Thai Govt Under Fire Over Crackdown

[jayboy]

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

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

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

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

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters.It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it.It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

[philw]

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters.It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it.It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Nice one JayB.

Short, accurate and direct.

Some will hate it.

ph

[termad]

That's what happens in a state of emergency, people get hurt! No one has the right to take over a city and subsequently hold the whole country to ransom for weeks.

Abhisit himself has disagreed with you See quotes below I copied from Bagyai's post of 2010 05 14

Abhisit vs Abhisit

Fri, 23/04/2010 - 15:30

Matichon Weekly has in its latest edition, 23 April 2010, an article entitled ‘Suppose PM Abhisit Vejjajiva today faced an Opposition Leader named Abhisit Vejjajiva’. Since Abhisit became Prime Minister and has had to deal with the red shirts, what has most undermined his credibility are his own words and principles when he was Opposition Leader, the article says.

On 31 August 2008, Abhisit spoke in Parliament to then Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej who was under attack by the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy, asking him to dissolve the House.

‘For the people, just one person or a hundred thousand, to come out to make demands of the government is not against the principles of democracy, especially when there are suspicions that the administration of the country has violated the law and the rights of the people, or is corrupt. In developed countries, these issues do not need to be dealt with by the law, but by a political sense of responsibility.

‘In Korea, when [the government] recently came up with a free trade policy to import beef, hundreds of thousands of people rose up. The government resigned. It has to be admitted that the PAD protests result from frustration which the people have long been harbouring.

‘Even if [the government] deals with [the protesters] once and for all, it will never be able to destroy the concept of resistance.’

‘Today, I have to say what displeases the ears of members of my party and other MPs, who always dislike the idea of a House dissolution. But a House dissolution is part of the show of spirit. If the PM does not want to take responsibility alone, the whole Parliament will take the pain together’.

Today, Abhisit has insisted that a House dissolution is not the solution.

Channel 11 under the Abhisit administration has been heavily criticized. Since the 10 April clashes, in particular, it has come under fire for having aired views and information only from the government side.

When he was Opposition Leader, Abhisit wrote on a book entitled ‘Hundred Dreams under a New Sky’ about reforming Channel 11 to be a public television station.

‘The Channel 11 television station is regarded by many people as just a government mouthpiece for all time. I used to be a co-host for the Mong Tang Mum programme [literally meaning ‘Looking from Different Corners’, a popular TV political talk show , in 1991-1992 hosted by Jermsak Pinthong, now a hardcore yellow shirt – Prachatai] which was aired by Channel 11 when it was free to produce shows that promote free thinking.

‘I think Channel 11 in the past used to produce programmes which had substance and quality, and it was open, bringing people with views that differed from each other or from the government to sit at the same table and talk for the people to listen.

‘It shows that despite being a station under state control, it can do the job of quality media, if ‘the powers that be’ have the will and a respect for the media.

‘I think since Channel 11 is under state control and belongs to the state, it is, therefore, up to the policy of the state.

‘What is important is that the government must realize that the ‘state’ is not the ‘government’, and has to make clear that Channel 11 belongs to the state, not the government.’

Under his own administration, Channel 11 belongs to the ‘government’, not the ‘state’, the Matichon Weekly article says.

On 7 Oct 2008, then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat ordered a crackdown on the PAD protests in front of Parliament House, resulting in two deaths and over 400 injuries. Abhisit held a press conference after a meeting of his party.

‘For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility, either by negligence or intention.

‘What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is vilifying the people.

‘I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the crimes. This is unacceptable.

‘I have heard those in the government always asking people whether they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is you are human at alnot the question of being Thai or not, but whether l.

‘Today, [the government] has lost legitimacy. We are demanding that the PM take responsibility. [The PM] can resign, or if he is afraid that by his resignation, the Democrat Party will take power, he can dissolve the House. He cannot just do nothing, because if he does nothing, it would be tantamount to damaging the country and the political system.

‘There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from the people does not take responsibility.

‘For what we have said today, the government must not make the accusation that it is because we agree with all points of the PAD. Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt the people.’

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this.’

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Source:

Matichon Weekly, 23 April 2010

Edited June 20, 2010 by termad

[david555]

That's what happens in a state of emergency, people get hurt! No one has the right to take over a city and subsequently hold the whole country to ransom for weeks.

