Those who consider themselves even slightly progressive should look closely at whose office this report comes out. Robert Amsterdam does legal and PR work for billionaires, usually Russian oligarchs. Thaksin fits very easily into his client list. This is what money can buy.
For Thaksin everything has a price. He bought an election to become CEO prime minister and he has tried to buy a putsch. So far he hasn’t succeeded but I’m sure he hasn’t given up.
It is quite obvious there’s one, two or three posters here who are more interested in criticize anyone, anything that are related to Thaksin instead of the report itself or whatever the author had written…so I say, there’s no point debating with them as you will only be talking to a wall… 🙂
It is not difficult to flaunt the rules of engagement when those in your rifle sights have been consistently portrayed as not only “unThai” but also little more than animals. This is not an exaggeration. Listen to how a red shirt is referred to in Thai as “it” (р╕бр╕▒р╕Щ man) rather than “he” or “she” (р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ kao) by the opposition.
As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, the Bangkok Post reports that the ICC has no jurisdiction over alleged crimes on Thai territory because Thailand is not a state party to the Rome statute.
ICC vice-president Hans-Peter Kaul suggests There is no doubt in my mind that all of the 114 state parties of the court – among them Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh and Cambodia – would like to see Thailand as a partner in the ICC.
A positive first step could be the elaboration of a proper translation of the Rome Statute into the Thai language
On a related topic I would also like to see a decent copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Thai freely available in bookshops here. Unfortunately the copy on the United Nations website is virtually unreadable. Does anyone at New Mandala have the means to improve it?
Goon Squad: “Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them?” Sure. The MiB on the 10th were highly trained soldiers (probably serving soldiers) sent by the clique of generals I mentioned before. Many of these generals are – or have been – close to Thaksin, but their main motivation wasn’t helping the red shirts, but instead their opposition to Prayuth and Burapa Payak. So you can blame the military and factionalism within it if you want I suppose, it wouldn’t have happened if the red shirts weren’t there, but it’s not their fault either. I gather that the plan was to kill more soldiers, but it was called off part way through. I don’t think the red shirt leaders knew these MiB would appear on April 10th beforehand, and I’m not entirely sure they were told the full details after.
Seh Daeng was shot in revenge for this incident, but I think he was just a convenient scapegoat for both sides and had nothing to do with it. However, the “men in black” in action after the 10th were a different group and likely they were some of the ordinary red shirt guards that had got weapons from the military or the ronin trained by Seh Daeng. I’m not saying the UDD leaders supported this either (we can’t know for sure), but it’s hard to believe they were unaware that there were armed militants amongst them.
Of course, this is just my informed speculation. I don’t know for sure, but it’s interesting that what the source told me many months ago (about the grenades thrown by hand etc) is detailed in this report. Anyway, GS, MiB played the key role in what happened on the 10th, so to dismiss them entirely or just not mention them when there’s clear evidence that they fired upon troops does make the report seem rather a futile exercise. That alone shouldn’t mean that other points should be dismissed, but it certainly makes it easier to do so for those who seem to be determined to excuse irresponsible/criminal actions carried out by the military.
It also plays into ridiculous conspiracy theories that is was all a set up by the army, there’s no evidence for that and none given in this report either. I don’t know why people persist with this line as it just makes them seem stupid & naive and discredits them entirely. Why is it hard to admit for many red shirts (& moreover many of their farang supporters) that there were MiB involved and they were either there because they were red shirts themselves and believed in the cause (MiB after 10th) or because of the intra-elite/military struggle (10th)?
The bulk of the fault still lies with the army as post April 10 there are numerous witness accounts that has the army shooting people with no militants in sight. And we should also remember that an election could’ve been called at any point to avoid bloodshed. But red shirts would do well to look at some of their own leaders, mainly, I’d suggest, the departed Seh Daeng and Thaksin. Without these two, I don’t think armed elements would’ve got involved and it would’ve been a more or less peaceful protest (bar molotov cocktails, rocks etc). Would so many protesters have then been shot if the government didn’t have the excuse of the MiB? I believe some would’ve been shot anyway, but nowhere near as many and the government would have entirely lost legitimacy. Thaksin was, of course, the main problem. The generals probably wouldn’t have got involved if it weren’t for him and red shirt leaders couldn’t get rid of Seh Daeng even if they wanted to, due to his proximity to Thaksin. Therefore one can’t help wondering if Thaksin really cares about the lives of ordinary red shirts, or whether he sees them as just fodder for his cause?
