Hugo6

I think the further this hatchet job goes, the more self-inflicted damage that PTP will bring on itself. All but the most extremist red sympathisers know that Abhisit on a murder charge is just silly, and the longer it goes on, the more damage it will do to the credence of all other cases that may be pursued.

It also could potentially reflect badly on Thaksin: if Abhisit defiantly stands his ground and faces up to charges that potentially could result in a death penalty, rather than cowardly fleeing off overseas or rushing into making some sort of whitewash pact, it could turn Abhisit into some sort of courageous victim in all this and give him the moral high ground.

youre dreaming

its about time he faced charges

the man was responsible as head of the government and he sent out snipers

it was a stupid irresponsible move at the time and 3 years doesnt change that

i love this denial

But Abhisit denied the accusation, saying the pair's "honest intention" was to "restore peace and order without a crackdown".

yeah right. they just happen to take out the rebel general and the next day begin a 6 day, deadly & bloody crackdown

as if that wasnt not planned. abhisit must think everybodys a moron.

insisting military action against protestors was to restore order.

which is why his actions didnt conform to any standard, internationally recognized procedures

what an idiot - i hope they put him in a cell next to the red shirts who have been without bail for almost 3 years.

Obviously Shakespeare goes right over some people's head...

And what would be that fiction you are talking about?

While you are at it you may want to substantiate anything you say.

substantiate

likewise, or what

Since you claim that A) Abhisit stole power and B ) He ordered the killing of Red Shirts the onus is on you to substantiate your allegations with facts and a coherent argument. Can you?

dude, you and everyone else knows how he came to power so stop playing dumb. as for b, i never claimed that he did that in 2009, arisman did, and i just said that it would be hard to prove

but it looks like he might get charged for that from 2010 - guess you know where to find that info. just click on the big yellow/white logo in the upper left corner of your browser

Abhisit could have called an election and everybody could have gone home. He was not democratically elected, end of story. Had he an ounce of democrat in him he may well have won over the populace and be a democratically elected prime minister today.

PTP could have called an election after the PPP was disbanded, but they chose not to. They can't complain about someone else being elected PM just because of their bad decisions.

not true

a government needed to be formed first

military took care of the rest

porky pie must be something you brits understand

we call em big fat lies

in this case, its not

i think even your favorite yellow rag dared to publish the news on the government snipers in 2010

I'm not yellow shirt and I don't follow their media.

Brit?

the nation

Well, what can be said? Red Shirt History is a tale full of sound and fury...

Better than the yellow fiction here.....................???

Obviously Shakespeare goes right over some people's head...

And what would be that fiction you are talking about?

While you are at it you may want to substantiate anything you say.

substantiate

likewise, or what

That would indicate who was doing the illegal acts.

or that the dsi is not on thaksins payroll

or that justice has never been done for 2010

or a whole lot of possibilities besides yours

I don't think most the 295 were charged by DSI. In most countries I know, protesters that get violent against authorities are usually arrested. In most countries I know, people that fire guns at authorities (or are with people that fire guns at authorities) also get shot.

what part of

He insisted his office has taken legal action on both sides of the 2010 violence as it has filed charges against 295 red supporters.

is so hard to understand

He insisted his office has taken legal action on both sides of the 2010 violence as it has filed charges against 295 red supporters. The charges against Abhisit and Suthep are the first on the government’s side, he said.

2 to 295

bout time

That would indicate who was doing the illegal acts.

or that the dsi is not on thaksins payroll

or that justice has never been done for 2010

or a whole lot of possibilities besides yours

He insisted his office has taken legal action on both sides of the 2010 violence as it has filed charges against 295 red supporters. The charges against Abhisit and Suthep are the first on the government’s side, he said.

2 to 295

bout time

Like I said numerous times, it’s handy to have the DSI on your payroll.

Just a pity that the DSI isn't interested in investigating the biggest corruption case in Thai history: the rice scam (or any other cases related to THIS government). A truly Special Department.

(And we all know this is done by the DSI (Tharit) to help Thaksin. Soon Thaksin will start his amnesty for all again, hoping that Abhisit will agree to it when under pressure with murder charges)

Yes, all this for one man: THAKSIN.

the dsi is on whose payroll?

The problem on here is that there are so many people who believe in the red cause that they cannot accept when the red shirts are wrong. They believe in the people. Not the actions.

Whereas there are so few pro yellows among the anti PTP/UDD posters that the attempts to brand anyone who doesn't fly the Shinawatra flag as a PAD followers whereas they are far from that.

Followers of morals versus followers of colour

almost. there are so many people here who think the red shrits are always wrong and anyone who doesnt love abhisit loves thaksin

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

I believe history shows that some former TRT factions moved to support to the democrats.

Is that "robbing"?

wow

so the obvious is out. you know what happened and just pretend it wasn't slithering into power

see, youre all tranparent as water

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

Are you referring to the coup or something else?

First blood? That would be the reds chucking bags of blood around.

Second blood? Arisman inciting the crowd to violence.

Third stage? escalate the violence.

4th stage, shoot them in the head..................

You and your porky pies. Sure you don't work for the government?

porky pie must be something you brits understand

we call em big fat lies

in this case, its not

i think even your favorite yellow rag dared to publish the news on the government snipers in 2010

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

It's happening now to some degree now, as you know, and it will exacerbate as time rolls on. Human populations will probably peak in 20 years, about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically. Currently and in the future, the people least able to take care of themselves will be the ones continuing to pop out the most children. The Pacific Trash vortex will grow from its current Texas size, to continental US sized, and scant few things from the oceans will be palatable without toxic effects.

