Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[rixalex]

My point exactly. Sitting here arguing is a waste of time i suppose arguing about arguing isnt any better either, but im just trying to say its a waste of time in general. Cheers to pointing that out. Its family day im off to the park.

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

That's like me saying, what's the point of going to the park, you can't make the trees grow?

You aren't going to the park to make the trees grow. People aren't here to change the world, and because they aren't, doesn't mean they are wasting their time. We do with our own time what we please right? Stop worrying about others time, and worry about your own.

[zachlsd]

That's like me saying, what's the point of going to the park, you can't make the trees grow?

You aren't going to the park to make the trees grow. People aren't here to change the world, and because they aren't, doesn't mean they are wasting their time. We do with our own time what we please right? Stop worrying about others time, and worry about your own.

I will plant a tree in your honor. Thus turning your opinion into an action. You say i cant make the trees grow but today i will do just that with the wife n kids. Great idea, thx.

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[rixalex]

That's like me saying, what's the point of going to the park, you can't make the trees grow?

You aren't going to the park to make the trees grow. People aren't here to change the world, and because they aren't, doesn't mean they are wasting their time. We do with our own time what we please right? Stop worrying about others time, and worry about your own.

I will plant a tree in your honor. Thus turning your opinion into an action. You say i cant make the trees grow but today i will do just that with the wife n kids. Great idea, thx.

damned if you do, damned if you dont.

Well i'm pleased that something good has come from something stupid.

[TAWP]

" I was very clear about condemning the violence." BUT ALSO " (note, police can do crowd control / dispersal operations correctly in Thailand)."

Don't you think that the use of very nasty tear gas canisters, which caused one death and several people to lose limbs, worthy of condemnation, or is that your idea of correct dispersal operations?

I am guessing that you are aware that you have jumped to a different event from the dispersal event I mentioned above. Just to be clear for the other readers.

You are probably also aware of the details regarding how it came to be that the Chinese tear-gas canisters came to be used by the police and you should also be aware of the fact that the police did not know at the time that the canisters were not the normal tear-gas canisters used for crowd control.

Since you are probably aware of these details already (or maybe not, but I know that they have been posted here on TVF before), then I would turn the question back to you and ask who should be held responsible for that, or condemned for that?

Your allusions to the Police not knowing anything about the grenades they were using isn't true.

But I am not sure what your point is. It is their equipment. Even if they don't test nor train on it - and then use it on live test-subjects - they are still responsible for the effects of the grenades on the people.

[OzMick]

tiansford #317

Same sort of boring reply, all that waffle re Abhisit -nasty deeds. Maybe better spend your free time in drawing up a list of wrongs, 1 page for Abhisit, and another 1 for Thaksin,

(how many pages of his bending the rules) convicted on so many counts, and may be a lot more to come.

For you to say you have often condemned the red brigade-and the present elected government, is a joke OFTEN ?? haha your the one that is writing tripe. The brutal force by the army on (unarmed peaceful law abiding expenses paid mob-pillaging-burning red terrorist run movement.)

Escalation of the violence, Who was causing that????

I do not expect anything other than your stance, you smooth over the bad and magnify the good. take your blinkers off-then your perspective will improve. most posters try what we call constructive criticism, as for you condemning that because it hurts your perspective ??

"Same sort of boring reply"

- good that I didn't expend more effort in responding to you, then.

"your (sic) the one that is writing tripe"

- please brush up on your reading comprehension skills & you will find fewer people are writing tripe. I was very clear about condemning the violence. Other posters are the same.

Almost ready to open the thread parachute again, ....

" I was very clear about condemning the violence." BUT ALSO " (note, police can do crowd control / dispersal operations correctly in Thailand)."

Don't you think that the use of very nasty tear gas canisters, which caused one death and several people to lose limbs, worthy of condemnation, or is that your idea of correct dispersal operations?

I am guessing that you are aware that you have jumped to a different event from the dispersal event I mentioned above. Just to be clear for the other readers.

You are probably also aware of the details regarding how it came to be that the Chinese tear-gas canisters came to be used by the police and you should also be aware of the fact that the police did not know at the time that the canisters were not the normal tear-gas canisters used for crowd control.

Since you are probably aware of these details already (or maybe not, but I know that they have been posted here on TVF before), then I would turn the question back to you and ask who should be held responsible for that, or condemned for that?

Who is responsible for deaths and injuries when an explosive device is fired into a crowd? 55555555555555555

Do you not understand that ignorance is NO excuse?

I still have not seen one word of condemnation for an irresponsible act of violence that killed and maimed.

