dtarasin

Is there no end to this Yingluck government's brutality. First setting their thugs on spotty bookworms trying to leave their campus, and now this. What a disgrace!

Yingluck government's brutality... That was a nice joke!

What are you laughing about? The government is composed of pople that sponsored and incited violence and arson back in the red riots. The burning of Bangkok has been officially deemed an act of terrorism. It even contains one very unsavory character that is inextricably linked to the string of Bangkok bombings with a very clear financial money trail to prove it.

Then how come the protests are only happening now and not 3 years ago?

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

Then who is doing the prosecuting? Surely any knowledgeable lawyer sympathetic to the yellow-shirt cause could start prosecuting, since these people should be in jail.

Little hard to do when the government is happy to interfere with the law

Really? Please show me an example of a lawyer or anyone of legal stature setting up a prosecution to jail these accessories to a known fugitive of the law. And show me an example of this person being blocked by members of the current government. You give me that, and I'll jump right in there with the yellow shirts.

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

Then who is doing the prosecuting? Surely any knowledgeable lawyer sympathetic to the yellow-shirt cause could start prosecuting, since these people should be in jail.

This country is being torn apart by two groups over one man. Is it really worth it? Has anything the yellow shirts and red shirts have done made a positive impact on your lives? I mean, really, this is two groups of self-righteous sociopaths looking to one-up each other in public places. In any other country they'd be locked up by now.

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I will presume you are joking with some of the statements you just made, because i cannot believe that you can actually be serious.

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run? Is not convicted criminal on the run breaking the law? and is it not the job of the government officials to arrest him?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal? Convicted criminal on the run, is it not the job of the government official to do all it his/her power to bring criminal to justice? instead of assisting the criminal to stay on the run?

By helping convicted felon on the run, does it not fall under accomplice to the crime?an accessory?

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

I asked you to point to me where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal to do any of those accusations you're throwing around. And all you did was copy and paste the definition of accomplice from Answers.com, an entry from West's Encyclopedia of American law.

Like I said before, you can't protest morality, since morality is relative to each individual. Both sides, yellow and red, are justifying their despicable actions by some vague ideology of what THEIR definitions of "democracy" and "legality" are. That's why this crap just keeps going and going and going.

Accusations? are you trying to say that none of the members of this government ever visited Thaksin?

Are you also trying to say that his new passport was not hand delivered through official diplomatic channels?

Are you saying that his live broadcasts do not happen? or he is NOT an advisor to the government?

Accusation is when something is being accused of something but needs evidence to be proven guilty.

Every single action by this government i stated is a recorded and documented FACT which NOT only they do not deny, but make a point of making it public.

At this point it is not longer an accusation.

Please do show me when in Thai LAW, or any law for that matter it states that an accomplice to a crime is INNOCENT 100%.

While i do not have an entire criminal Thai library at hand, i am certain that being accessory to a crime is still illegal

Definition of accessory and accomplice was for you to see what falls under it, but it clearly went straight over your head.

So since you believe it is not illegal, why do not you assist someone in committing a crime and then use the "where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal " as a defense and see what happens

I am sure judge will read out the exact section and paragraph of the law at your sentencing

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I will presume you are joking with some of the statements you just made, because i cannot believe that you can actually be serious.

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run? Is not convicted criminal on the run breaking the law? and is it not the job of the government officials to arrest him?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal? Convicted criminal on the run, is it not the job of the government official to do all it his/her power to bring criminal to justice? instead of assisting the criminal to stay on the run?

By helping convicted felon on the run, does it not fall under accomplice to the crime?an accessory?

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

I asked you to point to me where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal to do any of those accusations you're throwing around. And all you did was copy and paste the definition of accomplice from Answers.com, an entry from West's Encyclopedia of American law.

Like I said before, you can't protest morality, since morality is relative to each individual. Both sides, yellow and red, are justifying their despicable actions by some vague ideology of what THEIR definitions of "democracy" and "legality" are. That's why this crap just keeps going and going and going.

Can you show a few ways the current government does not respect or follow the law ???

even the idea of debate to whitewash convicted criminal is already breaking the law

members of the parliament going to visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run is breaking the law.

member of the parliament personally delivering passport to a convicted criminal is breaking the law.

government allowing live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run is breaking the law

i hope its enough ways, unless of course you consider all of the above to be respectful and following the law

So you cannot show any thing that substantiates your inane comment...................

do you call it selective reading? or you possibly simply do not understand simple language?

which part of my previous post did you have trouble with understanding?

