falling into the “Thai patronage trap”. Instead, we are questioning the “arjarn”.
  He might be right – but unless we ask him to show us proof, how will we really know?

• 54 Colum Graham // May 9, 2009 at 11:03 am

  Indeed Regular Reader, you wont know till he shows proof. But the point is, it’s a reflection. I could reflect on lucid memories where the actuality is distorted, but that doesn’t make them any less reflective. Sure Dickie Simpkins points are valid. I never said they weren’t, I did imply that challenging him with these points is pointless. Good you’ve caught a fish with some semantic barbs, but to then try to knock off his head with “would this stand up in an Adelaide court?” is petulant and only makes yourself and Dickie look desperate to be right, rather than being right about something with a little more substance. Good you’ve got him, he’s full of it. Now what? What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.

  Haha, I said earlier I am paying him patronage because he pays for me to catch the train into Adelaide with his tax. I catch the train into Adelaide to worship the Napier building and skip down North Terrace pleased that my karma is balanced.

• 55 Jim Taylor // May 9, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  Who me, aligned with Reds? sure I do from what I have heard, seen and felt in recent years: But to come to that conclusion I had to first listen to both sides and then I make my own judgement. In terms of some kind of fuzzy middle ground neutrality?? I cannot see any of this in the present institutionalised environment of spin, cunning and untruths that is justified in order to establish a status quo ante. If readers wish to investigate further on my reflections that is fine: If not, that is fine too…

• 56 Regular Reader // May 9, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  Colum Graham #54:”What was the original point of his post? For me, it still remains valid.”
  If you are refering to his leading post, that seems to be about reinforcing his strong belief, there is a “conspiracy” taking place, but some people are not buying into it.
  He then continued on with some fairly emotional and not very factual rants, in defence of his theories.
  I am not about point scoring. I am jst asking for some objectivity and maybe some proof, that things are, or are not, as Jim claims.
  It is sad, this whole mess is fast bringing Thailand down to the level of a “failed state”.
  But, it is not going to get better, if people like Jim (who by his occupation, certainly has more power ,than someone like me) use flimsy heresay as reality.
  Isn’t that after all, part of what is wrong in this country, where the mass media are either lazy, ill-informed, or just playing a certain line, fed to them by their various patrons?

• 57 Regular Reader // May 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  #55 Jim Taylor. If Jim as he now admits, in this post (even though it is quite ovious throughout his postings- but now he’s said it)supports the UDD/Red side,I presume he would also be prepared to help- if he were/is called on ?
  As I said in an earlier post – perhaps a little too sarcastically – being an “arjarn”, provides him with an excellent opportunity to do some good, for the cause he supports. Being an “academic” – even if he is not Thai – the “authority” that goes with the role, will make it much easier to get the message across, to a receptive Thai audience.
  If I was him, I wouldn’t be wasting my time on sites like this.
  I would be out there doing it.
  Yes, I know, easier said than done. It might not be safe, either.
  But, if he believes in this “cause”, he has a great opportunity to particpate and not just barrack from the stands, like so many of us on this forum do.
  He indicates, he does attend many events – so, maybe he does this already, without making an issue of it ?
  There is of course, one important thing : he should always base his work with the Thai supporters, on the “truth”and “real facts”…..something which has been at issue, in this post.
  Otherwise, he will do little, to help bring about the changes, so badly needed in this country.
  He cannot vote; he must be careful, but he can help change.

• 58 Jim Taylor // May 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm

  Thick or what? What more facts do you want? in relation to the missing/dead 156 or so persons, I gave the following information:

  1. Student Association of Thailand public announcement to tens of thousands of people a week or so back at a merit-making ceremony at Din Daeng for those reputedly killed by the army and those still reported missing (check that out with those present at this event)

  2. Credible Thai web site links (where these are not blocked by the government) such as those listed in “thaienews.blogspot.com”

  3. Posting of reported missing to DSI (check with them)

  4. Notification made at two well known welfare orgs: Duangprateep Foundation and House # 111 Foundation (check with them)

  What more do you want? delivered on a silver plate? investigate for yourselves…

• 59 Jim Taylor // May 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  Anyone wanting to find out some real (first hand) truths should turn up at วัดไผ่เขียว ดอนเมือง tomorrow (10 May) at 1600 hours…

• 60 maverick263 // May 10, 2009 at 3:29 am

  @ Jim Taylor, c.50:

  u did it again, right?

