TheOldWolf

If you are agianst the red shirt movement, their leaders, Dear leader and what they did to Thailand, it doesn´t mean that you are against the rural people in ALL Thailand. But maybe you don´t support easy handouts, but politics that will make things better in the long run, like better education, make people think by themselves, hard work against corruption in EVERY level of the society etc.

I think most of the anti-reds here on TV supports this, but not the red movement and what they stands for.

'chaoyang'

It's a tough one. AGREE

* A mob takes over part of the city and basically says it will never go away unless it gets everything it wants.

I AM SORRY TO TELL YOU IN MOST COUNTRIES YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A PROTEST OR RALLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE AS LONG AS IT IS PEACEFUL. ESPECIALLY WESTERN COUNTRIES.

* An extremist member member (Seh Daeng) is assassinated and his still-breathing corpse is charged with terrorism.

* Finally the army moves in with live ammunition and 80+ civilians are killed.

WHAT HAS THE ARMY GOT TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS?

* After the group is fired on by the army of its own country, some members apparently torch highly valuable properties.

Ya, there are a few human rights violations in there, but then Abhisit tried every other means and showed a great deal of patience (either that of the army refused to move earlier).

YES MANY HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THROUGH HIS TENURE AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS GOVT'S.

If a group had taken and terrorized Times Square in New York, the US National Guard would have opened fire after about the second day, not the 60th, but then in "free" America, protesters wouldn't have been able to pull off what the Reds did in BKK. They would have been shot before the barricades ever got up. IN AMERICA IF THE PROTESTERS ARE PEACEFUL THEY WOULD NOT SEND THE ARMY IN WITH ANTI AIRCRAFT GUNS ARMOURED VEHICLES ETC. THEY WOULD NOT SEND THE ARMY IN FULL STOP. IF OVER 100 PEOPLE DIED AND WENT MISSING AND IT WAS STATE CONTROLLED THE GOVERNOR WOULD RESIGN. IF THE PRESIDENT SENT THE ARMY IN AND OVER 100 DIED AND WENT MISSING THE PRESIDENT WOULD RESIGN.

Lets face it Abhisit has made too many mistakes, I agree he had a difficult job but he screwed it, and should show accountability and resign.

In most western countries you have a talk with the police before the demonstration. You agree of where to hold the demonstration and for how long. As soon as you bbrake the agrement the police will brake up the demonstration.

It was no problem with the first site. Not even when the reds rallied the city and caused traffic jams. It was when they desided to move inside the business district, that the goverment reacted and say no, go back, you are not allowed to stay here.

Before that, he PM agreed to meet the red leaders in a negotiation. He came with on offer, with was turned down with no counter offer. The reds stormed the EC and the parlament. Yes indeed very peaceful acts, that no western country would allowed.

In his blog in Swedens biggest newspaper their foreign "expert" writes:

"I also hear from various sources of information to suggest that the authorities keep track of the views of foreigners residing in Thailand. And intimidate those who sympathize with red shirts"

Anyone heard anything about this? I only heard about the brit and the aussie who participate in the rally

This is a common misconception that extradition for capital offences is not possible from most countries. However, the US has successfully extradited many murderers, particularly from Canada, on the basis that the public prosecutor's office makes an undertaking to the extraditing government that it will not demand the death penalty. Most extradition treaties also require undertakings that the extraditee will not be tried on any further charges other than those specified in the extradition request.

My take on this is:

1) Western countries, such as France, that Thaksin has recently slipped into using his Montenegrin passport may now be too risky for him to visit, as he may be detained under house arrest in prison for a long period while they consider extradition. He may even actually get extradited, if he visits such countries. It may even get harder for Dubai to justify keeping him.

2) What is quite significant in the Thai legal context is that this is a charge that cannot be directly traced back to any the revolutionary decrees after the coup. The charge he was convicted on and nearly all the others pending were investigated by the AEC which was established as a result of a revolutionary decree. Thaksin's strategy all along has been to annul the 2007 constitution and the temporary constitution after the coup which provide legality to the revolutionary decrees and the coup itself. By reverting to the 1997 constitution all charges investigated by the AEC could be declared null and void. There is one other case that was brought by the DSI, rather than the AEC, to do with assets concealment to do with the ownership of SC Assets. This case was squashed by the DSI when PT was in power but the current government is looking into reviving it, following relevant evidence that came out in the Supreme Administrative Court assets confiscation against Thaksin. Since the asset concealment and terrorism cases are both terrorism cases, neither can be tried in absentia without the defendant at least being in court to hear the charges. The asset concealment case looked pretty clear cut to me from what has been made publicly available on it. However, Thaksin has successfully had in quashed once already and it is much less controversial and emotive than the terrorism case. If a Pheua Thai government tries to have the terrorism case quashed in future, it is easy to imagine that this would generate a far more emotional reaction to Bangkokians, who have seen their city held to ransom and then torched by Thaksin's supporters, than the sale of Shin Corp.