“What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. ”
His argument was that the military had taken up position in such a way that prohibit any unnoticeable access to the protest venue. Based on that assumption its impossible for the MiB to be someone from the outside.
I am pretty sure that the crowd at Imperial Ladprao tomorrow will be delighted to see that injustice and violent actions against innocent people will be shown throughout the world via a video link. The Abhisit regime and its ammat backers will have another sleepless nights. However, I wonder if they dare to shut down internet like what Egypt did two days ago.
Well I guess we can say it was all the army’s fault if we class Seh Daeng as army, which of course he was. The Thahan Phran were army irregulars as well so we can blame the military for them too. That’s pretty good for Amsterdam because then the UDD and Thaksin become blameless. Now if only he can somehow pin the whole thing on Prem it would be a perfect testimony.
LesAbbey (#5) says “He [Amsterdam] attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies”.
What “lies” exactly? Just what is it that makes “Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office….. now so suspect”?
In response to MalcLeigh’s wondering (#9), I’ll point out that LesAbbey hasn’t yet produced anything here to rebut – just more of the same unsubstantiated mocking that seems to be his substitute for criticism. I can’t speak for others, but that certainly rates a thumbs-down from me.
"Then I presume everyone will be happy." Vaughan
The purpose of the article, Vaughan, is not to make everyone happy. There was the possibility that you could have learned something. You complain that “these words contain value judgments”; indeed, I am quite explicit about the nature of the judgments I have been making, and, to quote my own earlier reply, "The chronology, geography and language of your sources is ineluctably important, and disclosing these distinctions (honestly and fully) to your readers is also important, when you offer historical judgments, opinions and analysis."
Steve is flatly wrong when he complains, "It is an article which asserts a value judgment in favour of earlier texts which is unwarranted and certainly unexplained." Steve
It was carefully warranted and explained in the article itself, and has now been iterated and re-iterated in the discussion following thereafter. To disregard the difference between earlier and later texts is unwarranted and, indeed, unwise. The “value judgement” I’m offering is precisely one of chronology, and, as I’ve said above, "Chronology is merciless: it is quite possible to explain early materials without appeal to later ones, but it is impossible to treat subsequent developments without inquiring into whatever came before."
It is my critics, by contrast, who offer claims that are lacking facts and citations, and, I must offer my well-informed opinion that many of you are offering judgments about texts that you have never read –neither in Pali, nor even in translation. Vaughan makes claims about the cultural perception of the Nid─Бnakath─Б; does he have a secondary source he could cite for this, or are we supposed to imagine that he has investigated it himself? Could he provide a link to any website that demonstrates his capacity in the languages, literature, social history, etc., that he would need to offer such a judgment? Even if he could muster some evidence of his firsthand knowledge or secondary sources, he would still be making a spurious claim because it concerns both a text and a cultural attitude toward it many, many centuries subsequent to the historical issue being explained in this article (not to mention being geographically and culturally far removed from it).
Steve complains aloud that he does know “a canonical language” (other than Pali) but that the readers of this forum would not believe him in making this claim. It would not be unbelievable at all, if he could cite some of his published work, or at least link to a website demonstrating some original research on his part, be it textual or fieldwork, etc. –but nobody commenting on this article has offered any substantiation of this kind whatsoever.
Instead, finding the content of the article unanswerable, he has constructed an ad hominem attack based on the use of the word “heresy”; the attack is not based on the word itself, but the allegation that am “an academic”, and therefore not entitled to an opinion, not entitled to use such a word, and so on. This is risible at best. Look up the meaning of the noun “academic”, and you’ll see that it does not in any sense apply to me. It is surprising and saddening to me that you have not responded to the content of the article, but instead have replied by attacking me as merely an academic outsider to Buddhism. It would take two clicks of a mouse-button to figure out that I am not (nor ever shall be) an academic; further, it would be difficult to construe that I’m an outsider commenting across a divide from “their own religion” (as you put it).
Gentlemen, if you will be gentlemen, you all have my e-mail address if you wish to write to me, but I do not think that I am about to receive a torrent of messages demonstrating primary-source knowledge of the Visuddhimagga, nor of the Nid─Бnakath─Б, nor even showing the years of work it would take to make statements about the cultural perception of these texts within Burmese orthodoxy, Sinhalese orthodoxy, or any other Theravada culture (in any period of history!).
