Pheu Thai Welcomes Red-Shirt Leaders As Candidates

[Lite Beer]

Pheu Thai welcomes red-shirt leaders as candidates

By The Nation.

The Pheu Thai Party Sunday welcomed red-shirt leaders as its candidates for the next election.

Jirayu Huangsup, deputy Pheu Thai spokesman, said the party executive board discussed the red-shirt leaders' plan to contest the next-election as Pheu Thai candidates and reached a decision to welcome them.

The seven red-shirt leaders, who were released on bail last week following nine-month detention, decided to contest the next election as Pheu Thai candidates to enjoy legal immunity.

Jirayu said the party has yet to consider the home provinces of the red-shirt leaders to decide whether they should contest constituency-based election or party-list election.

The party may wait to announce candidacy of the red-shirt leaders during the last period or after the House is dissolved.

"The party resolved to welcome the red-shirt leaders and we do not think that fielding them as candidates would affect our political base in Bangkok," Anudit Nakhonthap, a party executive said.

Those attending the board meeting included party chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Chalerm Yoobamrung, chairman of Pheu Thai MPs, and party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit.

Jirayu said the board also resolved to introduce its constituency-based election candidates on Tuesday.

In a related development, red-shirt leaders Sunday gathered at the Pathum Wanram Temple at 10 am to make merit for those killed during the crackdown on red-shirt protesters on May 19 last year.

The seven red-shirt leaders, who were released on bail last week, also took part in the ceremony. They included Natthawut Saikua, Kwanchai Praiphana and Weng Tojirakarn. Acting chairwoman of the red-shirt movement, Thida Thawornset, also joined the merit making ceremony.

Natthawut said former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra called the seven leaders to congratulate them on their release.

Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai.

-- The Nation 2011-02-27

[whybother]

This is pretty much cementing the Reds = PTP = Thaksin rule.

[stepenwolf1958]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

[whybother]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

Adding to the list of things that you know nothing about.

[Robby nz]

Jirayu said the party has yet to consider the home provinces of the red-shirt leaders to decide whether they should contest constituency-based election or party-list election.

The party may wait to announce candidacy of the red-shirt leaders during the last period or after the House is dissolved.

Jirayu said the board also resolved to introduce its constituency-based election candidates on Tuesday.

OK so they will only announce whether the 7 heroes will be list or constituency candidates in the last period or after the house is desolved

But they will introduce its constituency-based election candidates on Tuesday.

Taking these two statements together it would mean that the 7 as well as Jatuporn would have to be list candidates for the constituency-based candidates have already been introduced (announced).

I suspect what it really means is that they dont know what they are doing..........but we knew that already.

[timekeeper]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

your observation conjured up images of Abhisit with a smokin' AK47 personally mowing down the red hoards

as much as i enjoyed it for a fleeting moment, its complete and utter red BS propaganda

much like your post............

[jdinasia]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

BTW --- whybother is certainly biased (as am I) but he does have a good running knowledge of politics in Thailand.

Edited February 27, 2011 by jdinasia

[timekeeper]

being a Phua Thai MP is a morally bereft kind of job and it is clear that even amongst Thais they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get any candidates to even run

these boys should fit the bill nicely.............

[stepenwolf1958]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

your observation conjured up images of Abhisit with a smokin' AK47 personally mowing down the red hoards

as much as i enjoyed it for a fleeting moment, its complete and utter red BS propaganda

much like your post............

Not a propaganda at all. Do you want to say that PM did not order shooting to the protesters? Who was it-if he was not? Some one did it, right? For that situation his deputy was directly in charge, so may be he order shooting?

Or may be again you will tell me some propaganda BS of dems and their followers, as that was shooting in armed people mingled with protesters?( before you open mouth to say that crap i heard million times, to remind you about 8 civilians, unarmed, killed in the temple) So, who said to the Army to open fire? Do you know?

[whybother]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

Adding to the list of things that you know nothing about.

Well, I was actually wondering how Abhisit was responsible for the army personnel killed by grenades or the woman at the BTS, or the coloured shirts.

Do you know how many non-red shirts are included in the "90 civilians" killed?

[stepenwolf1958]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

[stepenwolf1958]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

Adding to the list of things that you know nothing about.

Well, I was actually wondering how Abhisit was responsible for the army personnel killed by grenades or the woman at the BTS, or the coloured shirts.

