Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[phiphidon]

Correct. Astute and accurate. Except he didn't forecast the fires, did he.

You remind me of those who thought the sun rotated around the Earth. They forgot to allow for their own point of observation when commenting on the actions of others.

Fires? Where did they come into the discussion? More obfuscation? In case you missed my point the guy is not exactly Mystic Meg is he?

[phiphidon]

What do you think of Abhisits decision to set up a committee to look into the truth of the incidents in 2010 that didn't have the powers to be able to insist on witnesses providing valuable information to that committee? Don't you think by that omission he was clearly stating his lack of commitment to the truth. Please bear in mind the the lies and half truths he, his government, the CRES and the Army had been spreading beforehand when considering your answer.

And with PTP being in power for 9 months .... nothing has changed.

That is no answer.

[whybother]

What do you think of Abhisits decision to set up a committee to look into the truth of the incidents in 2010 that didn't have the powers to be able to insist on witnesses providing valuable information to that committee? Don't you think by that omission he was clearly stating his lack of commitment to the truth. Please bear in mind the the lies and half truths he, his government, the CRES and the Army had been spreading beforehand when considering your answer.

And with PTP being in power for 9 months .... nothing has changed.

That is no answer.

It's an answer that doesn't suit your agenda.

[phiphidon]

When buchholz is finished falling about musing on the "laughable misunderstanding of the applications of the Geneva Convention" and you haved sated your desire for amusement over the misrepresentation of my member name (not for the first time, I hate to use the buchholz tactic of reporting everything but will do if you keep on with your silly little game) perhaps you may wish to read the following part of the 7 Fundamental Principals taken from the Chulakorn Hospital site:

Neutrality

In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

Analysis of the Fundamental Principle of Neutrality

The text under the Fundamental principle of Neutrality includes three elements:

• the purpose of complying with the principle of Neutrality is to enjoy the confidence of all. Implicitly, this compliance with the principle of Neutrality is also a condition for operational efficiency, which requires confidence of all in many contexts, i.e. not only in armed conflicts contexts;
  
• the principle of Neutrality prohibits a component of the Movement from taking part in hostilities;
  
• the principle of Neutrality prohibits the Movement from engaging at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
  

which rules out having armed soldiers on or in a Red Cross Hospital whether you call it a war, civil war, armed insurrection or whatever. There are also implications for the Impartiality and Independance of the hospital, 2 more of the 7 Fundamental Principles.

So obfuscate all you like, the above "should" be a mantra for the hospital, however, as has been seen by the the Thai HRW, they seem to have different viewpoints to the main body of their respective organisations.

I guess you'd rather reply to Buchholz than myself. I still await your reply on Protocol 2 of the Geneva Conventions (which you brought up) and how they apply.

And I again point out that AFTER the hospital was vacated, it is quite reasonable to have security forces on the ground given the nature and professed intent of their new near neighbours. The only proven militants to enter the hospital BEFORE the evacuation were red shirts, an event which caused the evacuation and for which they have apologised. But you keep flogging the dead horse if it amuses you.

I addressed you both. It appears I am wrong about the geneva convention - you did not answer my post about the 7 fundamental principals of the Red Cross that cover the same ground. The red shirts started their search of the hospital late on Thursday 29th. The shooting incident between the army and the red shirt guards occured on the morning of the 29th April. The hospital started evacuating its patients on the 30th April.

My dead horse is alive and kicking, thank you.

PS either use PPD or phiphidon

[hyperdimension]

Obfuscate to your hearts content, fact remains RTA murdered a lot of people, in cold blood, using snipers.

Probably not a world first in repression, but right up there in the general category.

Some here think it was justified, personally I think not.

Leave it at that and let the Thai people sort it out.

None of the deaths were justified or necessary and the Assxxxles on here who justify such are contemptible.

Thaksin planned the riots with his rogue generals at the end of 2009. How can anyone not expect a war-like situation to break out? They were generals with access to military weapons. Thaksin basically sent his Red Shirt pawns to their deaths, so he is ultimately responsible, and this may be why he wants everyone to just forget about it and "reconcile" to "move forward". Did you read the 2009 article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown that predicted the mayhem months in advance? It got most facts right, except for the timing - instead of February 2010 it all started in April 2010.

