Slain Thai Nurse's Mum To Talk To ICC Lawyer: The Hague

[weka]

Won't the Hague have to investigate what really did happen? How can they do that successfully? If they can get to the bottom of this confusion then is there a possibility that other findings perhaps showing the Reds in poor light will come out too.

I don't know how the Hague court operates but surely they must check the facts before proceeding - good luck with that.

Too hard basket?

I do feel for the mother but also wonder if her advisors have her best interests at heart. That guy saying he's paying for this out of his own money as a Red Shirt leader, seems an unnecessary remark when justice is apparently the objective.

[punisher]

I hope she has found peace, and my condolences once again to her family.

Who is guilty of causing her and many others' deaths? It is the man who funded and instigated the armed uprising, and ordered his followers to "burn all of Bangkok to the ground". If they had tried to follow his direct orders thousands would have died.

He is in Dubai, and we know he is guilty of all 90+ deaths because he paid for the armed mob to march on Bangkok and he ordered them to "kill the elites" and "burn Bangkok to the ground" and he did so on television and big-screen stage shows, and his redmob leaders gave the speeches including those lines quoted above. How this can not be seen as incitement to mass-murder, is one of the strangest legal mysteries I have ever seen. How he can not be responsible for all deaths caused by his armed attempt at city-wide arson, is a genuine question.

When DEA arrest street-level drug dealers, they are always after the top-man, the place where the money-trail leads and the person who is guilty of organising the drug supply network and hiring the street dealers. Organised violent crime as pushed by Thaksin and the redmob 2010 is no different, the man at the top is guilty of the whole network. How can Thaksin not be entirely guilty of all those deaths?

This is onesided thinking.There are 3parties who rule the country here,one party can't be procecuted because it's the law,another party is the army,the army coups whenever party number one feels threatened,the army makes mega billions of baht in south and far north,and they not listen to anybody,they just do what they want to do.,party no3 is bkk elite,,bkk elite is not interested at all to change anything,because then they loose their status and loose money,then u hv thaksin,who tried to crack down on those 3 parties not for the countries good but for his own good,anyway not fair to blame thaksin for all. Thailand could move on and would be a great country,if all those selfish parties would shut up and go away,and let new generation of thais rule the country,no more thaksin or abisits no more sutheps or jatuporns

And this is the OTHER side thinking.

How about balanced thinking.

OK. On the balancing side, it is the (WO)MEN IN BLACK (Thaksin paid guys) who killed her from the rail. These guys (gals) in camouflage by dressing in army clothing, as Army ALREADY confirmed that they have no (wo)men on the BTS.

This is possible right?

Everything is possible,but I think if that lady has not enough evidence she would not go that far,also if there is not enough evidence i don't think the court will accept the case,one could think it's all propaganda,but on the other hand she is a mother who lost her kid

[whybother]

Great thinking,your daughter got killed,u know by who,government and court refuse to work on the case,then u would let it go?Who is Abisit?A guy nominated to be Pm by untouchables and army,half of the country did not like him to be PM,then why they should listen?

No one knows who killed her. Isn't it the current government that is refusing to work on the case?

Abhisit was the leader of the largest opposition party at the time of his election as PM. He was elected by a majority of MPs.

Current government don;t want to work on that case,because they probably still try to convince the democrats to let thaksin come back.A goverment is elected by the people not by MPs,the democrats did not get a majority at elections last 12 yrs i think.If A has the majority of votes Then B can't say "we are the government"if it is like that,then why people should go to elections?

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms a government.

The previous 3 governments (Samak, Somchai, Abhisit) did not have a party with a majority. In Thaksin's first government,his party didn't have a majority, and his second government only had a majority because he bought a bunch of regional parties into his control. That's something that brought his proxy party down when one of those blocks decided to back the Democrats rather than the PTP.

If neither A or B has the majority of the votes, then either party can form a government if they can get the majority of MPs to back them.

As to the mother of the nurse, it seems that the current government are abandoning her, and the families of others killed, in their quest to get Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Moruya]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

[punisher]

well the how about army who make megamuhu money in the south and far north,or how about the other 2 parties?All 3 hv no interest in giving there power away,like I said thailand could move on if all those parties who care only about their power and money would go away,and let thailand have a new start with new government,no red no yellows

In addition to the "if only" daydreaming that the redmob apologists always engage in as a factory default-setting, what happened in the past is not relevant to 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption. The actions of Thaksin in 2010 were against a non-tyrannical regime who were working to improve the lives of the rural poor.