  “To Dickie and his mates…”

  again you just go along with some traits in your mind to generate systems & meaning out of the mere chaos of phenomena.

  this very same method you apply here… linking people together who have nothing in common besides being critical of you…

  — don’t you think that says a lot about the way your mind works in whatever kind of assertion about “facts”, “truth”, “reality”?

  *…

  & you go on, again:

  “maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too …”

  personally, dear Jim, i take that as an insult. as what you propose to do… i do.

  *…

  i cut it short, this time. there was an intial post on ISOC in cm that was widely well received. it were your very own follow-ups that allowed us “insights”, Jim. i can’t speak for any of your students or your fellow “academic” professionals — i guess i’ve met as many corrupt ph.d’s as politicians, artists, journalists. actually, after all these years… plain business people seem to be most inclined to root out this gift to weaknesses of human character na.

  you showed flaws in argumentation as well as in judgement. that’s all. you’ve to live with it.

  i will just wait what’s next, tomorrow.

• 61 Dickie Simpkins // May 10, 2009 at 5:53 am

  Antipadshit #48

  read my #38, then go rereaed my post that you are commenting, and please recognize sarcasm and snark when it is being said.

  Also Antipadshit, I am bkkeater from Bangkokpundit. You’ll note that philosophically we share a lot of same goals. There are many times I agree wholly with your posts, and sometimes where I point out details where I disagree. But these things are normal in a healthy democratic environment. Unfortunately in Thailand, with harsh laws protecting some political players, neither you nor me are able to fully point out all the political players and state honestly what we think is going on. I’m sure you agree with me that that is sad, and one of the main reasons behind the misinformation campaings purported by both sides.

  I’m sympathetic to your nickname cuz I hate PAD myself. But I’m not behind ‘red shirt’ either. I never liked Thaksin. Actually, I’m so bored of the wars between the elite players in Thailand that I’m a Chuvit Kamolvisit supporter

  Ajarn Somsark (who I still give lots of respect to) likes to compare criticisms of Thaksin with lack of criticism of a major political player from 1976 and doesn’t accept that one should criticize Thaksin without criticizing the other. It is a position I disagree with because my own personal philosophy is to define each scenario as a case by case basis. However, I can understand his point and respect him for it. I have never seen Ajarn Somsak ever give blatant disinformation; and as such earns his respect and position. And given his controversial opinions and his ability to come out with his own name into these posts only builds his reputation.

  However, Jim Taylor in his post here, and his defences hence, attacking me constantly without even once going through the substance of my posts, what am I to think? I would like to ask you honestly Antipadshit, as someone who criticised my post (but whose point I have also explained) am I purposely purporting misinformation here?

  Jim Taylor #50: These people you say are my ‘mates’ I’ve never met them, have no idea who they are, and couldn’t be bothered either.

  There is a difference between you and me Jim. You’re an ‘academic’. I put that in quotes now, because I read and reread, and read your post 3 times, and can’t believe that you wrote this.

  It isn’t about bias or where you sympathies might lie. I think you should read snarls #51. This isn’t about ‘goodies’ or ‘badies’ or whatever. Maybe you should keep rereading my posts either. Where have I even said I am on the side of the government?
  I’m so tired of repeating myself, but by automatically doubting your word as ‘fact’, I’m automatically a right-wing bigot? Seriously? I ask again, seriously?

  My own conclusions from this political conflict is that this is a battle of 2 sets of elites who hold themselves above the law.

  A popular mandate is no excuse for autocracy, as Thaksin has practiced. And how can ‘rule of law’ exist, when the PAD won’t even go to jail for 1. Government house, 2. Airport, 3. Blocking Parliament, etc. etc. etc.

• 62 nobody // May 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  We are challenged to think critically and look behind statements. Sure we should do that. However, it means rejecting the onvuiously flawed. When someone suggests/hints that hundreds have been shot dead by the military we look for evidence:

  1. Pictures or video – none

  2. Credible neutral witnesses who corroborate each other – none

  3. If hundreds killed by bullets we look for the thousands of wounded that there would be (any combat veteran or military historian knows about theese ratios) and we look for hospitals packed with bullet injured victims – we dont see this

  4. We look for the mass of blood stained pavements, pock mjarked buildings and pieces of shot off flesh and limb – we see none of this

  5. We look for the containment of local and foreign journalists while it was all happening including a clean up period that would have taken days at least – journalists were following ther military as they moved and there was live footage.

