Korkaew Says Red Shirts Have Their Rights To Protest Against Democrats

[FOODLOVER]

I'm getting a Merc! I'm getting a Merc!! Why would I care about bus tickets?

Glad your happy with the Merc, stumpy. Now slap grandpappy in a wheel chair and whip out the red "We have a right to pelt the ex pm with bottles", calendar and start working on that beemer. Good luck! Edited July 4, 2012 by FOODLOVER

[OzMick]

When you listen to what these red shirt "leaders" (who the hell voted for them anyway?) say, you would have to come away thinkinhg that either their brain never had a chance to develop or that someone sneaked stealthily into theit boudoir one nigh and replaced the grey matter with brown.

Is there some form of "Thug labotomy" that is available at certain participating clinics?

The nice Englishman sent snipers to the rooftops to assassinate their relatives, how would you feel?

That's a downright lie. In fact it's a bunch of downright lies.

It's not important what you think, the majority of the Thai people know what happened and they're still pretty peeved about it.

Not so long back the majority of people "knew" that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it, and that was without the benefit of the red media feeding them revised history 24/365 for the last 2 years.As an intelligent and educated person, surely you can see through the red propaganda. Pardon my assumptions.

[tlansford]

- deleted

The nice Englishman sent snipers to the rooftops to assassinate their relatives, how would you feel?

That's a downright lie. In fact it's a bunch of downright lies.

It's not important what you think, the majority of the Thai people know what happened and they're still pretty peeved about it.

Yes the majority of the Redshirts, (not Thai people), see it that way through their redmist and they actually want an investigation and those responsable charged and punished same as Ahbisit. But they aint gonna get that because their boss, the convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, wants to trade their deaths for his amnesty.

"red-shirts" threaten rally against amnesty uea thai party list mp and "red-shirt" core leader jatuporn promphan on thursday threatened to stage protest if the government agrees to submit amnesty bill proposed by the coalition bhumjaithai party to the house of representatives.

the opposition puea thai list mp said the bill was aimed at giving amnesty to the murderers who killed "red-shirt" protesters and injured many more at ratchaprasong intersection in the capital city on may 19.

"the true intention for amnesty is to allow the murderers to go free and has absolutely no benefit for the people, be it the red- shirts or the yellow-shirts," local website the nation quoted him as saying.

he warned the "red-shirts" not to fall into a trap, and called on them to get ready to turn out to rally against the amnesty bill.

http://wwv.onote-art...te-articles_46/

Thaksin Shinawatra could not have been a happy man this week: the single-minded drive by his proxy government to deliver a much-desired amnesty has hit a nasty bump...... after having completely reneged on a promise to hold public hearings on the matter. Feeling the bill was being rammed down their collective throats, the opposition Democrats snapped, creating havoc in the House, forcing the vote to be postponed by a day.........

The question is, why did the PT (and behind them, the government and Thaksin himself) suddenly feel the need to rush their reconciliation/amnesty bill so quickly and without any public hearings? The probable answer is that Thaksin, who is widely acknowledged to lead the government from abroad, is in a state of panic. During his address to red shirt supporters on May 19, he urged them to effectively let go of their grievances and move on. It was widely assumed the reason behind the speech was Thaksin had reached an understanding with the military and other key players that would facilitate his return toThailand, which included Thaksin urging his supporters to “forgive” the powers-that-be and cause them no further trouble. PM Yingluck’s visit earlier that month to Prem the red-shirt bogeyman and the very embodiment of the “elites”, was part of the new détente.

http://bangkokdave.b...-in-a-backlash/

I don't personally know anyone who denies that the government deployed snipers and that the snipers shot innocent people.

[geriatrickid]

In Phuket, a Democrat stronghold, the UDD has attempted to give speeches. These meetings have been swarmed by Democrat and PAD supporters, who disrupt the events and at the two events I witnessed, attempt to intimidate anyone willing to listen. And surprise surprise, these people invariably seem to be part of the local "transportation clubs".

Political events in Thailand tend to be aggressive affairs.

[Moruya]

When you listen to what these red shirt "leaders" (who the hell voted for them anyway?) say, you would have to come away thinkinhg that either their brain never had a chance to develop or that someone sneaked stealthily into theit boudoir one nigh and replaced the grey matter with brown.

Is there some form of "Thug labotomy" that is available at certain participating clinics?

The nice Englishman sent snipers to the rooftops to assassinate their relatives, how would you feel?

That's a downright lie. In fact it's a bunch of downright lies.

It's not important what you think, the majority of the Thai people know what happened and they're still pretty peeved about it.

Doesn't it bother you coming on here and belching out untruths and nonsense?