3) I don't think the government really wants him back, as he would a rallying point. I think they want to restrict his movements even further, hamper his PR efforts abroad and make it harder for him to get rid of charges against him by reverting to the 1997 constitution.

Aha, this explains why PTP did a 180 turnaround, they had first agreed to amend the current constitution, but then they got orders to go back to the 1997 version. The above explains why! Again, it's all about one man, not what's good for Thailand!

Yes, there was a telephon call from Dear Leader and PTP jumped the ship

@Opalhort: The short answer is there is no internationally established definition: however, as an example the FBI summarises this as

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Regards

Thanks. This makes it clear since the rest of the world usually takes the FBI definition as a guideline.

Under this definition the red leaders and Thaksin certainly qualify to face charges as terrorists.

Just let's hope the international community sees it the same way.

opalhort

This is the defination from United Nations: since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." ^[23]

You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Maybe Takki turns up as a modern version of "The flying dutschman", but instead of a ship without harbour, it will be an airplane without airport.

As I have statedmany times before, the thai goverment doesn´t want him back in Thailand. They just try to make it as uncomfortable for him as possible.

I'm kind of wondering why the fire extinguishers in Central World didn't work. Possibly because the government turned off the water?

It wouldn't have burned down unless someone set a fire. Duh!

Of course, that's obvious. But insurance companies will surely be looking into why the sprinklers didn't work. And if it was because the water was turned off, I smell a lawsuit coming.

Yes, always blame things on something else, not the red shirts

Well I hope they can make their case in the relevant international courts

I want to see the 'not welcome' list first

a bit puzzle why he was in France, a big EU country ?

Takki Shanagra, citizen in Montenegro with Montenegro passport

For anybody who wants to investigate the legal (as opposed to the empirical) aspect of AI's allegations (and probably there aren't many on TV), here is a quote and link that I posted a few days ago:

"Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. "

UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112, 1990), Principle 9.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm

International human rights law is a notoriously complex and contested field. It is usually considered that rules that derive from international agreements that a country has ratified have a stronger status than "customary international law" (based on what States do or what they believe their obligations to be). My understanding is that Thailand was a signatory to the 1990 Basic Principles. This does not mean that the principles would be recognised by the Thai courts, but some human rights lawyers will argue that there might be recourse to bodies like the ICC - though I doubt that this is realistic in this case.

The problem is, that none of us were at the place at the time for the shots. We were not behind the man with the gun. We have not seen what he maybe have seen. We don´t know what side the shooters with the killing guns was on. We don´t know how many of this "innocent civilians" where carrying guns. we can each of us think of with party who will gain from medicals, woman and journalist get killed. The goverment? The red shirts?

It is all a lie by Amnesty, the Europeans, the Americans, the world.

No one is being killed here by the Thai government.

The reporters were shot by reds dressed as army. Simple.

the Thai army and government is only firing rubber bullits so there.

I am so sick of seeing the obnoxous and stupid crying by the red lovers here.

Get a life.

Now our PM will not be able to travel back to England ever again because you brits list him as a war crimminal.

How stupid.

Thais love thais so there.

See--I proved it because I never lie.

To date, ONE army boy did get killed. That is a fact. Please proof otherwise.

Can you provide any witness who saw who shot them? Maybe it have cross your mind that someone else could have done it? Who would gain from medicals and reporters getting shot? The goverment? The red shirts?

What I miss in this whole discussion is the originof the snipers! A lot of media and organisations assume they are army snipers, but just think of it for a second. If you want to incite a civil war, who do you shoot? Soldiers, or your own? Same thing happened on April 10th! The oldest trick in the book.

There are teams of professional hitman in downtown Bangkok, and take a wild guess who finances these! The army and the government have absolutely nothing to gain from internationally covered violence and bloosshed!

