Thai PM Abhisit Says Seeking Political Solution To Crisis

[whybother]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

[way2muchcoffee]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Then change the constitution. To argue about a ruling made as per the constitution is ludicrous. The judges have no choice but to make rulings based on the law of the land. At present the constitution is the law of the land.

A few months ago, the Democrats, coalition partners, and the PTP were nearly done with a joint rewrite of the constitution. Suddenly Thaksin phoned in, expressed his discontent, and the PTP backed out.

Edited April 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[zorm999]

Obviously! let them VOTE!!! Jeeze is it that difficult to understand?????????????????

Is it so difficult to understand that they don't have to let them vote until scheduled in 2011?

read my lips 'they were not elected' what do you not understand about that? the ligitimate red government were banned and MP's were 'tempted' to switch sides - the Dems are unelected - IF they believe they have the 'people's' mandate let them prove it

Yes they were! There was an election and NO PARTY WON OUTRIGHT. Hence, the PPP had to form a coalition government with the minor parties (no doubt with some deals made in the process). Yes, the minor parties were later "tempted" as you put it to switch sides (probably after some deals were made) after the PPP were found guilty of electoral fraud and their leaders banned from politics, but the Dems were elected in EXACTLY the same way that all the MP's were elected and formed a coalition government in EXACTLY the same way that the PPP did.

[way2muchcoffee]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

You're thinking of the TRT ban whybother. The PPP were banned from provisions in the current constitution.

[hammered]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Then change the constitution. To argue about a ruling made as per the constitution is ludicrous. The judges have no choice but to make rulings based on the law of the land. At present the constitution is the law of the land.

A few months ago, the Democrats, coalition partners, and the PTP were nearly done with a joint rewrite of the constitution. Suddenly Thaksin phoned in, expressed his discontent, and the PTP backed out.

Funny how the phone calls and SMS always come just as a deal is about to be reached, reprtedly of course

Everyone on every side has the same opnion that the judges have to disolve the party if an exec is guilty.

[whybother]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

You're thinking of the TRT ban whybother. The PPP were banned from provisions in the current constitution.

Thanks for the correction.

[Vindie]

It's rare for someone to have something worth looking up regarding this mess. I'm still suspicious of the motives and progression of events back then, but your argument holds some weight (and my memory is not that great). Maybe next time I post I can echo your sentiments.

I have a hard time, however, supporting a government that uses the army against its people, censors opposing views (to a much larger extent than Thaksin did) and disseminating false information on a massive scale. To me, the burden of morality is on the government BEFORE the lay citizens.

And if what you say is true, why isn't the government stating their case in detail? That seems kind of suspect to me. After all, they have nearly full reign over the media. But Mr. Abhisit always insists that he was elected by his fellow MPs. That's true! But he never follows up with the events that brought him to that point. It seems to me that, circumstantially, the burden is very much on him to provide that information. Instead they are trumpeting paranoid theories, much like a former PM shortly before his fall from grace.

BTW, Mr. Bother... thank you for the intelligent post!

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

[hammered]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

You're thinking of the TRT ban whybother. The PPP were banned from provisions in the current constitution.

What a lot forget is the evidence against the excecs in both cases was slam dunk level. The PPP one was an outrageous attempt to undermine the democraqtic process in multiple districts. Apart form the contropvery in the whole party disolution stuff the two actual cases should be celebrated as moves forward in Thai democracy. Of course you cannot find anyone who claims to be a democracy activist in the whole country who sees it this way which is kind of odd. The culture is well everyone is at it. So what if we get caught. It is no big deal. It is unfair because others werent caught.

The Demo case will be interesting as the evidence is very weak but the poltical pressure from every side will be to do it. Still both the othjer cases took 9 months so anything less thna that would be a double stanbdard and unacceptable to any true democracy activist or anti-double standard campaigner not that the country really has any of those

[whybother]

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

It's rare for someone to have something worth looking up regarding this mess. I'm still suspicious of the motives and progression of events back then, but your argument holds some weight (and my memory is not that great). Maybe next time I post I can echo your sentiments.

