way2muchcoffee

I know, human rights issues are not one of the concerns of hypocritical Thaksin haters.

Which human rights issue is that? Cuffing, chaining, tying down, or otherwise restraining arrested individuals in hospital is standard practice the world around.

Bkk pundit not credible ???

The Nation ???

Please............

I would think ( but I cannot prove it to your satisfaction ........) that there are two motives for a seemingly merciful and parentally understanding amnesty for low level reds.

1: Makes it easier to impose far harsher sentences on the leaders, when these sentences are handed down, which I guess will be sometime within the next couple of years.

Some are looking at life imprisonment or perhaps death and that will certainly enrage some of their supporters, so good tactic to try and look a little benign now.

2: To apply the same principle of amnesty to Gov't and Army and keep them on song.

Makes sense.

ph

Where did I say that either BK Pundit or The Nation are not credible? Though in fact I think they both must be taken with a grain of salt. BK Pundit is biased toward the red side. The Nation is biased toward the government side. What I said was that 'unnamed sources' are not credible. I believe you will see that if you re-read my post.

@ waytoomuch and twap you stop harrassing me and if the story prevents you from having your nap, you can have a sleeping pill.

Do you honestly think you are being harassed? Really? I find that unfathomable. Please reread my posts and your responses.

Give us the article name so we can google it...

Go and read the other newspaper.

I do. Every day. There is no such article that provides proof for LevelHead's claims.

As I cannot link to BP articles, try this :

Limited amnesty | Asian Correspondent

.

That link is not proof. It is from an unnamed source on Bangkok Pundit. Nevertheless, I now understand where you get the idea. According to Bangkok Pundit it is from a Nation article and the claim is attributed to an unnamed source. So for that I thank you and publicly issue an apology. It is in print.

I would urge you to recognize that unnamed sources are not credible, or are barely credible in the scale of things. If this is what you are hinging your argument on then you should be aware that an unnamed source is not any kind of proof that would substantiate your claim.

Give us the article name so we can google it...

Go and read the other newspaper.

I do. Every day. There is no such article that provides proof for LevelHead's claims.

Lets play nice gentlemen, Its possible to debate with resorting to baiting or flaming. It really is.

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out SBK. Helps me to reduce my emotional level of engagement.

The military was selective, and I think professional too.(I'm ignoring your creepy second sentence).However a large number of civilians were shot dead and that needs to be carefully investigated.

snip

Having said that, I believe that the government has the moral advantage insofar as they have the imperative to protect the citizenry from dangerous elements, in this case the innocent citizens of BKK required government protection from the redshirt demonstrators who were clearly dangerous and in violation of numerous laws.

The reds shirts were peaceful and not violent at all, in so far as provoking and starting violence.

The multi-colour shirts went looking for fight, they taunted the reds into response.

The military provoked the reds.

The reds on their own were peaceful until deliberately provoked.

The coup leaders of 2006 were in direct violation of the law and did a treasonous act, they have never been brought to justice as they changed the law and gave themselves immunity. The Yellow shirts committed the treasonous act of prevent parliament from opening, they broke the law by blocking government house, they committed the terrorist acts of shutting down the airports. The Yellow shirt guards were captured on film having guns and firing them fighting with taxi drivers, the Yellow shirt guards killed one man at Don Muang as they thought he was a police infiltrator.

But that all seems to be ok by Abhisit and the Democrats and the Army.......... because of course they are all Yellow shirts - all controlled by the old corrupt men who abuse their power granted to them by their access to privileged circles.

Statement after statement of unsubstantiated tripe. There must be something in your post that you can actually back up with facts. Then again, probably not.

BP - a report from a few days ago.

Sorry, not allowed to link BP reports on here, against the rules of TV.

So why do you think that the Red shirts do not want the amnesty but the government is trying to force it to happen.

Its all about the CRES/Officials/Army being granted amnesty, along with a few token reds and the reason for the justification of it.

Please PM me the link then. Or, as TAWP suggested, you could simply write the article title.

We are awaiting the evidence that you now categorically state exists that proves that the CRES is offering amnesty to low level redshirt demonstrators with the quid pro quo that all military personnel will also receive the same amnesty.