Do you know how many non-red shirts are included in the "90 civilians" killed?

I don't know. You tell me, please.

[timekeeper]

This is amazing, really.

"Natthawut also called on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to make a promise that his Democrat Party would accept the results of the next election even if the Democrat is beaten by the Pheu Thai."

Any one in Thailand believe they will admit defeat? What a dream. A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians to admit defeat?

your observation conjured up images of Abhisit with a smokin' AK47 personally mowing down the red hoards

as much as i enjoyed it for a fleeting moment, its complete and utter red BS propaganda

much like your post............

Not a propaganda at all. Do you want to say that PM did not order shooting to the protesters? Who was it-if he was not? Some one did it, right? For that situation his deputy was directly in charge, so may be he order shooting?

Or may be again you will tell me some propaganda BS of dems and their followers, as that was shooting in armed people mingled with protesters?( before you open mouth to say that crap i heard million times, to remind you about 8 civilians, unarmed, killed in the temple) So, who said to the Army to open fire? Do you know?

yes i do want to say that and i do know 100% for sure it wasn't Abhisit who ordered it

how? thats easy?

with all Thaksins millions he would have already found somebody in the government to be a whistle-blower if it were true

do you really think if there was any dirt on Abhisit that Amsterdam and his $500 a day minions would have found it by now

these are the kind of thing that comes back to bite you in the ass when seeking re-election

it was probably ordered by some minor general who is already living in a sea view villa in Montenegro with new citizenship and a numbered swiss bank account

sorry i may be mixing that up with some other convicted Thai traitor...........

[timekeeper]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

i am guessing you don't know either as you weren't there

although i am beginning to wish you were...............

[stepenwolf1958]

but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin)

If you are speaking about math, strictly, you would have right, certainly but life change your math expectations and logic...

Since when is a problem for many Thai women to have more than one man? Don't tell me you don't know for such cases, that you never saw any?

And, that what i told about "multiple wives" is so old thing in Thailand that i am surprised you don't know for that. Are you talking with an ordinary Thais, except the family of your wife? I do so they told me that, i saw the things i couldn't understand or accept so i asked them to explain. What is strange to you about it?

[jdinasia]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

As simply as possible .....

OK

1) The reds started the violence.

2) They were in direct violation of the SoE and had armed elements amongst them

3) The government and the army tried repeatedly to convince the non-combatants amongst the reds to leave.

4) They started with less than lethal force until they came under fire from the reds.

5) The reds stated openly they were targeting journalists.

6) The government issued orders were to use less than lethal force where possible.

7) The situation degenerated from there. Fire was coming from BOTH sides. Determining who the shooters were in most cases will prove impossible.

Who is directly responsible for the deaths? The people that were paying the redshirts. The red leadership. The military. The government. ---- If you look at causality then it is the red paymasters and leaders. If you look at who did the killing and under whose orders then it is all of the above. The reds were given the opportunity in March before they started using molotov cocktails/petrol bombs (but after they started grenade attacks) to take a moral victory of elections before the end of the year and pack up and go home. That apparently did not fit with Thaksin's desire to appoint the next Army chief in October, so they stayed and started using scaled up violence.

[stepenwolf1958]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

i am guessing you don't know either as you weren't there

although i am beginning to wish you were...............

I was CLEAR that i don't know that so i am asking people who might know that. Any problem about my asking?

[timekeeper]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

simple, the red were responsible

they should not have been there

no reds, no deaths, no problem.........

[yoshiwara]

I don't know. You tell me, please.

The one thing that is for sure is that you do not know at all. Period.

We do though have evidence that the red leader Arisman (on the run) explicitly incited the reds to burn down Bangkok and there is plenty of evidence that the blackshirts were running around as the reds armed wing.

As for deaths once the blackshirts went wild after Seh Daeng was shot they could have been spraying in all directions.

The escalation of the violence was the sole responsibility of the reds, though do please try again to push out the narrative that the reds were out on a peaceful stroll. Always amusing.

What really angers the more excitable red supporter in their faded Che T-shirts was that they lost and were driven off the streets. Dare one say it, but some supporters still appear to be mightily enraged.