Abhisit himself has disagreed with you See quotes below I copied from Bagyai's post of 2010 05 14

Abhisit vs Abhisit

Fri, 23/04/2010 - 15:30

Matichon Weekly has in its latest edition, 23 April 2010, an article entitled 'Suppose PM Abhisit Vejjajiva today faced an Opposition Leader named Abhisit Vejjajiva'. Since Abhisit became Prime Minister and has had to deal with the red shirts, what has most undermined his credibility are his own words and principles when he was Opposition Leader, the article says.

On 31 August 2008, Abhisit spoke in Parliament to then Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej who was under attack by the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy, asking him to dissolve the House.

'For the people, just one person or a hundred thousand, to come out to make demands of the government is not against the principles of democracy, especially when there are suspicions that the administration of the country has violated the law and the rights of the people, or is corrupt. In developed countries, these issues do not need to be dealt with by the law, but by a political sense of responsibility.

'In Korea, when [the government] recently came up with a free trade policy to import beef, hundreds of thousands of people rose up. The government resigned. It has to be admitted that the PAD protests result from frustration which the people have long been harbouring.

'Even if [the government] deals with [the protesters] once and for all, it will never be able to destroy the concept of resistance.'

'Today, I have to say what displeases the ears of members of my party and other MPs, who always dislike the idea of a House dissolution. But a House dissolution is part of the show of spirit. If the PM does not want to take responsibility alone, the whole Parliament will take the pain together'.

Today, Abhisit has insisted that a House dissolution is not the solution.

Channel 11 under the Abhisit administration has been heavily criticized. Since the 10 April clashes, in particular, it has come under fire for having aired views and information only from the government side.

When he was Opposition Leader, Abhisit wrote on a book entitled 'Hundred Dreams under a New Sky' about reforming Channel 11 to be a public television station.

'The Channel 11 television station is regarded by many people as just a government mouthpiece for all time. I used to be a co-host for the Mong Tang Mum programme [literally meaning 'Looking from Different Corners', a popular TV political talk show , in 1991-1992 hosted by Jermsak Pinthong, now a hardcore yellow shirt – Prachatai] which was aired by Channel 11 when it was free to produce shows that promote free thinking.

'I think Channel 11 in the past used to produce programmes which had substance and quality, and it was open, bringing people with views that differed from each other or from the government to sit at the same table and talk for the people to listen.

'It shows that despite being a station under state control, it can do the job of quality media, if 'the powers that be' have the will and a respect for the media.

'I think since Channel 11 is under state control and belongs to the state, it is, therefore, up to the policy of the state.

'What is important is that the government must realize that the 'state' is not the 'government', and has to make clear that Channel 11 belongs to the state, not the government.'

Under his own administration, Channel 11 belongs to the 'government', not the 'state', the Matichon Weekly article says.

On 7 Oct 2008, then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat ordered a crackdown on the PAD protests in front of Parliament House, resulting in two deaths and over 400 injuries. Abhisit held a press conference after a meeting of his party.

'For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility, either by negligence or intention.

'What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is vilifying the people.

'I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the crimes. This is unacceptable.

'I have heard those in the government always asking people whether they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is you are human at alnot the question of being Thai or not, but whether l.

'Today, [the government] has lost legitimacy. We are demanding that the PM take responsibility. [The PM] can resign, or if he is afraid that by his resignation, the Democrat Party will take power, he can dissolve the House. He cannot just do nothing, because if he does nothing, it would be tantamount to damaging the country and the political system.

'There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from the people does not take responsibility.

'For what we have said today, the government must not make the accusation that it is because we agree with all points of the PAD. Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt the people.'

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, 'I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this.'

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Source:

Matichon Weekly, 23 April 2010

Because my firewall warned me this site cuold be a phising site ,??,i checked it , and see;

Query Date Status IP Address Country Country Code

www.thaivisa.com 20/06/2010 17:45:30 Completed 203.174.85.146 Singapore SG

why not THAILANDprovider for website ? r is this our guarantee for a free democratic free speech???

:lol:

[way2muchcoffee]

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

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

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

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

Edited June 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[ianf]

This is the problem that Abhisit/Korn and Suthep and the Democrats are going to have in the coming weeks, months and years.

In the heat of the moment their propaganda in the media overcome real news and real truth, as was portrayed on AJ/BBC/CNN and many other real news outlets.