But thats just my humble opinion.

I agree with you!

there's a quite staggering lack of understanding in this thread of what constitutes a breaking of international human rights laws. that many people can't get their heads around the fact that human rights laws apply to elected governing bodies and administrations and not to groups of people shacked up in a road somewhere breaking domestic laws reflects very badly on the average IQ of a thaivisa poster.

Agreed. Very upsetting video of Thai Army sniper killing 5 people in Rang Nam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXcT4dtRtnE

This doesn't even happen in Burma or North Korea!

can only see one dead people on the video and we see no sniper, so we don´t know who shot!

Dear Amnesty International,

i doubt that no one has posted more on this site in favor of a general amnesty now in thailand than i have. So kindly consider when i ask you to lay off Thailand, at least publicly.

You are correct in fact when you state that "Eyewitness accounts and video recordings show clearly that the military is firing live rounds at unarmed people who pose no threat whatsoever to the soldiers or to others" I have posted video on YouTube showing just this truth.

But there are other sides to this story, and that is what your organization has little interest in. You are not interested in Thailand per se; you are interested in promoting a left wing agenda in the West and your actions in Thailand and similar situations reflect not what is good for that country, but your agenda back home.

Your crusade against the Thai Army is wrong, just as your knee jerk support of the Reds is wrong. You comment about that which you do not wish to understand, and are not interested in helping.

These are complex problems which require knowledge and compassion of and for the Thai people and no other agenda. Your organization is a further polarizing element in an already difficult situation.

If your aim was really to help rather than to collect donations thru publicity stunts, you would use whatever influence you think you have to promote an offer of general amnesty to all parties except Thaksin himself. And you would do so quietly behind the scenes; not grandstanding to your own benefit.

We westerners who know you will watch you very carefully, Amnesty. Do the right thing.

And if your reading this, thank you.

This is a good post from you Mr Pig, although I don´t agree with everything you write. This report is to one eyed to do anything good, by only blaming one side for what happens right now. when you write: "Your organization is a further polarizing element in an alreday difficult situation", I thin you hit the spot.

Thai TV now showing red shirt who shot soldier after other reds pulled from truck

I watched this video, it is revolting!

The soldier pulled from the truck was unarmed, removed his hat, waied everyone before being beaten and shot!!!

Explain that, Lilkitty!

Was he really shot? There was no army death or injury reported in the area of Din Daeng on the day this happened. This didn't happen today or yesterday. The video is several days old. Why didn't the army, who are always keeping everyone up to date with army deaths and injuries, report this? In my opinion, the soldier simply "played dead". That's just my opinion. Please feel free to give an explanation though on why the army didn't report this until today. The video has been on YouTube for nearly a week.

But if he is "only" dangerous injured, you defend the action?

About losing the PR_war. I think the CRES and the goverment have more important things to take care of, then what different TV-channels and news papers are reporting from Bangkok. There are a battle against an armed mob going on.

And for the looting, even if it is not real red shirts looting, so is the looting possible because the reds shirt let the mob free to do whatever they like on the streets. The red leaders are out of control now. So save the innocent sheeps and let them go home, so the army can deal with trach in the streets.

Din Daeng: Petrol truck bomb next to PPT petrol station....Reds firing rockets at it. Channel 3 ... live u can get it in English!

Why is PPT bringing petrol trucks into the city?

Of course PPT:s fault, not the red necks that hijacked the truck!

Eftersom Kitty tydligen inte vet vad som händer utanför det röda fortet, så bifogar jag några bilder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8684506.stm

English only in the forums please, or post a translation.

Sorry. It's a rule.

Sorry! I was writing something in a swedish forum and forget

I said that if Kitty don´t know what happens today outside the red fort today, I enclose some pictures

Eftersom Kitty tydligen inte vet vad som händer utanför det röda fortet, så bifogar jag några bilder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8684506.stm

Where have you been the last 2 month, Kitty? And what kind of other pictures have you watched this day only? Get real!! The picture you is showing is really sad to see. What kind of information do you think this people get from the red stage?

Twitter/BangkokLife: Tulsathit & Veen_NT. PLEASE HELP US. We are trapped in Sathorn Soi 1. The Reds have surrounded our apt bldg with tyres and are about to burn.

many many children in here..PLEASE inform police & army now! They have exploded 6 grenades outside now

Maybe people get killed and injured because they attack the army, refuse to obey orders, etc. I don´t think I have seen any red supporter here talking about people braking the law and if you accept what the reds are doing, say that you accept a mob to over throw a legal goverment, because their leaders are afraid to go to jail.

