Thailand's 'Yellow Shirts' Call For Martial Law

[Oberkommando]

the Thais do not think they are superior to anyone,

Thai culture is all about lording it over others. Get real.

[cup-O-coffee]

Thailand's pro-establishment "Yellow Shirts" called Monday for the imposition of martial law to end mass anti-government protests by the rival "Red Shirts," warning they may take action themselves.

So, what they are threatening to do is the very same thing that the other guys are doing. It's like saying to the government that suits them, "Do what we want you to do or else...". This really casts a ridiculous light on the individuals holding power now merely by military might and deadly force; as well as the constituents who back them.

Pot-Kettle-Black; but the pot has the bullets and the rule of law that is becoming questionable at best.

It seems the key to all this mess is the very small few who emphatically refuse to call a yes/no vote for whether or not an advanced election should take place to let all the people decide, instead of the very small few, who were never elected by the people who are taking issue with this. This very small few seem to have a death grip on their prized positions, and do not seem to realize that these prized positions have transgressed human life; at the request of the very small few.

Is holding on to a prized government position really that important when people are being shot by the sons and daughters of these people; or are these soldiers selected by their patriotic oath, and the sympathetic ones left back at the barracks?

What kind of a soldier points an automatic weapon at the people he or she is sworn to protect and defend in the event of an enemy force attacking? What kind of soldier pulls the trigger, with the intent to kill or maim his or her own people?

"We were just following orders!"

If these very small few are so benevolent and cock-sure of their popularity, then they should let the people decide as I have suggested above. It is not their place to hold their positions using deadly military force (i.e. extreme prejudice) at this advanced stage of the issue.

Just my opinion regarding this disgusting matter.

[lazurus]

Thailand's pro-establishment "Yellow Shirts" called Monday for the imposition of martial law to end mass anti-government protests by the rival "Red Shirts," warning they may take action themselves.

Is holding on to a prized government position really that important when people are being shot by the sons and daughters of these people; or are these soldiers selected by their patriotic oath, and the sympathetic ones left back at the barracks?

What kind of a soldier points an automatic weapon at the people he or she is sworn to protect and defend in the event of an enemy force attacking? What kind of soldier pulls the trigger, with the intent to kill or maim his or her own people?

It's the kind of soldier that is willing to do his duty. It is the kind of soldier that understands that a fellow countryman with a grenade launcher is just as dangerous as a foreigner. It's the kind of soldier who will protect innocent civilians when a violent mob threatens them. The reds may have legitimate complaints, even though that may not be why they are protesting. But some of these protesters have taken up arms, whether they be sling shots, spears, clubs, guns, or explosives. The truly innocent civilians should be protected from them. When an armed group threatens the security of a nation they must be opposed by the army and police, even if they come from within the nations borders. I'm sure the soldiers would rather not kill other Thais, and if they lay their weapons down and disperse they won't have to.

[midas]

Thailand's pro-establishment "Yellow Shirts" called Monday for the imposition of martial law to end mass anti-government protests by the rival "Red Shirts," warning they may take action themselves.

Is holding on to a prized government position really that important when people are being shot by the sons and daughters of these people; or are these soldiers selected by their patriotic oath, and the sympathetic ones left back at the barracks?

What kind of a soldier points an automatic weapon at the people he or she is sworn to protect and defend in the event of an enemy force attacking? What kind of soldier pulls the trigger, with the intent to kill or maim his or her own people?

It's the kind of soldier that is willing to do his duty. It is the kind of soldier that understands that a fellow countryman with a grenade launcher is just as dangerous as a foreigner. It's the kind of soldier who will protect innocent civilians when a violent mob threatens them. The reds may have legitimate complaints, even though that may not be why they are protesting. But some of these protesters have taken up arms, whether they be sling shots, spears, clubs, guns, or explosives. The truly innocent civilians should be protected from them. When an armed group threatens the security of a nation they must be opposed by the army and police, even if they come from within the nations borders. I'm sure the soldiers would rather not kill other Thais, and if they lay their weapons down and disperse they won't have to.

You deleted the first part of cup-O-coffee 's post which is the most relevant part about

holding an election...........what are you comments about that ?

[viking75]

Thailand's pro-establishment "Yellow Shirts" called Monday for the imposition of martial law to end mass anti-government protests by the rival "Red Shirts," warning they may take action themselves.

