way2muchcoffee

Have you been cut off from the news? They're pretty much in agreement, with the rally ending likely by Monday.

That's what they say to the media. Then later on the stages they continue to preach hatred of Abhisit, military, PAD, elites, etc. etc. etc. They start making demands to sweeten the pot and soften their landing when all this is over. They then bring in reinforcements from the countryside. Why would they do this? It is deliberate provocation toward the government. Their public attitude toward the reconciliation process has been half-hearted at best. Their private attitude seems to be much less so.

Last night there were two separate attacks, the drive by shooting, and the grenades. Is anyone sure that the same group is responsible for both? Could be that both the reds and the yellows are taking advantage of the situation to cause more mayhem. I for one won't be spending the evening near Silom tonight.

That's fortunate for you. I and my family live near Silom. I work near Silom. Perhaps this explains my growing impatience and frustration with the redshirt protesters. They need to be dispersed. This is not a simple matter of inconvenience, though the inconvenience has been enormous. It is the violence. The violence is too close to home. This lives of my family are in danger. There are tens of thousands of innocent families living in this area. Where are our rights? Where is our safety?

there is another point of view on the re-enforcement of Ratchaprasong: taking into account the Government difficulties, Red Shirts have to reinforce their strength to impose the Roadmap. On contrary of some opinions, this can help the Government to impose the roadmap against Yellow and multicolored movements.

That's some seriously backwards logic. Reinforcing the demonstrations is equivalent to hollering a big 'f' you at the government and spitting on the reconciliation. They have dragged their heels and thrown up barrier after barrier. They are showing themselves to be totally insincere. And they are responsible for last night's attacks whether their guys did it or not. They have never been about playing nice or by the rules. Reconciliation is not in their interests, nor is it in the interests of their paymaster.

Don't need to negotiate -

He shouldn't need to negotiate that is true, but he is being held to ransom but a minority group who have taken over parts of Bangkok and which includes a number of extremely violent people. The army and the police have shown themselves to be weak and unable to do their jobs. As such, Abhisit has no choice but to negotiate. Nothing to do with his leadership qualities. Everything to do with him having to work with a disfunctional state.

joking aside you were all for 'cracking' down and being decisive now you're all calling for negotiating and moderation - strange...

If by "cracking down" you mean enforcing law and order, yes i was for that. As i say though, the people responsible for enforcing law and order have shown themselves incapable, and so hence why negotiation and moderation is the only other option for Abhisit, besides simply standing down and letting Thaksin and his red chums take this country over by force.

Thanks for a well thought out reply - I guess I'm slightly (don't get too excited) warming to your theme, however, I still hold true to the principal (even within this dysfunctional 'hole') that 'if' he had laid out a well-though out plan with dates and timeline much of this 'may' not have happened - and if it did he should have shut off all supplies and utilities - over within a week.

So 8/10 for management/PR and all that jazz but 2/10 for leadership in a crisis - a completely different thing calling for a completely different leadership style.

Impossible. Thousands of innocent people if not tens of thousands live in the occupied territory. You can't shut off power to the area. You can't prevent people coming in and out.

Well. It looks like extremists on both sides will be able to halt the reconciliation process. The message is 'there will be bombs'. A red radio DJ had his truck set on fire last night in Phayao. The government did not want to instigate a dispersal due to the threats of terrorism as retribution. Well it now looks like there will be terrorism regardless. The protesters need to leave voluntarily now or be dispersed.

If the redshirts are innocent of the recent attacks and if they share the goal of reconciliation then they will announce today the immediate dismantling of the stages and will disperse.

If they do not do this then either they are guilty of last night's attacks or they aren't interested in reconciliation. Their illegal presence in the heart of Bangkok is dangerous to the peace plan and to security forces and civilians.

FACT: If the reds had not taken to the streets in such a lawless and violent manner .. this would not have happened.

No matter what way you slice this, the reds have responsibility in this.

jcbangkok isn't this the same as when we (farangs) have an accident it must be our fault if we were not here it would not have happened therefore all farangs involved in an accident must be to blame and therefore pay.

Not at all. Farangs living in Thailand is perfectly legal.