MCOT: Red Shirt leaders: Ready to resume talks with government provided army stops security operation; wants UN to mediate

stopping security operations would allow resupply and reinforcement.

un mediation would imply negotiation between equals.

Is there a point in there somewhere?

Stop making silly excuses. Time for some real leaders take over to stop this insanity and think about the people they are klilling.

Saying we can't stop now is stupid. Can't anyone see the need to think outside the box?

Simple, tell your red friends to pack and go home!

What about 25 people kille and several 100 injured because of this:

However, another red-shirt core member Chinawat Haboonpad, said the UDD leadership was still in unity but some leaders had a different view.

"At first, we [the red-shirt leaders] agreed to end the rally but people have died during the political clashes. We then could not come into terms because none of us want to be in prison without receiving a fair treatment," Mr Chinawat said. "If the emergency decree is revoked the police could detain us further for 84 days."

From BP

And where were these people killed? I'm open to correction, but it's my understanding that they were all outside the "accepted" area of the red camp? Some came from inside the camp to meet the soldiers, others came from outside. They went to the mountain, the mountain didn't come to them. Really, if you don't want to be hit on the head by a falling rock then don't go near the mountain. And especially don't go there and throw things at it in an attempt to dislodge said rock. Simple.

And as for the quote you included "Chinawat Haboonpad, said the UDD leadership was still in unity but some leaders had a different view", what a brilliant statement. How about "the reds and yellows are in unity, but some have a different view"? Maybe my discounted theory about them being a bunch of idiots who really see nothing wrong with provoking heavily armed, nervous troops needs to be revived.

I am sorry if you get me swrong. My point is only that all this happens because some red leaders was afraid of goin to jail. Instead thye open up for this mayhem. I agree with everyone saying that all the blame is on the side of the red leaders.

Before posting and laying blame on either side, consider the following from the news updates thread

"Odd that army isn't pushing forward to clear Rama IV". /via @markmackinnon

. Also consider many of the similar posts made, including some from the red supporting faction here (one was talking about soldiers clearing an overbridge, but not securing it). Now listen to what the government have been saying about not cracking down on the red camp, but sealing it off. The evidence is all there. The army is generally holding its position away from the main red camp, the more militant reds are coming out to meet, and attack, them. No red spin can be put on it, the facts are there in black and white. The burnings and lootings, the reason for the clashes, the direct cause of the current violence, can all be laid at the feet of the red shirts in their desire to attack the army. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if a ceasefire was really their aim it could be achieved instantly by not going near the soldiers. Unless they're doing the gene pool a favour by eliminating the idiots who think it's fine to wave sticks, throw molotov cocktails and fire marbles, as well as bullets, at heavily armed nervous soldiers, they must have some ulterior motive for these tactics. The big question is what is it? They turned down the chance for early elections and a face saving way out. Why would they do this if democracy was truly their aim? I can see two possibilities. Firstly, maybe they are waiting for the army to take total control of the country, effectively holding a coup, in the hope they attract more suporters to their cause. Or secondly, the man with multiple nationalities is still convinced deep in his twisted square mind that he will be called back as the saviour of the people and come flying in on a white business jet to sort it all out. In either case, he is investing heavily in this push for power prior to the army reshuffle, and more significant events to come. It's a business proposition for him, pure and simple. Speculate to accumulate, and he doesn't care one bit about the lives he's ending and ruining to achieve his goal.

What about 25 people kille and several 100 injured because of this:

However, another red-shirt core member Chinawat Haboonpad, said the UDD leadership was still in unity but some leaders had a different view.

"At first, we [the red-shirt leaders] agreed to end the rally but people have died during the political clashes. We then could not come into terms because none of us want to be in prison without receiving a fair treatment," Mr Chinawat said. "If the emergency decree is revoked the police could detain us further for 84 days."

From BP

first, your numbers are incorrect. second, its above your reading level evidently. why you would even ask such a ridiculous question flabbergasts me. answer me this: how are only 25 dead? (your wounded stats are way off)

My point was not the exact number of killed and injured and I am sorry if I got it incorrect. My point was that the red leaders turned down the offer because they were afraid to go to jail.