Anyone who conducts original research and presents original findings is thereby entitled to an opinion; the nature of opinion is that we entitle ourselves.
This is my final contribution to this forum; a new article I’ve written on the misinterpretation of ancient texts has been added to the same website in the last few days. I hope that the comments there will be more substantial and, frankly, more respectful. http://www.newmandala.org/2011/01/27/unpopular-facts-about-one-of-buddhist-philosophys-most-popular-doctrines/
Weren’t the MiB more likely linked to elements in the military than the Red Shirts?
To then diminish the rest of this statement as it can’t explain something no one else has been able to is an argument lacking in cogency, intellectual rigour and legal basis.
Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them? Do you think that nobody should attempt to explain the events that night until every single fact and shred of evidence becomes available? Everything, from the death of Hiro, to the grenade that killed Romklao, points to the Thai army starting this all off, without any real provocation. Eyeball witnesses report that army snipers just started shooting at people. Ask yourself – does the Thai military seem capable of this? Have they ever done it before?
“Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.” That’s what someone well placed told me had happened long ago, well before I read this report. Apparently they just sank back into the mass of troops after they’d done it. An ‘inside’ job I suppose, except the guys that threw the grenades were water melon soldiers working on behalf of a clique of generals opposed to Burapa Payak.
What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. Did Witty not see videos like this: http://youtu.be/XXr-o9f06ec – ? Not acknowledging such evidence seems a foolhardy tactic since the several good points Witty makes become easily dismissible by those who wish to excuse the Thai army for its actions in April/May. Even though making mention of evidence like this might seem to weaken their argument, it actually strengthens it because otherwise “expert reports” like this just become one sided exercises in the absurd. And, as I say, it becomes easy to dismiss the experts Amsterdam employs as just paid propagandists. At least consider all the evidence and dismiss it in the report, if there’s good reason to dismiss it. Don’t just ignore it…
Not questioning the content or the Professionalism of Mr. Witty, I’m sure every word of his expertise make valid point of how the Thai Military murderers hurts and kills our people but will his professionalism be recognized at the ICC in this case?
The Thai military regime can simply argue that “What’s it got to do with him and that what he’d said and mentioned it’s only his “opinion” not facts of the incident”. Also, where can his testimonials comes in?
OFFICE OF THE SUPREME HEADQUARTERS
KAREN NATIONAL UNION
KAWTHOOLEI
President’s Address on 62nd Anniversary of Karen Revolutionary Resistance Day
Dear Karen Nationals,
Officers and Men of the Karen National Armed Forces,
Today, January 31, 2011 is the 62nd Anniversary of the Revolutionary Resistance Day. On this special and dignified day, I would like to greet you by wishing you – all the valiant colleagues in the Karen National Armed Forces and the entire Karen people – to be healthy and cheerful in body and mind.
We the Karen people are a major ethnic nationality living in this country, Burma, and endowed with all the characteristics befitting a nationality. We the Karen people are honest and love truth and peace. However, due to persecution by successive rulers, we have never had a chance to enjoy peace, have to migrate to places all over the world and have to face with all kinds of difficulty and poverty.
We, the Karen people, started the demand for the rights of the Karen people peacefully, during the rule of the AFPFL regime, but the ruling AFPFL regime rejected the demands and started to attack on the KNU Headquarters on January 31, 1949. The Karen people had no choice but to take up arms for resistance and in self-defense. Thus, the Karen People’s Revolutionary Resistance Day came into being.
Today is the day when the Karen revolutionary resistance has been in existence for exactly 62 years. In the 62 years of revolutionary resistance, though we have to bear bitterly the enemy’s violent military offensives and divisive plots against us by various means, our resistance continues to exist until now, because our resistance is true and just. It is also due to the solid morale, genuine faith and unrelenting perseverance and diligence of our revolutionary comrades.
Though we have to continue to resist, since the time of the AFPFL regime up to the present time of military rule of force and terror, we have demanded consistently to resolve peacefully by political means the question of the rights desired by us. However, the successive regimes treat our demands as a game for their political play and always try to eliminate our resistance by various means.
For strengthening their hold on power, the military dictators ruling the country by force, are about to produce a puppet government by holding a sham election on November 7, 2010. On our part, we will not absolutely accept the illegitimate rule of the people of Burma by the puppet government of the military dictators and struggle on until we achieve our true revolutionary resistance’s aim – the establishment of a democratic federal union.