As the real truth is now uncovered and unleashed and eyewitnesses gather the strength and courage to speak up and not be afraid of being thrown into prison without any charges or bail and labelled as terrorists under the Emergency Decree just because the government wants to label them so the pressure is going to mount on this puppet government who have done the dirty work of the old men who have seized power in Thailand.

Photo's, VCD's and new names for old banned web sites are ensuring the Thai people are now having access to the reality of the events that happened. They can compare real video footage and photo's against what the propaganda machine has put out and they can see that someone has been telling many lies.

The truth will come out, and even if its in 1 year, or 5 years or 10 years, all those involved in the CRES, those behind the military and everyone responsible for what has gone on since 2006 hopefully will one day be taken away and have justice served on them for all they have done.

For the cynics - The Thai Junta could likely today send a message of support to the Burmese Junta saying "Suu Kyi is a terrorist and a potential red shirt backer as she said the Thai government was illegimate" - and could likely ask she be charged with terrorism offences as it seems to be working well in Thailand.

Here we go again ........................

[jayboy]

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

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

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

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

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

AS to your point about speculation of course much of this is subjective or capable of different interpretations.Those who attended elite universities (or anywhere else which encourages hard rigorous analysis) will know that even facts can be subjective, dependent on the view point.The point is whether the view point is well informed.

[way2muchcoffee]

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

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

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

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

Edited June 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[jayboy]

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

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

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

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

[way2muchcoffee]

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

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

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

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

Edited June 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Insight]

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

AS to your point about speculation of course much of this is subjective or capable of different interpretations.Those who attended elite universities (or anywhere else which encourages hard rigorous analysis) will know that even facts can be subjective, dependent on the view point.The point is whether the view point is well informed.

You could of referenced your previous sentence as a fantastic example.

[tigerbalm]

This is the problem that Abhisit/Korn and Suthep and the Democrats are going to have in the coming weeks, months and years.

In the heat of the moment their propaganda in the media overcome real news and real truth, as was portrayed on AJ/BBC/CNN and many other real news outlets.

As the real truth is now uncovered and unleashed and eyewitnesses gather the strength and courage to speak up and not be afraid of being thrown into prison without any charges or bail and labelled as terrorists under the Emergency Decree just because the government wants to label them so the pressure is going to mount on this puppet government who have done the dirty work of the old men who have seized power in Thailand.

Photo's, VCD's and new names for old banned web sites are ensuring the Thai people are now having access to the reality of the events that happened. They can compare real video footage and photo's against what the propaganda machine has put out and they can see that someone has been telling many lies.

The truth will come out, and even if its in 1 year, or 5 years or 10 years, all those involved in the CRES, those behind the military and everyone responsible for what has gone on since 2006 hopefully will one day be taken away and have justice served on them for all they have done.

For the cynics - The Thai Junta could likely today send a message of support to the Burmese Junta saying "Suu Kyi is a terrorist and a potential red shirt backer as she said the Thai government was illegimate" - and could likely ask she be charged with terrorism offences as it seems to be working well in Thailand.

Here we go again ........................

Exactly

How could one possibly equate the Burmese Position with Thailand The Burmese is a country ruled by a represive military Junta that stifles any popular opposition,rules the media and TV stations in it's favor,in order to keep it self in power enjoying the good life while the ordinary citizen continue to suffer.

No one could ever condone such actions or want to see it on their own door step.

[rogercw]

A significant percentage of the Thai population supports Thaksin, the Red Shirts, or both. It may or may not be a majority but it is a significant percentage. It is pretty obvious that most posters on this forum have an opposing view. Let us call them "government supporters".

The current government has closed most opposition media outlets, put many opposition leaders in confinement and frozen their assets, and seems to be in no hurry to end a declared State of Emergency. Persons of high rank in the current government are starting to float trial ballons about the possibility of the elections due by the end of 2011 not being held if the country is not calm enough for all parties to campaign effectively all over the country. Most posters on this forum are from western Europe, America, Canada, Australia, or New Zeland and would vigorously oppose any government back in their homeland that followed a similiar policy, rioting population or not. Yet posters on Thai Visa, as a group, applaud the anti-democratic actions of the current government and indeed many complain that the current government does not go far enough in its attempt to crush the opposition.

I will grant that the Red Shirt demonstrators went beyond peaceful demonstrations. So did the Yellow Shirts. Yet at present as far as I know (someone correct me if I am wrong) zero Yellow Shirts are in confinement or likely to be so at any point in the near future. Not so for the Red Shirts.