Red shirts demonstrating illegally and using weapons against security forces is decidedly not legal. The situation is more like a man robs a bank. During the course of the robbery a man is killed. It is unclear how the man was killed. The bank robber will be charged with the death. It wouldn't be a murder charge. The charge would be 'death resulting from the commission of a felony'.

Well... I like to 'balance' all the yellow rhetoric!

Fair enough.

I do believe that Abhisit made some fundamental errors of judgement weeks ago - he showed no leadership and made ambiguous statements without a roadmap - people need to know exactly the dates - he has now given the election date but not the dissolution - it's almost like he enjoys 'playing' with the reds and winding them up.

He should forget about people 'agreeing' and have some balls - he's PM! so decide! you don't get the British PM seeking 'agreement' about the election date - he is PM and he chooses period.

and that is my Baht's worth!

The exact date of dissolution is impossible to provide. The date of elections is dependent on progress of the reconciliation. A specific dissolution date is a demand that will not be met. He has already stated as much. That is the offer on the table.

Not at all - Abhisit refused to set a date back then and caused all the trouble - and all the yellow posters here were chorusing 'no early elections' remember?

You have an interesting take on things. Abhisit caused all the trouble?

One might imagine that all the trouble was caused by the illegal demonstrators. They have no right to demonstrate in this way. They should not be in Ratchaprasong. They should not have weapons. They should not violently resist legal dispersal. They should not invade hospitals. They should not kidnap people. They should not incite violence from their stages. They should not take up arms against security forces. They should not block roads and search private cars. They should not attempt to break through road blocks.

So who is it that is causing all the trouble?

Shooting confirmed, Channel 7 news, 2min ago.

The redshirts did it - I know this because weapons were involved.

Who would gain from this?

Anyone opposed to the Reconciliation Road Map would be my first guess. This could be extremist elements in either the red or yellow camp. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess either way at this point. Toss a coin?

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

Yes. It makes a difference. It has already been stated that the dissolution and election dates are only valid if certain conditions are met along the way. That is the road map. That is the deal. Perhaps those conditions need to be spelled out more clearly and specifically, as other posters have mentioned. But as it stands those dates are most certainly not cast in stone. Abhisit has made that much perfectly clear.

This is a gracious offer. The red shirts will have their election if they put down their guns and clean up their mess. Then they need to roll up their shirtsleeves and participate fully in the reconciliation process. If they try to play games, obstruct, and delay, then most certainly the election date will change. This is how reconciliation works.

How do you know that the grenade attacks were launched by red shirts? There is no proof, just allegations and speculations at this point. Couldn't it have been just as well a yellow shirt launching the grenades to later accuse the red shirts of doing it? I'm not saying it was yellow or red.

How do I know it was the red shirts? I don't. I know who I believe is most likely to have done it. You know who you believe is most likely to have done it. The balance of circumstances would suggest red shirts or the allies, but neither of us knows for sure. We will all have to wait until charges are levied, followed by a court case and a verdict. It is also possible that we will never know for sure.

Your suggestion of the court cases against the yellow shirts still going on are ridiculous. The court cases are all but dead and will never reach a verdict. Or do you think a group of red shirts could today take over the airport, hold it hostage for 10 days, cause billions in losses and then walk out of the police station after 30 minutes, and 2 years later still not be sentenced? And the PAD were armed when they took over the airports. It wasn't all "peaceful". There are plenty of photos of them standing around with handguns and rifles guarding the airport entrances. An armed group, taking over an international airport, in order to overthrow a democratically elected government. If that doesn't qualify as terrorism, I don't know what does, I'm sorry.

I don't support the PAD. I think their leaders should be jailed just like the red shirt leaders. I believe the crimes of the red shirt leaders are more severe, but that both groups of leaders deserve significant jail time. Given how things go here though I doubt many on either side will see much time inside a jail. There may be a few fall guys from lower levels in the hierarchy, and one or two higher-ups may pull a Thaksin and abscond, but that will probably be the extent of it.

I don't think Kasit should face any criminal charges in the same way that I don't think PTP politicians who spoke on red stages once or twice should face criminal charges for that alone. They are deserving of censure though, and they should certainly not be in any cabinet position now or after the next election.

Double standards, my friend. Anyone believing otherwise belongs in Disneyland.

