Talk:Khun Sa

Plagrisim from BBC
The revision by Sreeharim at 00:26, 31 October 2007 is almost exactly the same as this BBC article. Since this was done after the timestamp on the BBC article, I assume it was copied from there, so I reverted the change.

Adittes 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to meet you!
Thank you for this instructive article.

I have been reading the biographies of living persons page, which I should have done sooner. Sorry about that.

You would be doing me a large favor if you would explain to me, and I do not mean this facetioiusly, so please do not take it that way, what allows you to skirt the rules relating to what is in essence a biography of a living person?

Is there a reason that an article about Khun Sa, who is a public figure, though, under American law, not a criminal, just a suspect, if that matters (having only been indicted and not convicted in absentia), would not have to meet the sourcing and verifiability requirements?

I do not ask this in response to your moving my material - I understand that and agree with the appropriateness of that entirely. It was what led me to undertake to learn more about the Wiki's proper method.

I'd be grateful for a little light on the subject. Having spent lots of time in scrubby jungle wars and with other people like Khun Sa, I feel sure there might be a place for some of this history, commentary, first-hand reportage, which has been published widely and in highly reputable forms, including prime-time tv in dozens of coutries, newspapers, including The New York Times, but that I will figure out. But with the substantial errors, misunderstandings, misinterpretations of Burmese, and so on, that make up nearly every line of the Khun Sa article, I am curious as to what is supposed to happen.

Is there no need to source, as stated in the guidelines for BOLP? And if not, does that mean that the proper thing to do then is simply to go in and correct your errors?

And then what would one do if an article was so filled with inaccuracies, some other, hypothetical article, now, that it needed to be entirely rewritten, to the point of the original either not living on at all or only poking through the surface of the new layer here and there.

I feel quite fortunate to have fallen in the lap of someone who is as determined on the Wiki as you are, especially on the very first time I entered something, and so I am really looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks, B. Beker N69071


 * Very good points. This particular article has been somewhat unattended, which is the reason there is no citations and references or even tag. I wrote the first version when the source requirements were less strict and when I tried to find my original web sources later, they had disappeared.


 * As for your addition, the informational content was definitely appropriate, which is the reason I transferred it. If you can add any additional information and corrections with good and reputable sources, all the better. If that means that you have to rewrite the article, so be it - I have done the same thing many times with other articles. If you intend to add images, you just have to check that they are compatible with Wikipedia license.


 * I hope this answered at least some of the questions - Skysmith 21:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

B Beker's insertion
This narrative by another editor (B Beker) that was here had been deleted. It is fascinating and worthy of including here on the Talk page for the sake of discussion with other editors. Please don't delete it. --AStanhope 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:

Transferring text by here because it is more of a commentary - Skysmith 13:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Khun Sa appears in the award-winning 1990 film Lines of Fire. Apart from scenes showing him with his troops, some of whom are six-year-old boys, he is interviewed. Among other things, he discusses an assassination he ordered on a chemist who operated a heroin laboratory in the jungle. This chemist worked for rival heroin traffickers, the Wei Brothers. There were only two ground rules established by Khun Sa in the lengthy negotiations that preceded our visit to him in his jungle redoubt. The first ground rule was that he had a few home-made anti-aircraft weapons, and these were not allowed to be photographed. In all likelihood Khun Sa may have thought that the fear of these guns would keep enemy aircraft - whether American DEA or Burmese - away. Had anyone known that these were really nothing but a few pipes pointed up at the sky, there would have been nothing to hide. Possibly Khun Sa made this ground rule only to get the word out with me that he had anti-aircraft capability.


 * The other ground rule was that no question during the formal interview could be repeated. Whatever his first answer was, it could not be challenged. This was enforced by Khun Sa's reputation for having killed 11 Asian journalists.


 * On the question of the attempted Wei Brothers-related hit, Khun Sa denied involvement. It was impossible to settle for the denial, though, because I happened to know the truth. I knew the man who had been hired to organize the hit, and who subsequently had to take responsibility for its going awry. I knew the whole story. The night before this interview, cameraman, Marcus Birsel and I talked about my plans to defy the one-question rule. He agreed to go along with it, and to keep the camera rolling as long as he could. We discussed that in whispers in the ruddy, freezing hut with two cots in it. We were lucky that Khun Sa was at least generous with his blankets, because we froze at night in those hills, and needed six Chinese Army blankets each not to freeze. After that we hardly talked any more at all.


