Deaths From Stray Bullets 'shock' Group

[rubl]

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

I assume 'Thai people' include red-shirts, their odd dozen militants, their leadership, the then government led by k. Abhisit, the army and police. All Thai solving Thai problems in their own Thai way.

So, why are people here complaining about all those Thai, even condemning some of them ?

BTW, quote from philw. Thanks for that philw

[KireB]

This is not the first time that the army has shot at unarmed demonstrators - why do you find it difficult to believe?

True, but in 2009 and 2010 the demonstrators came prepared and did a turkey shoot on the army in the name of one man and his criminal empire!

The sovereignty of Thailand was under attack and the army eventually, according to many too late, responded!

Let's rephrase your post: the 'unarmed and peaceful' protesters opened fire on the army and try to frame the then sitting PM.

A "turkey shoot on the army "

Some turkey, some shoot.

What " criminal empire" ??

And exactly how was the sovereignty of Thailand under attack ??

Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way.

I don't like what happened any more than you do, by the way.

So basically you look down on Thai people by claiming this. I mean: let them kill each other, sponsored by some corrupt people, as its the Thai way of doing business!

[ttelise]

This is not the first time that the army has shot at unarmed demonstrators - why do you find it difficult to believe?

True, but in 2009 and 2010 the demonstrators came prepared and did a turkey shoot on the army in the name of one man and his criminal empire!

The sovereignty of Thailand was under attack and the army eventually, according to many too late, responded!

Let's rephrase your post: the 'unarmed and peaceful' protesters opened fire on the army and try to frame the then sitting PM.

A "turkey shoot on the army "

Some turkey, some shoot.

What " criminal empire" ??

And exactly how was the sovereignty of Thailand under attack ??

Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way.

I don't like what happened any more than you do, by the way.

So basically you look down on Thai people by claiming this. I mean: let them kill each other, sponsored by some corrupt people, as its the Thai way of doing business!

I hate to say it, but maybe true if that story about the death of two Korean girls at the end of the Belanger sisters has any truth to it whatsoever. BiB saying two young girls, tied their own hands together, hut their own heads on the rocks and then drowned themselves.

[Bluespunk]

People died because perps were creating mayhem on the street. Doesn't need a rocket scientist to work it out really. End of.

The Dems were a military installed government that should never have been in power. They should have stood down long before the reds came to Bangkok. End of.

Bullguava

[rubl]

Thanks to various posters I took the time to do some searching, red interesting titbits, wetc., etc. Being your regular Dutch uncle I'd like to offer you the chance to share in my new found knowledge

About the previous protesters, 2008-08-26, only because a poster referred to this:

"“While we recognize Thai citizens’ legal right to protest peacefully, the siege of NBT represents a clear and present danger to press freedom,” said Bob Dietz, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “We call on authorities to protect the media during this difficult time of escalating political conflict and to keep streets secure so that journalists can do their work.”"

http://cpj.org/2008/...ion-station.php

BTW I may be wrong, but I think the previous protesters 'only occupied' ONE international airport, the shiny new one, with DM being local only?

Edited September 2, 2012 by rubl

[hellodolly]

This is a mess. I don't see how anyone can take either side absent being swayed by passion, prejudice and partisanship. If you condemn Thaksin at least be consistent and condemn Abhisit. Both are frickin low life criminals.

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere.

Like when PAD took over TV station and a couple of International airports. Your attitude keeps country going backwards although I know you will never agree, try to rationalize and just condemn what you don't agree with blinding you to what you endorse in the process of hating.

Going backward you were the one who opened the dialog and when it got over your head you went back to that old little kid trick well he did it why can't I.

You forget it was Thaksin's party who allowed the yellow protesters to take over the air ports. That was only for about ten days not two months. They did not have to have the army threaten them. And they did not fire shots at any one.

In case you forgot what the questions were here they are again.

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere.

Try to answer the questions instead of attacking. I think they were reasonable given your opening post.

[ttelise]

This is a mess. I don't see how anyone can take either side absent being swayed by passion, prejudice and partisanship. If you condemn Thaksin at least be consistent and condemn Abhisit. Both are frickin low life criminals.

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere.

Like when PAD took over TV station and a couple of International airports. Your attitude keeps country going backwards although I know you will never agree, try to rationalize and just condemn what you don't agree with blinding you to what you endorse in the process of hating.

