Thai Yellow Shirts Vow To Fight Airport Seizure Cases - Terror Charges Ludicrous

[Rucharee]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

[salty]

Red/Yellow: Absoulute contempt for the law when it suits them.

[ThaksinKharma]

Here's wikipedia's summation of the facts (which I agree is subject to clarification on its neutrality)

Sorry Nick.

I don't accept anything posted on Wikipedia as factual. It is much too easy for anyone to edit. You might as well say it is true because I say it is true.

It is disingenuous to post it and think a simple disclaimer that you understand it might be biased is sufficient. You need to find some credible sources to support your position, or it isn't worth posting.

For myself, I saw absolutely no weapons carried by the yellows, despite significant television coverage. When the yellows were attacked by the police, they surrendered and tended to their wounded. They put up no violent protests. They may not be model citizens, but there is no primary evidence that they were violent. There is hearsay and untrustworthy Wikipedia entries. That's all.

The reds on the other hand clearly had an armed faction that were violent. You can let your personal biases colour your judgement all you want. I believe what I saw. The yellows should not have been allowed to get away with what they did, but they did know when to quit.

The reds went too far.

Charging the yellows with terrorism is ridiculous. Everyone knows it. Charging the violent faction of the reds with terrorism is not so far fetched.

There was very little need for arms by the yellow shirts.

They were totally supported by the army and police

So when the police fired lethal exploding tear gas at the yellows, injuring 500 and killing two, they were just showing their "total support" for the yellows?

I'd hate to think what would have happened in October if the police hadn't "totally supported" the yellows.

[symbiosis]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

no, minor - or major - incontinence is what we all experience when we hear Mr. Abhisit, et. al. talk about "democracy"

[Ulysses G.]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

They both did their bit to ruin the economy and screw up the country. Two devils, but the reds have proved to be Lucifer himself.

[rubl]

none were closed... move on

The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. Are you saying that if airport authorities in any of the incidents listed above had decided to close the airport in the face of a protest, that the charges against the protesters would somehow be terrorism instead of trespassing? I don't think you have thought through your position.

Can you tell me if that 'we didn't close the airport' is a official yellow defence line by their lawyers or is it just some stupid argument taken from some yellow propaganda fan page?

Nice to see you're back, Mazeltov. Short holiday, or were you suspended for awhile? As usual your comment has no direct relation with the quoted text. Maybe you cut and pasted the wrong part?

Edited July 14, 2010 by rubl

[ChiangMaiFun]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

major incontinence I'd say! 90 deaths? The government caused those right? sniping? shooting? picking off leaders with high powered rifles? there are no devils or saints

[ChiangMaiFun]

Here's wikipedia's summation of the facts (which I agree is subject to clarification on its neutrality)

Sorry Nick.

I don't accept anything posted on Wikipedia as factual. It is much too easy for anyone to edit. You might as well say it is true because I say it is true.

It is disingenuous to post it and think a simple disclaimer that you understand it might be biased is sufficient. You need to find some credible sources to support your position, or it isn't worth posting.

For myself, I saw absolutely no weapons carried by the yellows, despite significant television coverage. When the yellows were attacked by the police, they surrendered and tended to their wounded. They put up no violent protests. They may not be model citizens, but there is no primary evidence that they were violent. There is hearsay and untrustworthy Wikipedia entries. That's all.

The reds on the other hand clearly had an armed faction that were violent. You can let your personal biases colour your judgement all you want. I believe what I saw. The yellows should not have been allowed to get away with what they did, but they did know when to quit.

The reds went too far.

Charging the yellows with terrorism is ridiculous. Everyone knows it. Charging the violent faction of the reds with terrorism is not so far fetched.

There was very little need for arms by the yellow shirts.

They were totally supported by the army and police and there was never any threat that force would be used to breakup their occupation.

They surrendered when they obtained their goals with no arrests.

The airlines and the airports bore the expense of repairs and loss of revenue without a whimper. They were aware of the

status of power and filed no complaints or requests for compensation. Big hearted? I think better judgment.

wrong Buddy - Thai Airways suing

[ChiangMaiFun]

Unlike the Red, the Yellow are not terrorist.