So, what they are threatening to do is the very same thing that the other guys are doing. It's like saying to the government that suits them, "Do what we want you to do or else...". This really casts a ridiculous light on the individuals holding power now merely by military might and deadly force; as well as the constituents who back them.

Pot-Kettle-Black; but the pot has the bullets and the rule of law that is becoming questionable at best.

It seems the key to all this mess is the very small few who emphatically refuse to call a yes/no vote for whether or not an advanced election should take place to let all the people decide, instead of the very small few, who were never elected by the people who are taking issue with this. This very small few seem to have a death grip on their prized positions, and do not seem to realize that these prized positions have transgressed human life; at the request of the very small few.

Is holding on to a prized government position really that important when people are being shot by the sons and daughters of these people; or are these soldiers selected by their patriotic oath, and the sympathetic ones left back at the barracks?

What kind of a soldier points an automatic weapon at the people he or she is sworn to protect and defend in the event of an enemy force attacking? What kind of soldier pulls the trigger, with the intent to kill or maim his or her own people?

"We were just following orders!"

If these very small few are so benevolent and cock-sure of their popularity, then they should let the people decide as I have suggested above. It is not their place to hold their positions using deadly military force (i.e. extreme prejudice) at this advanced stage of the issue.

Just my opinion regarding this disgusting matter.

Europe armys protect country. thailand army protect only democrat/elit interests. for long time now but not for ever

now people not scared and smell new change to come and can fight to make change

[tonywebster]

THE NATION: Dhamakaya Temple yesterday released a statement, denying the rumour the temple's connection to redshirts.

Red shirts call for reinforcements at Don Muang

"Following the clash with anti-riot troops, red-shirt leaders called protesters in Pathum Thani to reinforce their peers who were clashing with the force.

Hundreds of red-shirt protesters were seen coming out from the Dhammakaya Temple to reinforce the protesters at the front line." The Nation

As usual red shirt denials turn out to be lies.

The temple denied it was being used by the red shirts, the red shirts didn't deny it. If you are going to bore us with fake hatred at least get the facts right so your disgust is at least about something factual, here is an idea, stop reading the tripe posted by the yellows on here, their posts are full of hyperbole. Then read other publications and get some facts.

How about this, the Government said yesterday rubber bullets were fired but the army had live ammunition if they had to defend themselves against gun, yet a soldier riding towards them on a motorbike gets shot in the head with live ammunition, was he a threat? really? or were the army just firing live ammunition randomly into the crowd as they were on 10th (as seen on video but denied by the government).

As for the yellows, I think they gave up their right to take any moral high ground or offer advice 2 years ago.

Edited April 28, 2010 by tonywebster

[lazurus]

THE NATION: Dhamakaya Temple yesterday released a statement, denying the rumour the temple's connection to redshirts.

Red shirts call for reinforcements at Don Muang

"Following the clash with anti-riot troops, red-shirt leaders called protesters in Pathum Thani to reinforce their peers who were clashing with the force.

Hundreds of red-shirt protesters were seen coming out from the Dhammakaya Temple to reinforce the protesters at the front line." The Nation

As usual red shirt denials turn out to be lies.

The temple denied it was being used by the red shirts, the red shirts didn't deny it. If you are going to bore us with fake hatred at least get the facts right so your disgust is at least about something factual, here is an idea, stop reading the tripe posted by the yellows on here, their posts are full of hyperbole. Then read other publications and get some facts.

How about this, the Government said yesterday rubber bullets were fired but the army had live ammunition if they had to defend themselves against gun, yet a soldier riding towards them on a motorbike gets shot in the head with live ammunition, was he a threat? really? or were the army just firing live ammunition randomly into the crowd as they were on 10th (as seen on video but denied by the government).

As for the yellows, I think they gave up their right to take any moral high ground or offer advice 2 years ago.

If the soldiers were randomly firing live ammo into the crowd why weren't any protesters killed? The soldiers do have live ammo when they start firing on the crowds you'll know it. So you claim that the temple harboring the reds were lying when they said the reds weren't using their temple. Is that where the reds get their moral high ground?

Edited April 28, 2010 by lazurus

[shawndoc]

Hey Tony, in regards to the shooting, keep in mind that there's a difference between one person screwing up (or people panicking), and being under orders to fire randomly into the crowd. Esp if you watch the video and realize the soldier was no where near the crowd, and had they been "randomly firing" live ammo into the crowd there surely would have been a lot more dead.