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I like these metaphores.

Bangkok?

How about a Whore that had its dress burned off its ugly arse.

Now its pimp cries.

You really have no politics have you?

You ape being an anarchist.

You attack the people of Bangkok with your ugly mind.

But its all about burning the place down for you.

Just another pumped-up fellow-traveller.

Throwing your rattle out of the pram.

A thrill seeker.

Trying to catch up with Jeff Savage.

I love how a thread that starts off with a general feeling of positivity and unity and rebuilding can turn into Internet Fight Club in less than 5 pages.

Reconciliation - this would infer that Thailand was "conciled" before - but the split in Thai society is old and deep - calls for "reconciliation" I would suggest are for the most part a call by those in power, the elite and their supporters for a return to the old "status quo" - which is basically the cause of the problem; so "reconciliation" must surely be a no-no for a long-term solution.

The call has to be for "change and reform" - something that Abhisit has yet to embrace.

I'm curious Deeral. What kind of "change and reform" do you propose?

Thais have a sincere desire to make a buck like the rest of the world but they have less opportunity and this is why they can be easily bought.

Less opportunity to make a buck? Let's compare this "opportunity" with America for example. In Thailand, anyone can set up a noodle stall on the side of the road and make a few hundred bath every day. In America, you'll need to wait at least six months for a permit to set up anything. In Thailand, you can sell stuff on the side of the road, or set up shop in a pretty decent mall with lots of foot traffic for relatively little rent. Show me some place like Platinum in America. In Thailand, you can grow anything you want on your farm and sell in markets without having to fear government agencies beating you down on taxes and misc obscure violations imposed by the FDA.

The fact of the matter is that if any one of these people who you consider have "less opportunities" move to someplace like America, they'd ask for a plane ticket back in a second.

OOOH... that word again... BKK elite. Do you even know what that means?

Bangkok is the capitol of Thailand. If they're not allowed to be "elite" (whatever the hel_l that means), WHAT.THE.F_UCK do you suggest them to be?

Instead of throwing xenophobic labels around, why don't you address the real policy issues that disturb you?

I worked for Sutachai Yoon and have been involved with other "upper class" "well educated" Sino-Thai Bangkokians. I will leave aside detailed comment on the work conditions at the Nation, because I am no doubt biased after the shocking treatment I experienced there in 1991. Suffice it to say that foreigners are only tolerated because they are a necessary evil in an English-language newspaper.

I will, however, pass along my general observations on the wealthy in BKK: Their sense of superiority and entitlement is nauseating. They play only by their own rules and are literally above the law when it comes to day-to-day life. And to a person the ones I worked closely with were of Chinese decent, and dam_n*d proud of it.

They have dominated others while operating in a system that is corrupt from top to bottom. Can you do the math?

And how is that different from Thaksin? How is that different from the sense of superiority and entitlement that causes these red shirts to set fire to Bangkok? Do they not also play only by their own rules?

Everything you've said can be applied to any developed country in the world (especially in the US). But you don't see their populace leaving a trail of fire in their wake when things don't go the way they planned.

All I see is everyone complaining about how it's all f_ucked up and unfair for their side, but the only person I see trying to do anything about it is Abhisit.

Agreed, but the usual Thai mentality of not thinking about consequences is very much in play here from both sides. Did the government honestly think there would be no repercussions, where they so arrogant to think they could kill unarmed people (don't buy into the nonsense that because others were armed it was ok to kill unarmed people posing no immediate threat) without any repercussions? And now the people setting the fires will have to pay for their actions.

but this being Thailand what is the betting that it will all be allowed to just filter away, nobody will be prosecuted, the dems will be disbanded before anything gets to court and the whole merry-go-round will start again. Thailand, one step forward two steps back all the time, andthis is because they are too stubborn to accept outside help, worried about loss of face asking for help while not realising the massive loss of face the country has just suffered. The constant use of the word terrorism is an embarrassment, civil disobedience at best but use the word terrorist enough and people might believe the deaths of unarmed people was justified.

The reason the dems did not win the election is clear to see, they don't have the ability to govern as this whole fiasco has shown, stumbled from one problem to another only to exacerbate it when the claim to have solved it. yesterday they said they had control, next minute the city is on fire, always too keen to make it look they have control and 10 minutes later that blows up in their faces.

In this matter both sides are equally to blame, but the use of armed soldiers firing randomly at unarmed civilians is a disgrace, the shooting of armed civilians is fair enough, and we still have the government saying they abided by international standards, I think they saw some tin pot african dictatorships and thought 'oh they are international, lets adopt their standards'. This government are jokers, the people giving them the orders are jokers, all because they lost some face, unbelievable.