  Therefore, we conclude the claim that hundreds were killed is logically a falacious claim and likely propoganda. That it is put forward by an academic is worrying as either he has lost his ability to think critically, he has become a dyed in the wool propoganda operative or he has had some form of breakdown. All of these are sad. However, the saddest thing is that the ordinary red shirts have some good points and demands related to democracy. That these get undermined by spurious and ridiculous claims is the saddest point of all.

  I would have thought this topic would have come to an end by now. If it were an ISOC unsubstantiated claim it would Iam sure. The OP is doing exactly what ISOC stand accused of. Will those that efend the OP also defend the right of ISOC to make unsubstantiated claims as that would be a logical step however bizarre it all seems to this reader.

  Attacks on individual posters as being part of some cabal of government propogandists is equally bizarre. Does asking for evidence now make one unelnlightened. What is balack has become white and vice versa in this crazy world of what if good for one person is not good for another.

  Surely the OP could just say: “the reds claim, unsubstantiated claims, I am a red supporter and I believe….”. Being an academic does not give ones claims any higher credence than another persons withotu some form of backing to them.

• 63 Colum Graham // May 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  Jim, how is it helping your case calling these people who are interested enough to reply to your post thick? It’s a bit condescending. I don’t really see where they’re not reading between the lines with what you’ve written, and are just asking questions. Why get vicious if everything is factual? Why keep responding if they want it all on a silver plate? Why give them the silver plate? At this rate your head is the only thing that’s on that silver plate.

  Are you some kind of renegade like Thomas Blemming?

  When will the fat lady sing? Questions, questions…

• 64 sam deedes // May 10, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  Why do so many farangs want to preserve the status quo? Is it because they are frightened of losing their pampered privileged status in a more egalitarian society?

• 65 Vichai N // May 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm

  “Why get vicious if everything is factual?” – Colum Graham asks Jim Taylor.

  The question is the answer.

• 66 guest // May 10, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  Jim

  You should post the source of this news that you translate from Thai newspaper, Matichon

  http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1241155704

• 67 nganadeeleg // May 10, 2009 at 8:06 pm

  Therefore, we conclude the claim that hundreds were killed is logically a falacious claim and likely propoganda. That it is put forward by an academic is worrying as either he has lost his ability to think critically, he has become a dyed in the wool propoganda operative or he has had some form of breakdown. All of these are sad. However, the saddest thing is that the ordinary red shirts have some good points and demands related to democracy. That these get undermined by spurious and ridiculous claims is the saddest point of all.

  I would add:
  (d) all of the above

  any other possibilities?

  Although I should add, that nothing about Thailand would surprise me, not even that Jim Taylor is right!
  That’s truly sad!

• 68 Jim Taylor // May 11, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  So maybe we can conclude: when people hear what they want to hear it is (undoubtably) factual/true; conversely when they hear what they do not want to hear, it is (likely to be) fabricated? And who has the courage to change their stand based on listening to new information? Anyway, anyhow, it is a lose-lose situation isn’t it? (now unless it apears in The Nation, The Manager, or Bangkokpost- then it is of course true right??) Take the issue of Abhisit saying he was in the car when it is was supposedly attacked at Pattaya: it was shown at the Red Shirt gathering yesterday with new video evidence that this was fabricated. But would critics of the Red Shirts believe this?? And finally “guest”, thanks for the Matichon news item link, which confirms what I was told in my thread article.

• 69 antipadshist // May 11, 2009 at 7:30 pm

  I have mentioned in comment #18 about news regarding containters with sceletons.

  apparently it was true and this info is already even in MSM :

  “Skeleton reports offer hope”
  http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/16483/skeleton-reports-offer-hope

  “News reports say three to five cargo containers stuffed with human skeletons have been found in the sea off tambon Samasarn in Chon Buri’s Sattahip district.

  Mr Metha said local trawlers had pulled up human skulls. “Seventeen years on, no significant progress has been made in searching for the people reported missing in the attack,” said Mr Metha.

  “The person who ordered the mass killing has not been punished, nor have the others involved … who still are living a happy life, playing golf, sipping wine and making comments to the media.” The official number of Black May dead was 38, but the figure reported to the United Nations by a committee representing victims was 357, said Adul Khiewboriboon, who heads the committee.

  The committee called on the army to stop intervening in politics, saying it had taken a bigger role in politics since the 2006 coup.”

  so, 17 years later, the truth literally floated up to the surface.

  this time (with recent Songkran events) army certainly were more thorough and careful. but eventually truth comes out anyway, just a matter of time.