[tlansford]

" I was very clear about condemning the violence." BUT ALSO " (note, police can do crowd control / dispersal operations correctly in Thailand)."

Don't you think that the use of very nasty tear gas canisters, which caused one death and several people to lose limbs, worthy of condemnation, or is that your idea of correct dispersal operations?

I am guessing that you are aware that you have jumped to a different event from the dispersal event I mentioned above. Just to be clear for the other readers.

You are probably also aware of the details regarding how it came to be that the Chinese tear-gas canisters came to be used by the police and you should also be aware of the fact that the police did not know at the time that the canisters were not the normal tear-gas canisters used for crowd control.

Since you are probably aware of these details already (or maybe not, but I know that they have been posted here on TVF before), then I would turn the question back to you and ask who should be held responsible for that, or condemned for that?

Your allusions to the Police not knowing anything about the grenades they were using isn't true.

But I am not sure what your point is. It is their equipment. Even if they don't test nor train on it - and then use it on live test-subjects - they are still responsible for the effects of the grenades on the people.

The information I have read about the tear-gas canisters does indicate that the police thought they were using the devices they normally have which are meant for the situation that was at hand. Maybe you have other information, but I do not.

As for the point being made, please go ask Ozmick as it is his point and not mine, as you should have been able to determine from the thread above.

[TAWP]

The information I have read about the tear-gas canisters does indicate that the police thought they were using the devices they normally have which are meant for the situation that was at hand. Maybe you have other information, but I do not.

As for the point being made, please go ask Ozmick as it is his point and not mine, as you should have been able to determine from the thread above.

His point is that the Police are responsible no matter if they knew or didn't know - they cannot use untested equipment against people and then declare they are free of responsibility because they didn't know.

[nurofiend]

You make quite a pair.

One who doesn't understand how voting works and one who fails to grasp the meaning of the word "majority".

I can see how you would side with the reds.

if you bothered to read the thread properly, i clearly said from the start that i wasn't talking about an absolute majority but a majority of votes in comparision to other parties.. which is a relative majority.

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

these are two very simple, factually correct and easy to understand points that i made.

so either you and others genuinely didn't understand and failed to grasp what i was saying or ye were being purposely difficult and trying to make it look like i was saying what i wasn't...

and going by the usual form on here, i'd suggest it was the latter.

[nurofiend]

Nurofiend, that sucking noise coming from your computer is the sound of another TVF, Black-Hole, Denial-of-the-Obvious thread trying to suck the life-energy from you. Jump ship now !

Where is Phiphidon ? He has a great explanation of the phenomena ...

you must have read my mind cos i'd already left the thread by the time you posted this...

[rixalex]

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

[nurofiend]

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

but the public do have a say about who becomes PM by voting for the party of their choice who have a clear candidate for PM running for election.

edit: typo

Edited January 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[jayboy]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

[OzMick]

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

but the public do have a say about who becomes PM by voting for the party of their choice who have a clear candidate for PM running for election.

edit: typo

And once elected, MPs can immediately change their choice of PM, co-alition partner, or even party without any input from the voters - which is exactly how Abhisit was made PM. Ain't democracy grand !

[nurofiend]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

i get what he's trying to say also

im clearly not saying that the public decides the nominee for PM within the party...

but it seems to be the argument he's trying to have with me

[OzMick]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

After the words "his tenure was" you need to "allegedly".

There is NO legal or moral obligation on a new PM to hold an election until the current term of office expires. His credibility only shrinks in the minds of those who oppose him; but why should he care as he is not answerable until the next election is due.

edit - missed a "no"

Edited January 18, 2012 by OzMick

[rixalex]

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

but the public do have a say about who becomes PM by voting for the party of their choice who have a clear canditate for PM running for election.

The public has no say in who will be PM. The public votes for MPs. The MPs then vote for who will be PM. In the case of one party winning a strong relative majority (as in the last Thai General Election), or in the unlikely case of one party winning an absolute majority, it is usually a formality that the candidate put forward during campaigning will be voted in. In the case of no party having a strong relative majority, it becomes a much more complex process, involving a lot of jostling and deal brokering amongst coalition partners. Either way, the decision rests with MPs.

[nurofiend]

the fact that abhisit was voted for as an MP doesn't mean that that the public had the say about how he became PM... because the public didn't have the say about how he became PM.

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

but the public do have a say about who becomes PM by voting for the party of their choice who have a clear canditate for PM running for election.