Nope. I don't think so. Those who committed crimes should pay, be they yellow, red, blue, green, brown, pink, multi-colored, orange, or no color at all. I'll leave it up to the judiciary to weigh the specific crime in each individual case and assess fair punishment, though what I think will actually happen I have already mentioned above.

They called on all sides to respect results of upcoming elections. Just like all sides respect the law when it doesn't suit them.

This is an interesting point. I can think of several cases in which various groups would likely not accept the results of the next election.

(1) If candidates from some parties are threatened or harassed when campaigning in certain areas.

(2) If campaign materials or posters are defaced or destroyed in certain areas at the request of any political party member.

(3) If any party is caught buying votes or engaging in any other form of electoral fraud.

(4) If voters are intimidated or harassed into voting for one particular party over another.

(5) If any party excessively uses media to disseminate proven lies about any other candidate or party.

It also depends on what a party does once they have power and government. If a party unilaterally attempts to change the constitution without including other parties then various groups would not accept it. If attempts are made to grant amnesty to certain people for their crimes this too would cause various groups to rise up in protests.

I am in no way trying to excuse what they did - but as I said, some perspective is required.

Dragging out the Geneva Convention is a big jump in this debate.

But this small sub-sub-sub section of the debate has probably run its course.

Agreed.

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

The full Article 18 reads:

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.

Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.

The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

No, if there is no civil war going on, it is not semantics - it is simply not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Further, under the Convention, for a "civil war" (however described) to be occurring, the following conditions must be met:

The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:

* The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

* The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

* The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

* The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

I understand what you are saying Jackspratt. I doubt a world court would rule this crisis as applicable to the Geneva Convention. However, if they did, then the red shirt actions at Chulalongkorn Hospital would likely be considered a war crime. Therefore what the red shirts did was totally inexcusable and the severity of their actions cannot be minimized. The only reason what they did is not a war crime is that this crisis doesn't quite fit the definition of a civil war.

In fact, if you bother to read the Convention, it has no application under the current circumstances existing in Thailand.

Firstly, it applies to parties in an armed conflict ie war.

Secondly, it applies where two or more parties (ie states, not political movements within a state) are involved.

Let's keep some perspective folks.

Evidently the International Red Cross disagrees with you. Following is the part of the Geneva Convention regarding armed conflict not of an international character.

PARAGRAPH 1. -- APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

1. ' Introductory sentence -- Field of application of the Article '

A. ' Cases of armed conflict. ' What is meant by "armed conflict not of an international character"? The expression is so general, so vague, that many of the delegations feared that it might be taken to cover any act committed by force of arms -- any form of anarchy, rebellion, or even plain banditry. For example, if a handful of individuals were to rise in rebellion against the State and attack a police station, would that suffice to bring into being an armed conflict within the meaning of the Article? In order to reply to questions of this sort, it was suggested that the term "conflict" should be defined or -- and this would come to the same thing -- that a list should be given of a certain number of conditions on which the application of the Convention would depend. The idea was finally abandoned, and wisely so. Nevertheless, these different conditions, although in no way obligatory, constitute convenient criteria, and we therefore think it well to give a list drawn from the various amendments discussed; they are as follows (13):

[p.36] (1) That the Party in revolt against the de jure Government possesses an

organized military force, an authority responsible for its acts,

acting within a determinate territory and having the means of

respecting and ensuring respect for the Convention.

(2) That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular

military forces against insurgents organized as military and in

possession of a part of the national territory.

(3) (a) That the de jure Government has recognized the insurgents as

belligerents; or

( That it has claimed for itself the rights of a belligerent; or

© That it has accorded the insurgents recognition as belligerents

for the purposes only of the present Convention; or

(d) That the dispute has been admitted to the agenda of the Security

Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations as being a

threat to international peace, a breach of the peace, or an act

of aggression.

(4) (a) That the insurgents have an organization purporting to have the

characteristics of a State.

( That the insurgent civil authority exercises de facto authority

over the population within a determinate portion of the national

territory.

© That the armed forces act under the direction of an organized

authority and are prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.

(d) That the insurgent civil authority agrees to be bound by the

provisions of the Convention.

The first three requirements seem to be met, but it would be a stretch to say that requirement 4 is met. I am not a judge of the world court, but I suspect that a world court would exclude the use of the applicability of the Geneva Convention to Thailand's crisis on this grounds.