They occupy the airports with all their hearts and love of the country.

You are joking right? destroying businesses, destroying tourism, humilitating Thailand in the eyes of the world community - and breaking the law?

'love of the country'?

I think we should just ignore her & she might go away!

I'm sure she means well - but her arguements are too simplistic and naive

[ChiangMaiFun]

They say they want to reconcile. Unless you have justice for both sides there will be no reconciliation. The ball is Abhisits court, if they really want to reconcile then they must show equal justice for REDs and YELLOWs.

It's great to talk about reconciliation but you have to walk the walk. Methinks their actions will speak louder than the sweet words which fall from their lips.

you see this is the crux of the matter - treat both sides fairly - I have never supported violence by either side and posted consistently - prosecute BOTH factions equally - then we might see a begining to reconciliation

[way2muchcoffee]

They say they want to reconcile. Unless you have justice for both sides there will be no reconciliation. The ball is Abhisits court, if they really want to reconcile then they must show equal justice for REDs and YELLOWs.

It's great to talk about reconciliation but you have to walk the walk. Methinks their actions will speak louder than the sweet words which fall from their lips.

you see this is the crux of the matter - treat both sides fairly - I have never supported violence by either side and posted consistently - prosecute BOTH factions equally - then we might see a begining to reconciliation

That's just it. You don't prosecute 'equally'. You prosecute for the crimes committed. When the crimes are not equal the results will not be equal.

Edited July 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[ChiangMaiFun]

They say they want to reconcile. Unless you have justice for both sides there will be no reconciliation. The ball is Abhisits court, if they really want to reconcile then they must show equal justice for REDs and YELLOWs.

It's great to talk about reconciliation but you have to walk the walk. Methinks their actions will speak louder than the sweet words which fall from their lips.

you see this is the crux of the matter - treat both sides fairly - I have never supported violence by either side and posted consistently - prosecute BOTH factions equally - then we might see a begining to reconciliation

That's just it. You don't prosecute 'equally'. You prosecute for the crimes committed. When the crimes are not equal the results will not be equal.

I meant prosecute equally those crimes committed by either colour - naturally they are not the same - but the law should be measured and applied

[phutoie2]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

I too suffer from some "minor incontinence" after too many Leo's the night before!.

[way2muchcoffee]

They say they want to reconcile. Unless you have justice for both sides there will be no reconciliation. The ball is Abhisits court, if they really want to reconcile then they must show equal justice for REDs and YELLOWs.

It's great to talk about reconciliation but you have to walk the walk. Methinks their actions will speak louder than the sweet words which fall from their lips.

you see this is the crux of the matter - treat both sides fairly - I have never supported violence by either side and posted consistently - prosecute BOTH factions equally - then we might see a begining to reconciliation

That's just it. You don't prosecute 'equally'. You prosecute for the crimes committed. When the crimes are not equal the results will not be equal.

I meant prosecute equally those crimes committed by either colour - naturally they are not the same - but the law should be measured and applied

Cheers. We are in agreement. We've gone back and forth before CMN. We sit on different sides of this particular political divide, but I suspect that our views are very similar.

Edited July 14, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Thai at Heart]

Straight from the NationMultimedia.com archives

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/11/25/headlines/headlines_30089423.php

The order was issued by AOT chief Serirat Prasutanont. He made the decision out of safety concern after PAD protesters penetrated some passenger areas.

"The PAD members are now scattered around. I don't know who's who, or who's PAD and who's not," a senior AOT official told The Nation at around 10.30 pm.........................

The People's Alliance for Democracy threatened earlier Tuesday night to close down the Suvanabhumi Airport completely after several thousand PAD protesteers blocked an entrance earlier in the day and caused turmoil for numerous passengers.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/02/headlines/headlines_30090021.php

People's Alliance for Democracy has led anti-government protesters to seize the airport since last week.

And from the AFP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfa1jO4Ls9_YnouePuyfMpolaCTQ

In a statement, the PAD vowed to "close Suvarnabhumi Airport to send a final word... to Somchai and his cabinet: resign immediately and without conditions."

