Terrorism Charges Against Red Shirts Were 'Inflated', Police, Public Prosecutors Claim

[jdinasia]

neither myself OR the report say the reds did nothing wrong, it simply states that the terrorism charges are exaggerated, a sentiment that i and many others agree with. Riot? maybe. Civil disobedience? yes. Public disorder? yes. terrorism? no.

I think you should go back and read the article again.

It does not say that all the charges were inflated. It doesn't even say most were. Riot, yes. Civil disobedience, yes. Terrorism, yes. Simply not all the people that were charged with terrorism should have been (according to the article.)

edit --- let's not forget the other charges that can be laid against some of the reds.

Murder

attempted murder

mass murder

murder for hire

extortion

sedition

treason

arson

incitement to commit all of the above

conspiracy to commit all of the above .....

Edited August 12, 2011 by jdinasia

[MAJIC]

Let the WHITEWASH begin,

soon it will be Painted as a Peaceful Demonstration,

[mccw]

So sad. Some People seem to be overjoyed that those who burnt down their own capital can get away with it. Maybe same kinda fools making excuses for the scum who just wrought havoc in London. like not being able to afford many luxury items is an excuse for criminal behaviour.sick in the brain

[hawker9000]

So transparent.

[moe666]

So far so good

[louse1953]

At last, the truth is starting to emerge, many of us already knew this but the blinkered few on here still believed otherwise, and no doubt will go on believing otherwise.

It's funny the "truth"emerges after a change of government.Who are they sucking up to now and how weak to kowtow to so called pressure.It's all part of the whitewashing process which will allow big bro. to come back and not go to prison,or face charges of incitement.If there are no consequences,history will be repeated.

[Ricardo]

Thai ruk thai won elections what was it 3 times.

Twice, in 2001 and 2005, the 2006-elections were annulled by the Electoral Commission.

[Crushdepth]

Thai ruk thai won elections what was it 3 times.

Twice, in 2001 and 2005, the 2006-elections were annulled by the Electoral Commission.

When your party is dissolved for electoral fraud you don't "win", you lose

[rixalex]

neither myself OR the report say the reds did nothing wrong, it simply states that the terrorism charges are exaggerated, a sentiment that i and many others agree with. Riot? maybe. Civil disobedience? yes. Public disorder? yes. terrorism? no.

Riot? Maybe

Maybe?! On what planet would all that destruction have not been described as rioting?

As for the terrorism call, the term may well have been used a little liberally in the case of some, but when you get involved with doing stupid illegal things, you may find at times the wrong exact wording being applied. I'm sure the yellows whose sit in at the airport has been known to have been described as an overthrow of said place, probably also feel hard done by by that description, but at the end of the day, few will have much in the way of sympathy.

[gregb]

Let's not forget it was the red faction that started this whole ridiculous terrorism angle by trying to claim the PAD protest at the airport was terrorism. Many people in Thailand are so used to being able to bend the justice system any way they please that they forget that precedents do matter.

Terrorism charges were ridiculous on both sides.

Except in Thaksin's case. He should definitely be charged with terrorism, evidence or not. In fact not just charged. He should be convicted of terrorism. That man is evil and is guilty of everything including illegally breathing the same air as me. The sooner the world is rid of him the better off we will be. I would even contribute to the fund to launch his ashes into space to make sure that no part of him ever pollutes this planet again.

But as for the rest of the redshirts and the PAD, terrorism charges have always been ridiculous and politically motivated. None of what anyone did is terrorism. Insurgency and treason yes. Terrorism no.

[Crushdepth]

I'm not sure that terrorism charges aren't warranted in some cases. The use of M79 grenades, RPGs and automatic weapons was obviously intended to provoke an armed government response, and ultimately resulted in 90 bodies. If that's not terrorism, what is?

[gregb]

I'm not sure that terrorism charges aren't warranted in some cases. The use of M79 grenades, RPGs and automatic weapons was obviously intended to provoke an armed government response, and ultimately resulted in 90 bodies. If that's not terrorism, what is?

I would call that insurrection, not terrorism. They weren't actually trying to instil fear in the population that they would use asynchronous warfare on random innocent targets to get what they wanted.

What they were doing is very definitely trying to provoke a military response by the government. I would consider it a declaration of war, and would therefore try them in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

[rixalex]

Let's not forget it was the red faction that started this whole ridiculous terrorism angle by trying to claim the PAD protest at the airport was terrorism. Many people in Thailand are so used to being able to bend the justice system any way they please that they forget that precedents do matter.