• 70 Jim Taylor // May 11, 2009 at 8:17 pm

  yes, five containers have been found in three different spots as fishing folk have long been pulling up skulls and bones from the Gulf…at least two years after 1992. It is speculated that each site may represent different historical periods of army interventions… and could a new container found give some answers?? (though the BP article would not of course suggest that possibility). The govt is reluctant to open them and is fearful of having a “please explain” request… Strangely enough Channel 3 has shown this on TV when they checked one container. DSI refuses to pursue investigation.

• 71 antipadshist // May 11, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  Dickie #61

  well, I’ve re-read your comments and still don’t get your sarcasm – sorry for being thick. but I guess I can believe it if you say so (and also if it is true that you’re Bkkeater there) – alright.

  however sarcasm or not – that still doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t use word “believe”. (although actually word “believe” is too multi-dimentional and has too many meanings, many of which are quide good, and some are just plainly realistic – so, quite often there is nothing wrong to use word “believe”)

  whatever is between you and Jim – is your own biz.

  frankly, I wasn’t paying attention much to what you and him accuse each other of. I just got a general picture of the majority of comments here: a lot (if not most) of commentators attack him with accusations of bias. while actually as I see it – this is their own cognitive bias manifested (I’ve already talked about it in thread to Nick Nostiltz’s story, don’t want to repeat same thing again).

  I didn’t say I support Jim here (or Nick there), but only that I express my respect for their attempt to DARE to offer some alternative opinion or point out some other side to the OFFICIAL version.

  there other people here who blame Jim – but I don’t see them either provide ANYTHING different from that “official truth” (or its variations – as PAD, ajarns, Thai MSM). instead they seem FURIOUS that anyone dares to be less eager to swallow the crap of “official truths”.

  I’m sort of anarchist, with big tendency to deny authorities (or at least doubt a lot what they say). therefore naturally to me – the “official truth” is the LEAST credible of all. and there are many facts (not only in Thailand) that quite often such attitude helps to get more realistic grasp of the events. (for example when 9/11 happened, since day one I had a strong feeling, almost convinced, that there is no freaking way that such event could happen without “inside job” – during past few years those who voiced such opinion were branded as “conspiracy theorits”, but in past year this opinion prevails in US, at least on net community; so, THIS sort of doubting authorities / “official truth” has lelped me to guess such version of 9/11 that time, and apparently I wasn’t so wrong after all;)

  so, whatever all these people try to blame for / attack / accuse for – it is actually INSIGNIFICANT in comparison to what I consider as a thing of much greater importance : need to DOUBT the “official truth” and make efforts to get more facts for ALTERNATIVE version(s) of story !

  and Jim is one of the VERY FEW people who AT ALL dare to “swim against the current” – attempting to have that doubt and make those efforts. there more there are people who’ll make such efforts – the better chance it is that eventually we’ll know the truth.

  and to me – it is MUCH better than all those people who nothing much else than being smart-a$$es here and divert the whole MAIN point (as I see it – the need to get alternative version of events) to some silly minor details.

  their critisism is mostly NOT constructive, but destructive. therefore, I tried just a little bit to neutralised it for the sake of continuation of the MAIN effort. but I know it is useless to continue argue with them, so I give up eventually. I do not bother much with reading all the comments, I mostly skip them once I “mark” some person as such “divertionist”. it is a waste of time, really. (I apply the principle “dogs bark and caravan goes on” )

  so, Dickie, I tell you honestly again – I’m not so keen to read your whole correspondence with Jim for that very reason, because personally I consider it a distraction. therefore I can’t answer your question “am I purposely purporting misinformation here?”
  may be you are, may be not – as I said to me it is irrelevent. but I think you divert your own attention, Jim’s and many others (who read this discussion) from the MAIN matter to the less important.
  that’s what I feel. although I might be wrong. I think whatever critisism, if it is aimed to HELP the MAIn thing (of figuring out the truth) has to be constructive, not destructive.

  so, once again, I have expressed my RESPECT to Jim (and Nick) for even daring to make such an effort and also for expressing this alternative opinion. and I only wish there were more people making such efforts and daring to express their opinions – instead of engaging in some USELESS debates about details which are mostly a distraction. (and I suspect some may do that purposely – because such divertion to minor details is quite a common fallacy consiously employed by PR profis)

• 72 Vichai N // May 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm

  Every time I read a few ‘antipadhist’ posters (any poster!), I start cramping (and my pardons to Colum Graham #39) with ‘tightening sphincters’!

  Anyway ‘antipadhist’ if all you seek are ‘alternative opinions’ without ‘engaging in some useless debates about details which are mostly distractions’, then what does remain?

