Court Names 81 Red Shirts In Judges' Intimida

[phiphidon]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Rearrange the first three words to

You don't think

The first thing he doe's when he sees some thing negative towards the pay master and his horde cloned and non cloned is go on the defense. Did you notice the "and proven" he slipped in his little speech. Like even a ostrich with his head in the sand knows their guilty but he has to leave the door open for them.

He knows they are guilty but can't bring himself to admit it. I am surprised he hasn't come up with a long list of things the Dem's did wrong or he see's as wrong to justify their actions. Personally I think that they should all be given double the maximum penalty to send a strong and clear message this kind of action will no longer be tolerated.

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

[rubl]

Just so people understand issues like 'rule of law', 'democracy', and so on, let me point to this item

Thailand Live Wednesday 1 Aug 2012 #31:

"Red-leaning Pheu Thai MPs kickstart House session

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A group of Pheu Thai MPs, seen as close to the red-shirt movement, on Wednesday held a press conference to unveil their agendas coinciding with the first day of reconvening the House after a month-long recess.

On a key agenda, three MPs, Weng Tojirakarn, Kokaew Pikulthong and Jarupan Kuldiloke, filed a petition on the red shirts' behalf, calling for the government to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in a one-off case paving way for the ICC hearing on the 2010 bloodshed.

The petition was addressed to Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul.

In the other agenda, Weng would submit an impeachment motion against seven judges of the Constitution Court, citing abuse of judicial discretion to rule on the charter amendment bill.

He also said the coalition MPs would not abondon the bill though they needed time to study the verdict before calling a vote on the third reading of the bill."

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5535830

[hellodolly]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

I never said anything about a trial.You should really study up a little bit before you get on your soap box.It is exactly as my criminology instructor said. When you go to court you can be sure you will get legal but not necessarily get justice. You seem to have a hard time thinking you just rely on what others tell you.According to your logic if the courts find them innocent even though there are thousands of witness and it is on tape that will be justice. Get a dictionary.As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Rearrange the first three words to

You don't think

The first thing he doe's when he sees some thing negative towards the pay master and his horde cloned and non cloned is go on the defense. Did you notice the "and proven" he slipped in his little speech. Like even a ostrich with his head in the sand knows their guilty but he has to leave the door open for them.

He knows they are guilty but can't bring himself to admit it. I am surprised he hasn't come up with a long list of things the Dem's did wrong or he see's as wrong to justify their actions. Personally I think that they should all be given double the maximum penalty to send a strong and clear message this kind of action will no longer be tolerated.

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

Edited August 1, 2012 by hellodolly

[MAJIC]

The only "despicable" acts I see here are the the giving out of judges addresses and inciting violence on those judges - if that is the case and when proven - I still believe in trials unlike some of the "voices of reason" on here .

As far as the rest goes, the reaction to the symbolic "burning of coffins" is emotional hyperbole by people who really think that they are not "ordinary" people. As such the reports are ideal partners for the faux emotionality displayed on these forums - did you ever write to forums back home gushing "Punish these guys for their despicable Acts", actually you probably did.

Get over it, some red shirts burnt some paper coffins over their understandable frustration with the Judiciary getting involved where they shouldn't.

Don't you think that given the current political landscape here in Thailand, having groups of people, shown on TV, burning effigies of the judges as well as coffins was an incitement to violence?

Absolutely correct! and a long way from 'Reconciliation' as the PTP Party,and the Red Shirt Leaders are fond of quoting,when it suits them,such Hypocracy is breathtaking, and does nothing for Democracy,of which they understand the sum total of nothing.

Edited August 1, 2012 by MAJIC

[Moruya]

I dint think judges should be criticised.

I do think that decisions should be.

Er, It's the Judges that make the decisions............

You you attack the personnel?

OK. Thaksin called the war on drugs so he is a murderer by the thousand?

The red shirts called for burning Bangkok ergo they are arsonists?

Is that how it works?

^ that's obviously how it works for you anyway because we all know your answer to those questions....

i love these parts though:

"There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts." - OK

"So laws should be enforced" - OK

"I dint think judges should be criticised." - OK

"I do think that decisions should be. " - Wait, what?

"There is a law in Thailand against criticising judges and verdicts."

"So laws should be enforced"

"I do think that decisions should be. " (criticised)

so you think the law on penalising people for criticising verdicts should be enforced.

while at the same time thinking that decisions ie 'verdicts' should be criticised by people.

ok then.

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

[nurofiend]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

[tlansford]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

not sure.

Not necessarily my position, but I think that you can believe that all laws should be enforced, but laws you do not agree with should be changed.

But anyway that is where we ended up, not where we started as Moruya created a circular argument above as pointed out by phiphidon.

Edited August 2, 2012 by tlansford

[whybother]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

not sure.

Not necessarily my position, but I think that you can believe that all laws should be enforced, but laws you do not agree with should be changed.

...

Agreed.