I have a hard time, however, supporting a government that uses the army against its people, censors opposing views (to a much larger extent than Thaksin did) and disseminating false information on a massive scale. To me, the burden of morality is on the government BEFORE the lay citizens.

And if what you say is true, why isn't the government stating their case in detail? That seems kind of suspect to me. After all, they have nearly full reign over the media. But Mr. Abhisit always insists that he was elected by his fellow MPs. That's true! But he never follows up with the events that brought him to that point. It seems to me that, circumstantially, the burden is very much on him to provide that information. Instead they are trumpeting paranoid theories, much like a former PM shortly before his fall from grace.

BTW, Mr. Bother... thank you for the intelligent post!

Unfortunately, it wasn't true. (see correction post above).

But, it was still a law, and a law that is reasonable. It was a law that existed before the election, so the PPP leadership can't make excuses. There should be more laws to stop corruption in Thailand.

[charmonman]

Are you nuts?

If he does that then any group who decides that they do not like who ever the next government is know that all they have to do is cause as much trouble and damage and acts of terrorism and they will get what the want.

Do you realise Abhisit was calling for Somchai to resign when the yellow shirts took over the airport ?

In case he hasn'

t seen this:

Dispute over whether to dissolve Parliament

By The Nation Published on September 2, 2008

"During the joint sitting of the House and the Senate in Parliament on Sunday, Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Prime Minister Sama

k Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament. Sacrificing MPs would unlock the crisis and return power so voters could decide the outcome again."

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/02/pol...cs_30082196.php

Democrats not being opportunistic by nominating Abhisit as new Thai PM

TNA 12 September 2008

Thailand's opposition Democrat Party denied being opportunistic in nominating its party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister after the caretaker coalition government failed early Friday to appoint a new government leader due to the lack of a quorum in the House. ...

Thais are now killing each other and there are signs that more will be killed. There should be no more negotiations," Mr. Abhisit affirmed.

Asked about his response if the ruling People Power Party dissolved the House, he said

the Democrats had proposed a House dissolution from the beginning.

"How to do it depends on the situation."

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6233

Abhisit calls for House dissolution

By The Nation Published on December 3, 2008

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday urged for House dissolution on the ground that a snap election will allow a fresh start to form a viable government to tackle the political and economic woes. ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30090130

To be fair, Abhisit HAS offered to dissolve parliament and have new elections, just not in the time frame demanded by the red shirt leaders.

[Vindie]

I was talking more specifically about the mechanisms that brought Abhisit to power, rather than the consitutional applications.

BTW folks... wouldn't it be great if the Thais could have a sit down like this? Instead they're in the street throwing rocks because some powerful politicians (and generals) are worried about a budget. Everybody wants their fingers in the pie, and they're all using the soldiers at hand (which explains all the military ordinance flying around).

I would simply respond that what is proven in a court of law in Thailand has been and continues to be suspect to forces outside of justice and evidence. I wouldn't stake a government on a court decision anyway. That's simply not democratic. Making rulings based on a constitution sponsored by the military is even worse!

Actually, I believe the PPP were banned using laws under the 1997 constitution, so the junta constitution doesn't come into it.

It's rare for someone to have something worth looking up regarding this mess. I'm still suspicious of the motives and progression of events back then, but your argument holds some weight (and my memory is not that great). Maybe next time I post I can echo your sentiments.

I have a hard time, however, supporting a government that uses the army against its people, censors opposing views (to a much larger extent than Thaksin did) and disseminating false information on a massive scale. To me, the burden of morality is on the government BEFORE the lay citizens.

And if what you say is true, why isn't the government stating their case in detail? That seems kind of suspect to me. After all, they have nearly full reign over the media. But Mr. Abhisit always insists that he was elected by his fellow MPs. That's true! But he never follows up with the events that brought him to that point. It seems to me that, circumstantially, the burden is very much on him to provide that information. Instead they are trumpeting paranoid theories, much like a former PM shortly before his fall from grace.