When discussing the Thai military and police, I think its important to remember the famous quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

For the record, I'm against firing live ammo "into the air" which seems to be part of the Thai SOP. Too easy for (deadly) mistakes to happen, too easy for "bad elements" to steal the soldiers weapons, and too easy for an innocent a long way from the conflict to be harmed or killed (bullets fired in an arc can travel a long way and still have enough speed to be lethal).

Apparently the government has given permission to fire live rounds at any within 30m of the soldiers. I'm still hoping this is just a misunderstanding or mistranslation, because that is an insane rule when dealing with a mob that is largely unarmed, or armed with weapons such as stones and pointed sticks and certainly doesn't stick with the Thai law and court decree that Thailand must stick with international standards when dealing with protesters. There's no first world government that would tolerate such a thing.

If soldiers armed with live ammo are required due to fears of armed resistance, those soldiers should be kept separate from the front lines and have no interaction with the protesters or involvement in dispersal operations. The should only step forward and take action if they come under fire.

Edited April 28, 2010 by shawndoc

[cup-O-coffee]

Thailand's pro-establishment "Yellow Shirts" called Monday for the imposition of martial law to end mass anti-government protests by the rival "Red Shirts," warning they may take action themselves.

Is holding on to a prized government position really that important when people are being shot by the sons and daughters of these people; or are these soldiers selected by their patriotic oath, and the sympathetic ones left back at the barracks?

What kind of a soldier points an automatic weapon at the people he or she is sworn to protect and defend in the event of an enemy force attacking? What kind of soldier pulls the trigger, with the intent to kill or maim his or her own people?

It's the kind of soldier that is willing to do his duty. It is the kind of soldier that understands that a fellow countryman with a grenade launcher is just as dangerous as a foreigner. It's the kind of soldier who will protect innocent civilians when a violent mob threatens them. The reds may have legitimate complaints, even though that may not be why they are protesting. But some of these protesters have taken up arms, whether they be sling shots, spears, clubs, guns, or explosives. The truly innocent civilians should be protected from them. When an armed group threatens the security of a nation they must be opposed by the army and police, even if they come from within the nations borders. I'm sure the soldiers would rather not kill other Thais, and if they lay their weapons down and disperse they won't have to.

A soldier with a fully automatic weapon, pointed at a fellow countryman (whether or not the alleged grenade launchers are in the hands of everyone), is nothing more than that fellow countryman's fellow countryman following the orders of an individual who is willing to give orders to end human life in the interests of retaining his death grip on his prized position. A soldier follows the orders of the chain of command. The chain of command ends with the PM. It is the PM, then, who is really pointing the weapons and using extreme prejudice. This is his answer. All the other things he is saying have yet to be realized and seem more like a skewed opiate for the media to use to indoctrinate the illiterate and uneducated. He talks about peace, but all I have seen is violence and threats, and now even his own constituents are crying for more violence. All of this must get his "OK" before it can happen.

I do not want to seem contentious here, but what you are saying about these scenarios lacks any real substance. The vague implications you are making require positive ID, forensic results and circumstantial evidence before I can submit to your view; not alleged motive and intent without logic and elementary deduction.

Incidentally, the scenario for your "gallant" soldier is an unlikely one. But it is easy to fabricate situations that can neither be proven or interpreted accurately; all in the interest of disarming another persons view with sensationalist and patriotic statements.

The genesis of this matter now seems to lie within the thoughts and imaginations of a very small few group of power hungry "humans" who are willing to trade other peoples lives for their own prized positions. And they are willing to use extreme prejudice against the native peoples of this country in order to keep their grip on a situation that is absurd and chaotic at best. We have had enough megalomaniacs in the last century, and it doesn't look good for this next century whilst it is still young.

Leader? Conqueror? or Usurper? What is the difference when you can modify, edit, or delete the law; or modify, edit and delete people, and that suddenly makes it acceptable and appropriate? When the interests of an oligarch government no longer reflect the interests of the people being governed, then who is really the enemy combatant, or the terrorist, or the invader, or the occupier?

A rich man who is crazy will be labeled as eccentric. The poor man gets labeled as insane!

regards.