[phiphidon]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

[yoshiwara]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

Always amusing to read Thaksin's apologists hair-splitting to provide cover for red thuggery. And so much experience doing so.

[Nickymaster]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

propaganda 101: What you see is not what you see. And if all fails, we can still change the constitution.

[Nickymaster]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

Always amusing to read Thaksin's apologists hair-splitting to provide cover for red thuggery. And so much experience doing so.

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist with a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Nickymaster

[phiphidon]

I'll admit they're guilty when they have been proved that they are guilty. It's called justice, something you supposedly stand up for as long as it's your kind of justice that is. That is why I specifically added (not slipped in as implied by you as if I was doing something sneaky - it's the way your mind works) "until proven".

When you've got over your lynchmob mentality come back and lecture me on justice and democracy.

Before you get up on your soap box and spout your nonsense about Justice look the word up in a dictionary.

It is exactly like my criminology instructor said when you go to court you can be pretty sure legal is done. But not that justice will be done.

According to your logic even with the thousands of witness having it on tape they are innocent because a court hasn't said they were guilty.

Do you realize a court never said Hitler was Guilty of war crimes. Are you trying to say he was innocent.

No, I'm just waiting for a verdict when they go through judicial procedures. Innocent until proven guilty imho. You have already decreed them guilty. That is the difference (well one of them at least) between you and me.

I was aware that Hitler was never found guilty of war crimes - mind you, it would have been an interesting trial for sure, necessitating a seance at the very least. So apart from the ludicrous nature of your analogy it hardly stands up in court does it - and neither did hitler.....................

Always amusing to read Thaksin's apologists hair-splitting to provide cover for red thuggery. And so much experience doing so.

I call it justice - you call it hair splitting. You of course are the poster boy for democracy whereas I am................... not?

[Babcock]

I don't think the judges of any court should be treated differently to the general populace. However, they should not be subject to intimidation and to argue that their reaction to intimidation is censorship is a totally false claim.

The real problem is that PT &, in particular, the red shirt leaders think that once they get into power they have a mandate to do what they like. It was exactly the same when Thaksin was PM & almost succeded in subverting all of the checks & balances that are a part of a democracy.

It is surprising that a group of posters on this thread (& many other threads) go out of their way to defend the red shirt leaders who have instigated far too much violence on behalf of their paymaster. The latter, incidently, has made Kork-screw into a millionaire who is following his leader in having asset declaration problems.

I would agree with you if it were a reaction only against the intimidation - eg: the charges related to threatening their safety.

But throwing in the other groups who demonstrated in front of the court, filed the charges, etc, that is IMO a real attempt at censorship.

As for your other characterizations of the government, that is just the standard dismissal technique used here to trivialize an elected mandate. Yes, any gov't with 300/500 seats has a mandate, and no, it is not true that the gov't can just do whatever it wants regardless of the laws.

And AFAIK, posters here do not generally defend the violence of the UDD, but they do generally defend the violence of the military... just that it is a different group of posters than you meant.

Yes, it may be over the top to charge all of them. But those who gave out personal details & incited people to commit violence should be charged. However to claim it is censorship is equally over the top & doesn't help your argument.

You say the government can't do whatever it likes & I hope you're right, but PT & all it's predecessors have always tried to do whatever they want. The CC is doing what it should do - rein in the government when it oversteps its power.

I see you've pushed the 'but the military button' which is not the subject of this thread. I've not seen many supporters of the military crimes at Tak Bai or Krue Be (spelling?). There are those who defend the military for clearing out the take-over of Ratchaprasong. Someone had to do it & as the police, as usual, refused to do their job, the military had to do it.

There was no police when the Reds started occupying Ratchaprasong. It was all part of the game to get the military involved (and to blame the military for the loss of people); carefully orchestrated by Thaksin. I have witnessed it with my own eyes (living in the area). Reds came, police left. There were weeks I couldn't find any police, only Reds "managing" down-town Bangkok. And it worked I guess when reading how much hatred there is (by some) towards the military for cleaning up the mess the Police left behind.

and there you sat fuming until the military turned up and shot up the neighborhood.

[phiphidon]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

[Thaddeus]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

The same difference between getting a Grammy or an MTV Music Award.

[Nickymaster]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

Are you saying that I am lying when I say HRW called Thaksin a Human Rights abuser of it's worst kind?

Y/N pick one!

[Babcock]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

Are you saying that I am lying when I say HRW called Thaksin a Human Rights abuser of it's worst kind?

Y/N pick one!

There was a War on Drugs under thaksin supported on all sides.

Whose idea was it?

To date there have been no convictions.

What have the courts been doing?

Thaksin was deposed in 2006 in a coup.

[whybother]

There was a War on Drugs under thaksin supported on all sides.

Whose idea was it?

To date there have been no convictions.

What have the courts been doing?

Thaksin was deposed in 2006 in a coup.

You don't read the news much, do you?

[Nickymaster]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

Are you saying that I am lying when I say HRW called Thaksin a Human Rights abuser of it's worst kind?