For achievement of victory of the Karen revolution, it is not only the duty of Karen revolutionaries but also of every Karen. We have to achieve Karen revolution’s victory by establishing the Karen people’s unity through the support and cooperation of the Karen people.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you to struggle on until a democratic federal union guaranteeing the rights and existence of the ethnic nationalities is established, taking lessons from the enemy’s plots of dividing us in the past 62 years for the future march in our revolutionary movement, with political and revolutionary alertness, bearing in mind the Four Principles laid down by our leader Saw Ba U Gyi and hand in hand with our fellow ethnic nationality and democratic forces.
There is so much that can be criticized in both the military and civilian forces response to the UDD protest of April/May 2010, and yet Amsterdam has to turn it into a propaganda piece. I guess this must be because he considers it unlikely the ICC will take any action, so the only benefit to his paymaster is the propaganda effect.
Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.
The problem with Amsterdam’s output is that it is written for an audience that has no other knowledge of what has been going on in Thailand this century. He attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies. The reason being that getting your story in first is a good defense.
The shame is that the Thai army is obviously not well trained in crowd control right up to the very top of its organization and should be getting criticism for this. That the civilian police force was not willing to do its duty at the time for whatever reasons, including political and financial, tends to suggest that as a force it needs the decentralizing reforms that have been talked about before.
Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office is now so suspect that it’s very hard to give it any credence. The only thing that surprised me was that he didn’t pull his expert out of one of the many Pattaya bars where he could find plenty of supposed Green Berets, SAS and Russian Spetsnaz.
Perhaps the several comment evaluators who hit the “thumbs down “button can elaborate on why they reacted negatively to those comments, and/or to the article by Mr. Mazard itself?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
Those who consider themselves even slightly progressive should look closely at whose office this report comes out. Robert Amsterdam does legal and PR work for billionaires, usually Russian oligarchs. Thaksin fits very easily into his client list. This is what money can buy.
For Thaksin everything has a price. He bought an election to become CEO prime minister and he has tried to buy a putsch. So far he hasn’t succeeded but I’m sure he hasn’t given up.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
It is quite obvious there’s one, two or three posters here who are more interested in criticize anyone, anything that are related to Thaksin instead of the report itself or whatever the author had written…so I say, there’s no point debating with them as you will only be talking to a wall… 🙂
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
@MalcLeigh, objectivity is not a criteria for rating of a comment nor is any reasoning/rebuttal required as you surely must know by now.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
It is not difficult to flaunt the rules of engagement when those in your rifle sights have been consistently portrayed as not only “unThai” but also little more than animals. This is not an exaggeration. Listen to how a red shirt is referred to in Thai as “it” (р╕бр╕▒р╕Щ man) rather than “he” or “she” (р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ kao) by the opposition.
As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, the Bangkok Post reports that the ICC has no jurisdiction over alleged crimes on Thai territory because Thailand is not a state party to the Rome statute.
ICC vice-president Hans-Peter Kaul suggests There is no doubt in my mind that all of the 114 state parties of the court – among them Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh and Cambodia – would like to see Thailand as a partner in the ICC.
A positive first step could be the elaboration of a proper translation of the Rome Statute into the Thai language
On a related topic I would also like to see a decent copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Thai freely available in bookshops here. Unfortunately the copy on the United Nations website is virtually unreadable. Does anyone at New Mandala have the means to improve it?
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
Goon Squad: “Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them?” Sure. The MiB on the 10th were highly trained soldiers (probably serving soldiers) sent by the clique of generals I mentioned before. Many of these generals are – or have been – close to Thaksin, but their main motivation wasn’t helping the red shirts, but instead their opposition to Prayuth and Burapa Payak. So you can blame the military and factionalism within it if you want I suppose, it wouldn’t have happened if the red shirts weren’t there, but it’s not their fault either. I gather that the plan was to kill more soldiers, but it was called off part way through. I don’t think the red shirt leaders knew these MiB would appear on April 10th beforehand, and I’m not entirely sure they were told the full details after.
Seh Daeng was shot in revenge for this incident, but I think he was just a convenient scapegoat for both sides and had nothing to do with it. However, the “men in black” in action after the 10th were a different group and likely they were some of the ordinary red shirt guards that had got weapons from the military or the ronin trained by Seh Daeng. I’m not saying the UDD leaders supported this either (we can’t know for sure), but it’s hard to believe they were unaware that there were armed militants amongst them.