The Army seem to have killed over 80 innocent civilians in Bangkok and got away with it............ seems that wearing a red shirt also allows the military to shoot you with no protection from the government, in fact, its with the governments blessing and support it seems.

Hopefully we will see Abhisit and Suthep and others in the International Criminal Court in 5 or 10 years time, being brought before the judiciary (not a coup appointed Thai one) to account for what they did and defend their actions in a non biased court and system.

No. Only a handful of innocent civilians were killed. Those who defied a state of emergency, violated the civil and human rights of the citizens of Bangkok, and used weapons to attack military and police forces were neither innocent nor civilians.

Absolutely there must be NO AMNESTY.

None at all.

Its already been clearly said that as part of the deal proposed to amnesty some reds that ALL CRES, Army, officials will be given amnesty (as well as by precedent all Yellow and Multi-Colour Shirts).

This is purely a ploy by those in power to whitewash everything.

There must be no amnesty for anybody, not for reds and not for any soldier, any official, any politician, anyone at all.

Everyone must be tried and face courts (be it now or in 10 years time) for everything they have done.

Where has this been said?

Certainly if you take your news from ASTV or the Nation or TAN you will not hear that. Simply open your mind to other news sources, who are capable of reporting freely and fairly, and you will find the answers you desire.

Clearly reported that as part of the proposed amnesty all officials and army and CRES will all be given amnesty too.

Why do you think Reds are saying they do not want the amnesty ?????

Acceptance of it will allow the CRES to whitewash everyone involved...... on their side.

No amnesty !! for anyone !!

You have not answered the question. Simply because you say so does not mean it is true. You must provide a link to back up your claim. If you cannot do so then it can be assumed that you are prevaricating.

It is very true. More and more are becoming red shirts.

They are fed up of the corruptos who hang on to power through their access to privileged circles and who have since they called for the 2006 coup destroyed the country more and more.

If Abhisit was so strong he would not be scared of elections.

He is just the puppet, the people who pull his strings know full well a country wide general election would see PTP win - and so they do not allow it to happen.

If you get your news from ASTV or TAN or Nation you have to realize its Yellow propaganda in the most.

Red support is growing, and at an even faster rate following the disgusting military action of killing innocent civilians.

How do you come to such conclusions? Where are your statistics? Do you have anything at all to back up your points or are you just mouthing off and disseminating propaganda?

Nobody in the south is a terrorist.

They bomb. They kill. They behead.

But never called terrorists.

For the cynics out there, perhaps the Red shirts must take lessons in how to avoid being called terrorists, rather than have sling shots they must take up AK47. Rather than throw M150 bottle petrol bombs they must set off car bombs and motor bike bombs, rather than having a protest they must behead people.

But perhaps the best thing the Reds can do is pretend to be Democrat voters, that seems to make you immune from being labelled a terrorist.

Nope. They southern rebels are classed as 'armed and violent insurgents'. Would you prefer that label for your red brethren?

Before you answer this question please remember that armed and violent insurgents can justifiably and legally be killed by the military at almost any time, and with relatively few restrictions.

The military was selective, and I think professional too.(I'm ignoring your creepy second sentence).However a large number of civilians were shot dead and that needs to be carefully investigated.

Of course you are correct. However, I have not so much faith in any Thai government to do this properly. I have more faith in the Abhisit government than any previous ones, but it still is Thailand. The truth is unlikely to come out.

I also suspect that the most thorough investigation possible wouldn't be all that revealing. The guilty will keep their mouths shut. Concrete evidence is lacking. There is most probably guilt on both sides, but finding enough clear evidence to show who is guilty for what is unlikely to be found.

Having said that, I believe that the government has the moral advantage insofar as they have the imperative to protect the citizenry from dangerous elements, in this case the innocent citizens of BKK required government protection from the redshirt demonstrators who were clearly armed, dangerous, and in violation of numerous laws.

@zigistar & way toomuch coffee

""reactions of people like you""

had my kid not been here, my reaction would have been to kick him off , not a word spoken . In seven years with my son in lots of place this has been the only instance . He didn't like being 'interacted with' by this man at all ; weirdo was way too close when I arrived .