You are correct, unfortunately.

I am just grateful that I was fortunate enough to live this life in the most fortunate of times for a western person, after WW2 and before the mass extinction of humanity.

I'm also really pleased not to have any children, as I would feel terribly sorry for them if I did.

understand your point

would just add that there are about 2 billion children on the planet for whom we can all feel sorry.

abhisit come to power through a well-documented power grab and the home team cries "where's the proof"

then the home team makes any claim they want like the red shirts drew first blood in 2010

but no cries from the home team of "where's the proof" of something that is not true?

so there is no sense arguing in this echo-chamber.

the yellow-belly nimrods can just circle their wagons and shoot the indians

I thought it was plainly clear, but obviously not.

I said, "I can't quite grasp the disrepect shown to both Buddhism, and monks, shown in this thread."

That refers to truist Buddhism, and truist monks; not the copies, criminals or deceivers you refer to in the last 2 posts.

If you believe there are no truist Buddhist monks in Thailand then please cite your references as for why, and how you perceive such nonsense.

-mel.

FAITH. No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It’s the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite regarded as a virtue. -

depends on your version of mind-rot

buddhism fwiw is about direct experience, not faith

buddhism doesnt start with a god who you need to believe in

the buddha never asked people to have faith in him

he asked for them to understand and then experience the truth for themselves

it is one reason buddhism is unique in this world

Religion , especially organized religion is the main source of hatred in this world .

Buddhism is an organized religion , especially in Thailand, and therefore is no different in that respect .

Even if you had a point worth making, your logic is flawed, dude.

i see the nutters arecircling the wagons

dont let reality ruin your day

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

whatever you say

i dont believe it for a minute

Do you mean, they didn't win the election in a landslide? That's a first.

pretending to miss the point is just stupid

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

Surely with their massive landslide win in the election they should have no problem getting a huge majority in a referendum for the charter that they put forward, regardless what's in it.

whatever you say

i dont believe it for a minute

ps : not gonna happen now anyway

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

I'm intrigued with this "robbing power" malarky.

How was it stolen? Did a policeman come to arrest Aphisit? Was there a bag with "Thai Power" embroidered on it?

intrigued my ...

why do you want proof for the part i say is probably not provable? besides, for killing protesters 2010 was a much bigger deal that 2009

and robbing power as arisman said, if you don't just read here, then youve read about that. robbed power, grabbed power, slithered, dealed, so on and so on just depends on the vocabulary you want to use

So when you said that Arisman got in trouble for telling the truth you actually meant what?

I think he was referring to the RED version of the truth, which differs somewhat from the historical record.

truth as in

not this echo chamber

I know exactly what he said, I was stating that the government had never mentioned a referendum until the CC told them it would be required, he said they did, I've never seen it on any news article in Thailand until the CC ruled, I asked him to link where he saw it to prove his claim........still waiting

The government were planning on having a referendum to accept / reject the charter that the 100 or so charter writers would come up with.

The court said that they should have a referendum BEFORE they write the new charter. I would imagine this would be along the lines of "Do you want a new constitution?". I would assume this would get over the line. Most people want a new constitution, but no one agrees what needs to be changed from the current constitution (or the 1997 one actually).

Unless they were going to specify the areas that were going to be changed, then having a referendum before writing a new constitution would be a waste of time IMO. And if the new constitution has anything in it that whitewashes Thaksin's or any politicians crimes, I doubt it would pass anyway.

In Australia, a majority of the people want to be a republic (ie remove the Queen of England as Head of State), but when they had a referendum, it failed because not enough agreed with the type of republic the referendum was proposing. That was about 15 years ago and it hasn't moved since.

right, the court said have a referendum before knowing what you get.

just a tactic from abhisit and co to jam up the works and stop the process

the government always said there would be a referendum to approve the new charter or not approve it

what were the democrats so afraid of

if anyone thinks taht a get out of jail card for mr t would get through a popular referendum, then theyre crazy

but if it did, then it would still be what the thai people voted for

let the good time roll

who neglected to mention a referendum.

you're memory is failing you. it was always the plan to have a referendum

do share your source, as I remember and understand it - it was the CC judges in their ruling that were the first to mention a referendum and most likely forced a pause to proceedings to figure out a new game plan which they seem to have done

Personally I'd like them to just state why they want to change anything - they say it's nothing to do with Thaksin so just exactly what are the changes intended to do ????????

gotta read outside this forum. the government always always always said there would be a referendum on the charter. the judges want a referendum before the charter changes can start

stupid idea when in the government plan you see the charter you vote on and in the judges plan you vote on nothing

makes it obvious that the court ruling was just to clog up the process

sorry but I think you are wrong

The process is obvious - put the proposed changes or proposed new charter to the people in a referendum explaining what the changes are why the changes were made i.e. how they benefit the people and Thailand and let the people vote, as I understand this government wanted to make the changes without asking the people

guess you understood wrong

Politics has proven itself inept in the hands of those who abuse it, caring nothing about the populace it is supposed to support, guide and manage. Government by the people for the people? Not in this country. The only people being looked after are those who have endorsed themselves and filled their pockets at the expense of the community. Remove the corruption and take away the protection to keep them immune to persecution and you may start getting some results and the community more embracing each other.

always running down the thai people and their country

looks like youve generally bought into the hate thing

...Duh.. you really think so? Okay, never mind...

yeah i think so

youre one of the first to post on a thread. not just this one. really on top of things

and it always seems to be negative. running down the country and the people.

irony of irony is that i get the doghouse for running down posters who run down thai people / thailand