Thai Authorities To Sever Red-Shirts Supply Lines

[AleG]

Please enlighten me. Exactly what is not fact?

A fact is something supported by tangible evidence. An opinion is a statement over a certain subject without necessarily containing certifiable facts.

Case in point, you state as a fact that "The government ordered its soldiers to fire on their friends and neighbors and fellow Thai citizens", the order was to disperse the protest, if you claim that the actual order was to go there and fire at them you have to provide actual evidence to support your opinion, if you can do that then it becomes a fact.

As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts; because the later exist regardless of you and the later are restricted to the boundaries of your mind.

It's so easy to understand the difference between facts and opinions!, tomorrow we will do the A-B-C.

[jcbangkok]

Go read this, it might give you a clue.

http://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/...ment_Report.pdf

Yes, great link but doesn't tie into the illegal and violent red mob at all unless it is to say that poor people have the right to rob banks too. The fact of the matter is that when people do illegal and violent things, in civilized society, they loose their voice to be heard until they either stand trial or have served their sentence and reentered society. This is well passed any grievance the red mob have be it just or not. The PM will continue to work with the poor of this country and continue to put in place road maps that will provide the opportunity for them to prosper but this again has NOTHING to do with this illegal violent mob harming all of Thailand and hold a chunk of BKK hostage,

[shawndoc]

Not missing anything. Same old lies and misinformation.

[Netfan]

Maybe you didn't read my posts. Please let me explain what it says.

1. My post doesn't address Samak or Thaksin not does it say anything about Parlimentary elections of a PM. It merely points out that with interrventon of the court that the Thai citizens were given no voice in the election of Abhisit.

2. I didn't say anything about who fired first. I merely pointed out that the Thai government used its army to kill fellow Thai citizens.

3. I don't see what any party affiliation has to do with my post. I merely pointed out that the UK government was capable of making a peaceful transition of government to an opposition party in a very short period of time contrary to the contempt that has been demonstrated by the Thai government.

4. I was only pointing out that the government made many public pronouncement in media about ahhving told so and so to do such and such. I was reflecting on how their communication was largely ignored. You seem to have an axe to grind but it doesn't apply to my post.

I hope it is clear what I said now. If you want to rebut a statement please try to rebut what is posted and not what you want to rail about.

Nice backpedalling, but you still left a few strings.

1. NOW you are blaming the courts. Before you didn't mention them. Elaborate a bit, your answer is a bit ambiguous.

2. So it's wrong for a nation to defend itself against an armed insurrection?

3. Yes, the British did things the democratic way - through voting, not by holding a city hostage, holding voodoo blood rituals (talk about shaming Thailand in the eyes of the world!), forcing the evacuation of hospitals, threatening to destroy the transit system and lying to media and the government.

4. No sources? Shocking. Not.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Netfan

[jcbangkok]

Well, I see you took the opportunity to discuss some things.

Maybe you didn't read my posts. Please let me explain what it says.

1. My post doesn't address Samak or Thaksin not does it say anything about Parlimentary elections of a PM. It merely points out that with interrventon of the court that the Thai citizens were given no voice in the election of Abhisit.

2. I didn't say anything about who fired first. I merely pointed out that the Thai government used its army to kill fellow Thai citizens.

3. I don't see what any party affiliation has to do with my post. I merely pointed out that the UK government was capable of making a peaceful transition of government to an opposition party in a very short period of time contrary to the contempt that has been demonstrated by the Thai government.

4. I was only pointing out that the government made many public pronouncement in media about ahhving told so and so to do such and such. I was reflecting on how their communication was largely ignored. You seem to have an axe to grind but it doesn't apply to my post.

I hope it is clear what I said now. If you want to rebut a statement please try to rebut what is posted and not what you want to rail about.

Now it is beyond a yawn and crossing over to headache time reading this nonsense.

[khunjamespittman]

Maybe you didn't read my posts. Please let me explain what it says.