So you must take the context of the uprising. Thaksin funded and encouraged in 2010, arson and murder in the capital city to overthrow a government who had actually created long-term infrastructure improvement projects for poor people. That same government allowed the redmob protests and offered early elections.

Can you please explain how arson and murder speeches by the redmob improved the lives of normal Thais, or were somehow an improvement on the policies of the Abhisit government. It was an entirely unneccesary assault on Bangkok by Thaksin in 2010, they could have waited for elections and voted Abhisit out and nobody would have died. Thaksin chose to not wait for elections, or to even accept the early elections offered, he chose murder and arson and I challenge you to say his actions were warranted in 2010.

Yeah they did a great job,that why they lost the election in 2011 265-159 seats

[phiphidon]

Great thinking,your daughter got killed,u know by who,government and court refuse to work on the case,then u would let it go?Who is Abisit?A guy nominated to be Pm by untouchables and army,half of the country did not like him to be PM,then why they should listen?

No one knows who killed her. Isn't it the current government that is refusing to work on the case?

Abhisit was the leader of the largest opposition party at the time of his election as PM. He was elected by a majority of MPs.

Current government don;t want to work on that case,because they probably still try to convince the democrats to let thaksin come back.A goverment is elected by the people not by MPs,the democrats did not get a majority at elections last 12 yrs i think.If A has the majority of votes Then B can't say "we are the government"if it is like that,then why people should go to elections?

The people elect MPs. The MPs elect a PM. The PM forms a government.

The previous 3 governments (Samak, Somchai, Abhisit) did not have a party with a majority. In Thaksin's first government,his party didn't have a majority, and his second government only had a majority because he bought a bunch of regional parties into his control. That's something that brought his proxy party down when one of those blocks decided to back the Democrats rather than the PTP.

If neither A or B has the majority of the votes, then either party can form a government if they can get the majority of MPs to back them.

As to the mother of the nurse, it seems that the current government are abandoning her, and the families of others killed, in their quest to get Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed.

Sent from my shoe phone

"As to the mother of the nurse, it seems that the current government are abandoning her, and the families of others killed, in their quest to get Thaksin back with his crimes whitewashed."

I'll say again. There is an ongoing inquest into Nurse Kates death and others.

[punisher]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

I asked u,correct or not correct?can answer please?

[phiphidon]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

By useful reading I take it you mean sources other than just this forum and The Nation?

[animatic]

quote name='punisher' timestamp='1340674256' post='5427847'

Great thinking,your daughter got killed,u know by who,government and court refuse to work on the case,then u would let it go?Who is Abisit?A guy nominated to be Pm by untouchables and army,half of the country did not like him to be PM,then why they should listen?

No one knows who killed her. Isn't it the current government that is refusing to work on the case?

Abhisit was the leader of the largest opposition party at the time of his election as PM. He was elected by a majority of MPs.

Current government don;t want to work on that case,because they probably still try to convince the democrats to let thaksin come back.A goverment is elected by the people not by MPs,the democrats did not get a majority at elections last 12 yrs i think.If A has the majority of votes Then B can't say "we are the government"if it is like that,then why people should go to elections?

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Not correct.

[lensta]

This is onesided thinking.There are 3parties who rule the country here,one party can't be procecuted because it's the law,another party is the army,the army coups whenever party number one feels threatened,the army makes mega billions of baht in south and far north,and they not listen to anybody,they just do what they want to do.,party no3 is bkk elite,,bkk elite is not interested at all to change anything,because then they loose their status and loose money,then u hv thaksin,who tried to crack down on those 3 parties not for the countries good but for his own good,anyway not fair to blame thaksin for all. Thailand could move on and would be a great country,if all those selfish parties would shut up and go away,and let new generation of thais rule the country,no more thaksin or abisits no more sutheps or jatuporns

Its not one-sided, it is just basic logical linear thinking, as is used in criminal cases to determine ultimate guilt. If Thaksin had not funded, instigated and encouraged the mob to burn and kill, they would have stayed at home and nobody would have died. Therefor Thaksin is guilty of all resulting deaths.