 * Khun Sa reworded his denial the second time around. Some high-toned political stuff about George Washington and other great rulers who also had to administer justice in the interests of founding a nation. At the time Khun Sa was cloaking his heroin operations in the left-over M-16s, raggedy but dangerous jungle fighters and agitation for independence of the Southeast Asian revolutionary. He was proposing to gain independence for the area under his control, an area about the size of Britain.


 * The third repetition of the question genuinely irritated the warlord. Here he was, a rightly feared man in his own camp, faced by two poorly-equipped 30-year-old journos whom he regarded as nothing more than pawns for his propaganda. Whom meeting with he postponed for a day in order to discuss and determine, with his advisers, why we might have arrived with our heads cleanly shaved. And so he forgot for a moment that even though it was true that his translator filtered our conversation, his original words were on tape and could later be translated and checked.


 * He said to his translator, a colonel who had been assigned as one of our watchers, something along the lines of, 'Of course I did it.' But he looks for a moment into the camera with a deep anger that only showed in his eyes. The colonel had been terrified since the second repetition. I was myself only pretending to be fearless, though I guess I bothered only for my own sake and to keep Birsel's spirit up. He was, after all, the one who got those homicidal looks through the viewfinder.


 * On film, Khun Sa stubs out his cigarette and continues with his answer, delivered through his colonel: 'Tell him I had nothing to do with it.'


 * And then he ended the interview with a wave of his hand, and a word to the colonel. Turn the damn camera off now. He stood up abruptly, revealing the flag of his Mong Tai nation, which had served as his backdrop.


 * I'll be back to post what happened in the aftermath. The documentary has nothing about that in it. It sticks to the local story. But Khun Sa's revenge, played out over the next two years, was truly an encounter that can only be had with a powerful megalomaniac. The lengths he went to to get us back inside Burma were the workings of a powerful man who must have had much, much, too much time on his hands - which was altogether probable. But the long-distance stalking was even grander than the DEA's impressive job of tailing me from Thailand to New York.


 * By the way, the above mention of 1000 tons of heroin is entirely incorrect. At the time I spent these ten days with Khun Sa he maintained that a ton was the amount he offered to sell to the United States, and it was a single ton that hhe kept on hand, stored securely. This - and heroin in general - he referred to as, "the poor man's nuclear bomb." I don't believe that 1000 tons of heroin have been imported to the United States in all of history. I'll come up with the right figures. I also do not recall that Khun Sa was the son of a Shan princess, though he very well might have been. It is true that he is half Chinese and half Shan.


 * Photos to follow.


 * [added by B. Beker, October 20, 2006]


 * [Sorry if it is improper here to essentially leave a TBC, but if someone lets me know, I'll get the hang of it.]


 * END --AStanhope 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing this documentary (correct me if I am wrong). In it Khun Sa spoke pretty good Chinese. He entertained his troops with a karaoke show singing Teresa Teng songs in Mandarin!!!! Also he seemed to have spoken in a Chinese dialect when answering the reporter's questions. I especially remember the answer he gave when asked what was the price of opium, which sounded like a typical Chinese merchant's answer of 'there is cheap and there is expensive', ie 'it depends'. May be Shan or Kareni languages are similar to Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.44 (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Text of Letter from Khun Sa June 28, 1987 offering entire Heroin production to USG
http://www.wethepeople.la/sa.htm Photo of original document (pages one and two) http://www.wethepeople.la/sa1.gif http://www.wethepeople.la/sa2.gif

T.R.C. Thailand Revolutionary Council

Date. June 28, 1987

To:

U.S. Justice Department Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Subject           Important facts for the Drugs Eradication Program to be successful.

Sirs:

This letter to the US Justice Department is to make it clear about our deepest concern in wishing to help eradicate drugs and for all the American people as well as the world to know the truth that for the past (15) years they have been misled to look upon us as the main source of all the drug problems.

1. The refusal of the United States government to accept our "SIX YEARS DRUGS ERADICATION PLAN" presented at the Congressional Hearing by Congressman Mr. Lester Woff after his visit to Thailand in April 1977, was really a great disappointment for us. Even after this disappointment, we continued writing letters to President Carter and President Reagan forwarding our sincere wish to help and participate in eradicating drugs. We are really surprise and doubtful as to why the US government refuses our participation and help to make a success of the drugs eradication program.