Edited April 29, 2010 by cup-O-coffee

[whybother]

Hey Tony, in regards to the shooting, keep in mind that there's a difference between one person screwing up (or people panicking), and being under orders to fire randomly into the crowd. Esp if you watch the video and realize the soldier was no where near the crowd, and had they been "randomly firing" live ammo into the crowd there surely would have been a lot more dead.

When discussing the Thai military and police, I think its important to remember the famous quote by Napoleon Bonaparte, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

For the record, I'm against firing live ammo "into the air" which seems to be part of the Thai SOP. Too easy for (deadly) mistakes to happen, too easy for "bad elements" to steal the soldiers weapons, and too easy for an innocent a long way from the conflict to be harmed or killed (bullets fired in an arc can travel a long way and still have enough speed to be lethal).

Apparently the government has given permission to fire live rounds at any within 30m of the soldiers. I'm still hoping this is just a misunderstanding or mistranslation, because that is an insane rule when dealing with a mob that is largely unarmed, or armed with weapons such as stones and pointed sticks and certainly doesn't stick with the Thai law and court decree that Thailand must stick with international standards when dealing with protesters. There's no first world government that would tolerate such a thing.

If soldiers armed with live ammo are required due to fears of armed resistance, those soldiers should be kept separate from the front lines and have no interaction with the protesters or involvement in dispersal operations. The should only step forward and take action if they come under fire.

Do "international standards when dealing with protesters" include a section for "When protestors have deadly weapons and firearms"?

[shawndoc]

Read the last paragraph of the post that you quoted.

[tonywebster]

THE NATION: Dhamakaya Temple yesterday released a statement, denying the rumour the temple's connection to redshirts.

Red shirts call for reinforcements at Don Muang

"Following the clash with anti-riot troops, red-shirt leaders called protesters in Pathum Thani to reinforce their peers who were clashing with the force.

Hundreds of red-shirt protesters were seen coming out from the Dhammakaya Temple to reinforce the protesters at the front line." The Nation

As usual red shirt denials turn out to be lies.

The temple denied it was being used by the red shirts, the red shirts didn't deny it. If you are going to bore us with fake hatred at least get the facts right so your disgust is at least about something factual, here is an idea, stop reading the tripe posted by the yellows on here, their posts are full of hyperbole. Then read other publications and get some facts.

How about this, the Government said yesterday rubber bullets were fired but the army had live ammunition if they had to defend themselves against gun, yet a soldier riding towards them on a motorbike gets shot in the head with live ammunition, was he a threat? really? or were the army just firing live ammunition randomly into the crowd as they were on 10th (as seen on video but denied by the government).

As for the yellows, I think they gave up their right to take any moral high ground or offer advice 2 years ago.

If the soldiers were randomly firing live ammo into the crowd why weren't any protesters killed? The soldiers do have live ammo when they start firing on the crowds you'll know it. So you claim that the temple harboring the reds were lying when they said the reds weren't using their temple. Is that where the reds get their moral high ground?

Yes, you are right on that point, it was probably not random firing into the crowd, rather one soldier panicking and firing at someone (although there are other injuries but I am not sure if they are gunshot injuries or rubber bullet injuries).

As for the temple, well it is the temple that denied it so therefore either the temple was mistaken, or the temple lied, or it was misreported, but at no point did the reds say they were not there.

As for moral high ground, open your eyes mate and look at the lies on both sides, neither the government or the reds are being forthcoming with any truths.

[Casuarina]

Are you a judge? Will you be able to offer immunity to my friends if they are to step forward?

Who gave you the rights to comment that we need to backup our allegation with proof on a forum? Are you being silly? Whom with sane mind and a career to take care off dare to come forward and proof these allegation. This is why I ask if you are Thai.

It is a fact that only Bangkok Bank is the only bank appointed to handle the 2000 baht. It is a fact that their family members is appointed as minister. It is also a fact some big guy is the Chairman of Bangkok Bank.

What has PM has done? He has talked for many weeks now. Nothing has changed.

Do you need me to produce a recording where Democrats is asking military to buy submarines where our water is not deep enough? Do you know how much is a submarine and the kick back? You are so silly.

Media is being censored. Do we need to talk more about this area? The foreign press who are based here are frequently reminded about Les Majestic law. I am talking about ANN. Asia News Network which comprises of a few major press in the region.

