Abhisit, Suthep: Death Before Amnesty Bill, No Compromises To Whitewash Thaksin

[jayboy]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjournal.blogspot.com/p/thoughts-on-thailands-turmoil-by-james.html

[DLock]

This will be a hard concept for Thaksin and his PTP lackeys to understand - that someone would take a stance on a moral position where there is no benefit to themselves.

Examples Please. Suthep the campion of morality.

I have to say that I would love to see that toad Suthep do a long stretch in jail. Abhisit, doesn't really matter, he is inconsequential.

Unfortunately for you, that won't happen.

The stance that Abhisit and Suthep have taken will see them elevated as martyrs and hero's.

All the while Thaksin will dwell in neverland limbo and die a convicted fugitive far from his beloved homeland.

...and that brings me much joy.

[yoshiwara]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

'No heroes or villains' says the man in a red T-shirt. Maybe its in the wash today.

[scorecard]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

And you jayboy continue to deliberately confuse the whole think and refuse to recognize other / broader views. Again jayboy, I contend the following:

- Yes there is a serious and unacceptable gap: in Income, quality of life, access to quality education, and job opportunity, and severe lack of fair and equal application of the law. IMHO a very large % of the farang who comment of this board, and others, would have no hesitation to agree with this. Ultimately of course I respect whatever they choose to think.

- Does the UDD, the red shirts, etc., have any real credibility as a logical well informed, well constructed body with a clear platform to gain focused change? NO!

Have any of their leaders ever given a well constructed presentation about what democracy means, why it is desirebale, the pillars of building and protecting democracy? NO!.

Have they ever distributed any literature which explains these things well? NO.

Have any of their leaders ever taken part in an organized moderated public debate on this subject with people in attendance with different views? NO! Never.

- Personally I would welcome a well organized movement which had credibility, and which spoke honestly and credibly about democracy etc etc and had a logical and specific platform and objectives, and proposed polices which provided mechanisms to seriously reduce the gap, and which had no hesitation to engage in civil debate, and which had a platform of: no violence, no hate speeches, honesty, fight corruption, honest and open education in regard to these subjects, and no manipulation of voters.

Edited December 10, 2012 by scorecard

[binjalin]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

And you jayboy continue to deliberately confuse the whole think and refuse to recognize other / broader views. Again jayboy, I contend the following:

- Yes there is a serious and unacceptable gap: in Income, quality of life, access to quality education, and job opportunity, and severe lack of fair and equal application of the law. IMHO a very large % of the farang who comment of this board, and others, would have no hesitation to agree with this. Ultimately of course I respect whatever they choose to think.

- Does the UDD, the red shirts, etc., have any real credibility as a logical well informed, well constructed body with a clear platform to gain focused change? NO!

Have any of their leaders ever given a well constructed presentation about what democracy means, why it is desirebale, the pillars of building and protecting democracy? NO!.

Have they ever distributed any literature which explains these things well? NO.

Have any of their leaders ever taken part in an organized moderated public debate on this subject with people in attendance with different views? NO! Never.

- Personally I would welcome a well organized movement which had credibility, and which spoke honestly and credibly about democracy etc etc and had a logical and specific platform and objectives, and proposed polices which provided mechanisms to seriously reduce the gap, and which had no hesitation to engage in civil debate, and which had a platform of: no violence, no hate speeches, honesty, fight corruption, honest and open education in regard to these subjects, and no manipulation of voters.

fine - let's start

free speech YES!

no banning parties for political purposes YES!

free debate YES!

respect the democratic election result YES!

don't try and paint Suthept as a 'man of principal' YES! (in fact this is beyond even the hardest armart supporters on TVF)

Edited December 10, 2012 by binjalin

[scorecard]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

And you jayboy continue to deliberately confuse the whole think and refuse to recognize other / broader views. Again jayboy, I contend the following:

- Yes there is a serious and unacceptable gap: in Income, quality of life, access to quality education, and job opportunity, and severe lack of fair and equal application of the law. IMHO a very large % of the farang who comment of this board, and others, would have no hesitation to agree with this. Ultimately of course I respect whatever they choose to think.

- Does the UDD, the red shirts, etc., have any real credibility as a logical well informed, well constructed body with a clear platform to gain focused change? NO!

Have any of their leaders ever given a well constructed presentation about what democracy means, why it is desirebale, the pillars of building and protecting democracy? NO!.