So with your basic logical linear thinking, If the Army had not staged the coup that ousted Thaksin, then Thaksin wouldn't have ordered the protest in 2010 and nobody would have been killed and no property would have been damaged. Therefore the people who staged the coup in2006 are responsible for the deaths of the protesters in 2010. <deleted>.

[carra]

Great thinking,your daughter got killed,u know by who,government and court refuse to work on the case,then u would let it go?Who is Abisit?A guy nominated to be Pm by untouchables and army,half of the country did not like him to be PM,then why they should listen?

No one knows who killed her. Isn't it the current government that is refusing to work on the case?

Abhisit was the leader of the largest opposition party at the time of his election as PM. He was elected by a majority of MPs.

No, the current government is NOT refusing to work on her case. The inquest is ongoing now. Prayuth has has called for the testimony of witnesses in court hearings into the deaths of six people at the Wat to be kept secret, according to the other paper. All in the interests of justice of course.

When they´r at it make sure to investigate Thaksin´s war on drugs. +2500 dead.

The dems had a chance to initiate an investigation into this when they had power. This is not a case of PTP having been in power since the war on drugs and covering up, the dems had power at one point, handed to them on a plate, they were constantly battling Thaksin and trying to justify their actions, so ask them wht it was not properly investigated or why charges were not brought, hey you can even ask the CNS who also had power at one point and were looking to charge thaksin with many things, again ask yourself why no charges were brought, I think this is pretty damning.

When will people stop with this shit of trying to justify one action based on a previous action, the two things have to relevance to each other. Should this woman accept her daughter was murdered because there was a war on drugs previously? No she bloody should not.

Should the red justify their sit in because the yellows had done it? no the should not etc etc etc.

This not an issue of red shirt, this is a medic volunteering to help people that was gunned down IN A TEMPLE and her mother has every dam_n right to get to the bottom of it. Recently we have seen many acts of violence against citizens of countries that have been protesting and all of them are being acted on by other countries, this should be no different.

take your colours off for one moment, see the fact this is a young woman that died, what would you do? accept it?

I see one poster blaming Thaksin for all these troubles, well we can go further back with tenuous links such as the coup that started these troubles, or thaksin refusing sondhi a loan etc etc etc. Whether you like them or not the reds were there for a reason, to make their voices heard as they felt disenfranchised. The fact PTP are in power now should show the depth of feeling amongst the voters and should show they did not want the dems at the helm, hence the demonstrations.

Now lets stick to the issue in this thread, a woman is pushing for justice for the murder of her daughter and bloody good luck to her. If the people from the yellow side want to do the same over Somchai then bloody good luck to them,

[Moruya]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

By useful reading I take it you mean sources other than just this forum and The Nation?

He or she can read whatever thay want - there are no restrictions.

You certainly did

I certainly did

and I'd rather be me than you

Nothing personal!

[animatic]

The lady is being lead by people who see a profit in doing so.

The profit may be in cash to them or they curry political favors for later.

We can plainly see which side benefits from continued accusations.

And keeping the accusations front and center.

Proof of course doesn't matter, it is the appearances, that matter.

[Thaddeus]

This is onesided thinking.There are 3parties who rule the country here,one party can't be procecuted because it's the law,another party is the army,the army coups whenever party number one feels threatened,the army makes mega billions of baht in south and far north,and they not listen to anybody,they just do what they want to do.,party no3 is bkk elite,,bkk elite is not interested at all to change anything,because then they loose their status and loose money,then u hv thaksin,who tried to crack down on those 3 parties not for the countries good but for his own good,anyway not fair to blame thaksin for all. Thailand could move on and would be a great country,if all those selfish parties would shut up and go away,and let new generation of thais rule the country,no more thaksin or abisits no more sutheps or jatuporns

Its not one-sided, it is just basic logical linear thinking, as is used in criminal cases to determine ultimate guilt. If Thaksin had not funded, instigated and encouraged the mob to burn and kill, they would have stayed at home and nobody would have died. Therefor Thaksin is guilty of all resulting deaths.

if the army did not kick thaksin out we would never had burning and killing

And if Mummy and Daddy Shin hadn't had unprotected sex one night.

Sorry, but you can't use a cyclical chicken and egg argument in these situations, it's valueless.

There has to be a big starting point somewhere, here, it is when it became openly apparent that Khun T was raping the entire country (the entire country, not just the entrenched ephemeral elite) for his own selfish gain.