The public has no say in who will be PM. The public votes for MPs. The MPs then vote for who will be PM. In the case of one party winning a strong relative majority (as in the last Thai General Election), or in the unlikely case of one party winning an absolute majority, it is usually a formality that the candidate put forward during campaigning will be voted in. In the case of no party having a strong relative majority, it becomes a much more complex process, involving a lot of jostling and deal brokering amongst coalition partners. Either way, the decision rests with MPs.

as i've siad...

im clearly not saying that the public decides the nominee for PM within the party

the public votes for a party in a general election knowing who the candidate for PM is.. how can you say that the public has no say about who becomes PM at that stage.

for example... someone likes the candidate for PM of a certain party, so they decide to vote for that party based on this, do they not have a say about who becomes PM?

it's a strawman, you know exactly what i mean and you're trying to spin it to me saying something that i'm not.

when i say that abhisit was never voted in as PM,

i mean that the public didn't vote the dems into power, you can nitpick and spin all you want... but you know exactly what i meant.

[jayboy]

There is NO legal or moral obligation on a new PM to hold an election until the current term of office expires. His credibility only shrinks in the minds of those who oppose him; but why should he care as he is not answerable until the next election is due.

I thought I had made the position clear.I agree there is no legal obligation for a Prime Minister (who has received no public endorsement - you omitted this aspect but it's critical) to hold an election before it's constitutionally due.The moral obligation isn't so clear cut but by definition it's subjective so reasonable people may take different views.My own view, which would be shared by most constitutional commentators, is that there is a moral requirement to seek the country's endorsement within a reasonable space of time in these circumstances.I can think of many examples where Prime Ministers who have won general elections (and thus received a wide public mandate) and hung on until the last possible moment before calling a general election.I cannot think of many PMs who have never received that public mandate hanging on until the longest time possible - even Abhisit didn't quite do that.

The main issue is however not legal or moral but practical politics.If a PM without national approval from electoral endorsement doesn't get that imprimatur, influence and power just drain away - as we saw in the UK in the case of Gordon Brown.

None of this is complicated or hard to understand.Personally I think Abhisit perhaps hung on a little too long but nothing untoward, nothing really to criticise.However to suggest that under a parliamentary system everything can be stitched up in grubby back room deals and that the views of country at large are irrelevant is not only silly but divorced from the realities of political life.

[rixalex]

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

Nurofriend proves the message has not sunk in.

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure

I'm not eager to do that. I was one of the ones who felt strongly that after having become PM, Abhisit had a public obligation to go to the polls sooner rather than later. I agree that he needed validation and endorsement. (I happen to think, had he done so, he would have faired far better in the polls than he ended up fairing, but that is another story). All that being said, it was also my opinion that Abhisit was legitimate and legal in his position, and that therefore it was his right to chose when to go to the polls, and it was not the right of anyone to demand or force him in making that decision. When Thaksin, via his red footsoldiers, attempted to do precisely this, it was in my opinion, important that their wishes be defied, because had they been granted, it would simply further establish the perpetuating cycle of one party getting in to power, and the other party taking to the streets.

you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

You accuse me of distorting and misleading, but the explanation that followed as to why you make that accusation gives no detail of what i have said that distorts or misleads. What you did say, i happen to, on the whole, agree with.

[SomTumTiger]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

It would have happened sooner, if only your idiot red shirt brothers hadn't decided to burn down the capital, instead of taking the deal that was offered on NATIONAL TV.

[jayboy]

Nurofriend proves the message has not sunk in.

From what you say we have more in common on this issue than I had realised.Thank you for the clarification.Let me also say that I agree your view about street pressure on the PM -i.e he shouldn't feel the need to give way to it.

[jayboy]

It would have happened sooner, if only your idiot red shirt brothers hadn't decided to burn down the capital, instead of taking the deal that was offered on NATIONAL TV.

Sorry I don't respond to this kind of post

[nurofiend]

Nurofriend proves the message has not sunk in.

From what you say we have more in common on this issue than I had realised.Thank you for the clarification.Let me also say that I agree your view about street pressure on the PM -i.e he shouldn't feel the need to give way to it.

lol, eh?

[wxyz]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

It would have happened sooner, if only your idiot red shirt brothers hadn't decided to burn down the capital, instead of taking the deal that was offered on NATIONAL TV.

exactly, there intent was to burn the capital and all of thailand before they even came to bangkok

the red shirt leaders orders to burn the country and execute troops even before they came to Bangkok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M9XiJoWSSs

The police and military are tasked with enforcing the law, even with the use of deadly force.

The criminal 'red shirt' crimes and the 'red shirt' partners criminal 'black shirt' aka 'men in black' aka 'black angels' crimes.