BTW, Mr. Bother... thank you for the intelligent post!

Unfortunately, it wasn't true. (see correction post above).

But, it was still a law, and a law that is reasonable. It was a law that existed before the election, so the PPP leadership can't make excuses. There should be more laws to stop corruption in Thailand.

[whybother]

Do you realise Abhisit was calling for Somchai to resign when the yellow shirts took over the airport ?

In case he hasn't seen this:

Dispute over whether to dissolve Parliament

By The Nation Published on September 2, 2008

"During the joint sitting of the House and the Senate in Parliament on Sunday, Opposition and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Prime Minister Sama

k Sundaravej to dissolve Parliament. Sacrificing MPs would unlock the crisis and return power so voters could decide the outcome again."

http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/09/02/pol...cs_30082196.php

Democrats not being opportunistic by nominating Abhisit as new Thai PM

TNA 12 September 2008

Thailand's opposition Democrat Party denied being opportunistic in nominating its party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as prime minister after the caretaker coalition government failed early Friday to appoint a new government leader due to the lack of a quorum in the House. ...

Thais are now killing each other and there are signs that more will be killed. There should be no more negotiations," Mr. Abhisit affirmed.

Asked about his response if the ruling People Power Party dissolved the House, he said

the Democrats had proposed a House dissolution from the beginning.

"How to do it depends on the situation."

http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=6233

Abhisit calls for House dissolution

By The Nation Published on December 3, 2008

Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva on Wednesday urged for House dissolution on the ground that a snap election will allow a fresh start to form a viable government to tackle the political and economic woes. ...

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30090130

To be fair, Abhisit HAS offered to dissolve parliament and have new elections, just not in the time frame demanded by the red shirt leaders.

Actually, he said this each time the PPP/PTP elected a new PM (not directly after an election).

December 3 was the day after the PPP were disbanded, so the PTP were in power (with a care-taker PM).

The PTP didn't call elections, and instead went for a parliamentary vote for PM. But they lost.

They had their chance and blew it.

Edited April 27, 2010 by whybother

[kimincm]

Obviously! let them VOTE!!! Jeeze is it that difficult to understand?????????????????

Is it so difficult to understand that they don't have to let them vote until scheduled in 2011?

read my lips 'they were not elected' what do you not understand about that? the ligitimate red government were banned and MP's were 'tempted' to switch sides - the Dems are unelected - IF they believe they have the 'people's' mandate let them prove it

Christ,I hope I've got this right,it's late and I'm feeling late ,but wasn't the 'legitimate red government' banned because 100+ 'elected' representatives were found guilty of electoral fraud/corruption(whatever the term) and sentenced to 5yrs in.exile.If this convicted number is correct (nail me if I am wrong)does this not cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Red Government.By the way they should have been banned for life as a lesson to those who followed?

When the Reds won approx.36%of the vote, you don't think they were out ther trying to tempt smaller

parties to allegiance?And what were they offering for this 'loyalty'?.Your guess is as good as mine.

[SiriusBlack1]

Yes, and in a timely manner.

Everyone wants to be in a position to name the next general when Anupong retires, as he is mandated to do in September.

So Abhisit wants elections in December, after securing his choice of general. Of course, the red shirts want the election sooner.

Summer elections with international observers would be the best approach.

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee ... this has nothing to do with the reasons why elections are not being held immediately instead of their scheduled time frame at the end of 2011.

Knowledgeable observers in the international media may disagree with you, and do.

But if you had made the weaker claim that there are other factors, you would have been correct.

[SiriusBlack1]

Everyone wants to be in a position to name the next general when Anupong retires, as he is mandated to do in September.

So Abhisit wants elections in December, after securing his choice of general. Of course, the red shirts want the election sooner.

Summer elections with international observers would be the best approach.

so the cause of all evil for the socalled elite and the socalled poor is a few months difference in setting the election date?

No, the cause of the strife itself is different. I was referring strictly to the reason for the dispute regarding the timing of elections.

A few people here have queried why the Reds rejected Abhisit's offer of elections in December, which seems reasonable on the face of it.