Those who saw it and were not part of the tongue tagliatelli firmly stuck to his backside had to do something about it. For the benefit of the entire country (the entire country, not just the entrenched ephemeral elite mind you)

Apart from a brief moment in time when there was a glimmer of hope, it has been pretty much all down-hill after that, with just one man simultaneously steering and pushing the cart.

This latest action is nothing more than another attempt to chip away at the Dems armour, do you think for one second that the mother of this poor girl even knew that she could take this action, without some prompting?

No, she probably didn't and this will probably go nowhere anyway, but the damage has already been done.

[Nickymaster]

ICC is not going to take this case. Ban Ki-Moon came to Thailand shortly after the crackdown in 2010 and told everybody that he believed that this issue must be solved among Thais. No party should try to involve the international community.

Recently Kofi Annan came to Thailand and said that this issue was an internal issue for Thailand. According to him KEY players in the conflict should take a step back..

Since Thida and Weng claim to represent all Thai people, I wonder if they are also going to represent the families who lost innocent loved ones during the crackdown on drugs, once they are in Holland? Are they also representing the killed THAI soldiers' families?

And meanwhile somewhere in the middle east, one Thai fugitive ex-leader keeps on digging a whole untill one day it's large and deep enough for him and his cronies to "retire" in.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Nickymaster

[animatic]

This is onesided thinking.There are 3parties who rule the country here,one party can't be procecuted because it's the law,another party is the army,the army coups whenever party number one feels threatened,the army makes mega billions of baht in south and far north,and they not listen to anybody,they just do what they want to do.,party no3 is bkk elite,,bkk elite is not interested at all to change anything,because then they loose their status and loose money,then u hv thaksin,who tried to crack down on those 3 parties not for the countries good but for his own good,anyway not fair to blame thaksin for all. Thailand could move on and would be a great country,if all those selfish parties would shut up and go away,and let new generation of thais rule the country,no more thaksin or abisits no more sutheps or jatuporns

Its not one-sided, it is just basic logical linear thinking, as is used in criminal cases to determine ultimate guilt. If Thaksin had not funded, instigated and encouraged the mob to burn and kill, they would have stayed at home and nobody would have died. Therefor Thaksin is guilty of all resulting deaths.

So with your basic logical linear thinking, If the Army had not staged the coup that ousted Thaksin, then Thaksin wouldn't have ordered the protest in 2010 and nobody would have been killed and no property would have been damaged. Therefore the people who staged the coup in2006 are responsible for the deaths of the protesters in 2010. <deleted>.

Or,

if Thaksin had not systematically dismantled the checks and balances,

and tried to take control of the nation Extra-Constitutionally by Martial Law,

when he wasn't even the elected PM, he'd resigned, and took the job back.

Then the army wouldn't have moved to remove the faux PM from his assumed office,

and the follow on effects wouldn't have happened.

Or earlier,

if The Supreme Court had invalidated his PM position, for the money hiding he tried,

and that family members have been convicted for,

the whole thing would have been moot.

Or if Chavalit, Thaksin and their friends,

hadn't played fast and loose with the economy, causing the 1997 crash,

then the hard decisions to save the country wouldn't have been needed

to be done by Chuan and make him look bad for the economy and then

upon a resurgent WORLD economy Thaksin returns pretending to be a white knight.

You can go back, over and over doesn't mean you CAN NOT say;

Thaksins crew caused the 90 deaths by refusing, quite obviously,

the offer Abhisit placed on the table in the TV meeting,

and ONE phone call to Jatuporn quite obviously scuttled,

just as Veera was starting to say yes to it.

Edited June 26, 2012 by animatic

[carra]

well the how about army who make megamuhu money in the south and far north,or how about the other 2 parties?All 3 hv no interest in giving there power away,like I said thailand could move on if all those parties who care only about their power and money would go away,and let thailand have a new start with new government,no red no yellows

In addition to the "if only" daydreaming that the redmob apologists always engage in as a factory default-setting, what happened in the past is not relevant to 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption. The actions of Thaksin in 2010 were against a non-tyrannical regime who were working to improve the lives of the rural poor.

So you must take the context of the uprising. Thaksin funded and encouraged in 2010, arson and murder in the capital city to overthrow a government who had actually created long-term infrastructure improvement projects for poor people. That same government allowed the redmob protests and offered early elections.