Edited February 27, 2011 by yoshiwara

[stepenwolf1958]

Stepenwolf --- your number count is wrong as is your assumption that Abhisit is "directly responsible", but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin) .. should suggest that perhaps your ideas and maths don't tend to match very often

Anything you say, sport, anything...

Ok, put it this way: my assumption is guessing and it's wrong. Ok, so now is clear he didn't order to the Army to open fire to protesters. Then i have to ask you what do you think-who did it if he didn't? Tell me what do you know or think, WHO said to open fire to the people? Make it simple as possible, please.

As simply as possible .....

OK

1) The reds started the violence.

2) They were in direct violation of the SoE and had armed elements amongst them

3) The government and the army tried repeatedly to convince the non-combatants amongst the reds to leave.

4) They started with less than lethal force until they came under fire from the reds.

5) The reds stated openly they were targeting journalists.

6) The government issued orders were to use less than lethal force where possible.

7) The situation degenerated from there. Fire was coming from BOTH sides. Determining who the shooters were in most cases will prove impossible.

Who is directly responsible for the deaths? The people that were paying the redshirts. The red leadership. The military. The government. ---- If you look at causality then it is the red paymasters and leaders. If you look at who did the killing and under whose orders then it is all of the above. The reds were given the opportunity in March before they started using molotov cocktails/petrol bombs (but after they started grenade attacks) to take a moral victory of elections before the end of the year and pack up and go home. That apparently did not fit with Thaksin's desire to appoint the next Army chief in October, so they stayed and started using scaled up violence.

Appreciate your effort to explain to me what POSSIBLY happened. I am not sarcastic, ok? I appreciate you take your time to answer to me. Really do but i will, according to my life experience, professional experience and my knowledge about those matters, keep my standing, my point of view. Respecting your opinion(or truth based on some evidences, whatever makes you think this way) i will be free to answer to your 7 points one by one, later, if that is fine with you?

[jdinasia]

but hey, since "the majority" of Thai men have multiple wives in your observation (counting out the fact that women don't outnumber men by that margin)

If you are speaking about math, strictly, you would have right, certainly but life change your math expectations and logic...

Since when is a problem for many Thai women to have more than one man? Don't tell me you don't know for such cases, that you never saw any?

And, that what i told about "multiple wives" is so old thing in Thailand that i am surprised you don't know for that. Are you talking with an ordinary Thais, except the family of your wife? I do so they told me that, i saw the things i couldn't understand or accept so i asked them to explain. What is strange to you about it?

OFF topic -- but my fault for bringing it up as a demonstration of your previously erroneous conclusions.

I speak Thai and live around Thais (not in a farang ghetto) and have lived in varied parts of the country for 8years, sbk has been married and living in Thailand for ages. Nobody I know would make the claims that you do.

Back to the topic ---------

PTP is deepening its association with the redshirt leadership (in an attempt to buy them parliamentary immunity) many of these leaders openly incited violence from the stages and are potentially subject to the harshest penalty allowed by Thai law. The death penalty.

Parliamentary immunity will NOT protect them from these charges when the time for a trial comes.

[yoshiwara]

I don't know. You tell me, please.

The one thing that is for sure is that you do not know at all. Period.

We do though have evidence that the red leader Arisman (on the run) explicitly incited the reds to burn down Bangkok and there is plenty of evidence that the blackshirts were running around as the reds armed wing.

As for deaths once the blackshirts went wild after Seh Daeng was shot they could have been spraying in all directions.

The escalation of the violence was the sole responsibility of the reds, though do please try again to push out the narrative that the reds were out on a peaceful stroll. Always amusing.

What really angers the more excitable red supporter in their faded Che T-shirts was that they lost and were driven off the streets. Dare one say it, but some supporters are still appear to be mightily enraged.

Its in the public domain. Care to refute?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2vRhaHRzuo&feature=related

[jdinasia]

WE= everyone in Thailand and abroad that have paid ANY attention to the redshirt rallies upcountry leading up to the BKK insurrection. Arisaman was filmed giving his speeches telling people to bring 1 million bottles to fill with petrol to burn BKK to the ground.

I would assume that you have seen this evidence stepenwolf ---- or have you not seen that? (Or any of the other speeches from inside BKK telling the people to burn buildings --- directly out of the mouths of the red leadership.

as a note of correction --- Sae Daeng's ronin were active on April 10th in a most destructive way, it did not wait until May13th for them to start killing.