Of course, this is just my informed speculation. I don’t know for sure, but it’s interesting that what the source told me many months ago (about the grenades thrown by hand etc) is detailed in this report. Anyway, GS, MiB played the key role in what happened on the 10th, so to dismiss them entirely or just not mention them when there’s clear evidence that they fired upon troops does make the report seem rather a futile exercise. That alone shouldn’t mean that other points should be dismissed, but it certainly makes it easier to do so for those who seem to be determined to excuse irresponsible/criminal actions carried out by the military.
It also plays into ridiculous conspiracy theories that is was all a set up by the army, there’s no evidence for that and none given in this report either. I don’t know why people persist with this line as it just makes them seem stupid & naive and discredits them entirely. Why is it hard to admit for many red shirts (& moreover many of their farang supporters) that there were MiB involved and they were either there because they were red shirts themselves and believed in the cause (MiB after 10th) or because of the intra-elite/military struggle (10th)?
The bulk of the fault still lies with the army as post April 10 there are numerous witness accounts that has the army shooting people with no militants in sight. And we should also remember that an election could’ve been called at any point to avoid bloodshed. But red shirts would do well to look at some of their own leaders, mainly, I’d suggest, the departed Seh Daeng and Thaksin. Without these two, I don’t think armed elements would’ve got involved and it would’ve been a more or less peaceful protest (bar molotov cocktails, rocks etc). Would so many protesters have then been shot if the government didn’t have the excuse of the MiB? I believe some would’ve been shot anyway, but nowhere near as many and the government would have entirely lost legitimacy. Thaksin was, of course, the main problem. The generals probably wouldn’t have got involved if it weren’t for him and red shirt leaders couldn’t get rid of Seh Daeng even if they wanted to, due to his proximity to Thaksin. Therefore one can’t help wondering if Thaksin really cares about the lives of ordinary red shirts, or whether he sees them as just fodder for his cause?
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
James – 10
“What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. ”
His argument was that the military had taken up position in such a way that prohibit any unnoticeable access to the protest venue. Based on that assumption its impossible for the MiB to be someone from the outside.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
I am pretty sure that the crowd at Imperial Ladprao tomorrow will be delighted to see that injustice and violent actions against innocent people will be shown throughout the world via a video link. The Abhisit regime and its ammat backers will have another sleepless nights. However, I wonder if they dare to shut down internet like what Egypt did two days ago.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
[…] readers who haven’t yet seen it, New Mandala has one witness account that is said to be from the second report on behalf of the UDD, to the […]
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
Well I guess we can say it was all the army’s fault if we class Seh Daeng as army, which of course he was. The Thahan Phran were army irregulars as well so we can blame the military for them too. That’s pretty good for Amsterdam because then the UDD and Thaksin become blameless. Now if only he can somehow pin the whole thing on Prem it would be a perfect testimony.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
LesAbbey (#5) says “He [Amsterdam] attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies”.
What “lies” exactly? Just what is it that makes “Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office….. now so suspect”?
In response to MalcLeigh’s wondering (#9), I’ll point out that LesAbbey hasn’t yet produced anything here to rebut – just more of the same unsubstantiated mocking that seems to be his substitute for criticism. I can’t speak for others, but that certainly rates a thumbs-down from me.
The Buddha was bald
"Then I presume everyone will be happy." VaughanThe purpose of the article, Vaughan, is not to make everyone happy. There was the possibility that you could have learned something. You complain that “these words contain value judgments”; indeed, I am quite explicit about the nature of the judgments I have been making, and, to quote my own earlier reply,
"The chronology, geography and language of your sources is ineluctably important, and disclosing these distinctions (honestly and fully) to your readers is also important, when you offer historical judgments, opinions and analysis."Steve is flatly wrong when he complains,
"It is an article which asserts a value judgment in favour of earlier texts which is unwarranted and certainly unexplained." SteveIt was carefully warranted and explained in the article itself, and has now been iterated and re-iterated in the discussion following thereafter. To disregard the difference between earlier and later texts is unwarranted and, indeed, unwise. The “value judgement” I’m offering is precisely one of chronology, and, as I’ve said above,
"Chronology is merciless: it is quite possible to explain early materials without appeal to later ones, but it is impossible to treat subsequent developments without inquiring into whatever came before."It is my critics, by contrast, who offer claims that are lacking facts and citations, and, I must offer my well-informed opinion that many of you are offering judgments about texts that you have never read –neither in Pali, nor even in translation. Vaughan makes claims about the cultural perception of the Nid─Бnakath─Б; does he have a secondary source he could cite for this, or are we supposed to imagine that he has investigated it himself? Could he provide a link to any website that demonstrates his capacity in the languages, literature, social history, etc., that he would need to offer such a judgment? Even if he could muster some evidence of his firsthand knowledge or secondary sources, he would still be making a spurious claim because it concerns both a text and a cultural attitude toward it many, many centuries subsequent to the historical issue being explained in this article (not to mention being geographically and culturally far removed from it).