However, the International Committee of the Red Cross has the following to say about the applicability of the Geneva Convention to armed conflicts.

Does this mean that Article 3 is not applicable in cases where armed strife breaks out in a country, but does not fulfil any of the above conditions?

We do not subscribe to this view. We think, on the contrary, that the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible. There can be no drawbacks in this, since the Article in its reduced form, contrary to what might be thought, does not in any way limit the right of a State to put down rebellion, nor does it increase in the slightest the authority of the rebel party. It merely demands respect for certain rules, which were already recognized as essential in all civilized countries, and embodied in the national legislation of the States in question, long before the Convention was signed.

What Government would dare to claim before the world, in a case of civil disturbances which could justly be described as mere acts of banditry, that, Article 3 not being applicable, it was entitled to leave the wounded uncared for, to torture and mutilate prisoners and take hostages? No Government can object to observing, in its dealings [p.37] with enemies, whatever the nature of the conflict between it and them, a few essential rules which it in fact observes daily, under its own laws, when dealing with common criminals.

Speaking generally, it must be recognized that the conflicts referred to in Article 3 are armed conflicts, with ' armed forces ' on either side engaged in ' hostilities ' -- conflicts, in short, which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country.

Force may be regarded as an option but as I suggested the results would quite probably be much more disastrous than just letting 'em sit there.

You may be right. It's really hard to say. Arguments can be made either way, especially when considering the short, medium, and long-term consequences of any specific action.

With some red shirts carrying military weapons and some black shirt terrorists mingling in, and with the red shirt leaders guilty of rioting, inciting violence, kidnapping, terrorism, and war crimes,

You forgot that the red shirts are also responsible for the Holocaust and the fake Moon Landings.

The Fourth Geneva Convention

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

The time ran out on me during an edit. There are some corrections.

Numbers two and three should read as follows:

2) There was an injunction against the government at the time. The courts ruled that the government could not disperse the demonstrators from GH as up until that time the only violence to occur was when red shirts attacked PAD. So as far as Government House is concerned, they PAD were there legally. The PAD did do some damage during their occupation and several items went missing. Charges have been filed and the court cases are ongoing.

3) There were grenade bombings of the PAD camp almost nightly for several weeks. These attacks are widely beloved to come from Seh Daeng's crew. Seh Daeng had threatened grenade attacks shortly before the grenades started flying. No charges have been filed for the multiple grenade attacks on the PAD camp.

With some people in what is supposed to be the Government supporters, requesting than PM resigns, it is legitimate for the Red Shirts to wait until the situation is cleared.

With some red shirts carrying military weapons and some black shirt terrorists mingling in, and with the red shirt leaders guilty of rioting, inciting violence, kidnapping, terrorism, and war crimes, it is legitimate for the government to disperse the red shirts immediately using the minimum force required to do the job.

So why aren't the yellow shirts in prison for terrorism charges? Taking over 2 international airports is terrorism. Holding government house hostage for 8 months with armed guards is terrorism.

1) During the yellow shirt demonstrations the red shirts came out and attacked them several times. This was the first violence to occur.

2) There was an injunction against the government at the time. The courts ruled that the government could not disperse the demonstrators from GH as up until that time the only violence to occur was when red shirts attacked PAD. So as far as Government House is concerned, they PAD were there legally.

3) There were grenade bombings of the PAD camp almost nightly for several weeks. These attacks are widely beloved to come from Seh Daeng's crew. Seh Daeng had threatened grenade attacks shortly before the grenades started flying. The PAD did do some damage during their occupation and several items went missing. Charges have been filed and the court cases are ongoing.

4) The PAD were in violation of the law when they blocked parliament. The police attempted to disperse them, killing some demonstrators and injuring many. Charges have been filed against the PAD leaders for this and the cases are ongoing in the court system.

5) The video evidence you are seeing of PAD violence was instigated by red shirts. There were gangs of red shirts looking for blood. This was gang warfare. The PAD guards responded to the violence and so both sides were committing illegal violent acts towards each other. The PAD never resorted to grenades. No red shirts were killed, while several PAD were killed.

6) The airport is an interesting case. The airport was taken non-violently. AOT closed the airport during a peaceful PAD demonstration. The PAD stayed on after AOT made the decision to close the airport. This is not a clear cut case of the PAD closing the airport, however their demonstration at the airport was illegal and the court cases are in process as we speak.

