Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[Skywalker69]

So why were there kids inside the Reds camp?

Read the link and you will find out, that's why Buchholz went to the bother of posting a link so people have got some background when posting a reply. You may also of course want to find out other links and post them as long as they're relevant.

But seeing that the bulk of your posting history seems to consist of 3 - 5 word sentences I won't hold my breath.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278839/Thai-protesters-use-child-human-shield-country-faces-civil-war.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/17/thailand-protests-children-army

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1989543,00.html

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6956247.html

[Siam Simon]

Conscientious objector in Germany

Red Cross paramedic

Buddhist following the Teaching of the Buddha not to kill.

When I saw before the raid on the Hospital a tomatocop discussing with a read leader that they can "inspect" the hospital

to take out supposed snipers, my emotional and justified (Geneva Convention about war crimes) reaction was - give me a pistol, put it to the temple of the red shirt terrorist leader and ask him to retire with his mob. If not , I kill you to protect my innocent sick people in the Hospital.

as a paramedic showing extreme concern at abuse of the sanctity of a hospital, you must've also been at least as equally concerned by the reports that army personnel might be abusing that sanctity by using the upper floors of that hospital to shoot protesters, right? I'm assuming that you obtained a pistol and checked the upper floors for what was potentially such an obscene abuse of that hospital's sanctity, ready to shoot in the temple any bananasoldiers that you might find, right? Did you shoot any of the PAD-leaning admin or doctors who endangered patients' lives with their completely unnecessary showboating evacuation?

[Siam Simon]

One of the few honourable and most honest Thai's that is involved with the governance of what could be an awesome country.

Comparing the morals and values of Abhisit against Thaksin or any many of the Shinwatra's is like chalk and cheese.

it was never about whether or not Abhisit was an honorable man. We all know Mr. Toxic was not. The issue was that Abhisit was never permitted to do anything to benefit the Thai people. He was bought and paid for, by the Army. He was completely, and utterly beholden to the generals. Also, being junior in age, to all of the rest of the people in the administration was a great limitation for him, and one of the reasons he was so terrible ineffective. He did very, very little to benefit the average Thai. He did a great job of making sure the wealthy got wealthier. But, that is the job or PM, or President in most countries, so he was not the exception to the rule.

Who would have been a better alternative at the time to lead the country?

Anybody who became Prime Minister as a result of a general election, even if it meant negotiations in smoky rooms between politicians. But most definitely not any negotiations resulting from arm-twisting by the military.

[Siam Simon]

<p>

"For the most part" - so the obvious, well known incident was completely isolated?

I had a quick hunt for your post a year ago for the pics featuring the PAD using handguns, but couldn't find anything. Would be nice to see something a little more concrete, beyond opinions of possible outcomes that never were. Even the odd solid reference to what they supposedly stated wouldn't hurt.

Would a video help?

I kind of thought you would post this, so 'well' an done-sided informed you are.This is the infamous Vibhavadi Road attack on the Yellows on their way to Don Muang by thugs coming from the side soi's. Please take into your well informed consideration the timing of this incident, the Yellows had to leave their camps because of the nightly bombings and grenade attacks that took many victims. They were under assault and decided to go to Don Muang to change their setting of protest. Hey, if you lob grenades at me every night, you too can expect me to carry a defensive weapon! Not that I am in favor of violence, but in the perspective of the events at that time, you could wait for this to happen. David against Goliath still!How about this videos, to put this last expression in perspective:http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=9478

And one of their pet rabbits had just died and one of them had just had a rollicking from their boss at work and one of them was coming straight off an argument with their mum and another one's car had just broken down and.....oh, look.....another one's firing live bullets at a crowd of people he doesn't like..... Never mind.....

[metisdead]

Additional off topic posts, baiting posts, and replies have been removed. This topic is not about the PAD events of 2008.

Removed a post that alleges others were paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

[Buchholz]

Conscientious objector in Germany

Red Cross paramedic

Buddhist following the Teaching of the Buddha not to kill.