And good thing for him it was me the father who came, not the kid's mother on her own turf.

You two are downright self righteous botherers ; you weren' t there and don't know me ; I have only one child but have dealt with children aged from 10-11 for years ; I participated in a "green house " which is a Dolto-inspired place for interactions of kids with kids and occasionnaly parents with other kids .

Anyway there's the golden rule :

you-don't -talk- to - strangers.

strange you don't know that one being parents.

You abandoned your child in a restaurant for an unknown duration, at least insofar as the restaurant patrons were concerned. Any observer might naturally be concerned for your child's welfare in such a situation. There are many other possibilities, but you seem to be blinded to them and instead prefer to label this guy as a weirdo implying he is a pedophile out to kidnap your child.

I agree the country is too unsettled at the present to hold elections, but the point is they need to be held as soon as reasonably possible.Early 2011 would seem sensible, and that is of course after the date suggested by Abhisit in the negotiations with the Reds.

Fair point about the freedom to campaign.Equally the state/army must be kept out of the process since there was undue influence in previous campaigns - strongly criticised by international observers.Bear in mind also there is huge cynicism, justified by experience, that efforts will made again to frustrate the will of the people at the next election - whether by bizarre court decisions or other sleight of hand by the ruling elite which seemingly cannot bear a result which doesn't suit it.

I understand that this exists. I do however think some of this fear is misplaced. They should pressure their MPs not to violate election law and run a clean election and there will be no problems with dissolution.

Any party's actions will be gone over with a fine-toothed comb for irregularities by the opposition party. All party's need to clean up their acts, including the Dems.

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to obtain one in the circumstances of hisunsavoury and guided path to power, particularly now he has blood on his hands

He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.

Have you not considered that the reason elections cannot be held at the moment is exactly that free and fair elections are impossible under the conditions the redshirt leaders themselves created. Until the northern and northeastern redshirt supporters, and their leaders, realize that democracy must include the freedom to campaign no early election should be held.

Perhaps some of our differences come down to our nationalities. I am from the USA. We do not hold early elections. It just doesn't happen. I am aware that in parliamentary systems early elections are more common. Far more common in some countries than others.

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters. It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it. It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.

The above bolded items are either pure speculation or completely inaccurate.

By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Abhisit has avoided nothing. He is serving the term as PM that he was elected to by the MPs. Each of those MPs was elected by the people. He is both the legal and legitimate PM. Any mandate for the position of PM comes from the MPs. The people elect the MPs not the PM.

"I try to understand, not to shove my version of events down the throats of others".........is surely a statement about me..... .

LOL. Peace.

No need for us to further derail the conversation with petty bickering that serves no purpose.

The government allowed the demonstration to take place, failed to keep it moving and in control, allowed an encampment to be built......then as an afterthought declared it all illegal!..................smart way to deal with this type of protest?.........you tell me, because I believe there were errors on both sides, but then, I try to understand, not shove my version of events down the throats of others!!!

I think you might find CRES declared to protest illegal.......after the occupation........if that was not the case....as I work from memory......then I may well have a poor memory, as for my mental state, it has not let me down to the level of throwing around personal insults on a debating forum....

I suggest you re-read your posts above. In the first post you accused me of ramming my opinion down the throats of others. That is in fact a personal insult.

In the second post you are accusing me of insulting you. Perhaps you are correct as I was reacting to your earlier personal insult. Your accusation, while ignoring your own actions, is objectionable.

A discussion board is for discussing. It is time you accept that others do not share your views. This does not make them stupid, wrong, or bad.

Not having been on the scene, I am guilty of second guessing others. But IMHO, the longer the government allowed the protests to continue, the more they attracted those who came for violence under the cover of the masses. Even if they were attacked with bamboo staffs early-on, it would have been easier to control than once the guns and the crazies arrived.

The guns and crazies were already present. It would have made no difference, except that more people would have lost their lives if the government had moved earlier.