[whybother]

I was CLEAR that i don't know that so i am asking people who might know that. Any problem about my asking?

The statement "A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians" in you first post on the thread is CLEAR that you were blaming Abhisit, not asking a question.

And my post stating that this was ANOTHER subject that you don't know anything about is confirmed by you here.

Edited February 27, 2011 by whybother

[stepenwolf1958]

I don't know. You tell me, please.

The one thing that is for sure is that you do not know at all. Period.

We do though have evidence that the red leader Arisman (on the run) explicitly incited the reds to burn down Bangkok and there is plenty of evidence that the blackshirts were running around as the reds armed wing.

As for deaths once the blackshirts went wild after Seh Daeng was shot they could have been spraying in all directions.

The escalation of the violence was the sole responsibility of the reds, though do please try again to push out the narrative that the reds were out on a peaceful stroll. Always amusing.

What really angers the more excitable red supporter in their faded Che T-shirts was that they lost and were driven off the streets. Dare one say it, but some supporters are still appear to be mightily enraged.

Nice to know you are so much about my thoughts and words here, even counting all. Thanks for paying so much attention RNZ. But i do nothing now, just asked who are they. I didn't claim "they" are paid staff or volunteers. I just ASKED are they. Learn to make a difference RNZ, please. I am civilized in talk, even with rivals in thinking. Stay calm, will you? No reason to be angry with me, just because i disagree with you or you with me, understand?

[stepenwolf1958]

I was CLEAR that i don't know that so i am asking people who might know that. Any problem about my asking?

The statement "A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians" in you first post on the thread is CLEAR that you were blaming Abhisit, not asking a question.

And my post stating that this was ANOTHER subject that you don't know anything about is confirmed by you here.

Yes, it is my opinion that he is responsible and i have RIGHT to form my opinion. Do i? If you would say i have right to have my own opinion then i will ask you what's your problem then?

If you read carefully all, if you take of your yellow coloured eyeglasses, you could see i ADMIT that i wrong, maybe. So i let the space to other to try to explain to me who did it. What's wrong?

[Robby nz]

Nice to know you are so much about my thoughts and words here, even counting all. Thanks for paying so much attention RNZ. But i do nothing now, just asked who are they. I didn't claim "they" are paid staff or volunteers. I just ASKED are they. Learn to make a difference RNZ, please. I am civilized in talk, even with rivals in thinking. Stay calm, will you? No reason to be angry with me, just because i disagree with you or you with me, understand?

I have no anger towards you at all in fact many of your posts make me smile.

However if you want to post you should at least read the rules.

Incidentaly I'm one of the WE who has followed this throughout and has a good understanding of what happened.

[stepenwolf1958]

I was CLEAR that i don't know that so i am asking people who might know that. Any problem about my asking?

The statement "A men who is responsible(directly) for the death of 90 civilians" in you first post on the thread is CLEAR that you were blaming Abhisit, not asking a question.

And my post stating that this was ANOTHER subject that you don't know anything about is confirmed by you here.

Yes, i am able to admit i don't know something(are you? ). I think it is not shame to admit that we don't know something but however, we have right to have some opinion(even wrong), agree?

BTW, fortunately, here is YOU elevated one, to inform me where is the true, right?

[whybother]

Yes, it is my opinion that he is responsible and i have RIGHT to form my opinion. Do i? If you would say i have right to have my own opinion then i will ask you what's your problem then?

If you read carefully all, if you take of your yellow coloured eyeglasses, you could see i ADMIT that i wrong, maybe. So i let the space to other to try to explain to me who did it. What's wrong?

If you don't know anything about it (which you admitted), how can you have an opinion such as that?

Where is the reasoning for your opinion?

Do a bit of research before coming out with stupid statements. That applies to every thread that you post in. It seems you get it wrong far too often.

[whybother]

Yes, i am able to admit i don't know something(are you? ). I think it is not shame to admit that we don't know something but however, we have right to have some opinion(even wrong), agree?

BTW, fortunately, here is YOU elevated one, to inform me where is the true, right?

If you can find something that I post that is incorrect, and provide evidence to show it, then I would have no problem admitting it.

You don't have a very good track record of proving ANYONE incorrect though. I don't think it's ever happened.

But given the statements you come out with, I'm not surprised.