Terrorism charges were ridiculous on both sides.

Except in Thaksin's case. He should definitely be charged with terrorism, evidence or not. In fact not just charged. He should be convicted of terrorism. That man is evil and is guilty of everything including illegally breathing the same air as me. The sooner the world is rid of him the better off we will be. I would even contribute to the fund to launch his ashes into space to make sure that no part of him ever pollutes this planet again.

But as for the rest of the redshirts and the PAD, terrorism charges have always been ridiculous and politically motivated. None of what anyone did is terrorism. Insurgency and treason yes. Terrorism no.

Terrorism charges were ridiculous on both sides.

Really? Perhaps when we hear the word terrorist, stereotyping has us conjuring images of men with had long beards, turbans and speaking Arabic.

The fact is that terrorism is simply the method of using fear on the back of violence,and the threat of further violence, in order to achieve certain aims. Under those terms, how could the red shirt actions of last year possibly not qualify as being just that? Not saying that all the red shirts involved were terrorists, but the movement as a whole was using terrorist means, was it not?

[jdinasia]

I'm not sure that terrorism charges aren't warranted in some cases. The use of M79 grenades, RPGs and automatic weapons was obviously intended to provoke an armed government response, and ultimately resulted in 90 bodies. If that's not terrorism, what is?

I would call that insurrection, not terrorism. They weren't actually trying to instil fear in the population that they would use asynchronous warfare on random innocent targets to get what they wanted.

What they were doing is very definitely trying to provoke a military response by the government. I would consider it a declaration of war, and would therefore try them in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

Using weapons randomly around the city and country, such as the grenade attacks is absolutely within the scope of terrorism charges. The only people that would fall under military law would be members of the military (which may or may not include retired officers.)

[MAJIC]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

[rixalex]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

Like a glove i would say.

[gregb]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

I guess because in my opinion that is not a proper definition for the word terrorism. Terrorism derives from the word terror, meaning fear. If I am going to call something terrorism, the group must be primarily interested in instilling fear into the general, innocent population, not simply a systematic use of violence and intimidation against anyone. By that definition simply standing up to a corrupt police force could be considered terrorism. There are other, more appropriate charges where fear in the general population is not the primary tool being used.

Too many people are trying to jump on the terrorism bandwagon these days because of the international condemnation of it. That is why the red shirts began this stupidity by trying to call the PAD terrorists. They didn't even consider at the time it might come back to bite them in the ass.

I have no love for the redshirts, and I despise their leader, but it is important to act rationally here so that the same rational standards will be used with everyone in the future.

[Crushdepth]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

I guess because in my opinion that is not a proper definition for the word terrorism. Terrorism derives from the word terror, meaning fear. If I am going to call something terrorism, the group must be primarily interested in instilling fear into the general, innocent population, not simply a systematic use of violence and intimidation against anyone. By that definition simply standing up to a corrupt police force could be considered terrorism. There are other, more appropriate charges where fear in the general population is not the primary tool being used.

Too many people are trying to jump on the terrorism bandwagon these days because of the international condemnation of it. That is why the red shirts began this stupidity by trying to call the PAD terrorists. They didn't even consider at the time it might come back to bite them in the ass.

I have no love for the redshirts, and I despise their leader, but it is important to act rationally here so that the same rational standards will be used with everyone in the future.

Would you call launching M79 grenades from the red-shirt compounds into a skytrain terminal, thereby injuring about 100 ordinary people with a couple of fatalities, terrorism? Or not?

[yellow1red1]

Has anyone ever given any thought to why the many countries that Thaksin visited refused the Thai government requests to extradite him?

Interpol was and is of the opinion that it was politically motivated. HMMMMMMM!

If all Thai politicians were investigated the way Thaksin was investigated, there wouldn't be enough politicians from all the parties to form a government.

This is so, so, so, so TRUE!

Edited August 15, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes.

[animatic]

Heavy backpedaling by all underlings, the new bosses must be pleased ASAP.

[yellow1red1]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

I guess because in my opinion that is not a proper definition for the word terrorism. Terrorism derives from the word terror, meaning fear. If I am going to call something terrorism, the group must be primarily interested in instilling fear into the general, innocent population, not simply a systematic use of violence and intimidation against anyone. By that definition simply standing up to a corrupt police force could be considered terrorism. There are other, more appropriate charges where fear in the general population is not the primary tool being used.