[Moruya]

In Phuket, a Democrat stronghold, the UDD has attempted to give speeches. These meetings have been swarmed by Democrat and PAD supporters, who disrupt the events and at the two events I witnessed, attempt to intimidate anyone willing to listen. And surprise surprise, these people invariably seem to be part of the local "transportation clubs".

Political events in Thailand tend to be aggressive affairs.

The red shirts came to declare the southern villages as red. That's the difference

[tlansford]

^#85 tlansford

I only found a link to a 1st of July article from the other newspaper. It describes k. Abhisit delivering a speech the day before at Chumchon Prachathipat Witthayakhan School in Rangsit with about 300 red-shirts trying to break into the compound. k. Wutthipong Kochthamakhun led the group which shouted insults at k. Abhisit and yelled for him to leave. Some threw water bottles unto the stage.

All very democratic, our right to protests against Democrats

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

[Yunla]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

[tlansford]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

The please indicate a democratic country where politics does not involve this "intimidation".

It is everywhere.

Bush and Obama had/have counter-demonstrations when they show/ed up to speak. If people care about an issue, then they will find a way to make their voice heard. That is democracy's "freedom of speech". No one needs to break any laws to do so, but it is hardly "intimidation".

[Yunla]

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

The please indicate a democratic country where politics does not involve this "intimidation".

It is everywhere.

Bush and Obama had/have counter-demonstrations when they show/ed up to speak. If people care about an issue, then they will find a way to make their voice heard. That is democracy's "freedom of speech". No one needs to break any laws to do so, but it is hardly "intimidation".

If Obama is in power as President, and Obama supporters (paid to protest or not) went to a group of opposing supporters at a speech by a republican politician, and threw bottles at them, the assailants would be arrested and charged with assault and Obama would have an inquiry launched into him to see if he ordered or paid people to intimidate the opposition. Its very serious when it is the government thugs doing the intimidation, because that is state oppression.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Yunla

[tlansford]

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

The please indicate a democratic country where politics does not involve this "intimidation".

It is everywhere.

Bush and Obama had/have counter-demonstrations when they show/ed up to speak. If people care about an issue, then they will find a way to make their voice heard. That is democracy's "freedom of speech". No one needs to break any laws to do so, but it is hardly "intimidation".

If Obama is in power as President, and Obama supporters (paid to protest or not) went to a group of opposing supporters at a speech by a republican politician, and threw bottles at them, the assailants would be arrested and charged with assault and Obama would have an inquiry launched into him to see if he ordered or paid people to intimidate the opposition. Its very serious when it is the government thugs doing the intimidation, because that is state oppression.

As an example in the USA, the first part is true, if they broke the law, then they would be arrested and charged for something. The second part is just nonsense. There would not be an inquiry nor would it be part of "state oppression".

But regarding Thailand, I guess you are taking this from the 2009 example of Suthep and his Blue Shirts, right?

[Buchholz]

Amazing the attempt to diminish an assault.

Downplay it, throw in American hypotheticals to derail it, insert some smiles, and call it an "infraction."

,

[saltandpepper]

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

The please indicate a democratic country where politics does not involve this "intimidation".

It is everywhere.

Bush and Obama had/have counter-demonstrations when they show/ed up to speak. If people care about an issue, then they will find a way to make their voice heard. That is democracy's "freedom of speech". No one needs to break any laws to do so, but it is hardly "intimidation".

If Obama is in power as President, and Obama supporters (paid to protest or not) went to a group of opposing supporters at a speech by a republican politician, and threw bottles at them, the assailants would be arrested and charged with assault and Obama would have an inquiry launched into him to see if he ordered or paid people to intimidate the opposition. Its very serious when it is the government thugs doing the intimidation, because that is state oppression.

As an example in the USA, the first part is true, if they broke the law, then they would be arrested and charged for something. The second part is just nonsense. There would not be an inquiry nor would it be part of "state oppression".

But regarding Thailand, I guess you are taking this from the 2009 example of Suthep and his Blue Shirts, right?

Preposterous, at the very least....

[Yunla]

As an example in the USA, the first part is true, if they broke the law, then they would be arrested and charged for something. The second part is just nonsense. There would not be an inquiry nor would it be part of "state oppression".

But regarding Thailand, I guess you are taking this from the 2009 example of Suthep and his Blue Shirts, right?

Throwing objects at people intentionally is called "assault". When the government hires people to do it, its called "state fascism".

Sorry to hear you're still living in 2009. In my opinion 2012 is okay except all the repressive idiots are in power somehow. I should send you the last three years lottery results back in time or something.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Yunla

[tlansford]

As an example in the USA, the first part is true, if they broke the law, then they would be arrested and charged for something. The second part is just nonsense. There would not be an inquiry nor would it be part of "state oppression".

But regarding Thailand, I guess you are taking this from the 2009 example of Suthep and his Blue Shirts, right?