Going backward you were the one who opened the dialog and when it got over your head you went back to that old little kid trick well he did it why can't I.

You forget it was Thaksin's party who allowed the yellow protesters to take over the air ports. That was only for about ten days not two months. They did not have to have the army threaten them. And they did not fire shots at any one.

In case you forgot what the questions were here they are again.

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere.

Try to answer the questions instead of attacking. I think they were reasonable given your opening post.

You are so argumentative I think you try to miss the point. I was NOT condoning red shirt behavior in 2010 as you try to make it sound.

My point was no need to break out tanks and shoot a bunch of unarmed people when PAD raided two international airports. That took great restraint that most countries would not exercise if a bunch of whack jobs ran out on International airport runways.

Edited September 2, 2012 by ttelise

[ttelise]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

[rubl]

You are so argumentative I think you try to miss the point. I was NOT condoning red shirt behavior in 2010 as you try to make it sound.

My point was no need to break out tanks and shoot a bunch of unarmed people when PAD raided two international airports. That took great restraint that most countries would not exercise if a bunch of whack jobs ran out on International airport runways.

Moving a bit off topic, but even at their first or second night PAD campaign outside moving into the airport building because of grenade attacks. Obviously that doesn't really matter, the 60+ grenades in 2010 were also used against non-red-shirts

[rubl]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

Even though I'm not HD, may I provide my view?

1. PAD didn't pull their BS to get Abhisit in office, but to get PPP and Thaksin nominees out.

2. k. Abhisit was a legitimate MP, voted in as PM by other legitimate MP's

3. Then PM Somchai replaced the late Samak who was deemed too independent by k. Thaksin

4. 'the people' are mostly the red-shirts, not the same as 'all Thai'

5. 60+ grenades against non-red-shirt Thai

6. A good leader would have been much more strict and not step down because of mob rule

IMHO of course

[Thait Spot]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

So you think Abhisit should have clamped down on the red shirts way before he did?

I think most would agree.

[whybother]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

The PAD didn't get Abhisit into office.

The PAD protested to stop the PPP government changing laws to get Thaksin out of his problems.

At the same time there was a court case regarding PPP's election fraud. The PPP were found guilty and disbanded and a number of MPs were banned. The PPP MPs that weren't banned mostly moved to the newly created PTP, with a group moved to BJT. The PTP were still effectively the government, but they had to elect a new PM. They could have called a general election, but they chose to go to parliament to elect a PM ... and Abhisit was elected.

[hellodolly]

ttelise

You are so argumentative I think you try to miss the point. I was NOT condoning red shirt behavior in 2010 as you try to make it sound.

My reply

No you were not You were accusing the man legally elected to protect the citizens of Thailand from such things of being a

frickin low life criminal

"

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere"

I await your answer. Remember you are accusing a legally elected PM of being a frickin low life criminal.

[creck]

“Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect.”

How did that man use his wealth to unseat a government with weapons – we all know. That was an immoral and undemocratic thing to do. Why did he do it? It was a silly thing - he only had to be patient, the government would have been voted out.

The other man didn’t just protect the people he was elected to protect. He behaved as if he headed a freely and fairly elected government. Which he did not. All the demonstrators wanted was an election – why did he resist? Again, we know why.

What would I have done? Either resign or got water cannon in there before the barricades got too high and booby trapped.

In terms of body count, Thaksin will take the lead; in his term of office far more than 94 died. However, they were not demonstrators.

[ttelise]

ttelise

You are so argumentative I think you try to miss the point. I was NOT condoning red shirt behavior in 2010 as you try to make it sound.

My reply

No you were not You were accusing the man legally elected to protect the citizens of Thailand from such things of being a

frickin low life criminal

"

Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect. What would you have done if you had been in his place and the police refused to do their duty?

Would you have said O your are right take the rest of the city and then you can have any other city you want I won't interfere"

I await your answer. Remember you are accusing a legally elected PM of being a frickin low life criminal.

I did answer, but you skipped that part.

Look, I get it. You guys are very passionate about Thai politics and probably nit even Thai, but beside point. You are entrenched in your views passionately and chose to see things the way you want to see them.

I am pretty unbiased in that I think both sides do things wrong and keep country a mess. Abhisit lost control and had a bunch of innocents executed because he lost control and could nit deal with situation appropriately.