7) The case of the murdered PAD guard remains a mystery. Nobody knows who killed him or how he died.

I suspect you know all of this already Che, but you continue to post inane questions. Why is this? Do you have some kind of political agenda? Why are you trying to spread misinformation?

The ramifications of violence by the army in Thailand will in all probability be unacceptable. If they engage in violence they may well make Thailand an international pariah.

"make Thailand an international pariah" ....are you projecting how Thailand might look in the eyes of outsiders? We farang here on T.Visa are often told how Thais can take care of their own problems, and they don't care what other think. Well, both those assumptions are wrong. As for the big problem affecting/infecting downtown Bkk, Thais cannot fix it. In spite of several very reasonable offers of compromise from the PM, the Reds continue to make things problematic.

The option of security forces forcefully evicting the protesters is still possible. As of this moment, the Reds have not officially agreed to the roadmap, so the PM can not preclude the option of using force, and nationwide elections can go ahead on December 2011 (according to the Constitution) - if there's no firm acceptance by Reds of the road map.

If the protesters are forcibly evicted, then that will entail violence to some degree. Just as getting a cavity filled at the Dentist, there may be some pain and destruction (drilling into a tooth) involved with bettering the situation (of a painful cavity). If the Reds want to play hardball, with their vacillating and threats, then they should be prepared to suffer some bruises, if security forces get called to duty.

Military operations often involve 'violence'. That's part of what soldiers are trained for. If your country was attacked, you'd want those same soldiers to do all they could to protect you and your interests - and that might include violent acts. They're not going to be affective protecting you with chopsticks and sockfulls of 5 baht coins.

And now they are stalling, accusing Abhisit of being duplicitous, and calling for backups from up-country to join the demonstrations. The backups evidently are preparing to break through any police/military roadblock that may be in their way using tractor trailers. Nice plan guys.

The red shirts have no legitimacy and are now working to sabotage the reconciliation effort. I therefore support an immediate dispersal using the least amount of force necessary to get the job done. Arrest the leaders and and charge them to the fullest extent of the law.

it is obvious that the Roadmap and Election proposal is under fire on the Abhisit side. So the proposal lacks of credibility because it is built on "sand". I have carefully read the position of the Red Leaders, and I understand that the dissolution date is only the pretext for waiting until the proposal is more seriously anchored.

The issue is on the Abhisit side: on his proposalk, he has a strong support from the population Red and democrats united.

It is the opportunity to take over and build his own movement and to check who is following. The proposal must be inked, voted by parliament and by referendum proposed to the population over the heads of traditionnal Parties. As soon as ratified by the parliament, Red Shirts will stop the Rajatprasong demonstration and should start campaigning for the referendum, alongside with Abhisit friends, againsts the extremists.

I disagree. The onus is on the terrorist insurgents to stop taking the center of Bangkok hostage. Period. They don't have any legitimacy to bargain. They should leave now, and the leaders should turn themselves in forthwith. They have graciously been given a peaceful exit. If they are not willing to take it then may God have mercy on their souls. Many citizens of Thailand certainly won't.

PAD

People's Alliance for Demands?

RED

Random Executions until you meet our Demands

How exactly is being compensated for appearing in a cooking show a conflict of interest??? And why would it be less of a conflict if doing it for free?

A) It was against the law

If it wasn't a big deal, why did he present falsified documents when he went to court?

And really, you don't think its a bit of a conflict of interest to have a major TV station paying money to the Prime Minister?

Also, his punishment was to lose the PM position, he wasn't banned. He could have been voted back as PM essentially the next day, except Thanksin had other plans.

so on one hand it is ok to break the law, but on another hand it is not. The dems have broke the law or election law and should be disbanded for it, if they are not then it will clearly show double standards and show in this country the penalty is based on who you are rather than what you have done. The courts either uphold the law or ignore the law, if they ignore the law do you think all the problems will just go away or do you think it will give more ammunition to the opposition.

You are assuming penalties should be uniform for differing violations. That is a mistake. Your argument is unsound. If a country has the death penalty in place for premeditated murder, it does not mean the death penalty should be used for a traffic violation, particularly if there is unclear evidence to back up the traffic violation charges.