We have 30 mins of Royal Family PR in news everyday if you do watch one. Anything not aligned with current government is censored. Do you think these reporter dare to come out and speak against their employer (press)? They will lose their job.

Unless you are new in business, how many people conduct corruption business via email or letter. It is all verbal in massage place and private places. Surely, people who are in the ministry knows about it. Unless you can provide them immunity or at least feel comfortable with our Thai judistry system. No one is willing to risk their family to speak out as witness.

FYI, Russian offer THB10 million as commission for every unit of Fighter Jet sold. I would suggest you to read the budget how much is allocated to new weapon purchase. It is the easiest way to take kick back as the price is not available publicly.

Unless you are living in an ideal world, many under table deals and corporate corruption is extremely difficult to proof. We cannot produce the proof but it does not it is not there.

Some company does keep a secret record for accountability. Some pays out huge commission to cover it. Some expenses it out with Marketing Agency. If you are part of these organisation as a small potato struggling to make a living, I am not sure you would be speaking this way.

There are a lot of law and regulation in Thailand. It is widely perceived as recommendation until one day it is use as a weapon against you. Haven't we seen enough?

Try harder to discredit me. Naive.

I don't have to discredit you. You are doing this to yourself very nicely with your aggressive attitude and by making claims that you cannot substantiate. I apologize if I have offended you. I am merely a poster here. When serious allegations are being made the burden of proof rests with the person making the claims. This proof could come from newspaper articles, reports, video, or academic papers. Thus far you have failed to provide any backup to your claims whatsoever.

hahaha.....so ludicrous.

[OldgitTom]

iforget,

you made some sound points, but you make the common mistake of the moderate, middle-of-the-road liberal. Eg.,

There is something badly wrong with those income inequality figures, and urging the government to "send the peasants back to the fields" is not the answer. But neither, I believe, is mob rule.

Democracy is always established by the mob, usually with blood on the streets. Don't blame me, blame human history. It does not come down from on high from wise statesmen. And if it is not fought for from time to time, it withers, suborned by minorities with vested interests in corruption.

To repeat, farangs can beat their gums bloody about the deficiencies of Thaksin's regime, but they kid themselves if they think there must be some higher authority than the majority who voted for him. There aint. In a democracy, you must submit to the will of the voters, even if you don't like it, even if you have the Bangkok Bandits & the army behind you.

[SanSaiExPat]

I have a hard time seeing the yellows being able to pose any kind of threat to the Reds, it seems the Reds would have them way outnumbered and it wouldn't even be remotely close.

I totally disagree with that statement. The Yellow Shirts are backed by the general population suffering from this protest. If any confrontation were to happen between the two groups, the Yellow Shirts would indeed gain support from the multi-coloured shirts along with the angry citizens that have had enough of this fiasco. In the end, the Red Shirts would be greatly outnumbered.

You might disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. What percentage of the general population do you believe supports the Yellow Shirts? 10%? 20%. This fiasco as you call it began when the Military (Strong arm of the Yellow Shirts) overthrew the democratically elected government TRT and it's Prime Minister.

[jdinasia]

I have a hard time seeing the yellows being able to pose any kind of threat to the Reds, it seems the Reds would have them way outnumbered and it wouldn't even be remotely close.

I totally disagree with that statement. The Yellow Shirts are backed by the general population suffering from this protest. If any confrontation were to happen between the two groups, the Yellow Shirts would indeed gain support from the multi-coloured shirts along with the angry citizens that have had enough of this fiasco. In the end, the Red Shirts would be greatly outnumbered.

You might disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. What percentage of the general population do you believe supports the Yellow Shirts? 10%? 20%. This fiasco as you call it began when the Military (Strong arm of the Yellow Shirts) overthrew the democratically elected government TRT and it's Prime Minister.

Persisting in continueing the lie? There was no "democratically elected" government when the coup happened. There was only a caretaker government. That caretaker government was not constitutionally valid.

The military isn't an arm of the PAD. They are a force unto themselves.

The current government isn't PAD. The military isn't PAD. The PAD is PAD. The NPP is the political party founded by the PAD.

What we do know is that the PTP has members in Parliament that did in fact participate in an illegal attempt to topple the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

edit ---- sorry I know I shouldn't feed them --- particularly when they are replying to a month old post!