Can you please explain how arson and murder speeches by the redmob improved the lives of normal Thais, or were somehow an improvement on the policies of the Abhisit government. It was an entirely unneccesary assault on Bangkok by Thaksin in 2010, Thaksin and his minions could have waited for elections and voted Abhisit out and nobody would have died. Thaksin chose to not wait for elections, or to even accept the early elections offered, he chose murder and arson and I challenge you to say his actions were warranted in 2010.

Can you tell us how coups and military court backed governments improved the lives of the thai people, the people voted and elected a government, just as they have this time, the THAI people, not some farangs on a forum, the THAI people, just as the THAI people came out to demonstrate.

Now you are happy to sit there making countless allegations, I would love to see you back them up, you generalize, you assume, you rehash old crap that you have heard, and you do this without backing any of it up. If you have proof of any of these things then use it.

As for your comments about waiting to vote out the dems, well couldn't the military and courts have done the same, that is democracy, like it or not, you get the government you deserve, pure and simple. Abhisit had his chance handed to him on a plate and he still managed to mess it up, hence him sitting on the outside again looking in, and that is where he will stay as the THAI people voted for what they want.

[Moruya]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

I asked u,correct or not correct?can answer please?

I'm afraid it is not my job to educate you. However I will give you some bullet points to help you get started.

Thaksin resigned his position as PM - se he wasn't overthrown by the army - they took over a picnic that was significantly short of any sandwiches.

Samak technically broke the law by holding another paid job. He lied under oath and falsified documents. He was disqualified by the courts from being PM but was allowed to stand for reselection by his party - the PTP. They rejected him and put Thaksin's brother in law Somchai in

Somchai's government paid the price for the vote buying and illegal goings-on in the 2006 election.

Therefore the military did not kick out any functioninig PM

[lensta]

well the how about army who make megamuhu money in the south and far north,or how about the other 2 parties?All 3 hv no interest in giving there power away,like I said thailand could move on if all those parties who care only about their power and money would go away,and let thailand have a new start with new government,no red no yellows

In addition to the "if only" daydreaming that the redmob apologists always engage in as a factory default-setting, what happened in the past is not relevant to 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption. The actions of Thaksin in 2010 were against a non-tyrannical regime who were working to improve the lives of the rural poor.

So you must take the context of the uprising. Thaksin funded and encouraged in 2010, arson and murder in the capital city to overthrow a government who had actually created long-term infrastructure improvement projects for poor people. That same government allowed the redmob protests and offered early elections.

Can you please explain how arson and murder speeches by the redmob improved the lives of normal Thais, or were somehow an improvement on the policies of the Abhisit government. It was an entirely unneccesary assault on Bangkok by Thaksin in 2010, Thaksin and his minions could have waited for elections and voted Abhisit out and nobody would have died. Thaksin chose to not wait for elections, or to even accept the early elections offered, he chose murder and arson and I challenge you to say his actions were warranted in 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption, are you crazy? Even Abhisit admitted corruption was rampant in his government and there was little he could do about it.

[animatic]

ICC is NOT going to take this case. Ban Ki-Moon came to Thailand shortly after the crackdown in 2010 and told everybody that he believed that this issue must be solved among Thais. No party should try to involve the international community.

Recently Kofi Annan came to Thailand and said that this issue was an internal issue for Thailand. According to him KEY players in the conflict should take a step back..

Since Thida and Weng claim to represent all Thai people, I wonder if they are also going to represent the families who lost innocent loved ones during the crackdown on drugs once they are in Holland? Are they also representing the killed THAI soldiers?

Or perhaps it's political...

Plus, all they did was assign the file to a Prosecutor,

to see if their was grounds to accept.

Making a deposition to this prosecutor by someone 'who wasn't even there',

will do nothing to make his decision on acceptance or not.

[Moruya]

well the how about army who make megamuhu money in the south and far north,or how about the other 2 parties?All 3 hv no interest in giving there power away,like I said thailand could move on if all those parties who care only about their power and money would go away,and let thailand have a new start with new government,no red no yellows

In addition to the "if only" daydreaming that the redmob apologists always engage in as a factory default-setting, what happened in the past is not relevant to 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption. The actions of Thaksin in 2010 were against a non-tyrannical regime who were working to improve the lives of the rural poor.