1. My post doesn't address Samak or Thaksin not does it say anything about Parlimentary elections of a PM. It merely points out that with interrventon of the court that the Thai citizens were given no voice in the election of Abhisit.

2. I didn't say anything about who fired first. I merely pointed out that the Thai government used its army to kill fellow Thai citizens.

3. I don't see what any party affiliation has to do with my post. I merely pointed out that the UK government was capable of making a peaceful transition of government to an opposition party in a very short period of time contrary to the contempt that has been demonstrated by the Thai government.

4. I was only pointing out that the government made many public pronouncement in media about ahhving told so and so to do such and such. I was reflecting on how their communication was largely ignored. You seem to have an axe to grind but it doesn't apply to my post.

I hope it is clear what I said now. If you want to rebut a statement please try to rebut what is posted and not what you want to rail about.

Nice backpedalling, but you still left a few strings.

1. NOW you are blaming the courts. Before you didn't mention them. Elaborate a bit, your answer is a bit ambiguous.

2. So it's wrong for a nation to defend itself against an armed insurrection?

3. Yes, the British did things the democratic way - through voting, not by holding a city hostage, holding voodoo blood rituals, forcing the evacuation of hospitals, threatening to destroy the transit system and lying to media and the government.

4. No sources? Shocking. Not.

Is it possible to have a real discussion here.

I pointed out a few facts that are uncomfortable for you. There was no backpeddaling. I didn't change anything that I said. My facts were distorted to allow a rabid group to make false accusations.

I don't endorse any of your statements above but in fact they don't have anything to do with my post. Please read my post. I eloborated to help my. If you don't want to understand I can't help you. If you want to rant and rave about something please don't try to change what I said in your efforts.

[jcbangkok]

3. Yes, the British did things the democratic way - through voting, not by holding a city hostage, holding voodoo blood rituals (talk about shaming Thailand in the eyes of the world!), forcing the evacuation of hospitals, threatening to destroy the transit system and lying to media and the government

I think it is about time we put a list together of all the things that the reds have done. Things that cannot be denied. We can start with the last couple months but think it is also important to go back and look at last year's Sonkgran as well as the ASEAN summit and trying to kill the PM while he was in his car. Although logic would dictate they are behind all the bombings, I think it is important to stick with the things that cannot be denied. They can claim fake redshirts but the bottom line is they let these people back in their group.

Its just that the list is so long now that we tend to forget many of their violent and illegal actions when responding to supporters of this violent mob.

I mean what about

1) Storming Parliament

2) Storming EC HQ

3) Refusing police requests on where to protest

4) Beating police

5) Throwing fire bombs at police

6) Stealing weapons

7) Putting 60k+ people out of work

8) $_____ of damage to the economy

9) Storming a hospital

10) Closing down and holding hostage an entire commercial district

This is just a start ... there is so much more and would love to be able to cut and paste the list as response to people somehow justifying their actions.

So, please feel free to add to this list.

[jcbangkok]

Maybe you didn't read my posts. Please let me explain what it says.

1. My post doesn't address Samak or Thaksin not does it say anything about Parlimentary elections of a PM. It merely points out that with interrventon of the court that the Thai citizens were given no voice in the election of Abhisit.

2. I didn't say anything about who fired first. I merely pointed out that the Thai government used its army to kill fellow Thai citizens.

3. I don't see what any party affiliation has to do with my post. I merely pointed out that the UK government was capable of making a peaceful transition of government to an opposition party in a very short period of time contrary to the contempt that has been demonstrated by the Thai government.

4. I was only pointing out that the government made many public pronouncement in media about ahhving told so and so to do such and such. I was reflecting on how their communication was largely ignored. You seem to have an axe to grind but it doesn't apply to my post.

I hope it is clear what I said now. If you want to rebut a statement please try to rebut what is posted and not what you want to rail about.

Nice backpedalling, but you still left a few strings.