Edited July 14, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[mazeltov]

none were closed... move on

The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. Are you saying that if airport authorities in any of the incidents listed above had decided to close the airport in the face of a protest, that the charges against the protesters would somehow be terrorism instead of trespassing? I don't think you have thought through your position.

Can you tell me if that 'we didn't close the airport' is a official yellow defence line by their lawyers or is it just some stupid argument taken from some yellow propaganda fan page?

Nice to see you're back, Mazeltov. Short holiday, or were you suspended for awhile? As usual your comment has no direct relation with the quoted text. Maybe you cut and pasted the wrong part?

My question has no relation to the quoted text? From the quote: "The AoT made the decision to close the airport, not the PAD. "

I heard that so often that the PAD cannot be charged for the airport closure because it was a decision by the AoT and so on and so on. And i am not asking for the first time if that argument is really part of the PAD legal defence or if this is just a layman version by the fanbois.

Would be nice if somebody had a link to it.

[Maccs]

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured)

The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days.

Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

I too suffer from some "minor incontinence" after too many Leo's the night before!.

I also suffered from minor incontinence but I & all my biz friends are still supporting PAD . They did more good things than the evil red shirts who fight for Thaksin .

[ThaksinKharma]

The order was issued by AOT chief Serirat Prasutanont.

The People's Alliance for Democracy threatened

In a statement, the PAD vowed

So PAD only vowed and threatened, but the AOT boss was the one that actually closed the airport. Thanks for the clarification.

[whybother]

I don't remember the PAD putting up fuel soaked barricades, shooting at police, or firing grenades when they took over the airports.

And they certainly didn't burn down any buildings when they left. The leaders never told their supporters to burn down buildings either.

[cshort64]

As was stated above, both sides should be punished for the laws that they broke, I believe they both have a right to protest and state their grievences, they both have a right to make their case that they are being misrepresented, but if they broke the law, they should be penalized. It is obvious that many different laws were broken and PAD did not have the violent and caotic end that the UDD did but if they were wrong then they should feel the consequences.

This is part of the issue we have, people of different education and different status get different treatment, it is common in most counties, the rich can buy their way out of problems or pay better lawyers to help them get out. Here in Thailand it is a bit more basic and primitive than some countries but the difference is the same, the haves vs. the have-nots. Those in power wish to keep in and those who feel misrepresented want to be part of the system and can't get in.

This saga is long from over unfortunately.

Regards

C

[whybother]

As was stated above, both sides should be punished for the laws that they broke, I believe they both have a right to protest and state their grievences, they both have a right to make their case that they are being misrepresented, but if they broke the law, they should be penalized. It is obvious that many different laws were broken and PAD did not have the violent and caotic end that the UDD did but if they were wrong then they should feel the consequences.

This is part of the issue we have, people of different education and different status get different treatment, it is common in most counties, the rich can buy their way out of problems or pay better lawyers to help them get out. Here in Thailand it is a bit more basic and primitive than some countries but the difference is the same, the haves vs. the have-nots. Those in power wish to keep in and those who feel misrepresented want to be part of the system and can't get in.

This saga is long from over unfortunately.

Regards

C

Are you suggesting that the red leaders are "have-nots"? The only thing they don't have is power. They have pretty much everything else (except freedom, at the moment).

[cshort64]

Hi WhyBother;

No I'm not suggesting that at all, many of them are very wealthy, they are on the 'haves' side, but the Red Leaders do happen to say they represent the have-nots. This is yet to be determined however, if they were in office again, would they do any better for the people they say they represent, would they help them with jobs, education, and the other basics to move forward. I am not sure I am drinking their cool-aid either.

Cheers

C

[FarangKyAy]

I surely blame the reds hot headed who burnt the mall, but some seem to blame reds for causing the 90 deaths ... You mean they were all killed by the reds? It's insane, there're videos, pictures and reports showing military shooting to people who apparently were not in a position to threat soldiers' life ...(I expect the "but they were terrorist!" typical answer ...)

I dont see too many people shocked by theses so numerous deaths, many prefer focusing on the building arson ... Where are all the cries heard (and read) when one PAD demonstrator has been killed unfortunately (seemingly a chinese grenade with a flaw used by police force during dispersal operations)? The other PAD demonstrator killed himself because he was carying homemade bomb so I don't talk about him as a "victim"...