Have they ever distributed any literature which explains these things well? NO.

Have any of their leaders ever taken part in an organized moderated public debate on this subject with people in attendance with different views? NO! Never.

- Personally I would welcome a well organized movement which had credibility, and which spoke honestly and credibly about democracy etc etc and had a logical and specific platform and objectives, and proposed polices which provided mechanisms to seriously reduce the gap, and which had no hesitation to engage in civil debate, and which had a platform of: no violence, no hate speeches, honesty, fight corruption, honest and open education in regard to these subjects, and no manipulation of voters.

fine - let's start

free speech YES!

no banning parties for political purposes YES!

free debate YES!

respect the democratic election result YES!

don't try and paint Suthept as a 'man of principal' YES! (in fact this is beyond even the hardest armart supporters on TVF)

Let the axe fall where it should, regardless of what party the person/ politician belongs to. Fair application of the law regadless of colour or whatever.

Respect what democractic election result? Yes, if it really is a free and fair election with no manipulation of voters. And that applies to all parties.

Edited December 10, 2012 by scorecard

[binjalin]

i agree - but it takes BOTH sides to stop the nonsense - to be fair the election result was as fair as it could be in current circumstances and both sides manipulated I'm sure

what Thailand needs is a 'aung san suu kyi' a 'mandala' or a 'ghandi' and it never has had anyone even near a clean and ethical leader and that IS the problem!

Edited December 10, 2012 by binjalin

[theslime]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

Good quote, now we know that in order to get your point across you call people dumb and naive, talk about dumb and naive.

Sounds like a pretty good theory to explain the phenomenon. Do you have a better explanation?

I,m sure people like me have as much right to express ourselves and not be called naive, I was all for leekpai/abhitsit till I realised that they are the show for democracy and that the Army is still the ringmaster, same same reds, Ergo we who argue against your ilk aren,t against the Yellows, we are against a Military coup and the supposedly legal courts they have always overshadowed.Not the elected leader of a nation be he a saint or a sinner the people overwhelmingly voted for.

[Time Traveller]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

If Abhisit is happy to be executed for his beliefs, then just execute him and move on from this mess.

[Thaddeus]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?

[theslime]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?

Good question. Might he be opining about how many times things get swept under the carpet and basically the PM should treat other Crimes with the same passion. not just to suit the party.

[Time Traveller]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?

Good question. Might he be opining about how many times things get swept under the carpet and basically the PM should treat other Crimes with the same passion. not just to suit the party.

No person becomes a politician because they "accept the laws", they become politicians because they want to make the laws. By saying he believes in rule of law, he is really just saying he wants Thaksin to face jail. Not because Abhisit really would accept a death sentence on murder that is handed down upon him by the law. Never trust a politician.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Time Traveller

[FarangTalk]

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

The evidence shown daily on this forum suggests otherwise. There is definitely a void of knowledge about Thai political history pre-Thaksin on this forum when it comes to discussing politics.

My experience here has been that the longer term expats can see a bigger picture, while it is the newer members of the expat community that arrived in the 2000's that tend to parrot what their spouse or other Thais tell them, mostly based on their own naivety and a desire to be fully part of this new and strange country they find themselves in.

The newer members thus engage themselves in all sorts of bizarre behaviour; demagoguery, superstition, fascist tendencies etc.

I've even had Labour voters and liberals from the UK espouse Thai fascism, demagoguery, supporting coups and calling for political assassinations.

Some get over it in time and develop more mature and concise views, others don't.

[wolf5370]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

The concept is "transfered malice" - For muder (over manslaughter/murder 2) there needs to be an element of intention. (In the UK "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature, under the Queen's, with malice aforethought" - there are some variants of this with reference to 'sound mind' etc - and originally the person had to die within a year of an attack, which was later removed). Transfer malice states that the intent needs not be directed at the victim. For example - if I throw a stone at a window intending to break it, but miss and hit another window next door - I am still guilty of criminal damage. If I put poison in a glass to kill a man, and his wife drinks it instead - it's still murder. So, the pivot is - IF (that being the operative word) an illegal order was given to kill specific individuals and someone else dies in the cross fire - then the intention of the order carries to that individal (malice against the target(s) transfers to malice against the victim).