Throwing objects at people intentionally is called "assault". When the government hires people to do it, its called "state fascism".

Sorry to hear you're still living in 2009. In my opinion 2012 is okay except all the repressive idiots are in power somehow. I should send you the last three years lottery results back in time or something.

So we at least agree that if demonstrators break the law, then they should be arrested. Good, that's progress.

Which state paid people to assault others? Are you trying to imply that the people opposed to Abhisit were paid by the government to harass him?

Sorry to take you down memory lane, but I am guessing that the members of the army & navy who made up the blue shirts were doing that on paid time and not on personal time. That is the last time I can recall a government paying people to to pretend that they are demonstrators and then to assault others.

[kerryk]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

[saltandpepper]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

How about "occupation" ?

[kerryk]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

How about "occupation" ?

True I guess. A terrorist occupation. Yup works for me. Or maybe billions of dollars were lost because Thai fanatics occupied Bangkok International airport?

I think in this case maybe occupation is worse than intimidation? See that was my point. The yellow shirts can dish it out but can't take it.

[saltandpepper]

^^

Kerryk

I said "occupation"

You added terrorist, but that is NOT what I wrote

[AleG]

^^

Kerryk

I said "occupation"

You added terrorist, but that is NOT what I wrote

There's no point in arguing against the shadows in some people's heads.

[thaitumdai]

ok

[ThaiOats]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

Actually according to Tlansford, it would be people who are just voicing out their opinion and they have every right to do that. Just like the Red Shirts had every right to occupy Bangkok minus the weapons part.

[muchogra]

Thailand has been wanting to be the hub of many things but has never achieved. Now, it's the hub of protest, and I guess few would disagree.

What a nice country being destroyed in the name of democracy!

[geriatrickid]

In Phuket, a Democrat stronghold, the UDD has attempted to give speeches. These meetings have been swarmed by Democrat and PAD supporters, who disrupt the events and at the two events I witnessed, attempt to intimidate anyone willing to listen. And surprise surprise, these people invariably seem to be part of the local "transportation clubs".

Political events in Thailand tend to be aggressive affairs.

The red shirts came to declare the southern villages as red. That's the difference

This occurred during the election pre-campaigning, long before the arson that burnt down the structure, the Phuket Gazette referred to as a "pavillion". Sorry, but Phuket and other Southern areas are no go zones for some political groups. They get a beat down if they try to engage in the most innocuous of political activities. That's the reality. I don't use it as an excuse , but the complete lack of respect for those that wish to dissent is a trait of Thailand. Everything is suppressed until it erupts.

[Yunla]

True I guess. A terrorist occupation. Yup works for me. Or maybe billions of dollars were lost because Thai fanatics occupied Bangkok International airport?

I think in this case maybe occupation is worse than intimidation? See that was my point. The yellow shirts can dish it out but can't take it.

They were Thai people, in Thailand, doing sit-down peaceful protest against a Thai politician and his regime who stole billions from the state coffers and murdered thousands of innocent Thais. What makes you think you have the right to condemn them and call them terrorists in their own country.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

Very weak and weaselish response. What do you call it when sinners hide behind others' sins?

[muchogra]

"....but the complete lack of respect for those that wish to dissent is a trait of Thailand. Everything is suppressed until it erupts."

I reckon you see it as your responsibility to correct it then while living here. How's America been doing while most have been becoming like you? Infection?...No...it's about democracy at the finest as you so wanting to show (off)!

[muchogra]

Don't judge others with your own standards. People from different countries have different views. Don't corrupt others with your own views thereby corrupting other people's cultures and customs. Yours is already deterioating!

[muchogra]

My kids probably vote the same people as you. Oh, that's progress so you would say!...Is it really?

Why not enjoy Thailand for what it has been instead of pushing for what it's not ready for?

Yeah, you sound logical and impressive in your writings but there are underlying faults which is: you think like an American!

[tlansford]

Thanks.

I take it no one was injured by the bottles. I hope that at least they were not glass.

Seriously, as noted in this OP, if they don't break the law, then they have every right to protest against Abhisit. Honestly, throwing water bottles, glass or not, must be some kind of infraction, as would be breaking into the compound.

I have to admit that I laughed when I saw the added condition that they don't lynch Abhisit either - as if that would not fall under the "breaking the law" condition.

Its called "intimidation". Something that has no place in democratic politics.

I agree. What do you call it when someone occupies an international airport? Intimidation or terrorism?

Actually according to Tlansford, it would be people who are just voicing out their opinion and they have every right to do that. Just like the Red Shirts had every right to occupy Bangkok minus the weapons part.

ah, there you go again - so kind of you to reinterpret my rather clear comments and distort them beyond recognition.

next time feel free to keep your incorrect interpretation of my statements to yourself. Thanks.