1. NOW you are blaming the courts. Before you didn't mention them. Elaborate a bit, your answer is a bit ambiguous.

2. So it's wrong for a nation to defend itself against an armed insurrection?

3. Yes, the British did things the democratic way - through voting, not by holding a city hostage, holding voodoo blood rituals, forcing the evacuation of hospitals, threatening to destroy the transit system and lying to media and the government.

4. No sources? Shocking. Not.

Is it possible to have a real discussion here.

I pointed out a few facts that are uncomfortable for you. There was no backpeddaling. I didn't change anything that I said. My facts were distorted to allow a rabid group to make false accusations.

I don't endorse any of your statements above but in fact they don't have anything to do with my post. Please read my post. I eloborated to help my. If you don't want to understand I can't help you. If you want to rant and rave about something please don't try to change what I said in your efforts.

Avoidance and back peddling

[shawndoc]

Yawn, I know I shouldn't feed him, but I just HAVE to respond to the first point.

1. Intervention of the courts didn't give us the current PM. Abhisit became PM because the coalition partners of the PPP/PTP jumped ship and formed a new coalition with the Democrats.

[daboyz1]

Yawn, I know I shouldn't feed him, but I just HAVE to respond to the first point.

1. Intervention of the courts didn't give us the current PM. Abhisit became PM because the coalition partners of the PPP/PTP jumped ship and formed a new coalition with the Democrats.

yeah I'm done beating my head against the wall.

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[redparrot]

Its just that the list is so long now that we tend to forget many of their violent and illegal actions when responding to supporters of this violent mob.

I mean what about

1) Storming Parliament

2) Storming EC HQ

3) Refusing police requests on where to protest

4) Beating police

5) Throwing fire bombs at police

6) Stealing weapons

7) Putting 60k+ people out of work

8) $_____ of damage to the economy

9) Storming a hospital

10) Closing down and holding hostage an entire commercial district

This is just a start ... there is so much more and would love to be able to cut and paste the list as response to people somehow justifying their actions.

So, please feel free to add to this list.

I think the problem is that the yellow shirts have set an example and the army/police back then have shown that it's okay to do it and they won't do anything about it. Neither has this government, in over 1 1/2 years in office, done anything to bring the yellow shirt leaders to justice for their actions, which are:

1) Storming parliament.

2) Holding parliament hostage for 8 months.

3) Storming 2 international airports.

4) Holding 2 international airports hostage for 10 days.

5) Holding airplanes hostage, which took days to be released.

6) Beating police and army during street protests.

7) Using firearms to shoot at police and army during street protests.

8) Attacking the airport terminals with grenades.

9) Preventing hundreds of thousands of tourists from leaving Thailand.

10) Causing billions of Baht in damages.

Feel free to add to the list.

You see, the problem is that the government hasn't done anything to bring the yellow shirts to justice, which shows the red shirts it's okay to do it and get away with it. In their view, it's a perfectly acceptable method of pushing a government out of office. It was okay for the yellow shirts to do it, so why shouldn't it be okay for the red shirts to do it too?

Just showing you where it's coming from. I keep seeing people mentioning that Thaksin killed 4,000+ suspected drug dealers while in office. Why hasn't Abhisit done anything in 1 1/2 years in office to prosecuted the officials responsible for carrying out these acts? Even the Human Rights Watch has mentioned that Ahisit hasn't done anything. Here is an extract from the Human Rights Report:

Human Rights Watch commends your government for initially supporting the reopening of investigations into the 2,819 extrajudicial killings that allegedly accompanied former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's "war on drugs" in 2003. However, we are concerned that progress has stalled in holding accountable all those responsible, particularly because of strong resistance by the Royal Thai Police, which was implicated in many of these killings. We urge the government to redouble its efforts to bring perpetrators of these killings to justice, to dismiss those individuals involved, and to end systematic police brutality and abuse of power in drug suppression operations.