Abhisit's rejection of elections a month from now is equally puzzling.

Unless you consider the importance of choosing the next head of the armed forces.

[animatic]

Obviously! let them VOTE!!! Jeeze is it that difficult to understand?????????????????

Is it so difficult to understand that they don't have to let them vote until scheduled in 2011?

read my lips 'they were not elected' what do you not understand about that? the ligitimate red government were banned and MP's were 'tempted' to switch sides - the Dems are unelected - IF they believe they have the 'people's' mandate let them prove it

The only reason the PPP government fell was because SOMCHAI was a leader at the time of the election rigging charge happened,

if the PM had been from other than the party leadership the government wouldn't have fallen.

You can rant all you want about losing a few MP's from the party list.

you still had the largest single block vote...

But that was not enough to have YOUR team elect still a 3rd PM from the dregs of TRT.

You just didn't have anyone that anyothers could rally around... a complete null.

Chalerm... Right and pigs can fly.

You can rant all you want about Newin et al changing allegiances, that is normal here.

Well Newin is smarter than you it seems, he saw no reason to stay with PTP.

He took a better offer.

But the main thing you never rant about is the REAL story why this all happened.

it the TOTAL LOSS OF CONFIDENCE other parties had in PTP to put together a government.

Newin couldn't have been bought if there was something worth staying on for.

He is nothing if not totally pragmatic.

This lack of confidence,

has been born out as well founded by their utterly inept work in parliament this last year or so.

No single initiative succeeded, or was even offered.

What legislative accomplishment have the done...

offered anything besides no confidence votes and spurious accusations.

Please CMF or anyone, tell me what good legislation did PTP bring to the floor in this last year?

'The Mandate To Create A Government'

is given to Parliamentarians and MPs by the people for a time period, to use as best they can.

Some immediately ignored campaign promises NOT to join PPP,

and turned on their own constituents without remorse.

9 months later they seem to have regretted that decision.

And when several of those turned away from an obviously inept PTP

suddenly this is some great army arm twisting?

Dude, they didn't need to do more than take an arm and say hey lets talk a minute.

And walk to a chair and look at the playing field objectively.

All the pieces fell together; We have the votes to have a quorum,

we have people who can work together as leadership, lets make this work.

What we have now is not the failure of the Dems to deliver,

but 90% Thaksins Revenge, ripping the country apart because he can't stand losing.

And he will have his mouthpieces say or do ANYTHING that he thinks will reach that goal.

Destroy those who beat him before TWICE it seems. Because PPP was supposed to be

his revenge vehicle. except they screwed up YET AGAIN. right into the legal dock

and off to oblivion from their own arrogant handiwork. Seems they learned nothing from TRT mistakes.

Even if Thaksin can't take full control, he can DENY control.

A dieing mans last request or a deranged vendetta? Hard to tell this week,

but this is not much about 2008 parliamentary change of PM and cabinet,

thats just an argument hook, and all to do with Thaksins downfall in 2006.

All other arguments are grafted on window dressing,

if they take on a life of their own as part of the destruction,

Thaksin won't mind as long as his beating them is complete.

[ianf]

I happen to believe that

a) this government is as legitimate as any government can be in Thailand

that elections should be held, but only if they can be guaranteed to be free of electoral fraud, intimidation and so on

c) that Abhisit is an honourable person who does not deserve the vitriol he receives from the reds and some ill-informed posters on TV

d) that the majority of the red protesters have been emotionally manipulated which does not bode well for any future election

e) that Abhisit is doing the best he can whilst under enormous pressure from the various factions that make up the Thai power base

f) that nobody, no country should give-in to ill-informed ignorant thugs that make up the red leadership which makes it difficult to call an election

g) that the red grass roots movement is not a genuine movement for democracy but more of a tool, carefully manipulated to serve the interests of those with a wider agenda

h) that the government has remained remarkably honest, patient and open whilst the reds have been the exact opposite

and, as I've said before

i) that this movement is the closest thing we've seen to early fascist manipulation in pre-war Germany which is why it is so dangerous.