So you must take the context of the uprising. Thaksin funded and encouraged in 2010, arson and murder in the capital city to overthrow a government who had actually created long-term infrastructure improvement projects for poor people. That same government allowed the redmob protests and offered early elections.

Can you please explain how arson and murder speeches by the redmob improved the lives of normal Thais, or were somehow an improvement on the policies of the Abhisit government. It was an entirely unneccesary assault on Bangkok by Thaksin in 2010, Thaksin and his minions could have waited for elections and voted Abhisit out and nobody would have died. Thaksin chose to not wait for elections, or to even accept the early elections offered, he chose murder and arson and I challenge you to say his actions were warranted in 2010.

Can you tell us how coups and military court backed governments improved the lives of the thai people, the people voted and elected a government, just as they have this time, the THAI people, not some farangs on a forum, the THAI people, just as the THAI people came out to demonstrate.

Now you are happy to sit there making countless allegations, I would love to see you back them up, you generalize, you assume, you rehash old crap that you have heard, and you do this without backing any of it up. If you have proof of any of these things then use it.

As for your comments about waiting to vote out the dems, well couldn't the military and courts have done the same, that is democracy, like it or not, you get the government you deserve, pure and simple. Abhisit had his chance handed to him on a plate and he still managed to mess it up, hence him sitting on the outside again looking in, and that is where he will stay as the THAI people voted for what they want.

They voted for MONEY

[Buchholz]

Karom said he wondered why Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Sunai Chulpongsatorn had said the court had already accepted the case, because it had not.

I wonder how Red Shirt Leader/Pheu Thai Party MP Sunai could have gotten it so wrong that even the Red Shirt Lawyer Karom had to set the record straight. Perhaps some misunderstanding occurred during his visit to Dubai.

.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Buchholz

[Yunla]

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption, are you crazy? Even Abhisit admitted corruption was rampant in his government and there was little he could do about it.

His government had proposed a bill for long term anti-corruption purposes and he himself made beating corruption one of his three main goals. He is also swimming in a sea of corruption like everybody else in Thailand, and members of his party were corrupt. He was removed from power before any real progress could be made and the PTP cancelled many of his projects.

My point, which stands, is that in 2010 Thailand had a government who allowed protest, listened to protestors demands, had initiated bills in parliament to tackle rural poverty and infrastructure development and battle corruption.

My upscaled point was that, Thaksin funded and encouraged and originated an armed uprising where he ordered arson and murder, in an effort to remove the above government from power. The 90+ deaths resulted solely from Thaksins actions and as such I was asking if those deaths were better than just waiting for the elections, bearing in mind the sitting government were not tyrannical or a direct threat to human life and infact they were putting through bills to help the poor.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Yunla

[animatic]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

I asked u,correct or not correct?can answer please?

Trying to get me angry or make me laught at you?

You are not correct.

"A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet)

is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right."

[animatic]

Karom said he wondered why Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Sunai Chulpongsatorn had said the court had already accepted the case, because it had not.

I wonder how Red Shirt Leader/Pheu Thai Party MP Sunai could have gotten it so wrong that even the Red Shirt Lawyer Karom had to set the record straight. Perhaps some misunderstanding occurred during his visit to Dubai.

.

Because it is more politically useful to say it was accepted by the ICC.

Having a prosecutor look at the file is not accepted by the ICC.

[animatic]

well the how about army who make megamuhu money in the south and far north,or how about the other 2 parties?All 3 hv no interest in giving there power away,like I said thailand could move on if all those parties who care only about their power and money would go away,and let thailand have a new start with new government,no red no yellows

In addition to the "if only" daydreaming that the redmob apologists always engage in as a factory default-setting, what happened in the past is not relevant to 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption. The actions of Thaksin in 2010 were against a non-tyrannical regime who were working to improve the lives of the rural poor.

So you must take the context of the uprising. Thaksin funded and encouraged in 2010, arson and murder in the capital city to overthrow a government who had actually created long-term infrastructure improvement projects for poor people. That same government allowed the redmob protests and offered early elections.