[asiancup2007]

Go read this, it might give you a clue.

http://www.undp.or.th/resources/documents/...ment_Report.pdf

Yes, great link but doesn't tie into the illegal and violent red mob at all unless it is to say that poor people have the right to rob banks too. The fact of the matter is that when people do illegal and violent things, in civilized society, they loose their voice to be heard until they either stand trial or have served their sentence and reentered society. This is well passed any grievance the red mob have be it just or not. The PM will continue to work with the poor of this country and continue to put in place road maps that will provide the opportunity for them to prosper but this again has NOTHING to do with this illegal violent mob harming all of Thailand and hold a chunk of BKK hostage,

1st off don't put words in my mouth.

If people do violent and illegal things let them be brought to justice. This principle must be enforced universally wouldn''t you agree.

When people lose all faith in the political and judicial system there is a major problem which leads to situations like the current one. An overwhelming majority of the protesters have done nothing more than hold a rally and the use of violent force against them can't be justified otherwise the troops would have been sent in on the 1st day like they would have been in say Pyongyang. A political solution is required because the rally is but a symptom, even if we could wish it away it's not going to address the underlying problem.

Edited May 12, 2010 by asiancup2007

[hextac]

Is it possible to have a real discussion here.

No.

[asiancup2007]

Yawn, I know I shouldn't feed him, but I just HAVE to respond to the first point.

1. Intervention of the courts didn't give us the current PM. Abhisit became PM because the coalition partners of the PPP/PTP jumped ship and formed a new coalition with the Democrats.

They did it out of principle and no money changed hands.

[lazurus]

The rest of the world has observed as the UK has now installed a new PM after holding their election in a civilized manner while the Thai government has continued to delay the disolution of the parliment and hold a new election. The rest of the civilized world has watched as the Thai governement has used lethal force on Thai citizens and refused to respect the claims of Thai citizens for a legitimate election. The Thai government continues to threaten Thai citizens to try to coerce them into allowing the current government to treat them as inferior people without the human rights that should be accorded to all Thai citizens.

The current Thai government has irreparably damaged the reputation of Thailand in the community of soverign nations. They may hang on for a while but they will always be remembered for their disenfranchisement of many Thai citizens and the use of the Thai military to kill their friends and neighbors.

The Thai government is not obligated to hold any elections until 2011, legally there is no reason for the house to be dissolved at this time. The reds have certainly been guilty of threatening the Thai people and causing them much hardship. The reds have caused significant damage to Thailand and has used violence against its democratic government. The government has negotiated with the reds, but they have no real intention of accepting any peaceful solution.

[shawndoc]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

Wonder why that is?

The PTP is also against allowing the people to vote on changes to the constitution, having backed out on talks for a bi-partisan referendum. Many of the proposed changes would help create more transparency and less corruption in elections.

[redparrot]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

It doesn't help seeking a no-confidence vote if the majority in the parliament are part of the coalition that still support Abhisit. Or are you suggesting that Newin will vote for Abhisit to leave? No way, because he knows when Abhisit leaves, so will he.

[BSJ]

Well people, a little information can go a long way. For US$29.75 plus postage the Thai government could have purchased "Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook, William E. Dyson, Anderson Publishing Company" from Amazon dot com.

Could have wrapped the situation up weeks ago.

Other useful reading include - National Incident Management, Facing the Unexpected and Life Strategies (Dr Phil).

[lannarebirth]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

It doesn't help seeking a no-confidence vote if the majority in the parliament are part of the coalition that still support Abhisit. Or are you suggesting that Newin will vote for Abhisit to leave? No way, because he knows when Abhisit leaves, so will he.

Thanks for spelling it out for those who may have thought you were pro-democracy.

[daboyz1]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

It doesn't help seeking a no-confidence vote if the majority in the parliament are part of the coalition that still support Abhisit. Or are you suggesting that Newin will vote for Abhisit to leave? No way, because he knows when Abhisit leaves, so will he.

Thanks for spelling it out for those who may have thought you were pro-democracy.