Steve complains aloud that he does know “a canonical language” (other than Pali) but that the readers of this forum would not believe him in making this claim. It would not be unbelievable at all, if he could cite some of his published work, or at least link to a website demonstrating some original research on his part, be it textual or fieldwork, etc. –but nobody commenting on this article has offered any substantiation of this kind whatsoever.
Instead, finding the content of the article unanswerable, he has constructed an ad hominem attack based on the use of the word “heresy”; the attack is not based on the word itself, but the allegation that am “an academic”, and therefore not entitled to an opinion, not entitled to use such a word, and so on. This is risible at best. Look up the meaning of the noun “academic”, and you’ll see that it does not in any sense apply to me. It is surprising and saddening to me that you have not responded to the content of the article, but instead have replied by attacking me as merely an academic outsider to Buddhism. It would take two clicks of a mouse-button to figure out that I am not (nor ever shall be) an academic; further, it would be difficult to construe that I’m an outsider commenting across a divide from “their own religion” (as you put it).
Gentlemen, if you will be gentlemen, you all have my e-mail address if you wish to write to me, but I do not think that I am about to receive a torrent of messages demonstrating primary-source knowledge of the Visuddhimagga, nor of the Nid─Бnakath─Б, nor even showing the years of work it would take to make statements about the cultural perception of these texts within Burmese orthodoxy, Sinhalese orthodoxy, or any other Theravada culture (in any period of history!).
Anyone who conducts original research and presents original findings is thereby entitled to an opinion; the nature of opinion is that we entitle ourselves.
This is my final contribution to this forum; a new article I’ve written on the misinterpretation of ancient texts has been added to the same website in the last few days. I hope that the comments there will be more substantial and, frankly, more respectful. http://www.newmandala.org/2011/01/27/unpopular-facts-about-one-of-buddhist-philosophys-most-popular-doctrines/
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
I am wondering if the 10 or so who hit the thumbs down on LesAbbey’s comment has any reasons/rebuttals for doing so?
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
@James
Weren’t the MiB more likely linked to elements in the military than the Red Shirts?
To then diminish the rest of this statement as it can’t explain something no one else has been able to is an argument lacking in cogency, intellectual rigour and legal basis.
Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them? Do you think that nobody should attempt to explain the events that night until every single fact and shred of evidence becomes available? Everything, from the death of Hiro, to the grenade that killed Romklao, points to the Thai army starting this all off, without any real provocation. Eyeball witnesses report that army snipers just started shooting at people. Ask yourself – does the Thai military seem capable of this? Have they ever done it before?
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
“Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.” That’s what someone well placed told me had happened long ago, well before I read this report. Apparently they just sank back into the mass of troops after they’d done it. An ‘inside’ job I suppose, except the guys that threw the grenades were water melon soldiers working on behalf of a clique of generals opposed to Burapa Payak.
What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. Did Witty not see videos like this: http://youtu.be/XXr-o9f06ec – ? Not acknowledging such evidence seems a foolhardy tactic since the several good points Witty makes become easily dismissible by those who wish to excuse the Thai army for its actions in April/May. Even though making mention of evidence like this might seem to weaken their argument, it actually strengthens it because otherwise “expert reports” like this just become one sided exercises in the absurd. And, as I say, it becomes easy to dismiss the experts Amsterdam employs as just paid propagandists. At least consider all the evidence and dismiss it in the report, if there’s good reason to dismiss it. Don’t just ignore it…
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
Not questioning the content or the Professionalism of Mr. Witty, I’m sure every word of his expertise make valid point of how the Thai Military murderers hurts and kills our people but will his professionalism be recognized at the ICC in this case?