When I saw before the raid on the Hospital a tomatocop discussing with a read leader that they can "inspect" the hospital

to take out supposed snipers, my emotional and justified (Geneva Convention about war crimes) reaction was - give me a pistol, put it to the temple of the red shirt terrorist leader and ask him to retire with his mob. If not , I kill you to protect my innocent sick people in the Hospital.

as a paramedic showing extreme concern at abuse of the sanctity of a hospital, you must've also been at least as equally concerned by the reports that army personnel might be abusing that sanctity by using the upper floors of that hospital to shoot protesters, right? I'm assuming that you obtained a pistol and checked the upper floors for what was potentially such an obscene abuse of that hospital's sanctity, ready to shoot in the temple any bananasoldiers that you might find, right? Did you shoot any of the PAD-leaning admin or doctors who endangered patients' lives with their completely unnecessary showboating evacuation?

unnecessary evacuation?

What ridiculousness. Armed marauders invading the hospital made evacuation absolutely necessary and was a decision that would have been made anywhere under similar circumstances.

Please reveal the source of information for this latest revision and provide a list of hospital administrators and medical doctors that were "PAD-leaning" and why you think they would reverse all their years of providing patient care to thousands in order to simply "showboat" for a political movement.

Ridiculous.

.

[hyperdimension]

Yes,both the military shuffle and the sense of injustice of having their elections stolen from them, be it by the army or the constitutional courts. As far as they are concerned the constitutional court judges were put in place by the military junta so a double whammy if you like.

But why the rush when there would be elections anyway? Was it really necessary and worth it to risk injury or death simply in order to have elections a little earlier?

Can you answer the question?

Looking at the big picture, the 2010 protests and consequent injuries and deaths were unnecessary. All that turmoil was for and by Thaksin. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for all deaths, injuries and damages. He could have waited until the government's term expired to re-take power via an election and attractive populist policies, but instead he took the violent route, scheming with such characters as Major General Khattiya Sawasdipol in December 2009 (as described in Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown), knowing clearly that people will die, and then using those deaths as leverage against his opponents. How can you or anyone defend this madman?

Who you talking to,me? If it's me I've already answered it.

You did not answer my questions in relation to the urgency: "But why the rush when there would be elections anyway? Was it really necessary and worth it to risk injury or death simply in order to have elections a little earlier?"

Do you think that those who ordered, planned and organized the protests, knowing that there'll be deaths and injuries, are completely innocent and should not be held accountable?

[phiphidon]

So why were there kids inside the Reds camp?

Read the link and you will find out, that's why Buchholz went to the bother of posting a link so people have got some background when posting a reply. You may also of course want to find out other links and post them as long as they're relevant.

But seeing that the bulk of your posting history seems to consist of 3 - 5 word sentences I won't hold my breath.

http://www.dailymail...-civil-war.html

http://www.guardian....s-children-army

http://www.time.com/...1989543,00.html

http://english.peopl...51/6956247.html

OK, one link that buchholz had already reported and the other three based on a report from the Army Spokesman who wouldn't have an agenda at all, now would he? To be expected, the Guardian actually delves into the report and provides its own take on the images provided by the Army

"The reason why officers can't go into the area is because of this – the terrorists are using children and women as their shields," the officer said.

It is not known how long the boy was held on the barriers or how close troops were to him.

Whereas the ever emotive Daily Mail has this image

helpfully they provide an explanation : Vulnerable: The child, who seems to be clutching a bottle (?), is clearly visible to Thai soldiers looking through their gunsights

"So that's why the officers can't go into the area because of this" - nothing to do with their supposed international rules of engagement of keeping at least 400 metres away from the Red Shirts then?

So, nothing new, just one irresponsible parent and his kid. Did you read the link about real human shields as per the PAD?

[hyperdimension]

it would seem no single political party holds the monopoly on corruption here.