Ah, the reasoned mind of Sopon Onkgara at work. I can see why he appeals to you hyperdimension. He must be good at forecasting aka "wishing it upon" Here's part of an article of his predicting/wishing for "Another crackdown, more bloodshed expected" taken from The Nation, published April 20th 2010

That was another very good article from Sopon, this time published on 20 April 2010, 10 days after the April 10 crackdown, just 2 days before the M79 attack on the multi-colored protesters at Sala Daeng, and a month before the Ratchaprasong violence.

I urge everyone to read the article in its entirety: Another crackdown, more bloodshed expected

Edited May 1, 2012 by hyperdimension

[AleG]

Well, he claims to work in the industry in Thailand, so maybe it's his own creation? Whatever way, the video's far more bloody comical than his attempt to justify it (which is quite funny on it's own merit).

That's enough with this BS. If you are going to accuse me of creating false evidence have to guts to say it outright. If not retract and apologize.

So you don't even live in Thailand? then you didn't see this video as part of a presentation by the man in charge of the CRES as part of the evidence of the armed elements within the Red Shirts?

By the way, and just so you know, for the first time I reported a post.

Edited May 1, 2012 by AleG

[phiphidon]

That's enough with this BS. If you are going to accuse me of creating false evidence have to guts to say it outright. If not retract and apologize.

So you don't even live in Thailand? then you didn't see this video as part of a presentation by the man in charge of the CRES as part of the evidence of the armed elements within the Red Shirts?

By the way, and just so you know, for the first time I reported a post.

That would be Army Spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd (not in charge of CRES, that was Suthep) , who also said this

Spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd said unidentified snipers were responsible for deaths at the temple.

http://www.nationmul...m-30130490.html

He also said this

“I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist,” he says. “Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever.”

http://asiancorrespo...illed-any-reds/

and this

"Given the fan club and the popularity you have as CRES spokesman, do you think your job is successful?

I think we cannot call it a success yet. If it were successful, I should have been able to create a good understanding for everyone in society. But now, some people still think soldiers killed people in the recent incident."

http://www.nationmul...ng/1/0/30130388

and this

"The CRES spokesperson told the press that some people misrepresented the facts by claiming that the authorities killed red shirts, and he insisted that there were armed elements among protesters who killed the security forces and protesters and that soldiers did not use live ammunition. The Emergency Decree is to remain because there are offences against the monarchy. He also warned that the placing of red flowers in front of prisons by red shirts might constitute contempt of court."

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2015

and for those of you who don't believe that "The Nation" doesn't ask the hard hearted questions theres this exclusive interview with said army spokesman, watch it, it's enlightening.....................

http://www.nationmul...d=3031&cateid=6

[Rimmer]

One post, with a word play on a posters name removed

[metisdead]

A series of nonsense bickering posts commenting on posting habits of other members have been removed. Stick to the topic or don't bother posting.

[tlansford]

I am aware that it was about that and more. But they demanded early elections, elections that they would have got anyway if instead of protesting, they waited just another 1.5 to 2 years, which is an insignificant amount of time in the bigger scheme of things. Thaksin probably would have re-taken power anyway via his populist policies, just a little later than he wanted, and all of those people who had died would probably still be alive today.

The problem with this is nobody on the red shirt side trusted Abhisit to offer elections. He was already backtracking on the 3rd May

PM Abhisit explained that there are five factors in the solution of the political crisis at present...........

For the fifth factor, the PM said, I saw the opportunity to make reconciliation which will never be achieved without co-operations from all sides...................

..........................When we reach that such peaceful time, the government would be ready to hold a general election again for the people to elect a new government. The target date for the new general election is on November 14. However, he insisted that if the framework as set for the reconciliation is not achievable as aimed for, the government will continue its course and would not be able to tell when the new general election will be held.

He also warned the red shirts by saying this:

If the peace is not yet return, I would like to say to the red-shirt demonstrators that even though I have heard all of your opinions as expressed, I would not be able to respond to all your demands.

http://blog.nationmu...0/05/04/entry-1

Tuesday , May 4 , 2010

That peaceful time...............as defined by him. One mysterious bomb blast or one M79 fired from who knows, all bets are off. Please excuse my cynicism.