[shawndoc]

1. Its a coalition, if the MPs were unhappy, or their constituents were unhappy with Abhisit, they would vote for no confidence. MPs often vote against their coalition in other governments, and this would also give the coalition partners a chance to switch sides if they were unhappy with Abhisit. After all the PTP/UDD have told us Abhisit is a horrid murder, with blood on his hands and bloodthirsty for more and the majority of Thai people support the Reds. Surely if this was remotely true, a no confidence vote would pass, with either whole parties abandoning the coalition, or individual MPs voting against the wishes of their party bosses.

2. Even if the no confidence vote fails, it allows the PTP to show the world and the people of Thailand all of Abhisit's crimes to put pressure on him to resign or possibly justify working outside the system (legal protests).

Other Parliamentary governments use no confidence votes all the time. The tool is there, the question is why the PTP/UDD don't work within the system, instead of resorting to extortion and violence?

In this case the PTP/UDD haven't even tried to work within the system, and are actively opposed to allowing the people to vote on reforms to the system via a referendum.

[daboyz1]

1. Its a coalition, if the MPs were unhappy, or their constituents were unhappy with Abhisit, they would vote for no confidence. MPs often vote against their coalition in other governments, and this would also give the coalition partners a chance to switch sides if they were unhappy with Abhisit. After all the PTP/UDD have told us Abhisit is a horrid murder, with blood on his hands and bloodthirsty for more and the majority of Thai people support the Reds. Surely if this was remotely true, a no confidence vote would pass, with either whole parties abandoning the coalition, or individual MPs voting against the wishes of their party bosses.

2. Even if the no confidence vote fails, it allows the PTP to show the world and the people of Thailand all of Abhisit's crimes to put pressure on him to resign or possibly justify working outside the system (legal protests).

Other Parliamentary governments use no confidence votes all the time. The tool is there, the question is why the PTP/UDD don't work within the system, instead of resorting to extortion and violence?

In this case the PTP/UDD haven't even tried to work within the system, and are actively opposed to allowing the people to vote on reforms to the system via a referendum.

To add to that, Abhisit has offered to call elections one year early, which is what they wanted. When he gave them that, they came up with all this Suthep business not reporting to the right agency etc. I would guess that if Suthep reported to the agency they wanted, the reds would come up some other frivilous demand.

They don't want elections. They want Mr. T back and acquitted of all charges, and put back in palace as PM.

[redparrot]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

It doesn't help seeking a no-confidence vote if the majority in the parliament are part of the coalition that still support Abhisit. Or are you suggesting that Newin will vote for Abhisit to leave? No way, because he knows when Abhisit leaves, so will he.

Thanks for spelling it out for those who may have thought you were pro-democracy.

What does this have to do with being pro-Democracy or not?

Call me pro-choice. Give the people of Thailand a chance to decide. Let's not forget that most coalition parties (except for the Democrats) were allies of Thaksin before they jumped ship and switched sides. So people that voted for the smaller coalition parties knew they were effectively voting for a pro-Thaksin government. Which is why Newin for example now knows that he doesn't stand a chance at the next election, because he gave his voters a "bait-and-switch" deal.

[lazurus]

The people of Thailand should decide for themselves. However the people of Thailand are not just the 5000 at Ratchaprasong. They are the millions who are able to live peacefully and within the law. Having an election forced on them by the reds in which the reds will likely use dirty tactics to avoid a fair debate of the issues isn't a step in that direction.

[Gambles]

If the case against Abhisit was so strong, the proper action would be to hold a no confidence vote, which would allow the PTP to put Abhisit "on trial" and show the world all the evidence of wrong doing they have on him. However the PTP (the political branch of the UDD) has said they will not seek to hold a no confidence vote.

It doesn't help seeking a no-confidence vote if the majority in the parliament are part of the coalition that still support Abhisit. Or are you suggesting that Newin will vote for Abhisit to leave? No way, because he knows when Abhisit leaves, so will he.

Thanks for spelling it out for those who may have thought you were pro-democracy.

What does this have to do with being pro-Democracy or not?