"randomly at unarmed civilians"

If there is a group of people, some with guns and grenades, and some with sling shots, what is the army supposed to do?

Shots are coming towards the army. They shoot back. They hit people around armed red shirts. Were the ones that got hit armed and threw their arms away?

The red shirts that were shot were fighting the army with sling shots, guns and grenades. Others got hit by schrapnel, richochets off buildings and structures, maybe from either side. The red shirts are to blame for fighting with guns and grenades, giving the army no choice but to shoot back at them.

Not only that, but this part: "This government are jokers, the people giving them the orders are jokers, all because they lost some face, unbelievable."

How did the government lose face?

I agree, this editorial is very biased.

The Nation is part of the Yellow camp. Its Sino-Thai owners (the Yoons) have little if anything in common with the peasants of Issan. They are part of the BKK elite.

OOOH... that word again... BKK elite. Do you even know what that means?

Bangkok is the capitol of Thailand. If they're not allowed to be "elite" (whatever the hel_l that means), WHAT.THE.F_UCK do you suggest them to be?

Instead of throwing xenophobic labels around, why don't you address the real policy issues that disturb you?

Agreed, but the usual Thai mentality of not thinking about consequences is very much in play here from both sides. Did the government honestly think there would be no repercussions, where they so arrogant to think they could kill unarmed people (don't buy into the nonsense that because others were armed it was ok to kill unarmed people posing no immediate threat) without any repercussions? And now the people setting the fires will have to pay for their actions.

but this being Thailand what is the betting that it will all be allowed to just filter away, nobody will be prosecuted, the dems will be disbanded before anything gets to court and the whole merry-go-round will start again. Thailand, one step forward two steps back all the time, andthis is because they are too stubborn to accept outside help, worried about loss of face asking for help while not realising the massive loss of face the country has just suffered. The constant use of the word terrorism is an embarrassment, civil disobedience at best but use the word terrorist enough and people might believe the deaths of unarmed people was justified.

The reason the dems did not win the election is clear to see, they don't have the ability to govern as this whole fiasco has shown, stumbled from one problem to another only to exacerbate it when the claim to have solved it. yesterday they said they had control, next minute the city is on fire, always too keen to make it look they have control and 10 minutes later that blows up in their faces.

In this matter both sides are equally to blame, but the use of armed soldiers firing randomly at unarmed civilians is a disgrace, the shooting of armed civilians is fair enough, and we still have the government saying they abided by international standards, I think they saw some tin pot african dictatorships and thought 'oh they are international, lets adopt their standards'. This government are jokers, the people giving them the orders are jokers, all because they lost some face, unbelievable.

Hmmm... going by your response, you obviously don't understand the meaning of "BOTH SIDES" are to blame.

You misunderstand me, tjames, I would not dare to presume myself qualified to torch a Thai "shop".

But, if I were as downtrodden in my own country as many Thais are in theirs, I would certainly torch a shop in protest if it might lead to my children being fed rather than being forced to work, through hunger, in order that the already rich were "fed" still better.

How the f_uck, in the name of all that is human decency and common sense, would "torching a shop in protest" lead to your children being fed rather than being forced to work?!?

The 'lets give peace a chance' brigade have decided to make me their poster child for all that is wrong with TV attitudes - fine. I am angry! Every single Thai i know, work with, and live with are angry. None of them are red or yellow, etc. They are Thai, and they have watched ignorant, paid for, terrorists burn down landmarks of their city. They have watched the black shirt militant wing of the reds fire grenades which have killed innocents and soldiers alike. They have watched a would-be dictator manipulate their country, while he and his family flee from the damage and danger they have wrought.

Anger seems to be the correct response to actions and attitudes such as these. The "lets all hold hands and sing "We shall overcome" crowd" are free to do that, but at the same time, there are CRIMINALS that have targeted your country, and they must be held accountable, and brought to justice.

Feel free to raise me up as the 'voice of intolerance' if you deem in necessary, but I know that none of the people I know were responsible for these atrocities, and they are all shocked and angry. Perhaps, just perhaps, they will now look upon corruption and 'justice for some' differently. Give peace a chance, absolutely.

If you are a spokesman for the incumbent administration, would you be good enough to tell us when you plan to seek the legitimacy that only an open election can bring, then?