The Thai military regime can simply argue that “What’s it got to do with him and that what he’d said and mentioned it’s only his “opinion” not facts of the incident”. Also, where can his testimonials comes in?
Volunteering to fight in Burma
OFFICE OF THE SUPREME HEADQUARTERS
KAREN NATIONAL UNION
KAWTHOOLEI
President’s Address on 62nd Anniversary of Karen Revolutionary Resistance Day
Dear Karen Nationals,
Officers and Men of the Karen National Armed Forces,
Today, January 31, 2011 is the 62nd Anniversary of the Revolutionary Resistance Day. On this special and dignified day, I would like to greet you by wishing you – all the valiant colleagues in the Karen National Armed Forces and the entire Karen people – to be healthy and cheerful in body and mind.
We the Karen people are a major ethnic nationality living in this country, Burma, and endowed with all the characteristics befitting a nationality. We the Karen people are honest and love truth and peace. However, due to persecution by successive rulers, we have never had a chance to enjoy peace, have to migrate to places all over the world and have to face with all kinds of difficulty and poverty.
We, the Karen people, started the demand for the rights of the Karen people peacefully, during the rule of the AFPFL regime, but the ruling AFPFL regime rejected the demands and started to attack on the KNU Headquarters on January 31, 1949. The Karen people had no choice but to take up arms for resistance and in self-defense. Thus, the Karen People’s Revolutionary Resistance Day came into being.
Today is the day when the Karen revolutionary resistance has been in existence for exactly 62 years. In the 62 years of revolutionary resistance, though we have to bear bitterly the enemy’s violent military offensives and divisive plots against us by various means, our resistance continues to exist until now, because our resistance is true and just. It is also due to the solid morale, genuine faith and unrelenting perseverance and diligence of our revolutionary comrades.
Though we have to continue to resist, since the time of the AFPFL regime up to the present time of military rule of force and terror, we have demanded consistently to resolve peacefully by political means the question of the rights desired by us. However, the successive regimes treat our demands as a game for their political play and always try to eliminate our resistance by various means.
For strengthening their hold on power, the military dictators ruling the country by force, are about to produce a puppet government by holding a sham election on November 7, 2010. On our part, we will not absolutely accept the illegitimate rule of the people of Burma by the puppet government of the military dictators and struggle on until we achieve our true revolutionary resistance’s aim – the establishment of a democratic federal union.
For achievement of victory of the Karen revolution, it is not only the duty of Karen revolutionaries but also of every Karen. We have to achieve Karen revolution’s victory by establishing the Karen people’s unity through the support and cooperation of the Karen people.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you to struggle on until a democratic federal union guaranteeing the rights and existence of the ethnic nationalities is established, taking lessons from the enemy’s plots of dividing us in the past 62 years for the future march in our revolutionary movement, with political and revolutionary alertness, bearing in mind the Four Principles laid down by our leader Saw Ba U Gyi and hand in hand with our fellow ethnic nationality and democratic forces.
—————————— ——————————
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
There is so much that can be criticized in both the military and civilian forces response to the UDD protest of April/May 2010, and yet Amsterdam has to turn it into a propaganda piece. I guess this must be because he considers it unlikely the ICC will take any action, so the only benefit to his paymaster is the propaganda effect.
Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.
The problem with Amsterdam’s output is that it is written for an audience that has no other knowledge of what has been going on in Thailand this century. He attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies. The reason being that getting your story in first is a good defense.
The shame is that the Thai army is obviously not well trained in crowd control right up to the very top of its organization and should be getting criticism for this. That the civilian police force was not willing to do its duty at the time for whatever reasons, including political and financial, tends to suggest that as a force it needs the decentralizing reforms that have been talked about before.
Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office is now so suspect that it’s very hard to give it any credence. The only thing that surprised me was that he didn’t pull his expert out of one of the many Pattaya bars where he could find plenty of supposed Green Berets, SAS and Russian Spetsnaz.
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
All we want is justice and the rights we’re told we are entitled to under law. Let’s hope for just that.
Unpopular facts about one of Buddhist philosophy’s most popular doctrines
Perhaps the several comment evaluators who hit the “thumbs down “button can elaborate on why they reacted negatively to those comments, and/or to the article by Mr. Mazard itself?
Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010
thanks for reporting this
good to see professionals assembling evidence
with/without the ICC these reports will have lasting value