Y/N pick one!

There was a War on Drugs under thaksin supported on all sides.

Whose idea was it?

To date there have been no convictions.

What have the courts been doing?

Thaksin was deposed in 2006 in a coup.

Wrong answer. Next.

[Moruya]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

Rubbish

[Babcock]

There was a War on Drugs under thaksin supported on all sides.

Whose idea was it?

To date there have been no convictions.

What have the courts been doing?

Thaksin was deposed in 2006 in a coup.

You don't read the news much, do you?

out on bail aren't they?

[Moruya]

And shamelessly supporting a guy that is labeled by HRW as a human rights abuser of it's worst kind.

But who can stop a rich, corrupt narcissist what a propaganda machine working at full speed in a country where many have little education. Perfect playing field.

Off topic somewhat but which particular hrw are you talking about - there is a difference, but you must know that.............

Are you saying that I am lying when I say HRW called Thaksin a Human Rights abuser of it's worst kind?

Y/N pick one!

There was a War on Drugs under thaksin supported on all sides.

Whose idea was it?

To date there have been no convictions.

What have the courts been doing?

Thaksin was deposed in 2006 in a coup.

do you read the news?

[KKvampire]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

[Moruya]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

At a compensation rate of half a million per month to be sure

[Babcock]

Nothing New, We all know UDD / Reds are a bunch of gangsters and thugs but will they really do time in the country of corruption ?

you want to lock up half the population?

[Babcock]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

Rubbish

the trouble is when you refer in your earlier post to calls from the reds protest stage at ratchadaprisek road for the burning down of Bangkok these were made as a threat , warning should the army come and attack these protestors as they had already done the month before at the Democracy monument causing 19 deaths and over 1000 injuries.

In other words AFTER the demonstration was declared illegal and Abhisit declared a state of emergency where the military had been given carte blanche to do what ever they liked ie with legal impunity.

We'd all seen what they had done.

It wasn't pleasant seeing military in plainclothes driving around Sukhumvit riding shotgun looking for reds to abuse.

Just like the one of their own who got shot up riding in convoy into his own forces roadblock and shot to death.

Military shooting indiscriminately down our street.

They turned Central Bangkok into a war zone.

And some of the people had the audacity to resist.

It didn't end well. More I fear to come.

[Moruya]

I do think that laws should be enforced.

I don't need to agree with every law.

Simple

disagreeing with a law precisely means that you don't think it should be enforced... that's what disagreeing with a law is.

you don't say i disagree with that law but i think it should be enforced...which is pretty much what you said.

Rubbish

the trouble is when you refer in your earlier post to calls from the reds protest stage at ratchadaprisek road for the burning down of Bangkok these were made as a threat , warning should the army come and attack these protestors as they had already done the month before at the Democracy monument causing 19 deaths and over 1000 injuries.

In other words AFTER the demonstration was declared illegal and Abhisit declared a state of emergency where the military had been given carte blanche to do what ever they liked ie with legal impunity.

We'd all seen what they had done.

It wasn't pleasant seeing military in plainclothes driving around Sukhumvit riding shotgun looking for reds to abuse.

Just like the one of their own who got shot up riding in convoy into his own forces roadblock and shot to death.

Military shooting indiscriminately down our street.

They turned Central Bangkok into a war zone.

And some of the people had the audacity to resist.

It didn't end well. More I fear to come.

you've been watching too much Rambo.

What had Siriraj hospital done to deserve being burned to the ground?

What had the Muslims done to deserve having all their mosques torched?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Moruya

[Babcock]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

[Moruya]

It looks more like you who's been watching the Rambo.

Siriraj hospital burnt down.

I don't think so.

mosques torched?

I don't think so.

However back in 2006 there was a series of unexplained explosions around Bangkok and Chiang Mai.

One went off near the Saxaphone club causing serious injuries.

Another explosion inside a mosque in Chiang Mai.

The coup leaders at first blamed Thaskin supporters. The moslems.

Later the police blamed General Panlop ( you know mastermind for the car bomb intended for Thaksin earlier that year stored overnight at the ISOC headquarters.) He was the general responsible for the Tak Bai mosque massacre. Wrote a book about it justifying doing it and defying the ministry of defence who ordered him to negotiate. Word has it that the men inside the mosque were found with their hands tied and bullet wounds to the head.

There were 2 eyewitnesses.

1) in Bangkok an eyewitness saw a man hurl a grenade from an overhead walkway.

2) in Chiang Mai the caretaker of a mosque was blown up when he saw a man throw a grenade into the mosque injuring him.

At first the police blamed the caretaker claiming he was building a bomb inside the mosque. Mass protests followed as if a caretaker would build a device in a mosque.

To date no arrests.

You said that what was said at the rally was meant as a threat to the government.

So why the threats to Siriraj and the Mosques?

We all know who was in Siriraj.

And the Mosques? Pure fascism.

Your icons are tainted.