Notwithstanding all this, I think the best solution would be for the Government to call the red shirt's bluff - and offer early elections provided that condition ( above could be met. This would require a joint agreement on massive electoral monitoring and strangely enough, I think they could call on international NGO's to do this with the support of farangs who are currently living in Thailand. This would at least give the Thai people to have an election genuinely chosen by free will and not coercion. Using local farangs, who have some notion about free and fair elections as well as local knowledge, could help close the gap between local people and NGO people who do not have local knowledge.

Edited April 27, 2010 by ianf

[kimincm]

Something from Red Shirts Today thread

Reds dismiss claim they plan to harm monarchy

Red shirt leaders denied on Tuesday their involvement in a campaign designed to overthrow the monarchy and threatened to sue the government for defamation.

Redshirt leader Natthawut Saikua said none of the reds were linked in any attempts to harm the monarchy.

He said portraying the reds as disloyal to the monarchy was just a figment of the government's and the military's imagination, adding that the reds had instructed their lawyers to initiate a defamation lawsuit.

He went on to question why the authorities were labelling the reds as terrorists when those involved in violence in the three southernmost provinces were classified as insurgents.

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

[ianf]

Something from Red Shirts Today thread

Reds dismiss claim they plan to harm monarchy

Red shirt leaders denied on Tuesday their involvement in a campaign designed to overthrow the monarchy and threatened to sue the government for defamation.

Redshirt leader Natthawut Saikua said none of the reds were linked in any attempts to harm the monarchy.

He said portraying the reds as disloyal to the monarchy was just a figment of the government's and the military's imagination, adding that the reds had instructed their lawyers to initiate a defamation lawsuit.

He went on to question why the authorities were labelling the reds as terrorists when those involved in violence in the three southernmost provinces were classified as insurgents.

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

But then we all know about the dihonesty displayed by the red leaders ...............................mmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Publicus]

Obviously! let them VOTE!!! Jeeze is it that difficult to understand?????????????????

Is it so difficult to understand that they don't have to let them vote until scheduled in 2011?

read my lips 'they were not elected' what do you not understand about that? the ligitimate red government were banned and MP's were 'tempted' to switch sides - the Dems are unelected - IF they believe they have the 'people's' mandate let them prove it

Indeed! Bring the elections on!

This is not an environment or atmosphere, nor are there reasonable objective or subjective conditions in which to have a snap election which could produce a viable result and outcome. Give us time for an election, let matters settle down some, create some space and distance from the present anarchy and have some period of reflection after which another go can be made towards having a 'normal' vote buying election instead of forcing an election in the wild chaos and heat of the present mood of the country. No country can feasibly have an election amid a condition of anarchy.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Publicus

[kimincm]

ianf-I agree completly,otherwise I would not have posted.But I do have a problem with all the gungho shootemups(not sure how to write that)shoot them ups,moving along,I think the Gov. and the Army must find it very hard to go in guns blazing as many people here have asked for, when I think the Reds are knowingly and purposely hiding behind women and children.Despicable.

[attach

ment=112195:52c3b276...0_grande.jpg]

I don't know about you but I can't see many men in these shots,if the Red Shirt hierarchy want a stoush,so be it,but it's always women and children out first.

[montrii]

This is all moot. Ding, dong, Thaksin is dead. A taxi driver told me tonight, so it must be true. He said he died of cancer, the Montenegro video was taken months ago, and tonight the police will move in and จัดการ (take care of the problem), because they know there'll be no more money coming in anyway. He was absolutely sure of this, so who am I to question? The problem is over. So tomorrow we can go shopping at Siam Paragon, hooray! Hey, I forgot, I have better places to go and things to do.

But seriously, folks, it will really be a relief to go around some of those old areas and not hear the hate pouring out of loudspeakers up and down the blocks, if it ever happens.