Call me pro-choice. Give the people of Thailand a chance to decide. Let's not forget that most coalition parties (except for the Democrats) were allies of Thaksin before they jumped ship and switched sides. So people that voted for the smaller coalition parties knew they were effectively voting for a pro-Thaksin government. Which is why Newin for example now knows that he doesn't stand a chance at the next election, because he gave his voters a "bait-and-switch" deal.

Give up, Lanna....this one's beyond saving....(from himself)

Edited May 12, 2010 by Gambles

[OldgitTom]

Bobby906, "The reds represent the majority - are you sure about that? Did you ask Dr.Weng?"

Mr T's administration was voted in by a majority & removed by armed force.

dhrobertson,

"The Nazis were primarily defeated by the Russians. Were they democrats?"

Despite massive funding from powerful vested interests, the National Socialists (nazis) could not win an election. They could not seize full power until they put the opposition (mainly left) parties into concentration camps. They were then kept in power by the army. The ensuing catastrophic world war should remind anti-democrat posters of the dangers of their fascistic views.

"If the Thais are foolish enough, not educated enough and not informed enough to sell their vote, don't start bleating about lack of democracy."

If you are foolish enuf to be ignorant of the lessons of your own history, stop bleating about Thai democracy. My remarks are aimed exclusively at the anti-democrat farang posters here. I do not claim superior judgement over the majority of Thais who voted for Mr T. I accept that as their business. Nor do I call for military suppression of the Thai Redshirt protesters.

Whybother,

"Abhisit has the support of the majority of MPs elected by the people. That, in my book, gives him a 'popular mandate'. "

Exactly, Whybother, you are a happy farang! The crucial thing is, the Thai majority who voted for the overthrown government is not happy. Do you see the difference? Many Thai voters feel they have been screwed. I think so too, but I would not dream of even telling them. I'm just a guest here.

Democracy is always unstable, since it rests on human faillibility. But as Winston Churchill said, it only looks bad until you consider the alternatives. Or, "Jaw-jaw is better then war-war". OGT

[shawndoc]

Call me pro-choice. Give the people of Thailand a chance to decide. Let's not forget that most coalition parties (except for the Democrats) were allies of Thaksin before they jumped ship and switched sides. So people that voted for the smaller coalition parties knew they were effectively voting for a pro-Thaksin government. Which is why Newin for example now knows that he doesn't stand a chance at the next election, because he gave his voters a "bait-and-switch" deal.

Actually, some of those smaller parties campaigned on the promise not to join the PPP in a coalition government, and then proceeded to after the elections.

And about letting the people decide. During the televised "negotiations" back towards the start of this thing, Abhisit offered to put house dissolution up for a referendum vote. The reds turned it down.

[shawndoc]

OldGit, way to cut and paste the same tired half truths and deliberate misleading statements that have already been addressed repeatedly on here. Come up with something new please.

Look at Red Parrot, he at least tries to come up with new takes on things.

Edited May 12, 2010 by shawndoc

[ozzieman05]

The government have already allowed water and generators into the area

Does the Government have plans to remove these articles they know are in the area

The government did not allow generators etc. into Redtown. The police did.

The authorities do not have plans on immediately moving water and generators out of Red town. Instead, they have immediate plans on moving the Red Shirts out of Red town.

Okay so if they move them out in the next 24 hrs I will admit you where right

but if they do not I will watch for you posting saying you where wrong

Deal

[cougar52]

Does any one know what is happening with Veera;

1). yesterday he was going to surrender,

2). then he was not

3). then there was reports that he was threatened by shea deang

4). then he left the country and resigned from UDD

5). then weng said he had a cold

5). then--Red-shirt leader Natthawut Saikua on Thursday denied speculation that Veera Musigapong had resigned his leadership due to differences related to the April 10 violence.

"Veera did not quit but he has not appeared on the rally stage because of the division of responsibilities (among the core leaders)," he said, explaining Veera's absence.

Speculation spreaded that Veera disagreed with the direction of the protests for fear of a repeat of bloodletting incidents.