If, on the other hand, the order is deemed legal, then it falls to either: negligence on individual/team leader that did the shooting, death by misadventure (running into a situation that gets yourself killed), manslaughter/murder perpatrated by the shooter (i.e. did not follow the legal order for whatever reason - or to the local authority in charge if they countermanded/overruled/ignored the order and gave a counter order - e.g. a sergant ordering a private to fire against the order), or suicide (unlikely in this case of course).

I am not sure how this plays with Thai law, but most legals systems follow something similar.

[whybother]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

The concept is "transfered malice" - For muder (over manslaughter/murder 2) there needs to be an element of intention. (In the UK "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature, under the Queen's, with malice aforethought" - there are some variants of this with reference to 'sound mind' etc - and originally the person had to die within a year of an attack, which was later removed). Transfer malice states that the intent needs not be directed at the victim. For example - if I throw a stone at a window intending to break it, but miss and hit another window next door - I am still guilty of criminal damage. If I put poison in a glass to kill a man, and his wife drinks it instead - it's still murder. So, the pivot is - IF (that being the operative word) an illegal order was given to kill specific individuals and someone else dies in the cross fire - then the intention of the order carries to that individal (malice against the target(s) transfers to malice against the victim).

If, on the other hand, the order is deemed legal, then it falls to either: negligence on individual/team leader that did the shooting, death by misadventure (running into a situation that gets yourself killed), manslaughter/murder perpatrated by the shooter (i.e. did not follow the legal order for whatever reason - or to the local authority in charge if they countermanded/overruled/ignored the order and gave a counter order - e.g. a sergant ordering a private to fire against the order), or suicide (unlikely in this case of course).

I am not sure how this plays with Thai law, but most legals systems follow something similar.

So, in this case, it would come down to whether it was an illegal order.

[wolf5370]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

The concept is "transfered malice" - For muder (over manslaughter/murder 2) there needs to be an element of intention. (In the UK "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature, under the Queen's, with malice aforethought" - there are some variants of this with reference to 'sound mind' etc - and originally the person had to die within a year of an attack, which was later removed). Transfer malice states that the intent needs not be directed at the victim. For example - if I throw a stone at a window intending to break it, but miss and hit another window next door - I am still guilty of criminal damage. If I put poison in a glass to kill a man, and his wife drinks it instead - it's still murder. So, the pivot is - IF (that being the operative word) an illegal order was given to kill specific individuals and someone else dies in the cross fire - then the intention of the order carries to that individal (malice against the target(s) transfers to malice against the victim).

If, on the other hand, the order is deemed legal, then it falls to either: negligence on individual/team leader that did the shooting, death by misadventure (running into a situation that gets yourself killed), manslaughter/murder perpatrated by the shooter (i.e. did not follow the legal order for whatever reason - or to the local authority in charge if they countermanded/overruled/ignored the order and gave a counter order - e.g. a sergant ordering a private to fire against the order), or suicide (unlikely in this case of course).

I am not sure how this plays with Thai law, but most legals systems follow something similar.

So, in this case, it would come down to whether it was an illegal order.

Precisely.

[binjalin]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?

hmmm the draft? well to be fair he didn't actually change it he 'circumvented' it - what about creating a government that was never elected by the people? - well to be fair that was taking advantage of the elected party being banned so not wholly his fault I guess. Trying to stop debate on les majese in parliament does that count?

Edited December 10, 2012 by binjalin

[whybother]

hmmm the draft? well to be fair he didn't actually change it he 'circumvented' it - what about creating a government that was never elected by the people? - well to be fair that was taking advantage of the elected party being banned so not wholly his fault I guess. Trying to stop debate on les majese in parliament does that count?

When did he stop that debate? When was there actually a debate on it?

[binjalin]

hmmm the draft? well to be fair he didn't actually change it he 'circumvented' it - what about creating a government that was never elected by the people? - well to be fair that was taking advantage of the elected party being banned so not wholly his fault I guess. Trying to stop debate on les majese in parliament does that count?

When did he stop that debate? When was there actually a debate on it?

remember this? not exactly democracy is it? 'we are afraid of a vote - so we will throw our toys from our Dem pram and walk out'? but you are right there was no actual debate so technically I am wrong - they succeeded in stopping the debate starting

Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote

The Nation

anyway... I was being slightly sarcastic so back on-topic

Edited December 10, 2012 by binjalin

[Gulfsailor]

Abhisit said. "I have always stood by my belief that the rule of law must prevail." Then he has nothing to worry, or?