Regarding other posters who say PAD 2008 was to get someone out, not someone in. This is purely semantics. Everyone knew who would take over and what ultimate goal was . . .

[ttelise]

“Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect.”

How did that man use his wealth to unseat a government with weapons – we all know. That was an immoral and undemocratic thing to do. Why did he do it? It was a silly thing - he only had to be patient, the government would have been voted out.

The other man didn’t just protect the people he was elected to protect. He behaved as if he headed a freely and fairly elected government. Which he did not. All the demonstrators wanted was an election – why did he resist? Again, we know why.

What would I have done? Either resign or got water cannon in there before the barricades got too high and booby trapped.

In terms of body count, Thaksin will take the lead; in his term of office far more than 94 died. However, they were not demonstrators.

Now this is rational and sensible. Both suck which is all I was trying to say before I let Hellodolly bait me with twisting the meaning and his usual spin of something very unambiguously written.

[hellodolly]

"Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect."

How did that man use his wealth to unseat a government with weapons – we all know. That was an immoral and undemocratic thing to do. Why did he do it? It was a silly thing - he only had to be patient, the government would have been voted out.

The other man didn't just protect the people he was elected to protect. He behaved as if he headed a freely and fairly elected government. Which he did not. All the demonstrators wanted was an election – why did he resist? Again, we know why.

What would I have done? Either resign or got water cannon in there before the barricades got too high and booby trapped.

In terms of body count, Thaksin will take the lead; in his term of office far more than 94 died. However, they were not demonstrators.

Now this is rational and sensible. Both suck which is all I was trying to say before I let Hellodolly bait me with twisting the meaning and his usual spin of something very unambiguously written.

You never did answer the question. The closes you have come to it was agreeing with creck.

In short you are just a waste of time make statements and when asked to explain them come up with meaningless nonsense.

You will notice that creck answered what he would have done. Possibly he was right about the water cannons but we will never know. They are generally used on unarmed mobs that was not the case with the red shirts. Possibly when they resorted to pouring blood all over that could have spread disease they could have got them with the water cannons. We will never know. The only thing we know is they waited far to long.

I disagree about the outcome of the election being known before hand because it was after the previous government was ousted that Newin made the switch to back the Democrats. And Abhist was elected the same way as all the other PMs were and until there is a massive change in the political system the future ones will be elected the same way.

What is really sad is they now have a government that does not have to make deals to get the votes and yet they do nothing for the Betterment of Thailand.

As I have said you are just a waste of time read creck reply and learn.

[rubl]

People died because perps were creating mayhem on the street. Doesn't need a rocket scientist to work it out really. End of.

The Dems were a military installed government that should never have been in power. They should have stood down long before the reds came to Bangkok. End of.

Bullguava

I'm sure this member didn't intend to offend. Most likely he just meant 'the nightsoil of a well-fed male oxen'

Edited September 2, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

In a latest newsflash PIC coordinator and co-editor of the report, Puangthong Pawakapan has just added a minor addendum to the report:

"Of course we also shocked by the deaths from 'stray grenades', but after consultation with experts decided not to mention that as that part was minimal and seen as not relevant in relation to the scope of our investigation and report."

BTW the PIC's website is (in Thai only) http://www.peaceandjusticenetwork.org/

Is that quote true rubl or are you breaking Rule 15?

Tongue in Cheek, firmly as well.

Mind you, did you note the quote I took from the LINKS Int. Journal, it gives a clear indication of what the scope of the PIC is:

""The People's Information Centre is an "alliance of a dozen lawyers, academics and social activists formed a month ago to help red shirts who say they are innocent of any crime…". PIC has now accused the state of illegal acts against United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship protesters who were arrested following the government's 19 May crackdown.""

Thats how the LINKS people introduced PIC, the quote did not come from PIC.

If I'm to distrust the introduction, what do I do with the rest? Especially as it has a lot of 'PIC says'. The part of "These are some of the serious issues facing these political prisoners:" might purely come from the LINKS people

Anyway, it's nice to know we have a totally unbiased group which works for red-shirts and political prisoners who just happen to be red-shirts only. Seemingly that is, not quoted from the PIC itself

[ttelise]

"Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect."

How did that man use his wealth to unseat a government with weapons – we all know. That was an immoral and undemocratic thing to do. Why did he do it? It was a silly thing - he only had to be patient, the government would have been voted out.