The police and military was too patient and tolerant if anything, allowing these groups to commit crime after crime against innocent citizens. The govt even accepted their demand for an election and then these criminals wanted more. They came to burn Bangkok, and nothing was going to stop them, no matter what the govt agreed to. The reds and blacks and mr T should be held accountable for all the deaths, not the govt, police nor military.

[OzMick]

The public does not have a say about any PM. The public grants the power to make that decision to the MPs that they vote for. Of course we can analyse election results and speculate about who the public favoured to be PM from those results, but it does not change the fact that it is not the role, nor the responsibility, of the public to appoint who will be PM.

I understand what you are trying to say and possibly it might be useful for those unfamiliar with the parliamentary system of government to understand that the public does not formally vote for a Prime Minister. (I am assuming however that the message sunk in months ago after the endless, and increasingly shrill, posts to this effect)

But in your eagerness to legitimise Abhisit's tenure you actually distort and mislead.Let me explain.Nobody with an understanding of the constitutional aspects disputes that Abhisit was a fully legal Prime Minister even though his tenure was planned in the barracks and sealed with old time money politics bribing the minority parties.Nevertheless in all parliamentary systems it is necessary for the Prime Minister to face the public for endorsement and that unless this happens there is a real question of legitimacy.If a Prime Minister is elected by his party without endorsement in the country at large nobody is suggesting he must immediately hold a general election, but his credibility shrinks or disappears if he does not do this in a reasonable space of time.

It would have happened sooner, if only your idiot red shirt brothers hadn't decided to burn down the capital, instead of taking the deal that was offered on NATIONAL TV.

exactly, there intent was to burn the capital and all of thailand before they even came to bangkok

the red shirt leaders orders to burn the country and execute troops even before they came to Bangkok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M9XiJoWSSs

The police and military are tasked with enforcing the law, even with the use of deadly force.

The criminal 'red shirt' crimes and the 'red shirt' partners criminal 'black shirt' aka 'men in black' aka 'black angels' crimes.

The police and military was too patient and tolerant if anything, allowing these groups to commit crime after crime against innocent citizens. The govt even accepted their demand for an election and then these criminals wanted more. They came to burn Bangkok, and nothing was going to stop them, no matter what the govt agreed to. The reds and blacks and mr T should be held accountable for all the deaths, not the govt, police nor military.

I disagree. IMHO the intent was to provoke the govt with those threats and other violence until a violent reaction occurred and a number of "protesters" were killed. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderers, and ruin any chance of (Dems) electoral success.

Those killed were and the damage done were merely collateral to that intent.

[rixalex]

I disagree. IMHO the intent was to provoke the govt with those threats and other violence until a violent reaction occurred and a number of "protesters" were killed. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderers, and ruin any chance of (Dems) electoral success.

Those killed were and the damage done were merely collateral to that intent.

I agree that that was most likely one of their motivations - to smear the Dems and thus damage their election chances - but i don't think it ultimately did play much of a part, as i don't think many Thais, regardless of what side they are on, do actually consider Abhisit or the Dems as murderers - any more at least than they consider Thaksin a murderer for his part in the war on drugs - and it is not like that allegation, which is certainly not without substance, affected his electability too much.

I think, at the end of the day, unless you actually murder with your own bare hands, the Thai electorate doesn't care that much.

[wxyz]

I disagree. IMHO the intent was to provoke the govt with those threats and other violence until a violent reaction occurred and a number of "protesters" were killed. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderers, and ruin any chance of (Dems) electoral success.

Those killed were and the damage done were merely collateral to that intent.

an understandable assumption, but they did not believe the govt would grant their demands, so in their minds it was the plan, and became even more obvious when they decided to burn the country down even after the govt granted their demands

and they apparently did not care if they killed civilians or even their own members as groups like these are often fond of doing and blaming the govt

sacrificing some of their own for the cause

[phiphidon]

snip

"the red shirt leaders orders to burn the country and execute troops even before they came to Bangkok"

You were wrong before and you still haven't learnt.

[gl555]

snip

"the red shirt leaders orders to burn the country and execute troops even before they came to Bangkok"

You were wrong before and you still haven't learnt.

They weren't here for 'peaceful' protests. They were here to overthrow the government through violence. Abhisit did well not caving to these thugs. As for their deaths when the Army went in, they have only themselves to blame.

[z12]

"Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown2011 POLITICAL VIOLENCE"

Are the 'red shirts', 'black shirts' aka 'men in black' aka 'black angels', mr T and his clone ready to answer for their crimes?

Edited January 29, 2012 by z12