Saturday, October 2, 2010

Huffpo Censors Thailand Via Amsterdam

I received an interesting email from yet another Huffpo user named Scuter who was banned recently. Like a lot of us Scuter was until recently a loyal Huffpo user who liked the site quite a bit. He posted several comments on the article by Robert Amsterdam titled Thailand Sets a Poor Example to Burma.

The situation in Thailand is complex and even though I've spent a few hours trying to understand it I feel as if I've just scratched the surface. However, what is clear to me is that Scuter's comments were perfectly appropriate. He pointed out a clear bias that Mr. Amsterdam has which was not brought out in the article. He also pointed out errors and bias in Mr. Amsterdam's article and as he makes clear below did so in a way that was clearly in compliance with Huffpo's comment guidelines.

Here is a screen snapshot of one of his comments:

Scuter had 5 comments in a row deleted. Not one of them contained a single untrue word. Some of them contained only links to external news articles that provided a needed contrary perspective to Mr. Amsterdam's article. For example, an Amnesty International report on Thaksin's extra-judicial killings or a link to a NY Times article quoting Human Rights Watch Asia Director saying the 3000 extra-judicial killings under Thaksin were "appalling".

Here are some other links that Scuter tried to include in his comments but were censored. The descriptions for the links come from Scuter: article (05/05/10) which paints a far more accurate picture of the extended crisis, as it unfolded. The protesters were remarkably convincing as hijackers holding Bangkok CBD hostage to their ever-increasingly irrational ransom demands. Over a very long period of time. article (05/14/10) documenting the 'peaceful' protesters (armed with Molotov cocktails, smoke bombs and rifles) as they provoked and then attacked the soldiers who were tasked with returning the CBD to Bangkok's 20 million residents, who had long since tired of watching the government agree to the protesters demands, only for the protesters to reject the generous concessions.

Youtube footage of Red Shirt core leaders (the group that Mr. Amsterdam portrayed as peaceful victims of government repression) ordering their followers to resort to violence and terror in chilling speeches filmed months before the 'peaceful' protesters set fire to Bangkok:

(0:48 sec) Red Shirt core leader Arisaman screaming for the tens of thousands of Red Shirts to bring petrol to Bangkok to burn the city down.

(0:31 sec) Red Shirt core leader Nattawut telling the massive crowd to "burn the country down" and he would take full responsibility.

(1:20 min) Arisaman outlining detailed instructions to the Red Shirts heading to Bangkok to each bring 1 litre of gas to "bargain" with, and if the government doesn't listen, to use the petrol to make them "disappear from this world".


  1. why is The huffingtonPost supports the terrorists i think before The huffingtonPost was against the terrorism??

  2. One person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter". The US often supports groups that most of the rest of the world considers to be terrorists. Examples: the Sandanista Contras in the 70's and 80's; the various "freedom fighters" the US sponsored who sabotaged Cuba's infrastructure starting in the 1960's.

    More recently the Jundallah anti-Iranian terrorists who are linked to Al Queda and many people believe sponsored by the US:

    IMO, saying that The Huffington Post was against terrorism was never really true. Huffpo is now more or less part of the US MSM and like the NY Times, CNN, etc. they tend to support "good terrorism" terrorism committed by groups that do what the US wants and they fight against bad terrorism committed by groups opposed to US interests.

  3. HuffPost is indisputably allied with Thailand's Communist Red Shirts and promoting terrorism in Thailand as we speak. Trust me Pete, no one was as surprised as I...though from reading Red's comment above, sounds like my surprise was misplaced. But supporting outright terrorism? Still seems - weird - for Huffington Post...

    I don't have a huge problem with Communists or socialists, not even their militant wings if there is genuine need for Che militancy.

    But when they use the Communist playbook as their Bible in their fight against a peaceful government, and intentionally plan horrific atrocities which are 100 * the unacceptability of the 'repressive' / 'totalitarian' crackdowns they're attempting to induce from a government forced to fight terrorism with their arms behind their back courtesy of the filthy biased impacts upon my Zen.

    I can tolerate almost anything but hypocrisy. I'm censored on almost all the Commie sites calling the world to put pressure on Thailand to stop the repressive censorship (which doesn't even exist). It's ridiculous lol


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.