Can you please explain how arson and murder speeches by the redmob improved the lives of normal Thais, or were somehow an improvement on the policies of the Abhisit government. It was an entirely unneccesary assault on Bangkok by Thaksin in 2010, Thaksin and his minions could have waited for elections and voted Abhisit out and nobody would have died. Thaksin chose to not wait for elections, or to even accept the early elections offered, he chose murder and arson and I challenge you to say his actions were warranted in 2010.

In 2010 we had a stable government under Abhisit who had instituted policy bills for infrastructure development, helping the rural poor and fighting corruption.

Fighting corruption, are you crazy? Even Abhisit admitted corruption was rampant in his government and there was little he could do about it.

His government had a bill for long term anti-corruption purposes. He is also swimming in a sea of corruption like everybody else in Thailand, and members of his party were corrupt.

My point, which stands, is that in 2010 Thailand had a government who allowed protest, listened to protestors demands, had initiated bills in parliament to tackle rural poverty and infrastructure development and battle corruption.

My upscaled point was that, Thaksin funded and encouraged and originated an armed uprising where he ordered arson and murder, in an effort to remove the above goverment from power. The 90+ deaths resulted solely from Thaksins actions and as such I was asking if those deaths were better than just waiting for the elections, bearing in mind the sitting government were not tyrannical or a direct threat to human life and infact they were putting through bills to help the poor.

And that government had offered Thaksin and the Reds early elections, which were turned down flat.

That all occurred on live TV for all the world to see.

Edited June 26, 2012 by animatic

[Yunla]

Yeah they did a great job,that why they lost the election in 2011 265-159 seats

Yes you are so correct. PTP won the elections. PTP then went on to use their government office to ; severely mismanage floods resulting in unneccesary deaths and damage, commit human-rights abuses in Bangkok by handing out home addresses of dissenters to an angry mob, spend a fortune on pardoning the crimes of their own membership, disrespect the Supreme Court, avoid almost all parliamentary debates, avoid all unscripted Q&A, allow their Prime Minister to commit serious abuse of office / conflict of interest / ethics violations crimes when she used her prime ministerial office for private business transactions which she has never registered and even tried to cover-up, squandered vast sums on glitchy chinese tabs for no educational value whatsoever, a failed rice mortgage policy that threatens a new era of food price corruption which benefits the corrupt and punishes the poor. And PTP managed all this in just nine months! Imagine what they could do in several years. No wonder you are so proud of them.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Yunla

[scorecard]

A Thailand government (PM who chooses a cabinet) is elected by MP's, who are elected by the people.

Get your facts right.

The fact is Abisit was choosen by the army,they kicked out 3 different pms first,then they had enough of free elections,and appointed abisit,correct or not correct?

Why don't you do some useful reading? Then, rather than guessing, yuou can make some informed remarks.

See you in a few months.

I asked u,correct or not correct?can answer please?

If you asked logical questions you might get an answer.

Meanwhile I support the suggestion that you do a lot more research.

[phiphidon]

Karom said he wondered why Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader Sunai Chulpongsatorn had said the court had already accepted the case, because it had not.

I wonder how Red Shirt Leader/Pheu Thai Party MP Sunai could have gotten it so wrong that even the Red Shirt Lawyer Karom had to set the record straight. Perhaps some misunderstanding occurred during his visit to Dubai.

.

Oh, I'm sure they have had plenty of time to clear up that "misunderstanding" since that "visit to Dubai" you illustrate above took place on or before the 2nd October 2011. ( http://thaiscandemo.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_02.html )

[Buchholz]

Yeah they did a great job,that why they lost the election in 2011 265-159 seats

Yes you are so correct. PTP won the elections. PTP then went on to use their government office to ; severely mismanage floods resulting in unnecessary deaths and damage, commit human-rights abuses in Bangkok by handing out home addresses of dissenters to an angry mob, spend a fortune on pardoning the crimes of their own membership, disrespect the Supreme Court, avoid almost all parliamentary debates, avoid all unscripted Q&A, allow their Prime Minister to commit serious abuse of office / conflict of interest / ethics violations crimes when she used her prime ministerial office for private business transactions which she has never registered and even tried to cover-up, squandered vast sums on glitchy Chinese tabs for no educational value whatsoever, a failed rice mortgage policy that threatens a new era of food price corruption which benefits the corrupt and punishes the poor. And PTP managed all this in just nine months! Imagine what they could do in several years. No wonder you are so proud of them.

Nice summation of the past nine months.

.