The other man didn't just protect the people he was elected to protect. He behaved as if he headed a freely and fairly elected government. Which he did not. All the demonstrators wanted was an election – why did he resist? Again, we know why.

What would I have done? Either resign or got water cannon in there before the barricades got too high and booby trapped.

In terms of body count, Thaksin will take the lead; in his term of office far more than 94 died. However, they were not demonstrators.

Now this is rational and sensible. Both suck which is all I was trying to say before I let Hellodolly bait me with twisting the meaning and his usual spin of something very unambiguously written.

You never did answer the question. The closes you have come to it was agreeing with creck.

In short you are just a waste of time make statements and when asked to explain them come up with meaningless nonsense.

You will notice that creck answered what he would have done. Possibly he was right about the water cannons but we will never know. They are generally used on unarmed mobs that was not the case with the red shirts. Possibly when they resorted to pouring blood all over that could have spread disease they could have got them with the water cannons. We will never know. The only thing we know is they waited far to long.

I disagree about the outcome of the election being known before hand because it was after the previous government was ousted that Newin made the switch to back the Democrats. And Abhist was elected the same way as all the other PMs were and until there is a massive change in the political system the future ones will be elected the same way.

What is really sad is they now have a government that does not have to make deals to get the votes and yet they do nothing for the Betterment of Thailand.

As I have said you are just a waste of time read creck reply and learn.

I agree 100 % with Creck and offered essential same solution or answer as Creck in my 23:58 post last paragraph. Been saying this all along, but you just hear what you want to hear.

[hellodolly]

"Any chance of explaining how one man uses his wealth to try to unseat a government with weapons. And the other does his job to protect the citizens he was elected to protect."

How did that man use his wealth to unseat a government with weapons – we all know. That was an immoral and undemocratic thing to do. Why did he do it? It was a silly thing - he only had to be patient, the government would have been voted out.

The other man didn't just protect the people he was elected to protect. He behaved as if he headed a freely and fairly elected government. Which he did not. All the demonstrators wanted was an election – why did he resist? Again, we know why.

What would I have done? Either resign or got water cannon in there before the barricades got too high and booby trapped.

In terms of body count, Thaksin will take the lead; in his term of office far more than 94 died. However, they were not demonstrators.

Now this is rational and sensible. Both suck which is all I was trying to say before I let Hellodolly bait me with twisting the meaning and his usual spin of something very unambiguously written.

You never did answer the question. The closes you have come to it was agreeing with creck.

In short you are just a waste of time make statements and when asked to explain them come up with meaningless nonsense.

You will notice that creck answered what he would have done. Possibly he was right about the water cannons but we will never know. They are generally used on unarmed mobs that was not the case with the red shirts. Possibly when they resorted to pouring blood all over that could have spread disease they could have got them with the water cannons. We will never know. The only thing we know is they waited far to long.

I disagree about the outcome of the election being known before hand because it was after the previous government was ousted that Newin made the switch to back the Democrats. And Abhist was elected the same way as all the other PMs were and until there is a massive change in the political system the future ones will be elected the same way.

What is really sad is they now have a government that does not have to make deals to get the votes and yet they do nothing for the Betterment of Thailand.

As I have said you are just a waste of time read creck reply and learn.

I agree 100 % with Creck and offered essential same solution or answer as Creck in my 23:58 post last paragraph. Been saying this all along, but you just hear what you want to hear.

Nice try your last post before Creek was at 23:36

Complete waste of time.

As I said read his post and learn how to answer a question.

[ttelise]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

Hellodolly

Uhm, this post at 23:58. Real hard to look back one page. Notice time stamp right above that says 23:58.27 to be precise.

Edited September 2, 2012 by ttelise

[rubl]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

Hellodolly

Uhm, this post at 23:58. Real hard to look back one page. Notice time stamp right above that says 23:58.27 to be precise.

I find a post from ttelise on 22:58, 23:31, 23:36. Maybe the way the timestamp is presented depends on some interesting website / IP location / shape of Moon type of thing?

Most likely what ttelise mentions as "23:58" others might see as "22:58".

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Internet

[ttelise]

HD.