The government allowed the demonstration to take place, failed to keep it moving and in control, allowed an encampment to be built......then as an afterthought declared it all illegal!..................smart way to deal with this type of protest?.........you tell me, because I believe there were errors on both sides, but then, I try to understand, not shove my version of events down the throats of others!!!

Occupying Ratchaprasong was illegal from the start. The police didn't do their jobs and protect the citizens of Bangkok from violent mobs.

And what's this nonsense of ramming opinions down the throats of others? This is a discussion board. We share our opinions and beliefs. Simply because your opinion differs from mine does not mean you are ramming it down my throat or vice versa. Grow up.

Not having been on the scene, I am guilty of second guessing others. But IMHO, the longer the government allowed the protests to continue, the more they attracted those who came for violence under the cover of the masses. Even if they were attacked with bamboo staffs early-on, it would have been easier to control than once the guns and the crazies arrived.

The guns and crazies were already present. It would have made no difference, except that more people would have lost their lives if the government had moved earlier.

The facts are all there...say what you like...Thai government same as the Iran government...using Armed Army to kill their own citizens.....

The government of Iran changed the results of an election. The current government of Thailand is legit even if there is a lot of controversy about how they ended up in power. Whatever you want to say about about them, they had good reason to stop a bunch of thugs who ruined much of the Thai economy for months and burned down much of the country.

So they did NOT changed the result of the election to use a coup to install this "Legitimed" goverment ???? :lol:

That is correct. The coup leaders did not install the present government. Check your history. There was a coup to remove a highly corrupt, extra-constitutional prime minister who tried to retake his caretaker role after having abdicated. Then there was a constitutional rewrite to ensure stronger punishments for electoral fraud, increase the rights to the citizens, and weaken the ability for a PM to become a demagogue. The constitution was ratified by the voting population through a referendum. After this an election was called. The party who won a plurality vote violated election law and was disbanded. A parliamentary vote was called to select a new PM by the elected MPs, and Abhisit assumed the role of PM.

As the goverment is responsible for controlling Thai citizens they failed in that duty. So the government pays. Care to explain how the protest managed to take over the centre of Bangkok? are you going to tell me the government was so negligent they just let people walk into the centre of Bangkok and set up a camp...............surely not!!!!

Surely. The police headquarters is directly across the street from the main protest area. The police allowed the illegal occupation to happen. They were derelict in their duty and heads should roll.

On the other hand, it should be noted that when police did try to do their job they were attacked by masses of demonstrators wielding sharpened bamboo poles, sling shots, and various other weapons. Should the police have used force to contain the demonstrations at that point? Perhaps.

At the time of the initial Ratchaprasong occupation the numbers of protesters was in the tens of thousands. Had the police acted there would have been mayhem and carnage on a scale much larger than occurred when the military finally acted to protect the citizens of Bangkok.

The Red Shirt protesters should consider that the numbers killed were low for such an outrageous act of civil disobedience. Most other countries of the world would not have tolerated such actions for as long as the current administration did. The sitting administration could easily have opened fire on the masses and piled the bodies in the streets. They did not. They withheld counter-measures until they deemed it getting out of control. They should applaud the administration of Khun Abhisit for holding themselves in check for so long. Next time, there may not be such a high level of tolerance. Why not wait until scheduled elections to change governments? Most democratic countries or republics do just that. They do not burn down buildings and assault residents to get their grievances in the media. They vote in a new administration. It was offered, but some of the Red Shirt upper-echelon feared such an action. Why?

You deceive yourself.In non-totalitarian countries no government could survive its army murdering unarmed civilians on this scale.

I disagree completely. The government did not murder unarmed civilians. The government used force to suppress an armed and violent rebellion. It is you who is engaging in self-deception.

Well we must agree to differ.But it's an odd rebellion that mostly consisted of unarmed men,women and children.

That may have been true at the beginning of the demonstration, but not toward the end when mostly hardcore males remained.

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA AND HIS CRIMES (2001-2010)

Thaksin Shinawatra and His Crimes (2001-2010) | Live Stock Trading News | Equities, Forex, Gold, Silver and Oil Trading

Outstanding link. I've been looking for something well-documented like this for quite some time.