You are correct, and it's not new knowledge.

But the topic is about the deaths during the bloody 2010 riots that were planned by Thaksin as described in the 2009 article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown. Is Thaksin culpable at all for the deaths?

Edited April 27, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Buchholz]

http://www.dailymail...-civil-war.html

http://www.guardian....s-children-army

http://www.time.com/...1989543,00.html

http://english.peopl...51/6956247.html

Coupled with those children and elderly present at Ratchaprasong, it's worth noting that human shields doesn't necessarily mean they have to be held up in the direct line of fire on the front line to be considered as such.

.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Buchholz

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Siam Simon]

Conscientious objector in Germany

Red Cross paramedic

Buddhist following the Teaching of the Buddha not to kill.

When I saw before the raid on the Hospital a tomatocop discussing with a read leader that they can "inspect" the hospital

to take out supposed snipers, my emotional and justified (Geneva Convention about war crimes) reaction was - give me a pistol, put it to the temple of the red shirt terrorist leader and ask him to retire with his mob. If not , I kill you to protect my innocent sick people in the Hospital.

as a paramedic showing extreme concern at abuse of the sanctity of a hospital, you must've also been at least as equally concerned by the reports that army personnel might be abusing that sanctity by using the upper floors of that hospital to shoot protesters, right? I'm assuming that you obtained a pistol and checked the upper floors for what was potentially such an obscene abuse of that hospital's sanctity, ready to shoot in the temple any bananasoldiers that you might find, right? Did you shoot any of the PAD-leaning admin or doctors who endangered patients' lives with their completely unnecessary showboating evacuation?

unnecessary evacuation?

What ridiculousness. Armed marauders invading the hospital made evacuation absolutely necessary and was a decision that would have been made anywhere under similar circumstances.

Please reveal the source of information for this latest revision and provide a list of hospital administrators and medical doctors that were "PAD-leaning" and why you think they would reverse all their years of providing patient care to thousands in order to simply "showboat" for a political movement.

Ridiculous.

.

Doctors at Chula hospital made a public statement after the bungled police dispersal of PAD protesters outside parliament in 2008 stating that they would refuse to treat police officers injured by PAD rioters (thus breaking their hippocratic oath btw). They also stated that they would be canvassing doctors at other hospitals to do the same, ie: Canvassing other doctors to break their hippocratic oath too. So the dubious morality of these characters was established back then in their determination to support the PAD

Wrt the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula in 2010. Appalling though it was, it's my understanding that they were looking for army snipers who they believed to be stationed in the upper part of the hospital. Did the Red Shirts rip out patients' intravenous drips? steal patients' medication? unplug any venillators or other life support systems? Throw patients out of their beds? Why is having some people walking through a hospital (doctors, official visitors and even patients do this in hospitals all the time, you know) more dangerous to a patient's health than moving that patient to another hospital?

The evacuation was political showboating by a hospital that has an established history of morally dubious political showboating imo.

[airconsult]

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Abhisit offered to step down, call an early election, before the violence and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. Get your facts, and time line right!

Interesting - I would say you responded after the meat and potatoes of Abhisit's 2008 statements to the press was removed - even though I regard them as very on-topic considering his later actions in 2010.

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

Edited April 27, 2012 by airconsult

[KireB]

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Abhisit offered to step down, call an early election, before the violence and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. Get your facts, and time line right!

Interesting - I would say you responded after the meat and potatoes of Abhisit's 2008 statements to the press was removed - even though I regard them as very on-topic considering his later actions in 2008.

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

Timeline:

March 28 2010: Negotiation with Red shirts leaders who give a 1 hour ultimatum to step down (Dissolution)

March 28 2010: Abhisit offers to step down, call early elections only when the Reds leave the city and the situation cools down

Match 28 2010: Red negotiators seem initially to agree with this proposal, but suddenly and mysteriously pull back and call for dissolution

within 1 hour

April 10 2010: Army and army bases are under attack the whole day, things are getting out of hand and at night armed insurgents kill and maim

many soldiers. People are being killed by snipers and the time and the place make no sense at all.