  Correct sir! Bullshit is what remains.

  (BTW ‘antipadhist’ I am very thankful your posters had already removed ‘distracting details’ because my sphincters won’t be able to endure even a word longer.)

• 73 maverick263 // May 12, 2009 at 2:45 am

  @ Jim Taylor, c.68

  “Take the issue of Abhisit saying he was in the car when it is was supposedly attacked at Pattaya: it was shown at the Red Shirt gathering yesterday with new video evidence that this was fabricated”

  ching lor?

• 74 Land of Snarls // May 17, 2009 at 8:25 pm

  re. skeletons in containers, Bangkok Post has 2 contradictory reports about searches last Friday:

  “No containers of bones on seabed
  By: BangkokPost.com
  Published: 15/05/2009 at 02:31 PM
  A search by divers has failed to find any sign of shipping containers reputed to contain human skeletons on the seabed in Chon Buri province, the head of Silpakorn University’s Division of Underwater Archaeology said on Friday
  Imprem Watcharangura said the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) asked his division to organise a search of the ocean floor off Sattahip for the containers reported to have been seen by other divers.
  He could confirm there were no containers there, Mr Imprem said.
  Mr Imprem said fishermen have told the team that they would surely know if there were dead bodies hidden there, because fish would have flocked to the area to feed and the news would have spread.
  He said people had been filing complaints based on the rumoured containers for the past 20 years. Diving teams had searched the area and found no evidnce of the containers.
  On Friday morning, a team of navy divers began searching a location there for the containers.
  Scuba divers claim to have come across a large number of skulls on the seabed during a coral reef adventure dive. They reported the find to the media.
  The DSI said it would have another look at the site.”
  http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/143351/no-containers-in-sattahip-sea

  also: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/16762/container-but-no-bones-discovered

  and Nation has 1 report:

  “MARINE MYSTERY
  Porntip seeks quick move on container
  Published on May 17, 2009

  Forensics director offers two alternatives to check contents
  Central Institute of Forensic Science director Porntip Rojanasunan yesterday urged a quick decision from the government to ensure that the truth about a mysterious shipping container on the Chon Buri seabed, rumoured to contain human skeletons, would be known this month.
  Leading a team to inspect Samae San Bay in Chon Buri’s Sattahip district, Porntip said two methods of inspection were on the table.
  One was to cut open the container, believed from the coral growth to have been lying there for 20 years, and use a camera to survey it. The other was to lift the container out of the water and then open it.
  The latter method would cost at least Bt10 million and might destroy fertile corals covering the container, she said.
  Porntip said they had not cut it open on Friday as they feared the container might have explosives in it and they would first use a GT 200 bomb-detecter to check it.
  Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he had assigned officials to assess the possibility of cutting open the container and using cameras to survey as it seemed on the face of it the more practicable way.
  Regarding reports that many more containers were under the sea, Porntip said she could not confirm that.
  Villagers have confirmed the existence of this container.
  Since this is not a normal sea-lane, it is impossible to assume that an accident led to the sinking of the container, she said.
  It is more likely that it was intentionally dumped, possibly for disposal of a dangerous substance, she added.
  Regarding discovery of skulls, she said it was her personal view that they could be the remains of immigrant workers.
  The previous suspicion that they might be from the May 1992 incident is not totally ruled out yet, she |added.
  Porntip said that if the government made a quick decision, the truth should be known this month. As for the search for other containers, which the Navy minesweeper boats were asked to do, when to start should be known on Monday, she added.
  Meanwhile, local residents who asked not to be named said seven containers had been detected by the radar of trawlers and urged the investigation to proceed without pleading budget restraints.
  “If the government does not act, and soon, we the people will open the containers ourselves,” they said.
  They suspect that the container Porntip is working on contains dangerous substances or chemicals, as rumour has it that toxins from Rayong were regularly dumped. But the other six containers remain a mystery because fat has reportedly leaked out of them and come to the surface, they said.”
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/17/national/national_30102835.php

• 75 antipadshist // May 18, 2009 at 11:43 pm

  Chatuporn surrenders to police
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/18/politics/politics_30102920.php

  “… he would later come back to file a complaint against Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva for ordering the murder of red-shirt protesters.”

• 76 Dickie Simpkins // May 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  Antipadshit,

  I have been out for a while, so I haven’t had time to read or reply your comment.

  But I particularly point to 2 things.