Abhisit's belief that the rule of law must prevail is based on the conditions that he is the guy that makes the law, and enforces it only when his party sees fit.

Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?

hmmm the draft? well to be fair he didn't actually change it he 'circumvented' it - what about creating a government that was never elected by the people? - well to be fair that was taking advantage of the elected party being banned so not wholly his fault I guess. Trying to stop debate on les majese in parliament does that count?

Without taking sides here; their was nothing undemocratic about the way the dems took power. Thailand has a multiparty system, where a coalition is formed between parties to get a majority. After Samak and Wongsawut were thrown out (their party was not banned), some parties who were aligned with trt (and gave trt led coalition its majority) switched sides and decided to join the dems, thus giving them majority, and voted abhisit PM. The same system applies to many European countries. The argument that the dem led government was not elected is thus false.

[Thai at Heart]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

The concept is "transfered malice" - For muder (over manslaughter/murder 2) there needs to be an element of intention. (In the UK "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature, under the Queen's, with malice aforethought" - there are some variants of this with reference to 'sound mind' etc - and originally the person had to die within a year of an attack, which was later removed). Transfer malice states that the intent needs not be directed at the victim. For example - if I throw a stone at a window intending to break it, but miss and hit another window next door - I am still guilty of criminal damage. If I put poison in a glass to kill a man, and his wife drinks it instead - it's still murder. So, the pivot is - IF (that being the operative word) an illegal order was given to kill specific individuals and someone else dies in the cross fire - then the intention of the order carries to that individal (malice against the target(s) transfers to malice against the victim).

If, on the other hand, the order is deemed legal, then it falls to either: negligence on individual/team leader that did the shooting, death by misadventure (running into a situation that gets yourself killed), manslaughter/murder perpatrated by the shooter (i.e. did not follow the legal order for whatever reason - or to the local authority in charge if they countermanded/overruled/ignored the order and gave a counter order - e.g. a sergant ordering a private to fire against the order), or suicide (unlikely in this case of course).

I am not sure how this plays with Thai law, but most legals systems follow something similar.

So, in this case, it would come down to whether it was an illegal order.

It depends what was ordered.

Do what it's necessary? Shoot to kill? Shoot is self defence? Etc.

Abhisit would never sign something that would land him in jail, anymore than thaksin ordered something that could be hung on him legally for the drugs.

The wrong doing stops with those on the ground.

[OzMick]

hmmm the draft? well to be fair he didn't actually change it he 'circumvented' it - what about creating a government that was never elected by the people? - well to be fair that was taking advantage of the elected party being banned so not wholly his fault I guess. Trying to stop debate on les majese in parliament does that count?

When did he stop that debate? When was there actually a debate on it?

remember this? not exactly democracy is it? 'we are afraid of a vote - so we will throw our toys from our Dem pram and walk out'? but you are right there was no actual debate so technically I am wrong - they succeeded in stopping the debate starting

Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote

The Nation

anyway... I was being slightly sarcastic so back on-topic

The question was "Do you have any examples of laws that Abhisit changed for his own benefit?"

Your trimmed reply should have included:

Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote - The Nation

www.nationmultimedia.com/.../Democrats-to-walk-if-bill-go... - Thailand

11 Jun 2012 – Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote. The opposition Democrat Party...........

A strawman argument to dodge the question, as the opposition are not in position to change laws.

CTRL + Q to Enable/Disable GoPhoto.it

[whybother]

remember this? not exactly democracy is it? 'we are afraid of a vote - so we will throw our toys from our Dem pram and walk out'? but you are right there was no actual debate so technically I am wrong - they succeeded in stopping the debate starting

Democrats to walk if bill goes to vote

The Nation

anyway... I was being slightly sarcastic so back on-topic

So, no stopping debate on LM changes.

[Gulfsailor]

Someone suggested earlier (this thread or related) that if someone robs a bank, and in the process someone is accidentally killed, then it would be classed as murder since it happened in the act of committing a crime.

Since the soldiers were not committing a crime when they shot at a van speeding towards them, the fact that someone was accidentally killed shouldn't be classed as murder.