Furthermore, why the world has been misled to accuse me as the main culprit for all the drug trades..... while in reality, we are most sincere and willing to help solve the drug problems in South East Asia. Through our own secret investigation, we found out that some high officials in the US government's drugs control and enforcement department and with the influence of corrupted persons objected to our active participation in the drugs eradication program of the US government so as to be able to retain their profitable self-interest from the continuation of the drug problems. Thus, the US government and the American people as well as the world have been hoodwinked.

2. During the period (1965 - 1975) CIA Chief in Laos, Theodore Shackly, was in the drug business, having contacts with the Opium Warlord Lor Sing Han and his followers. Santo Trafficano acted as his buying and transporting agent while Richard Armitage handled the financial section with the Banks in Australia. Even after the Vietnam War ended, when Richard Armitage was being posted to the US Embassy in Thailand, his dealings in the drug business continued as before. He was then acting as the US government official concerning with the drug problems in Southeast Asia. After 1979, Richard Armitage resigned from the US Embassy's posting and set up the "Far East Trading Company" as a front for his continuation in the drug trade and to bribe CIA agents in Laos and around the world. Soon after, Daniel Arnold was made to handle the drug business as well as the transportation of arms sales. Jerry Daniels then took over the drug trade from Richard Armitage. For over 10 years, Armitage supported his men in Laos and Thailand with the profits from his drug trade and most of the cash were deposited with the Banks in Australia which was to be used in buying his way for quicker promotions to higher positions. Within the month of July, 1980, Thailand's english newspaper "Bangkok Post" included a news report that CIA agents were using Australia as a transit-base for their drug business and the banks in Australia for depositing, transferring the large sum of money involved.

Verifications of the news report can be made by the US Justice Department with Bangkok Post and in Australia.

Other facts given herewith have been drawn out from out Secret Reports files so as to present to you of the real facts as to why the drug problem is being prolonged till today.

3. Finally, we sincerely hope in the nearest future to be given the opportunity to actively take part in helping the US government, the Americans and people of the world in eradication and uprooting the drug problems.

I remain,

Yours Respectively Khun Sa

Vice Chairman Thailand Revolutionary Council (T.R.C.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.206.163 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, Khun Sa's letter can be found on p. 169 in the appendix of the 1987 House hearings. (Sa said it would be cheaper for the US government to buy up all the drugs rather than to try to stop the illegal trafficking.) Sa's allegations regarding Armitage parroted those of Bo Gritz to which the USDOS noted: "Accusations such as this are typical of the types of disinformation tactics employed by major drug traffickers to distract the world from the real issues. The charges have been looked into, and found to be completely groundless. The Secretary of Defense retains full confidence in Mr. Armitage."(p. 223) -Location (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Khun Sa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071102144209/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gPAExEgHrOo-yPIPTqT3sYNu-NSwD8SJEKU00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPAExEgHrOo-yPIPTqT3sYNu-NSwD8SJEKU00

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khun Sa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827034801/http://www.doi-mae-salong.com/thoed-thai/khun-sa-opium-warlord to http://www.doi-mae-salong.com/thoed-thai/khun-sa-opium-warlord

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Peterson Edit
Recently there was an edit that claimed that the information the current article attributes to Elliot should actually be attributed to Peterson, but the problem is that much of the information sourced to Elliot isn't in the article sourced to Peterson.

I have known other reporters and am aware that there is a problem in professional journalism with plagiarism, especially with media companies that are larger and more corporate, and/or between journalists who work in different countries. I can believe that it was Peterson who first reported the facts present in the article, but please provide sources with this information to demonstrate this. If you are waiting for a book with this information to be published, please wait until the book is published to include this information. If you can provide a link to your sources, I will help you to put the information from the sources into the current article.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Grand Jury "conviction"
An obvious error here: "Soon thereafter, in January 1990 Khun Sa was convicted in absentia by an American federal grand jury on drug trafficking charges." American grand juries do not try cases, and thus can't convict anyone of anything. A judge and a petit jury try cases in the American legal system. Georgejdorner (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "died away" mean???
One sentence of the introduction reads as follows:

"He died away in 2007 at the age of 73."

I hope someone able to write clearly in English can fix this, since "died away" does not seem to be the intended meaning.50.205.142.50 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It used to say "passed away". I have removed "away". CMD (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)