[princejohnjay]

That's what happens in a state of emergency, people get hurt! No one has the right to take over a city and subsequently hold the whole country to ransom for weeks.

Just change city for Airport and add.....and get away with it scott free and it all makes sense.

I was surprised too that they could walk away free, after all they did burn tires, setting fire to Aircrafts, destroying half of the Airport, looting the Duty Free, fireing RPG's and so on.

I mean it must have been that way, how else could you use it to compare it with the Red Shirt`s in Bangkok

How are you sure that the burning and looting were actually done by the protesters while the army were there watching? Besides, if the govt hadn't crackdown on the red shirts by killing them do you think the burning and looting would have happened? You can do better than that your thinking mate! Am not surprised that even if all Thais came to realise and agree that the govt's bloody crackdown on the protesters were wrong, some foreigners will still say it wasn't.

[rabo]

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

AS to your point about speculation of course much of this is subjective or capable of different interpretations.Those who attended elite universities (or anywhere else which encourages hard rigorous analysis) will know that even facts can be subjective, dependent on the view point.The point is whether the view point is well informed.

You could of referenced your previous sentence as a fantastic example.

Sorry Jayboy, truth is not subjective, nor is this taught as a part of rigorous analysis. What you perceive as the truth may be subjective, but this simply means that you may well be wrong.

Edited June 20, 2010 by rabo

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

At some point, the constitutionally-protected right of protest turned into an illegal armed rebellion. When it did, the army had the right to use reasonable force to disperse the red-shirts. Claims that the army and government violated international human rights law are revisionist.

[TAWP]

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

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

Well, in that case none exist in the world.

In the real world, that we live in, the response in our home-countries would also be tough when police and military is meet with weapons and violence.

Just imagine if the same happened in New York or Los Angeles...history tells us that you are confused about the crackdown the police would perform in for example US.

[TAWP]

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate /../

You are factually wrong hence the need to educate you regarding the parliamentary process of this and other democracies.

[rabo]

That's what happens in a state of emergency, people get hurt! No one has the right to take over a city and subsequently hold the whole country to ransom for weeks.

Just change city for Airport and add.....and get away with it scott free and it all makes sense.

I was surprised too that they could walk away free, after all they did burn tires, setting fire to Aircrafts, destroying half of the Airport, looting the Duty Free, fireing RPG's and so on.

I mean it must have been that way, how else could you use it to compare it with the Red Shirt`s in Bangkok

How are you sure that the burning and looting were actually done by the protesters while the army were there watching? Besides, if the govt hadn't crackdown on the red shirts by killing them do you think the burning and looting would have happened? You can do better than that your thinking mate! Am not surprised that even if all Thais came to realise and agree that the govt's bloody crackdown on the protesters were wrong, some foreigners will still say it wasn't.

More spontaneous combustion, or in this case spontaneous contradiction.

Point 1. Reds didn't do it.

Point 2. They did it because they army cracked down.

[TAWP]

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

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

Sure, but the ones shot was not. I.e. if the army shoot against normal protesters, why isn't 65% of the victims women? (That number was quoted by som red fan as the ratio of women in the movement.)

[Ulysses G.]

If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before and used as much force as needed.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[jayboy]

 If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before  and used as much force as needed.  

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

[way2muchcoffee]

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

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

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

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

Edited June 20, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[TAWP]

Ofcourse 100% facts will never be known, neither side has any wish for it to be out.

[LevelHead]

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

snip

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

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

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

The military provoked the reds.

The reds on their own were peaceful until deliberately provoked.

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

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

[TAWP]

History revision in the works by the propaganda workers.

[way2muchcoffee]

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

snip

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

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

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

The military provoked the reds.

The reds on their own were peaceful until deliberately provoked.

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

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

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

[rabo]

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

Total disregard for factual information. After it was over, a yellow shirt was found dead in a toilet or some such place. The police report reported the person as a yellow shirt and the police speculated that if he was not a yellow shirt, then maybe an infiltrator dressed as a yellow shirt. They didn't even know how he died.

[Ulysses G.]

 If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before  and used as much force as needed.  

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

What is "creepy" about being realistic? Governments are not known for allowing anarchy. 

[philw]

History revision in the works by the propaganda workers.

Nonsense.