Too many people are trying to jump on the terrorism bandwagon these days because of the international condemnation of it. That is why the red shirts began this stupidity by trying to call the PAD terrorists. They didn't even consider at the time it might come back to bite them in the ass.

I have no love for the redshirts, and I despise their leader, but it is important to act rationally here so that the same rational standards will be used with everyone in the future.

terrorism is an idiot crime invented by a war criminals, the Bush admin... in racial attacks perps don't get charged with hatism... < get it? assault gets branded a 'hate' crime for sentencing,,, same it should be for taking over airports ,,, commandeering public places and hijacking airplanes... make the charge the DETAILS of the violation and rank it it as a TERROR crime only for the sentencing. [it would be like charging inane, partisan, off topic Posters with idiotism]

[hanuman1]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

Like a glove i would say.

Can someone explain how the use of violence and intimidation by red shirted factions can be described as systematic? It implies that such actions were present in all they did. Given that the majority of red shirt demonstrations over the years have not included such actions (since demos that have passed off peacefully in various provinces obviously haven't made headline news), I rather think this 'terrorist' epithet is leveled at them for a number of incidents which do not characterize a far greater number of events that do not fit with this description of terrorism.

That's not to belittle the crimes that certain red shirt supporters seem to have committed in specific instances, but since the word 'systematic' was brought up, I hardly think this describes the red shirt MO overall. As for 'organized', that again may have been apparent up to a point during the worst of the criminal activity such as the incidents of May last year, but even that is yet to be clearly established in any court of law.

Unless someone can explain why the use of violence and intimidation by red shirts were both systematic and organized, this definition of terrorism just seems to show why the red shirts should not be classified as terrorists.

The floor is yours....

Edited August 13, 2011 by hanuman1

[rubl]

I don't know why some members of TV are trying to downgrade the actions of the Redshirts to exclude Terrorism,

According to my Dictionary the word Terrorism fits the Redshirts perfectly.

Terrorism n

the systematic and organised use of violence and intimidation to force a government,

community, etc, to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

Like a glove i would say.

Can someone explain how the use of violence and intimidation by red shirted factions can be described as systematic? It implies that such actions were present in all they did. Given that the majority of red shirt demonstrations over the years have not included such actions (since demos that have passed off peacefully in various provinces obviously haven't made headline news), I rather think this 'terrorist' epithet is leveled at them for a number of incidents which do not characterize a far greater number of events that do not fit with this description of terrorism.

That's not to belittle the crimes that certain red shirt supporters seem to have committed in specific instances, but since the word 'systematic' was brought up, I hardly think this describes the red shirt MO overall. As for 'organized', that again may have been apparent up to a point during the worst of the criminal activity such as the incidents of May last year, but even that is yet to be clearly established in any court of law.

Unless someone can explain why the use of violence and intimidation by red shirts were both systematic and organized, this definition of terrorism just seems to show why the red shirts should not be classified as terrorists.

The floor is yours....

The systematic approach seems to have started around begin of 2009 with a retread around April 2009 to be continued in full force from begin of 2010 till 19th of May 2010. The fact that all later protests, gatherings and commemorations of various red-shirt factions were peaceful may have more to do with a few UDD leaders being incarcerated (or just on the run).

Almost none of the red-shirts and even UDD members should be classified as 'terrorists'. A good dozen of UDD leaders who just happen to be 'respectable' MPs all of a sudden I'd call a completely different kettle of fish. With all antics April - may 2010 and even before, all well documented thanks to PTV broadcast, I think a label of 'terrorist' fits them well. Of course some disagree, this is a nice one from Robert A.:

"Without reservation I extend my warmest congratulations to Prime Minister Yingluck along with the 15 million members of the Red Shirt movement and millions of other Thai citizens, who, disgusted with the unfairness and ineptitude of unelected leadership, have bravely stood up for their rights and prevailed."