  1. Yes, Jim and Nick have the right to talk about versions of the truth that are different from the ‘official truth’. Frankly speaking, I have no problems with differing opinions and biases as they are natural and required in a pluralistic democratic society. And with you, I share their respect in ‘daring’ to speak a version of truth that is alternative to the “OFFICIAL TRUTH”

  2. Regarding Jim in particular, you said, “a lot (if not most) of commentators attack him with accusations of bias. ”

  —-> That is a problem. I am not attacking Jim of a “bias”. If he was biased against the government, I would probably be wondering “So what?” It matters not that he is biased, a ‘bias’ only matters when the biased person tries to pass themselves off as unbiased. In Jim’s case, the problem is that he that he is beyond bias, and even beyond partisan as he is using his position, that of an ‘academic’ not to come up with with an “alternative version” of ‘official truth’, but to use irrefutable “facts” that aren’t based on reality. Anyone can make suppositions based on the contrary evidence, but its another thing to use made up evidence to make conclusions.

  I never call out ‘David Brown’ for questioning the possibility that the ‘blue shirts’ may have been behind the parking of the gas tanks and/or buses against the soldiers. In fact, as this is possible, but it doesn’t make it true. And that is where things get murky and muddy.

  Academics like Jim Taylor in his discussion of psych ops should focus more on things that ‘clear the crap’ rather than adding more poop into the pile.

  I’ve said it before, I have a problem with just a few words into his whole post, and instead of making it clearer or admit some type of error, Jim Taylor finds it easier to throw labels of me being some sort of close-minded facist/rightist with a hidden agenda of converting NM’ers into blindly following government propaganda. I’d argue that in life we agree with some people some of the time, and disagree with them others of the time. As Obama always says, “you can disagree without being disagreeable” Till now, and we’ve reached post #76, Jim Taylor cannot provide irrefutable evidence on his claim that 156 people died and ‘factually prove’ that the government is behind the actual instigation of the violence. Again, what we really know is that everything is possible, and the details are yet very very murky as (apparently) both sides are being full of crap rather than being sincere.

  Even more odd that when I asked Nick the same question in the other thread (on Nick’s own report), Nick refused to publicly back Jim Taylor’s “irrefutable facts” and stated blankly that all things are murky, while being clear with his own beliefs/suppositions based on what he has heard/seen/witnessed. As such, Nick showed himself as someone of high regard and respectability for point-blankly refusing to add more poop into the pile.

  Perhaps Academic Jim Taylor be a student and learn.

• 77 Portman // May 20, 2009 at 9:50 pm

  This thread has become quite humorous. After many years of grappling with arcane problems in anthropology of interest only to a limited number of other academics, an obscure Australian professor has launched himself into the murky world of Thai politics. As an anthropologist he has observed closely the conventions of Thai politicians to the extent that he is now qualified to imitate them and dispense with his academic training. Gone is the tedious need for verfication of facts and the endless citation of dreary learned articles published by other unworldly academics. In politics none of this necessary. You can just start from the conclusion you would like to achieve and loosely weave unsubstantiated allegations around it.

  Thaksin is a master of this. He sounded the “dead bodies in army trucks” call in his TV interviews, hoping against hope that it could be made to look as if it might be true and start a movement that would end in him being happily reunited with his money and power. The faithful red foot soldiers, including the naive farang ones, are still trudging along attempting to do the Big Boss’s bidding, while he is trying on yet another diamond studded Rolex in an air conditioned shopping mall in a desperate third world country that is willing extend diplomatic priveliges to phony Sandinista ambassadors.

• 78 antipadshist // May 21, 2009 at 10:03 am

  @Dickie

  there are news article where it is mentioned that gov. has forbidden UDD to show the videos and other materials.

  there is certain unspoken (or not officially spoken) order or something alike to cover up evidences.

  read this :

  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/21/politics/politics_30103211.php

  also gov.’s website launched ESPECIALLY for this purpose (to provide FACTS about 13th Apr) looks like this :

  http://www.factreport.go.th/en/

  do you think it can be considered seriously – what facts do they provide ?

  I don’t know about 156 dead. since the beginning (on that day itself, 5-6am Apr 13th) I’ve heard number 6 to 10 on D-station while it was still broadcasting.

  there is VCD produced by UDD (or PT ?) where one guy who has allegedly survived (who jumped from the truck) is giving interview….

  I am quite now, waiting for developments. Jatuporn is being quoted saying that’ he’ll file case with police about ABhisit giving order to murder people. also that Reds will reveal evidences before their big rally before June 24th.

  althogh they already said similar thing before their rally on May 10th – and it was quite.

  so, I am waiting to see the development.

Leave a Comment