The government had nothing to gain from this!

April 23 2010: The article you are referring to that falsely claims that Abhisit is against House Dissolution today (23 april 2010)

Of course Abhisit is against any House Dissolution when the country is on fire and armed insurgents are trying to topple your government and are trying to instigate civil war. The Reds should have taken his offer and not let things escalate!

[Buchholz]

as a paramedic showing extreme concern at abuse of the sanctity of a hospital, you must've also been at least as equally concerned by the reports that army personnel might be abusing that sanctity by using the upper floors of that hospital to shoot protesters, right? I'm assuming that you obtained a pistol and checked the upper floors for what was potentially such an obscene abuse of that hospital's sanctity, ready to shoot in the temple any bananasoldiers that you might find, right? Did you shoot any of the PAD-leaning admin or doctors who endangered patients' lives with their completely unnecessary showboating evacuation?

unnecessary evacuation?

What ridiculousness. Armed marauders invading the hospital made evacuation absolutely necessary and was a decision that would have been made anywhere under similar circumstances.

Please reveal the source of information for this latest revision and provide a list of hospital administrators and medical doctors that were "PAD-leaning" and why you think they would reverse all their years of providing patient care to thousands in order to simply "showboat" for a political movement.

Ridiculous.

Doctors at Chula hospital made a public statement after the bungled police dispersal of PAD protesters outside parliament in 2008 stating that they would refuse to treat police officers injured by PAD rioters (thus breaking their hippocratic oath btw). They also stated that they would be canvassing doctors at other hospitals to do the same, ie: Canvassing other doctors to break their hippocratic oath too. So the dubious morality of these characters was established back then in their determination to support the PAD

That's not what the doctors at Chula said.

What they said was that they would not treat non-emergency cases, which is, as per the Medical Council of Thailand's policies, acceptable:

The Medical Council of Thailand has granted 30,000 doctors nationwide the right to turn down patients in non-emergency cases, and also offers protection to doctors who treat patients to the required standard, a source said yesterday. The move followed a growing number of criminal and civil lawsuits filed against doctors.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/05/national/national_30020776.php

In an un-linkable (but google-able) Bangkok Post article at the time, the Medical Council specifically addressed this issue regarding the refusal by doctors at Chula and said that they were within their rights to do so.. In full compliance with the policy and the law, emergency cases by the police WERE attended to.

That policy, btw, is commonly encountered in countries around the world and has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.

Still, even given that, it is way too much of a stretch that a few doctors at Chula in 2008 somehow dictated policy by hospital administrators who made the reasonable and logical decision to evacuate the hospital in 2010 in the face of armed marauders.

.

[KireB]

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

A lot of people died before the crackdown Airconsult!

[Skywalker69]

http://www.dailymail...-civil-war.html

http://www.guardian....s-children-army

http://www.time.com/...1989543,00.html

http://english.peopl...51/6956247.html

Coupled with those children and elderly present at Ratchaprasong, it's worth noting that human shields doesn't necessarily mean they have to be held up in the direct line of fire on the front line to be considered as such.

.

The Red Shirt TV supporters seems to think it´s ok to bring kids into the danger zone, in my eyes it´s sickening.In my eyes. Edited April 27, 2012 by Skywalker69

[airconsult]

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Abhisit offered to step down, call an early election, before the violence and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. Get your facts, and time line right!

Interesting - I would say you responded after the meat and potatoes of Abhisit's 2008 statements to the press was removed - even though I regard them as very on-topic considering his later actions in 2008.