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

[rixalex]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

[hyperdimension]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

I agree. If the leaders (including Thaksin) cared for the lives of their followers (the useful idiots), they would have accepted Abhisit's offer and told them to go home and wait. They could come back later to protest if Abhisit did not dissolve the House early as promised.

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy.

I think there weren't enough dead people yet to later use as leverage, so they had to keep going. If they stopped then all that scheming with the rogue generals months prior and all the military weapons they had arranged would have been a waste of time and effort. They needed more people to die so that they could portray the military and government as being extremely brutal via their public relations / propaganda channels.

Edited May 1, 2012 by hyperdimension

[phiphidon]

What do you think of Abhisits decision to set up a committee to look into the truth of the incidents in 2010 that didn't have the powers to be able to insist on witnesses providing valuable information to that committee? Don't you think by that omission he was clearly stating his lack of commitment to the truth. Please bear in mind the the lies and half truths he, his government, the CRES and the Army had been spreading beforehand when considering your answer.

And with PTP being in power for 9 months .... nothing has changed.

That is no answer.

It's an answer that doesn't suit your agenda.

No, its no answer to the question I posed. Buchholz has refused to answer as well it seems.

[longway]

I am aware that it was about that and more. But they demanded early elections, elections that they would have got anyway if instead of protesting, they waited just another 1.5 to 2 years, which is an insignificant amount of time in the bigger scheme of things. Thaksin probably would have re-taken power anyway via his populist policies, just a little later than he wanted, and all of those people who had died would probably still be alive today.

The problem with this is nobody on the red shirt side trusted Abhisit to offer elections. He was already backtracking on the 3rd May

PM Abhisit explained that there are five factors in the solution of the political crisis at present...........

For the fifth factor, the PM said, I saw the opportunity to make reconciliation which will never be achieved without co-operations from all sides...................

..........................When we reach that such peaceful time, the government would be ready to hold a general election again for the people to elect a new government. The target date for the new general election is on November 14. However, he insisted that if the framework as set for the reconciliation is not achievable as aimed for, the government will continue its course and would not be able to tell when the new general election will be held.

He also warned the red shirts by saying this:

If the peace is not yet return, I would like to say to the red-shirt demonstrators that even though I have heard all of your opinions as expressed, I would not be able to respond to all your demands.

http://blog.nationmu...0/05/04/entry-1

Tuesday , May 4 , 2010

That peaceful time...............as defined by him. One mysterious bomb blast or one M79 fired from who knows, all bets are off. Please excuse my cynicism.

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

And yet there were early elections anyway with a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. On what planet can his offer could still be maintained to be a ruse?

[tlansford]

-- deleted text due to quotation limits --

The problem with this is nobody on the red shirt side trusted Abhisit to offer elections. He was already backtracking on the 3rd May

PM Abhisit explained that there are five factors in the solution of the political crisis at present...........

For the fifth factor, the PM said, I saw the opportunity to make reconciliation which will never be achieved without co-operations from all sides...................

..........................When we reach that such peaceful time, the government would be ready to hold a general election again for the people to elect a new government. The target date for the new general election is on November 14. However, he insisted that if the framework as set for the reconciliation is not achievable as aimed for, the government will continue its course and would not be able to tell when the new general election will be held.

He also warned the red shirts by saying this:

If the peace is not yet return, I would like to say to the red-shirt demonstrators that even though I have heard all of your opinions as expressed, I would not be able to respond to all your demands.

http://blog.nationmu...0/05/04/entry-1

Tuesday , May 4 , 2010

That peaceful time...............as defined by him. One mysterious bomb blast or one M79 fired from who knows, all bets are off. Please excuse my cynicism.

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

And yet there were early elections anyway with a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. On what planet can his offer could still be maintained to be a ruse?

A planet that includes facts.

[tlansford]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

"The truth was for the UDD,"

This is not the "truth". It is just your opinion.

[KireB]

No, its no answer to the question I posed. Buchholz has refused to answer as well it seems.

Dear PhiPhiDon, you must get very annoyed by me, but let me tell you that you never argue, once arguments are made you can only agree to!

Kettle, kettle, kettle.................

[KireB]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

"The truth was for the UDD,"

This is not the "truth". It is just your opinion.