Edited April 27, 2010 by montrii

[atyclb]

Thailand may be as ready for a true democracy as was/is Iraq

Edited April 27, 2010 by atyclb

[hextac]

This is all moot. Ding, dong, Thaksin is dead. A taxi driver told me tonight, so it must be true. He said he died of cancer, the Montenegro video was taken months ago, and tonight the police will move in and จัดการ (take care of the problem), because they know there'll be no more money coming in anyway. He was absolutely sure of this, so who am I to question? The problem is over. So tomorrow we can go shopping at Siam Paragon, hooray! Hey, I forgot, I have better places to go and things to do.

But seriously, folks, it will really be a relief to go around some of those old areas and not hear the hate pouring out of loudspeakers up and down the blocks, if it ever happens.

Thank dog now I can go to Paragon, Central World, etc. My shallow little world was almost destroyed by the fact that I couldn't waste my money on overpriced coffee and designer handbags.

[Publicus]

Aside from its being a classic run-on sentence......"there are some who is prevented from eating money" particularly catches my eye.

After a money meal do you need a toothpick?

Does change come out the other end?

That would be dirty money.

It's what the Redshirts call political change but there is the plain English word for it.....

[monkfish]

Something from Red Shirts Today thread

Reds dismiss claim they plan to harm monarchy

Red shirt leaders denied on Tuesday their involvement in a campaign designed to overthrow the monarchy and threatened to sue the government for defamation.

Redshirt leader Natthawut Saikua said none of the reds were linked in any attempts to harm the monarchy.

He said portraying the reds as disloyal to the monarchy was just a figment of the government's and the military's imagination, adding that the reds had instructed their lawyers to initiate a defamation lawsuit.

He went on to question why the authorities were labelling the reds as terrorists when those involved in violence in the three southernmost provinces were classified as insurgents.

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

Could this be the governments last card?

I see they provide ZERO evidence to back it up!

[whiterussian]

Ohhh I can't wait for the next election! Its going to be more exciting than the world cup!

I would love to see the Bangkok mob humiliated! So much fun!

[hextac]

Something from Red Shirts Today thread

Reds dismiss claim they plan to harm monarchy

Red shirt leaders denied on Tuesday their involvement in a campaign designed to overthrow the monarchy and threatened to sue the government for defamation.

Redshirt leader Natthawut Saikua said none of the reds were linked in any attempts to harm the monarchy.

He said portraying the reds as disloyal to the monarchy was just a figment of the government's and the military's imagination, adding that the reds had instructed their lawyers to initiate a defamation lawsuit.

He went on to question why the authorities were labelling the reds as terrorists when those involved in violence in the three southernmost provinces were classified as insurgents.

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

Could this be the governments last card?

I see they provide ZERO evidence to back it up!

Maybe I'm just stupid, but why would this image(?) be anyone's last card?

[lannarebirth]

Something from Red Shirts Today thread

Reds dismiss claim they plan to harm monarchy

Red shirt leaders denied on Tuesday their involvement in a campaign designed to overthrow the monarchy and threatened to sue the government for defamation.

Redshirt leader Natthawut Saikua said none of the reds were linked in any attempts to harm the monarchy.

He said portraying the reds as disloyal to the monarchy was just a figment of the government's and the military's imagination, adding that the reds had instructed their lawyers to initiate a defamation lawsuit.

He went on to question why the authorities were labelling the reds as terrorists when those involved in violence in the three southernmost provinces were classified as insurgents.

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

Could this be the governments last card?

I see they provide ZERO evidence to back it up!

Hmmm maybe, but it seemed to be enough for Newin to put his cards on the table.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...y-30128124.html

Edited April 27, 2010 by lannarebirth

[tgw]

Redshirt leader weng Tojirakarn said the reds were struggling to achieve six goals, none of which was about overthrowing the monarchy as alleged.

Haha, because they would enroll much support by stating that as a goal, right?

"The reds/Thaksin don't want to overhtrow the monarchy! they swear!"

then it must be true, right?

I really don't understand why the reds cannot just wait for the planned election date to come by and prepare for the campaign instead of pissing people off.

Red apologists: please explain why they cannot just wait.