Edited May 27, 2010 by jdinasia

[Scott]

One off-topic, flaming post has been removed, as have posts which quote it.

[eggomaniac]

Thailand has had Martial Law for the Past 80 years!!!

[SanSaiExPat]

I have a hard time seeing the yellows being able to pose any kind of threat to the Reds, it seems the Reds would have them way outnumbered and it wouldn't even be remotely close.

I totally disagree with that statement. The Yellow Shirts are backed by the general population suffering from this protest. If any confrontation were to happen between the two groups, the Yellow Shirts would indeed gain support from the multi-coloured shirts along with the angry citizens that have had enough of this fiasco. In the end, the Red Shirts would be greatly outnumbered.

You might disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. What percentage of the general population do you believe supports the Yellow Shirts? 10%? 20%. This fiasco as you call it began when the Military (Strong arm of the Yellow Shirts) overthrew the democratically elected government TRT and it's Prime Minister.

Persisting in continueing the lie? There was no "democratically elected" government when the coup happened. There was only a caretaker government. That caretaker government was not constitutionally valid.

The military isn't an arm of the PAD. They are a force unto themselves.

The current government isn't PAD. The military isn't PAD. The PAD is PAD. The NPP is the political party founded by the PAD.

What we do know is that the PTP has members in Parliament that did in fact participate in an illegal attempt to topple the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

You sir are the one confusing the facts and perpetuating a lie. Thaksin was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand when he was overthrown on at trip to the USA to give a speech at the United Nations. Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

edit ---- sorry I know I shouldn't feed them --- particularly when they are replying to a month old post!

[jdinasia]

You might disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. What percentage of the general population do you believe supports the Yellow Shirts? 10%? 20%. This fiasco as you call it began when the Military (Strong arm of the Yellow Shirts) overthrew the democratically elected government TRT and it's Prime Minister.

Persisting in continueing the lie? There was no "democratically elected" government when the coup happened. There was only a caretaker government. That caretaker government was not constitutionally valid.

The military isn't an arm of the PAD. They are a force unto themselves.

The current government isn't PAD. The military isn't PAD. The PAD is PAD. The NPP is the political party founded by the PAD.

What we do know is that the PTP has members in Parliament that did in fact participate in an illegal attempt to topple the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

You sir are the one confusing the facts and perpetuating a lie. Thaksin was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand when he was overthrown on at trip to the USA to give a speech at the United Nations. Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

edit ---- sorry I know I shouldn't feed them --- particularly when they are replying to a month old post!

hmmmmm It appears that you are unaware that Thaksin had dissolved parliament, making him a caretaker PM not an elected PM. That he then resigned his position publicly. That he then failed to get the electeions he called certified and failed to seat a government in the allotted time that was allowed in the constitution.

As for my spelling ... please feel free to correct my spelling in any posts I make that you quote But when you do quote one of my posts please add your comments OUTSIDE of the section I wrote. The BOLD and UNDERLINED portion above is what you added.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

<snip>

Did you not notice you were typing right in the middle of his post?

[SanSaiExPat]

You might disagree with the statement but you'd be wrong. What percentage of the general population do you believe supports the Yellow Shirts? 10%? 20%. This fiasco as you call it began when the Military (Strong arm of the Yellow Shirts) overthrew the democratically elected government TRT and it's Prime Minister.

Persisting in continueing the lie? There was no "democratically elected" government when the coup happened. There was only a caretaker government. That caretaker government was not constitutionally valid.

The military isn't an arm of the PAD. They are a force unto themselves.

The current government isn't PAD. The military isn't PAD. The PAD is PAD. The NPP is the political party founded by the PAD.

What we do know is that the PTP has members in Parliament that did in fact participate in an illegal attempt to topple the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

You sir are the one confusing the facts and perpetuating a lie. Thaksin was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand when he was overthrown on at trip to the USA to give a speech at the United Nations. Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

edit ---- sorry I know I shouldn't feed them --- particularly when they are replying to a month old post!

hmmmmm It appears that you are unaware that Thaksin had dissolved parliament, making him a caretaker PM not an elected PM. That he then resigned his position publicly. That he then failed to get the electeions he called certified and failed to seat a government in the allotted time that was allowed in the constitution.