And that of many among us here!

[KireB]

Great opinion and analyzing skills though!

[rubl]

A third and last time on this topic "Abhisit vows to back probe".

We have 288 replies so far and NO NEW INFORMATION. Various discussions I've seen a dozen or so times since May 2010. A single item may be interpreted for and against some cause AND will be interpreted as such.

K. Abhisit, or as some have it "Mark, the butcher of Bangkok". Must hurt a bit to an English educated person who understands the concept of 'fair play', a concept not really understood by most Thai I'm afraid (and some doubts on a few posters here as well). K. Thaksin of course is a really misunderstood, politically maligned and innocent person, ask the 2400++ people who died during his 'war on drugs', or the 84+ in Tak Bai (weak from fasting as Thaksin's first response was).

K. Abhisit arranged the TRTC but didn't give it executive powers. So blame Abhisit rather than praise him for at least getting things going. Go figure! A final report is due June (or July?) this year. It should contain a.o. a list of organisations and people who didn't co-operate. It's interesting to note that few here seem to mind that the current government is more interested in 'amnesty' than knowing the truth. It looks like unfounded accusations make more fun than the drag of digging for a ray of truth, or accepting the consequences.

[tlansford]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

"The truth was for the UDD,"

This is not the "truth". It is just your opinion.

And that of many among us here!

and not based on fact. Just opinion, speculation, and supposition, with a good dose of built-in bias - not too different from the link you provided.

[Roadman]

A third and last time on this topic "Abhisit vows to back probe".

We have 288 replies so far and NO NEW INFORMATION. Various discussions I've seen a dozen or so times since May 2010. A single item may be interpreted for and against some cause AND will be interpreted as such.

K. Abhisit, or as some have it "Mark, the butcher of Bangkok". Must hurt a bit to an English educated person who understands the concept of 'fair play', a concept not really understood by most Thai I'm afraid (and some doubts on a few posters here as well). K. Thaksin of course is a really misunderstood, politically maligned and innocent person, ask the 2400++ people who died during his 'war on drugs', or the 84+ in Tak Bai (weak from fasting as Thaksin's first response was).

K. Abhisit arranged the TRTC but didn't give it executive powers. So blame Abhisit rather than praise him for at least getting things going. Go figure! A final report is due June (or July?) this year. It should contain a.o. a list of organisations and people who didn't co-operate. It's interesting to note that few here seem to mind that the current government is more interested in 'amnesty' than knowing the truth. It looks like unfounded accusations make more fun than the drag of digging for a ray of truth, or accepting the consequences.

You missed adding the 91 deaths from his 2010 attack on Thailand. its Army and its people to the really misunderstood, politically maligned and innocent person.

The debates within do not hide that this has nothing to do with Reds rights or democracy, but for one fugitive convicted criminal to be above Thai law. Nothing has changed with one ex PM here in the country prepared to work with the law process and the consequences and the other running and avoiding the law process and the consequences.

[Skywalker69]

Great opinion and analyzing skills though!

Thanks for the link Kireb.

[longway]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

And yet there were early elections anyway with a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. On what planet can his offer could still be maintained to be a ruse?

A planet that includes facts.

and vast amounts of kool-aid that allows the inhabitants of the planet to ignore them.

[sparebox2]

That's enough with this BS. If you are going to accuse me of creating false evidence have to guts to say it outright. If not retract and apologize.

So you don't even live in Thailand? then you didn't see this video as part of a presentation by the man in charge of the CRES as part of the evidence of the armed elements within the Red Shirts?

By the way, and just so you know, for the first time I reported a post.

That would be Army Spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd (not in charge of CRES, that was Suthep) , who also said this

Spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd said unidentified snipers were responsible for deaths at the temple.

http://www.nationmul...m-30130490.html

He also said this

“I can categorically deny that the army has killed or hurt any Red Shirts or protesters, including the Japanese journalist,” he says. “Killing those persons would bring us no benefit whatsoever.”

http://asiancorrespo...illed-any-reds/

and this

"Given the fan club and the popularity you have as CRES spokesman, do you think your job is successful?