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

Timeline:

March 28 2010: Negotiation with Red shirts leaders who give a 1 hour ultimatum to step down (Dissolution)

March 28 2010: Abhisit offers to step down, call early elections only when the Reds leave the city and the situation cools down

Match 28 2010: Red negotiators seem initially to agree with this proposal, but suddenly and mysteriously pull back and call for dissolution

within 1 hour

April 10 2010: Army and army bases are under attack the whole day, things are getting out of hand and at night armed insurgents kill and maim

many soldiers. People are being killed by snipers and the time and the place make no sense at all.

The government had nothing to gain from this!

April 23 2010: The article you are referring to that falsely claims that Abhisit is against House Dissolution today (23 april 2010)

Of course Abhisit is against any House Dissolution when the country is on fire and armed insurgents are trying to topple your government and are trying to instigate civil war. The Reds should have taken his offer and not let things escalate!

I make no judgement on whether his actions were correct or not at the time - what I pointed out was his actions were the opposite of what he demanded the government do while he was in opposition. Normal hypocrisy for a politician.

In his own words....

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this.’

[airconsult]

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

A lot of people died before the crackdown Airconsult!

Don't overexcite yourself - as the article mention the 91 deaths - they were AFTER the article reference I gave you.

To be clear, that article was written AFTER April 10 - Phan Fah - but BEFORE Abhisit made his early election offer on May 3rd.

To be fully clear - it was written after the UDD proposed elections in 3 months (a very short timeframe) and Abhisit rejected that without proposing an alternative until May 3rd.

It's an interesting collection of quotes, particularly as it occurs before May 13 and May 19.

[rixalex]

Why is having some people walking through a hospital (doctors, official visitors and even patients do this in hospitals all the time, you know) more dangerous to a patient's health than moving that patient to another hospital?

Walking through?

Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium. If you can't appreciate how distressing this might be, especially on someone in a fragile state of ill-health, and liken it all to doctors, official visitors and patients passing through, i don't think you understand the situation.

The evacuation was political showboating by a hospital that has an established history of morally dubious political showboating imo.

Suggesting the medical workers would ever put politics above the health of patients is a very grave accusation and one for which i think you have zero evidence.

Your attempt to shift the blame for the moving of patients away from the people who stormed the hospital, and on to the doctors and nurses, has parallels for me with the blame shifting we saw attempted by some for the closing of the airport, away from the people who took it over, and onto the AOT. Same twisted nonsense.

Edited April 27, 2012 by rixalex

[Siam Simon]

That's not what the doctors at Chula said.

What they said was that they would not treat non-emergency cases, which is, as per the Medical Council of Thailand's policies, acceptable:

The Medical Council of Thailand has granted 30,000 doctors nationwide the right to turn down patients in non-emergency cases, and also offers protection to doctors who treat patients to the required standard, a source said yesterday. The move followed a growing number of criminal and civil lawsuits filed against doctors.

http://www.nationmul...al_30020776.php

In an un-linkable (but google-able) Bangkok Post article at the time, the Medical Council specifically addressed this issue regarding the refusal by doctors at Chula and said that they were within their rights to do so.. In full compliance with the policy and the law, emergency cases by the police WERE attended to.

That policy, btw, is commonly encountered in countries around the world and has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.

Still, even given that, it is way too much of a stretch that a few doctors at Chula in 2008 somehow dictated policy by hospital administrators who made the reasonable and logical decision to evacuate the hospital in 2010 in the face of armed marauders.

.

Those wanting to get past Buchholz' 'perception management' can google "doctors refuse to treat police". Links to an article article quoting Chula's Dr Suthep Koncharnwit can be found, where he stated that Chula's medical team would not treat police officers injured by rioting PAD supporters : "This is a social measure to show that doctors and nurses condemn the violent actions" he was quoted as stating. Suthep also stated that Chula doctors would seek cooperation from doctors of other hospitals to boycott police as well.

[Buchholz]

Wrt the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula in 2010. Appalling though it was, it's my understanding that they were looking for army snipers who they believed to be stationed in the upper part of the hospital. Did the Red Shirts rip out patients' intravenous drips? steal patients' medication? unplug any venillators or other life support systems? Throw patients out of their beds? Why is having some people walking through a hospital (doctors, official visitors and even patients do this in hospitals all the time, you know) more dangerous to a patient's health than moving that patient to another hospital?