Edited August 13, 2011 by rubl

[osiboy]

OK, so they're saying they shouldn't have been charged with terrorism. What should they have been charged with then? Surely they're not innocent of everything.

do you have a concience ?..........are you interested in seeing justice ? ie, the police/army also being charged for murder of innocent people such as the voulenteer nurses who were killed by snippers ? , .............or was EVERYTHING the fault of the r/s protesters ? ,...... turns out they were right and the ruling yellow shirts were holding power without the consent of the thai people as just proved by the election ,......... none of these murderers have been brought to book either , at least the red shirts were proved to be justified in their protest , there is no justice for murderers !,.... sleep well

[Ricardo]

OK, so they're saying they shouldn't have been charged with terrorism. What should they have been charged with then? Surely they're not innocent of everything.

do you have a concience ?..........are you interested in seeing justice ? ie, the police/army also being charged for murder of innocent people such as the voulenteer nurses who were killed by snippers ? , .............or was EVERYTHING the fault of the r/s protesters ? ,...... turns out they were right and the ruling yellow shirts were holding power without the consent of the thai people as just proved by the election ,......... none of these murderers have been brought to book either , at least the red shirts were proved to be justified in their protest , there is no justice for murderers !,.... sleep well

"without the consent of the Thai people as just proved by the election"

Please understand that only 48.4% of the vote went to PTP, more than a year after the extended-riots in Bangkok, out of the 75% of voters who actually bothered to vote, this time. That's not the whole of "the Thai people", it's not even a majority of those who voted, and many of them may also have been influenced by the promise of a 300B/day universal minimum-wage immediately after the PTP were elected, rather than last year's events.

"the ruling yellow shirts were holding power without the consent of the thai people"

Yet the Democrat-led coalition-government had a majority in Parliament, so must have had the consent of sufficient of the people's elected-representatives, when that government was formed ? Just as the previous two PPP-led coalition-governments also did. You can't logically argue that the Democrat-led coalition (NB not "ruling yellow shirts" - there's a difference) was unrepresentative, without also accepting that the same was true of the two previous administrations, or can you ? No Double Standards ! Personally I accept the legality of all three administrations, as they were empowered by the revered Head-of-State.

I'd also agree with the continuing investigation into what went on in 2010, and would have no problem with charges of murder being laid against any official, who could be proven to have exceeded his authority. Would you similarly accept charges against Red-leaders who called for violence, or Black-Shirt armed-men who fired guns at the soldiers, or Red-Shirts who set fire to buildings & threw sharpened bamboo-spears at soldiers, or the people who financed the whole thing, if these can be proven ?

Peaceful protest does have its limits, doesn't it ?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Ricardo

[Gary A]

The Thai people want and are entitled to an elected government. To say that the democrats were elected by the people is quite a stretch.

The yellow shirts taught the red shirts how to cause mayhem by seizing the government house, then stealing and trashing everything in it. I doubt that many countries would allow a rabble to hijack the government headquarters.

Taking over the airport and stranding thousands of visitors was WAY over the top. Where was the army when the rabble took control of a major international airport?

People seem to have forgotten what the yellow shirts started and now concentrate on the stupid acts of ONLY the red shirts.

The sooner all wrong doings are buried and forgotten, the sooner the country can get on with life and make progress. There are fingers to be pointed at both sides but what does that accomplish other than causing more tension?

[Thaddeus]

Taking over the airport and stranding thousands of visitors was WAY over the top. Where was the army when the rabble took control of a major international airport?

The yellows occupied a very small portion of the airport, peacefully, anyone could walk around them without let or hindrance.

It was the airport authority that closed the place.

Why?

[samurai]

Taking over the airport and stranding thousands of visitors was WAY over the top. Where was the army when the rabble took control of a major international airport?

The yellows occupied a very small portion of the airport, peacefully, anyone could walk around them without let or hindrance.

It was the airport authority that closed the place.

Why?

fairy tales.

[Thaddeus]

Taking over the airport and stranding thousands of visitors was WAY over the top. Where was the army when the rabble took control of a major international airport?

The yellows occupied a very small portion of the airport, peacefully, anyone could walk around them without let or hindrance.

It was the airport authority that closed the place.

Why?

fairy tales.

Really?

[Siam Simon]

Taking over the airport and stranding thousands of visitors was WAY over the top. Where was the army when the rabble took control of a major international airport?

The yellows occupied a very small portion of the airport, peacefully, anyone could walk around them without let or hindrance.

It was the airport authority that closed the place.

Why?

Radical yellow shirt protestors had gotten airside, including invading the control tower. International aviation law thus obliged the airport authorities to close the airport. Anything else you want explaining about why this was more than just a few people waving foot clappers in one of the terminals? Such as the barricades set up and manned by baseball bat-wielding yellow shirt guards on the access roads to the airport?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Siam Simon