Two wrongs don't make one good but after seeing PAD demonstrator occupy government house for so long and shut down the airport then walk free (Thailand was open bar at the time?), maybe the hard-core reds felt it was there turn to cause trouble and walk free ... Few expected such a harsh reaction from authorities, the arson may be an (over)reaction to the many deaths caused in cold blood by the army...

Edited July 16, 2010 by FarangKyAy

[eggomaniac]

you reds blaming the yellows; you yellows blaming the reds; you are BOTH right! congratulations

The only loser? Thailand

[ThaksinKharma]

Two wrongs don't make one good but after seeing PAD demonstrator occupy government house for so long and shut down the airport then walk free (Thailand was open bar at the time?), maybe the hard-core reds felt it was there turn to cause trouble and walk free ... Few expected such a harsh reaction from authorities, the arson may be an (over)reaction to the many deaths caused in cold blood by the army...

The reds had already had "their turn" in 2007 when they "caused trouble and walked free". They walked free (thus far) in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

The yellows, 2008.

btw, your other comments are just as erroneous as the ones selected for quotation above.

[philw]

Two wrongs don't make one good but after seeing PAD demonstrator occupy government house for so long and shut down the airport then walk free (Thailand was open bar at the time?), maybe the hard-core reds felt it was there turn to cause trouble and walk free ... Few expected such a harsh reaction from authorities, the arson may be an (over)reaction to the many deaths caused in cold blood by the army...

The reds had already had "their turn" in 2007 when they "caused trouble and walked free". They walked free (thus far) in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

The yellows, 2008.

btw, your other comments are just as erroneous as the ones selected for quotation above.

Why erroneous ?

[jdinasia]

Rucharee is not a troll. She has definite opinions, but no one here has any basis to question her veracity. She has a track record.

Since there were in fact court cases in civil court persuing damages in excess of 500 million baht, then I would have to say you are wrong. Second .. that the posting style mimics that of Chantorn is fairly telling. (though no longer any skin off my nose .. thanks to the liberal use of the ignore function.)

[ThaksinKharma]

Two wrongs don't make one good but after seeing PAD demonstrator occupy government house for so long and shut down the airport then walk free (Thailand was open bar at the time?), maybe the hard-core reds felt it was there turn to cause trouble and walk free ... Few expected such a harsh reaction from authorities, the arson may be an (over)reaction to the many deaths caused in cold blood by the army...

The reds had already had "their turn" in 2007 when they "caused trouble and walked free". They walked free (thus far) in 2007, 2009, and 2010.

The yellows, 2008.

btw, your other comments are just as erroneous as the ones selected for quotation above.

Why erroneous ?

I haven't seen anyone saying the reds killed all 90 victims.

I have seen hundreds of posts decrying the 90 deaths.

[FarangKyAy]

My English may be not good, for example:

The Red have caused much material damages (arson) and 90 deaths (plus 2,000 injured) The yellow only cause minor incontinence for a few days. Just go ask yourself; who is the devil and who is the saint here.

I understand there that reds caused the 90 deaths (plus 2000 injured) but I may be wrong. We all could see these deaths were not the unwanted consequences from a balanced dispersal operation, unless all the reds killed has been shot in self-defense as they were directly threatening the life of the shooter.

By the way I'm not a fan of mob rule, seeing the thai army shooting thai people is really saddening that's all.

When you compare the media coverage of the poor lady who died because of a defectuous tear gas grenade (the gvt was asked to take responsability for ordering the dispersal if I remember well) and the rather mild coverage of these 90 deaths, focusing on material damages, I can't help thinking there's something strange with the media in Thailand.

And unless the rule of law is applied to all sides with a common line, elections soundly organised without biased interferences I can't see how thailand would reach Reconciliation...This government supporters may even agree with this last one as it is in the line of Abhisit's speeches,

Though I can't tell so far any actions tending toward this, it's definitely not the time to even think of achievement with these matters. With all the good intentions in his speeches, let's truly hope Abhisit will do better during the remainings of his mandate and that Thaïland will bring itself together