In another brazen and controversial move, more than 200 red-shirt guards stormed into Chulalongkorn Hospital last night to check if there were soldiers inside the hospital buildings.

The hour-long incident at the hospital, which is located right next to the red-shirt rally site, was monitored closely on Twitter and triggered a storm of criticism within the social media community.

Hospital director Dr Adisorn Patradul initially refused to let the members of the anti-government Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) into the complex.

However, a source said Adisorn gave in after DAAD co-leader Payap Panket, wanted by police for his role in the tumultuous red campaign, insisted that he be allowed to inspect the area.

Although Adisorn only allowed Payap, five red-shirt guards and reporters to come in, scores of other red-shirt guards poured into the hospital buildings as soon as the door was opened.

During their search, watched by bewildered nurses and doctors, the red-shirt guards seized two men and brought them to the DAAD stage at the Rajprasong intersection. The two were later released after they told the red shirts they were just workers.

The red-shirt guards stopped their search at the hospital at around 8.30pm, but only after police stepped in to negotiate. During the talks, the wanted man Payap was just inches away from the senior officers taking part in the negotiations.

-----------------------------

again, Red Shirts were just "some people walking through a hospital". This time to drag out dead bodies from the morgue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdASCkNa_4&feature=related

.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Buchholz

[Skywalker69]

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Abhisit offered to step down, call an early election, before the violence and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. Get your facts, and time line right!

Interesting - I would say you responded after the meat and potatoes of Abhisit's 2008 statements to the press was removed - even though I regard them as very on-topic considering his later actions in 2008.

If you weren't here in 2008 - read them for yourself as re-quoted by reporters in april 2010 (before the crackdown) http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

Timeline:

March 28 2010: Negotiation with Red shirts leaders who give a 1 hour ultimatum to step down (Dissolution)

March 28 2010: Abhisit offers to step down, call early elections only when the Reds leave the city and the situation cools down

Match 28 2010: Red negotiators seem initially to agree with this proposal, but suddenly and mysteriously pull back and call for dissolution

within 1 hour

April 10 2010: Army and army bases are under attack the whole day, things are getting out of hand and at night armed insurgents kill and maim

many soldiers. People are being killed by snipers and the time and the place make no sense at all.

The government had nothing to gain from this!

April 23 2010: The article you are referring to that falsely claims that Abhisit is against House Dissolution today (23 april 2010)

Of course Abhisit is against any House Dissolution when the country is on fire and armed insurgents are trying to topple your government and are trying to instigate civil war. The Reds should have taken his offer and not let things escalate!

I agree with you, but there was no negotiations, the Red Shirt´s demanded Abhisit to step down.

In negotiations it´s give and take, not only take.

[Buchholz]

That's not what the doctors at Chula said.

What they said was that they would not treat non-emergency cases, which is, as per the Medical Council of Thailand's policies, acceptable:

The Medical Council of Thailand has granted 30,000 doctors nationwide the right to turn down patients in non-emergency cases, and also offers protection to doctors who treat patients to the required standard, a source said yesterday. The move followed a growing number of criminal and civil lawsuits filed against doctors.

http://www.nationmul...al_30020776.php

In an un-linkable (but google-able) Bangkok Post article at the time, the Medical Council specifically addressed this issue regarding the refusal by doctors at Chula and said that they were within their rights to do so.. In full compliance with the policy and the law, emergency cases by the police WERE attended to.

That policy, btw, is commonly encountered in countries around the world and has nothing to do with the Hippocratic Oath.

Still, even given that, it is way too much of a stretch that a few doctors at Chula in 2008 somehow dictated policy by hospital administrators who made the reasonable and logical decision to evacuate the hospital in 2010 in the face of armed marauders.