I think we cannot call it a success yet. If it were successful, I should have been able to create a good understanding for everyone in society. But now, some people still think soldiers killed people in the recent incident."

http://www.nationmul...ng/1/0/30130388

and this

"The CRES spokesperson told the press that some people misrepresented the facts by claiming that the authorities killed red shirts, and he insisted that there were armed elements among protesters who killed the security forces and protesters and that soldiers did not use live ammunition. The Emergency Decree is to remain because there are offences against the monarchy. He also warned that the placing of red flowers in front of prisons by red shirts might constitute contempt of court."

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2015

and for those of you who don't believe that "The Nation" doesn't ask the hard hearted questions theres this exclusive interview with said army spokesman, watch it, it's enlightening.....................

http://www.nationmul...d=3031&cateid=6

That's for the summary. These are the best proof that the army did not use life bullets, and did not kill anybody.

The Red kill themselves.

[KireB]

and not based on fact. Just opinion, speculation, and supposition, with a good dose of built-in bias - not too different from the link you provided.

Facts don't exist on a discussion board, just arguments and opinion. Even the 'facts' given by quoting news sources, are biased and carry, mostly, a political agenda. So, explain your point here please!

[rixalex]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

"The truth was for the UDD,"

This is not the "truth". It is just your opinion.

What a terribly lame response: "It is your opinion, therefore it is not the truth".

[tlansford]

The offer for elections by Abhisit was anything but firm - a point that seemed obvious to all involved. The UDD is routinely blamed here on TVF for rejecting the offer, but clearly they "welcomed" it when it was made, and rejected it when it was seen as a ruse, not a real offer.

The only way in which UDD would have accepted the offer was real, was if it came with no conditions whatsoever and if the elections were immediate. Abhisit had a year and a half remaining of his term, and as such was massively compromising by making the offer he did. A little compromise on the part of the UDD would have put the ball in Abhisit's court to show whether he was good to his word. Had he not been, then they could have declared, see, "it was just a ruse".

The truth was for the UDD, they really weren't that motivated in bringing the anarchy to an end. They could see things getting messier and felt confident that whatever happened, they would be the ones coming out of it looking like they had been persecuted and Abhisit looking like the bad guy. Of course one would have liked to think that the leaders of the reds would have put the lives of their supporters first, and given the deal a chance to work. Alas.

"The truth was for the UDD,"

This is not the "truth". It is just your opinion.

What a terribly lame response: "It is your opinion, therefore it is not the truth".

first, that is NOT what was stated. I did not attack your opinion.

But to state your opinion and call it the truth does not make it the truth.

You do not have any evidence that the UDD did not want to end the protest. But the opposite does have some evidence in the fact that the stated demands of the protesters from the beginning was to call for new elections. Also in the fact that the initial offer from the gov't to hold new elections was welcomed by the UDD. The protests did not end, however once the protesters saw the details of the offer, noted earlier in this thread by Phiphidon, which would allow Abhisit to renege on the offer, essentially, unilaterally.

Therefore, IMO, the UDD did want to end the protest once their objective for new elections had been achieved.

[rixalex]

You do not have any evidence that the UDD did not want to end the protest.

The evidence was the live TV broadcast meeting in which an offer was made, which was very reasonable. It wouldn't have been reasonable had that offer been backtracked on without reason of course, but to refuse an offer based on something someone might do in the future, is the sort of mentality that ensures no deal will ever be made.

As others have said, it would have been very easy for the UDD to organise renewed protests had the deal been a ruse. They should have given it a chance, and they would have, had they any thought for the lives of the protesters.

[weka]

"Therefore, IMO, the UDD did want to end the protest once their objective for new elections had been achieved. "

and burnt down Central world as a parting appreciation gift and further demonstration of goodwill and distrust of the government at the time.

Wake up man - the UDD were LOVING causing havoc and disrupting peoples lives - it made them feel important and powerful - just like the puppet masters feel now after their drones have done their bidding.

The whole sordid affair is just as it looks - Rich people using poor people to make themselves richer!

It's called "Thai Society 101"

Democracy/UDD/Elections - utter smokescreens!

Thai people would laugh at you lot trying to "democratically or politically or legally" justify the actions of glorified warlords. Thais know the score, latch on to who will feed you for as long as they do so, and then latch on to the next bunch.

Social conditioning for a country that's been engineered that way for thousands of years