As far as answers, how about if PAD had not pulled their BS in 2008 to get Abhisit in office, then we would not have had 2010 riots to get Abihist out who as illegitimate as anyone to have ever held office in Thailand. Should have stepped down before things got out of hand or never taken office to begin with because he is not nor ever was the people's choice.

The problem is you focus on what should have done other than opening fire with live ammunition after things escalated out of hand. A good leader would gave not let things reach that point.

Hellodolly

Uhm, this post at 23:58. Real hard to look back one page. Notice time stamp right above that says 23:58.27 to be precise.

I find a post from ttelise on 22:58, 23:31, 23:36. Maybe the way the timestamp is presented depends on some interesting website / IP location / shape of Moon type of thing?

Most likely what ttelise mentions as "23:58" others might see as "22:58".

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Internet

Haha, I wondered that.

Edited September 2, 2012 by ttelise

[phiphidon]

Arsonists and murderers are allowed bail, in some cases paid by the government, with no collateral input from offenders. You think that is NOT liberal?

Murderers?

[phiphidon]

Thanks to various posters I took the time to do some searching, red interesting titbits, wetc., etc. Being your regular Dutch uncle I'd like to offer you the chance to share in my new found knowledge

About the previous protesters, 2008-08-26, only because a poster referred to this:

"“While we recognize Thai citizens’ legal right to protest peacefully, the siege of NBT represents a clear and present danger to press freedom,” said Bob Dietz, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “We call on authorities to protect the media during this difficult time of escalating political conflict and to keep streets secure so that journalists can do their work.”"

http://cpj.org/2008/...ion-station.php

BTW I may be wrong, but I think the previous protesters 'only occupied' ONE international airport, the shiny new one, with DM being local only?

Look, I understand that it is difficult for you as a denizen of Bangkok to realise there is a country out there beyond Soi Cowboy but the PAD also prevented access to Phuket, Krabi and Hat Yai International airports

PAD protesters block access to Hat Yai, Krabi airports

Published on August 29, 2008

http://www.nationmul...o-30081882.html

PAD PROTEST: Phuket Airport overrun, runways blocked

Phuket Gazette – Friday, August 29, 2008 5:06:00 PM

http://www.phuketgaz...rticle6752.html

[phiphidon]

If I'm to distrust the introduction, what do I do with the rest? Especially as it has a lot of 'PIC says'. The part of "These are some of the serious issues facing these political prisoners:" might purely come from the LINKS people

Anyway, it's nice to know we have a totally unbiased group which works for red-shirts and political prisoners who just happen to be red-shirts only. Seemingly that is, not quoted from the PIC itself

Well I'm sure the yellow shirts could become political prisoners as well and the PIC will look after them in the same unbiased way, as it is their remit to look after political prisoners.

The only problem with this scenario is that there are no yellow shirts in prison - so cannot call themselves political prisoners and therefore do not qualify...........

Hope this helps your further education..............

Edited September 3, 2012 by phiphidon

[KireB]

Well I'm sure the yellow shirts could become political prisoners as well and the PIC will look after them in the same unbiased way, as it is their remit to look after political prisoners.

The only problem with this scenario is that there are no yellow shirts in prison - so cannot call themselves political prisoners and therefore do not qualify...........

Hope this helps your further education..............

Always comparing to yellow shirts whenever you have no answer. Maybe the yellow shirts you are referring to are not in prison because there is no individual evidence against them, or maybe their' crimes' were not as serious as the reds who are in prison. I don't remember any yellow shirts pouring blood in the streets, attack army bases, trying to shoot down helicopters, launch grenades, kill soldiers, drive LPG tankers, incite to hatred and violence, disrespect the courts, and so on... The whole red versus yellow comparison holds no ground. And you can hardly convince anyone that the courts are biased without any evidence, can you?

[OzMick]

Arsonists and murderers are allowed bail, in some cases paid by the government, with no collateral input from offenders. You think that is NOT liberal?

Murderers?

You are not aware of the police officers convicted of murder and allowed bail? Or is it, that if something doesn't involve the red shirts it is outside your scope?

[phiphidon]

Arsonists and murderers are allowed bail, in some cases paid by the government, with no collateral input from offenders. You think that is NOT liberal?

Murderers?

You are not aware of the police officers convicted of murder and allowed bail? Or is it, that if something doesn't involve the red shirts it is outside your scope?

Sorry, didn't realise your concern went beyond anything thaksin - an easy mistake to make..........