.

Those wanting to get past Buchholz' 'perception management' can google "doctors refuse to treat police". Links to an article article quoting Chula's Dr Suthep Koncharnwit can be found, where he stated that Chula's medical team would not treat police officers injured by rioting PAD supporters : "This is a social measure to show that doctors and nurses condemn the violent actions" he was quoted as stating. Suthep also stated that Chula doctors would seek cooperation from doctors of other hospitals to boycott police as well.

Those wishing to get past Simon's obfuscations and apologist rhetoric can find also find that within days of his emotional outburst made while facing hundreds of patients:

Dr. Suthep apologised for having announced a boycott of medical services to the police, and for the emotional remarks he had made at a press conference which, he said, may have had an unintended negative impact on the hospital. He added that his intentions may have been misunderstood by some, and that he had wanted only to stress that he had considered the measures used by the police and permitted by the government were inappropriate. In practice, he said, he could not deny medical treatment to any patient.

http://www.chiangmai.../295/news.shtml

They can also surmise that Dr. Suthep in 2008 is not the same person as Chula Hospital Director Dr Adisorn, who directed the hospital be evacuated in 2010 and that this red herring is grasping at straws to justify the Red Shirt armed thugs who raided the hospital.

.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Buchholz

[Ferangled]

"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."

Throughout history people have fought and died trying to gain the "privilege" of democracy. It's quite clear that many attach some considerable value to this idea, although obviously not too many here...

The suggestion that they should have meekly waited a mere 1.5 - 2 years for the chance to have a democratically elected Government is ridiculous.

I wonder if the citizens of UK, US or Australia would be happy to see the military install their own PM/ President against the wishes of the majority of the population and then idly sit back and wait 1.5 - 2 years for the chance to elect their own?

As to the selective deletion of various posts, making references to past statements and events; IMHO when assessing the truth and accuracy of any political statement the natural process is to compare this to previous statements made by the same individual.

I'd suggest that this is entirely relevant given the varying stances taken with regard to the varying positions held. The blatant hypocrisy on display is alarming and very pertinent to this thread.

[KireB]

I make no judgement on whether his actions were correct or not at the time - what I pointed out was his actions were the opposite of what he demanded the government do while he was in opposition. Normal hypocrisy for a politician.

In his own words....

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this.’

Nor do I want to make judgments, cause what really happened we will probably never find out.

The situations are in my opinion not comparable.

In Somchai's case it was the police who clearly aimed tear gas canister at people, aimed at legs, clearly to kill and maim protesters. The police is part of the government this, so anyone in the opposition would demand responsibility of the PM. Seems logic.

In the 2010 case, it was the government who was initially under attack by armed insurgents and protesters. Do you remember the daily grenade attacks on government building and banks (that coincidentally held Thaksin's money)? Before things got really out of hand, Abhisit offered new elections, and then on April 10 the armed red militia pushed the envelop a notch of 10 too far!

[KireB]

"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."

Throughout history people have fought and died trying to gain the "privilege" of democracy. It's quite clear that many attach some considerable value to this idea, although obviously not too many here...

Very good point of you. But what you don't want to understand that the BJT and Democratic Party's coalition come forth through a completely normal democratic process. They formed a majority and in a democracy, and I am sure you agree, it's the majority that should rule!

By the way, you know that Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, in which coalitions are formed and where the citizens do not directly elect a government in contrast to a two-party system such as in the US for example. Several European countries are constitutional monarchies as well.

[Ferangled]

I make no judgement on whether his actions were correct or not at the time - what I pointed out was his actions were the opposite of what he demanded the government do while he was in opposition. Normal hypocrisy for a politician.

In his own words....

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it would not have been like this.’

Nor do I want to make judgments, cause what really happened we will probably never find out.

The situations are in my opinion not comparable.

In Somchai's case it was the police who clearly aimed tear gas canister at people, aimed at legs, clearly to kill and maim protesters. The police is part of the government this, so anyone in the opposition would demand responsibility of the PM. Seems logic.