If you are a spokesman for the red shirts, would you be good enough to tell us when they planned to call off their protest once an offer for an open election on November 14th was presented on the table?

You either know that is a mealy-mouthed reply or are too ignorant of the facts to be commenting.

And you know it, which makes your biased, blinkered, partisan input all the less meaningful.

Heads I win, tails you lose - choose wisely.

How in any way was my response biased? Was there anything in my reply that wasn't true? If so, please point it out.

Also, before you think I'm biased, maybe you should go through my post history. I've repeatedly condemned the actions of the yellow shirts as well.

The 'lets give peace a chance' brigade have decided to make me their poster child for all that is wrong with TV attitudes - fine. I am angry! Every single Thai i know, work with, and live with are angry. None of them are red or yellow, etc. They are Thai, and they have watched ignorant, paid for, terrorists burn down landmarks of their city. They have watched the black shirt militant wing of the reds fire grenades which have killed innocents and soldiers alike. They have watched a would-be dictator manipulate their country, while he and his family flee from the damage and danger they have wrought.

Anger seems to be the correct response to actions and attitudes such as these. The "lets all hold hands and sing "We shall overcome" crowd" are free to do that, but at the same time, there are CRIMINALS that have targeted your country, and they must be held accountable, and brought to justice.

Feel free to raise me up as the 'voice of intolerance' if you deem in necessary, but I know that none of the people I know were responsible for these atrocities, and they are all shocked and angry. Perhaps, just perhaps, they will now look upon corruption and 'justice for some' differently. Give peace a chance, absolutely.

If you are a spokesman for the incumbent administration, would you be good enough to tell us when you plan to seek the legitimacy that only an open election can bring, then?

If you are a spokesman for the red shirts, would you be good enough to tell us when they planned to call off their protest once an offer for an open election on November 14th was presented on the table?

I think comparing Abhisit to Lincoln is a bit of a stretch.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Its interesting that one of the dead was reported as having been hit with shrapnel and was dragged to the temple by a journalist, who was also fired upon. I don't believe the Army has been using grenades in this action but we know that the "black shirts" are both using renades, and using them on journalists and civilians. I hope they unravel who is responsible and may all RIP.

Does shrapnel only come from grenades now? this army is great isn't it, now their bullets deny the laws of physics, they don't even produce shrapnel when hitting objects, only grenades can do that also how do you know the survivors have not said anything? do you really think the censored press will be allowed to say they were killed by military? you even answer your own point by saying the journalist was 'also' fired upon. If you don't believe the army used grenades that is fine, but don't assume only grenades cause shrapnel.

the fact is, as much as you don't like it, unarmed people have been shot and killed by the army, including foreign journalists. I know you will spout the usual nonsense that they deserve it etc, but they don't, if you are unarmed you don't deserve to be shot and killed. hopefully abhisit and suthep have to answer for these murders of civilians.

read this lanna, it might help you

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...le-1977647.html

or is everyone a liar or apologist if they don't buy into your rhetoric?

If what that article says is true, then I'm sorry for doubting whoever posted this story earlier. There's absolutely no excuse for this type of careless firing from the army and I hope someone is held accountable soon. RIP to those that died in the temple.

That said, there's absolutely no excuse for red shirt protesters to set fire to and destroy commercial and private property vital to the infrastructure of this city, either. People's lives are at stake, and many lives will be changed forever on both sides. The sooner BOTH sides acknowledge that this whole thing was a dumbshit idea from the get-go, the sooner we all can move on.

Oh really? So I guess the people whose lives and jobs have been completely ruined by this two month long "protest" and subsequent burning of their city should take the law into their own hands and go to the villages of these red-shirts and burn that s_hit down, too?

It appears you and my wife are reading from the same playbook.. she is disgusted right now with the "thai" people that did this.. she can't understand how anybody for ONE second that claims to respect the King would ever even consider doing something like is happening in BKK right now. She wondered aloud what would happen if a group of people headed up to KK or Bumfuc_k Nakon to do the same how things would go. Of course she caught herself and said what am I thinking those crazy buggers would shoot us all on site just for being born in BKK... sad sad sad... more so that its so close to the truth for some of these thugs

Indeed my wife mirrors the sentiments of your wife as well - How can people who claim to love Thailand and the King do these things

Well, it seems now they're burning their own villages down. From the Nation

"Government buildings in some other provinces also became targets of arsonist attacks. These included the provincial halls of Khon Kaen, Udon Thani, Mukdahan and Ubon Ratchathani, and the official residence of the Chiang Mai governor."

<deleted>???!!!