As for my spelling ... please feel free to correct my spelling in any posts I make that you quote But when you do quote one of my posts please add your comments OUTSIDE of the section I wrote. The BOLD and UNDERLINED portion above is what you added.

Thank you for pointing out your preferences on quoting. In the future I'll follow your suggestion. However, Thaksin was only forced into a position of caretaker PM because the Democratic Party refused to contest the 40 uncontested seats. (They wouldn't follow the requirements of the rules of the 1997 constitution because they knew if they did they would lose!) They also knew they had the court in their back pocket and they could win by having the court overturn the elections. Indeed that is what the court did. Things went downhill from there with a succession of court rulings which eviscerated the TRT, PTP, and made it impossible for anyone associated with the Thaksin government to run for politics. And regardless of all this history it still doesn't change the fact that caretaker or not Thaksin was forcibly removed by a military coup.

[SanSaiExPat]

<snip>

Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

<snip>

Did you not notice you were typing right in the middle of his post?

I stand corrected. I'll be more cautious in the future.

[way2muchcoffee]

Thank you for pointing out your preferences on quoting. In the future I'll follow your suggestion. However, Thaksin was only forced into a position of caretaker PM because the Democratic Party refused to contest the 40 uncontested seats. (They wouldn't follow the requirements of the rules of the 1997 constitution because they knew if they did they would lose!) They also knew they had the court in their back pocket and they could win by having the court overturn the elections. Indeed that is what the court did. Things went downhill from there with a succession of court rulings which eviscerated the TRT, PTP, and made it impossible for anyone associated with the Thaksin government to run for politics. And regardless of all this history it still doesn't change the fact that caretaker or not Thaksin was forcibly removed by a military coup.

You are only partly correct. Thaksin was a caretaker PM from the moment he dissolved parliament. It had nothing to do with the Democrats.

The Democrats abstained from the election because there was not enough time to fund and run a proper campaign, due to the timing of Thaksin's dissolution of parliament. Additionally they believed that Thaksin was attempting to use the polls to whitewash his actions related to the Temasek deal.

The TRT then paid smaller parties to run against TRT in certain districts in violation of the constitution. This was one of the reasons for their ultimate dissolution.

The courts were legal and ruled appropriately. Your claim that the courts were in the back pocket of the Democrat party is a libelous fabrication.

It is also a fabrication to state that politicians could not be associated with the TRT/PPP. What are you talking about? We have the PTP party who is the third version of the TRT. The PPP was dissolved because an executive member of that party was filmed engaging in electoral fraud. In accordance with the constitution the PPP was dissolved, legally and correctly. At this time 5 executives from the PPP were banned from politics for 5 years. The party list MPs lost their seats because the PPP no longer existed. By-elections were held to replace the party-list MPs who lost their seats. PTP politicians were fielded for these by-elections.

Every MP in parliament today was elected by the people, either through a direct constituency vote or through a party-list proportional vote. The PPP governments relied on coalitions partners to form a majority. When the PPP was dissolved the coalition partners dropped their support of the newly formed PTP replacement party because of their terrible performance as government. The PPP had not accomplished anything at all during their time as government and they were stained by electoral fraud and corruption. So the coalition partners switched sides to support a Democrat led government.

It should also be noted that the PPP could have dissolved parliament forcing a new general election up until the day they were dissolved. They chose not to do that because they believed the PTP would be able to retain the support of the coalition partners and thus from a new majority government. They were mistaken. The coalition partners were under no obligation to realign themselves with the PTP and they didn't. I state again, the PPP chose NOT to dissolve parliament and have a general election when they were likely to be dissolved. It is this that makes it completely ridiculous for them now to claim that this government is illegitimate.

The majority of MPs in parliament support the Democrat party to head government. Each of these MPs was elected by the people. This government has majority support from the people through their duly elected MPs. There is nothing illegitimate or illegal about this government and people who say otherwise are being disingenuous.

Edited May 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

<snip>

Did you not notice you were typing right in the middle of his post?

I stand corrected. I'll be more cautious in the future.

What a polite response. Thanks.

I sometimes do the same when the post I am quoting has a lot of blank lines near the end and I don't notice the "/quote" off the bottom of the screen.

But as I always preview my posts, I usually catch those problems.

[way2muchcoffee]

I sometimes do the same when the post I am quoting has a lot of blank lines near the end and I don't notice the "/quote" off the bottom of the screen.