In the 2010 case, it was the government who was initially under attack by armed insurgents and protesters. Do you remember the daily grenade attacks on government building and banks (that coincidentally held Thaksin's money)? Before things got really out of hand, Abhisit offered new elections, and then on April 10 the armed red militia pushed the envelop a notch of 10 too far!

Given that virtually every reference to any events prior to 2010 have been removed, it's a tad difficult for anyone to counter this!

That said I'd agree the situations were very different, but that doesn't excuse the hypocrisy displayed by the conflicting sentiments expressed back then as opposition, then by his actions as PM, and then by the current sentiments expressed in the OP.

You'd be forgiven for thinking these were actually made by 3 entirely different individuals going by the same name...

[rixalex]

The suggestion that they should have meekly waited a mere 1.5 - 2 years for the chance to have a democratically elected Government is ridiculous.

I wonder if the citizens of UK, US or Australia would be happy to see the military install their own PM/ President against the wishes of the majority of the population and then idly sit back and wait 1.5 - 2 years for the chance to elect their own?

I appreciate why the reds didn't much like the way that Abhisit came to power, and why they considered some of the "wranglings" that made it possible, undemocratic, but the fact was, Abhisit was the legitimate and legal leader of the country, and if they opposed the alleged interference of outside parties in the voting of him by MPs, why did they not oppose the alleged interference of outside parties in the voting of Somchai? Why? Well because in the case of Somchai, it was their beloved on the run criminal who was doing the interfering, and in their book, this sort of interference is fine and dandy. So what you have is people not fighting for democracy, but simply fighting for their side to be in power. Please stop suggesting otherwise. You might fool some people outside of the country who have but a fleeting interest in Thai affairs, but most of the people on this forum who live in Thailand know your argument to be a complete nonsense.

[Siam Simon]

Wrt the Red Shirt intrusion into Chula in 2010. Appalling though it was, it's my understanding that they were looking for army snipers who they believed to be stationed in the upper part of the hospital. Did the Red Shirts rip out patients' intravenous drips? steal patients' medication? unplug any venillators or other life support systems? Throw patients out of their beds? Why is having some people walking through a hospital (doctors, official visitors and even patients do this in hospitals all the time, you know) more dangerous to a patient's health than moving that patient to another hospital?

In another brazen and controversial move, more than 200 red-shirt guards stormed into Chulalongkorn Hospital last night to check if there were soldiers inside the hospital buildings.

The hour-long incident at the hospital, which is located right next to the red-shirt rally site, was monitored closely on Twitter and triggered a storm of criticism within the social media community.

Hospital director Dr Adisorn Patradul initially refused to let the members of the anti-government Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD) into the complex.

However, a source said Adisorn gave in after DAAD co-leader Payap Panket, wanted by police for his role in the tumultuous red campaign, insisted that he be allowed to inspect the area.

Although Adisorn only allowed Payap, five red-shirt guards and reporters to come in, scores of other red-shirt guards poured into the hospital buildings as soon as the door was opened.

During their search, watched by bewildered nurses and doctors, the red-shirt guards seized two men and brought them to the DAAD stage at the Rajprasong intersection. The two were later released after they told the red shirts they were just workers.

The red-shirt guards stopped their search at the hospital at around 8.30pm, but only after police stepped in to negotiate. During the talks, the wanted man Payap was just inches away from the senior officers taking part in the negotiations.

-----------------------------

again, Red Shirts were just "some people walking through a hospital". This time to drag out dead bodies from the morgue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYdASCkNa_4&feature=related

.

The video you embedded shows an assortment of people standing around inside and outside the hospital's main lobby, a Red Shirt leader talking with someone from the hospital, a group of people (including plenty of media) walking up the ramps of the hospital's car park, and some footage of empty rooms/staff going about their business in the hospital. Are patients kept in the car park at Chula?