But as I always preview my posts, I usually catch those problems.

What do you know. I've been posting here for almost four years now and thanks to you I have just noticed that preview post button. Thank you sir!

I began my illustrious posting at TV on the night of the coup. So much has happened since then.

Edited May 29, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jdinasia]

Persisting in continueing the lie? There was no "democratically elected" government when the coup happened. There was only a caretaker government. That caretaker government was not constitutionally valid.

The military isn't an arm of the PAD. They are a force unto themselves.

The current government isn't PAD. The military isn't PAD. The PAD is PAD. The NPP is the political party founded by the PAD.

What we do know is that the PTP has members in Parliament that did in fact participate in an illegal attempt to topple the democratically elected government of the Kingdom of Thailand.

You sir are the one confusing the facts and perpetuating a lie. Thaksin was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Thailand when he was overthrown on at trip to the USA to give a speech at the United Nations. Also, you should learn to spell check your posts.

edit ---- sorry I know I shouldn't feed them --- particularly when they are replying to a month old post!

hmmmmm It appears that you are unaware that Thaksin had dissolved parliament, making him a caretaker PM not an elected PM. That he then resigned his position publicly. That he then failed to get the electeions he called certified and failed to seat a government in the allotted time that was allowed in the constitution.

As for my spelling ... please feel free to correct my spelling in any posts I make that you quote But when you do quote one of my posts please add your comments OUTSIDE of the section I wrote. The BOLD and UNDERLINED portion above is what you added.

Thank you for pointing out your preferences on quoting. In the future I'll follow your suggestion. However, Thaksin was only forced into a position of caretaker PM because the Democratic Party refused to contest the 40 uncontested seats. (They wouldn't follow the requirements of the rules of the 1997 constitution because they knew if they did they would lose!) They also knew they had the court in their back pocket and they could win by having the court overturn the elections. Indeed that is what the court did. Things went downhill from there with a succession of court rulings which eviscerated the TRT, PTP, and made it impossible for anyone associated with the Thaksin government to run for politics. And regardless of all this history it still doesn't change the fact that caretaker or not Thaksin was forcibly removed by a military coup.

1) Thaksin was a caretaker (and an extra-constitutional one at that) at the time of the coup. So that should end this discussion about any ELECTED government being ousted by the coup. Out of the rest you didn't make a single valid or true statement.

The Dems didn't contest ANY seats (not just 40).

They did follow the constitution of 1997 -- there was no obligation for them to run.

Your remark about the court besides being a lie is also "contemptuous" in the legal way and a violation of forum rules.

There has been no court ruling against a Thaksin party that was not fully clear to those that listened to the court verdict. TRT illegally paid parties to contest the elections to bypass the 20% rule. PPP was caught on film paying off people.

So what happened is ... an extra-constitutional caretaker PM was removed from office by an unconstitutional (at the time) coup to prevent a bloodbath. Unlike successive governments Thaksin may have been able to get the police to open up on the demonstrators. (Remember this was all Pre-Governent House and Airports by over a year!)

Who made Thaksin a caretaker PM? Oh that would be Thaksin! Why? issues with TRT and the Temasek sale were about to hit him hard. He was hoping for something very much like the assets concealment case decision to protect him, or a claim like "Look how popular I am" ("look what I can buy!") to protect him.

[rubl]

I sometimes do the same when the post I am quoting has a lot of blank lines near the end and I don't notice the "/quote" off the bottom of the screen.

But as I always preview my posts, I usually catch those problems.

What do you know. I've been posting here for almost four years now and thanks to you I have just noticed that preview post button. Thank you sir!

I began my illustrious posting at TV on the night of the coup. So much has happened since then.

Sorry, can't help myself, get carried away by my sense of humor sometimes: We have to thank the coup for your presence

[JetsetBkk]

I sometimes do the same when the post I am quoting has a lot of blank lines near the end and I don't notice the "/quote" off the bottom of the screen.

But as I always preview my posts, I usually catch those problems.

What do you know. I've been posting here for almost four years now and thanks to you I have just noticed that preview post button. Thank you sir!

I began my illustrious posting at TV on the night of the coup. So much has happened since then.

Sorry, can't help myself, get carried away by my sense of humor sometimes: We have to thank the coup for your presence

Group hug, anyone?