The concept is "transfered malice" - For muder (over manslaughter/murder 2) there needs to be an element of intention. (In the UK "The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature, under the Queen's, with malice aforethought" - there are some variants of this with reference to 'sound mind' etc - and originally the person had to die within a year of an attack, which was later removed). Transfer malice states that the intent needs not be directed at the victim. For example - if I throw a stone at a window intending to break it, but miss and hit another window next door - I am still guilty of criminal damage. If I put poison in a glass to kill a man, and his wife drinks it instead - it's still murder. So, the pivot is - IF (that being the operative word) an illegal order was given to kill specific individuals and someone else dies in the cross fire - then the intention of the order carries to that individal (malice against the target(s) transfers to malice against the victim).

If, on the other hand, the order is deemed legal, then it falls to either: negligence on individual/team leader that did the shooting, death by misadventure (running into a situation that gets yourself killed), manslaughter/murder perpatrated by the shooter (i.e. did not follow the legal order for whatever reason - or to the local authority in charge if they countermanded/overruled/ignored the order and gave a counter order - e.g. a sergant ordering a private to fire against the order), or suicide (unlikely in this case of course).

I am not sure how this plays with Thai law, but most legals systems follow something similar.

So, in this case, it would come down to whether it was an illegal order.

Precisely.

Who -if any- would be charged in the following scenario; A group of men rob a bank. The police get to the scene. The robbers try to get away by driving their getaway vehicle through a roadblock. The police fire at the vehicle. An innocent pedestrian gets shot by accident and is killed...

[Thai at Heart]

And you think that these are the farangs that vent their opinioned views in various political forums?

Why do you equate "majority of farangs" with "majority of politically opinioned farangs"?

You're not harboring an urge to belittle opposing views are you?

Most people I know that have lived in Thailand for a long time (as in Pre-Thaksin), speak thai well and that have a personal interest in Thai political history - are pretty much aligned in their views.

The split views tend to be far more common among the noobs.

With the dumber or more naive portion leaning towards the red side.

That's not my experience at all and I believe your summary is ill informed nonsense.The more intelligent and well educated long term residents tend to take a much more nuanced approach, and to be frank many feel something like despair at Thailand's divisions.The reality is that there are no heroes or villains on either side.It's been posted before but the following article by James Stent (a very well educated American banker, fluent Thai speaker, RBSC committee member, 30 years in the Kingdom) is more illustrative of the more civilised type of expatriate.

http://poppyfieldjou...l-by-james.html

And you jayboy continue to deliberately confuse the whole think and refuse to recognize other / broader views. Again jayboy, I contend the following:

- Yes there is a serious and unacceptable gap: in Income, quality of life, access to quality education, and job opportunity, and severe lack of fair and equal application of the law. IMHO a very large % of the farang who comment of this board, and others, would have no hesitation to agree with this. Ultimately of course I respect whatever they choose to think.

- Does the UDD, the red shirts, etc., have any real credibility as a logical well informed, well constructed body with a clear platform to gain focused change? NO!

Have any of their leaders ever given a well constructed presentation about what democracy means, why it is desirebale, the pillars of building and protecting democracy? NO!.

Have they ever distributed any literature which explains these things well? NO.

Have any of their leaders ever taken part in an organized moderated public debate on this subject with people in attendance with different views? NO! Never.

- Personally I would welcome a well organized movement which had credibility, and which spoke honestly and credibly about democracy etc etc and had a logical and specific platform and objectives, and proposed polices which provided mechanisms to seriously reduce the gap, and which had no hesitation to engage in civil debate, and which had a platform of: no violence, no hate speeches, honesty, fight corruption, honest and open education in regard to these subjects, and no manipulation of voters.

The most relevant question of all is whether ANY of the sides have ever related the questions you mention to the population? Don't forget the Dems have been around for 70 odd years. They of all have had the longest chance to influence Thai politics of any of the parties, and yet, they have a massive disconnect with huge swathes of the country.

The last set of manifestos put up by the parties was realistically the first time that this had happened in Thai political history. And yes, PTP simply out gunned the Dems with a simple set of promises that were marginally more appealing than the other. However, I don't think it was lost on anyone that this was largely the FIRST time that the Dems had ever come up with any concrete promises that focussed so blatently on the poor.

That may be politicking, but politics is essentially a popularity contest, so it represented a massive sea change as far as I could see. Now blaming the situation that the country is in today 100% at the foot of PTP is missing the point. There is a big contest and battle going on in the country right now, the poor, the mercantile class, the major corporations with either politically go one way or another, the civil service, the army and the amart are all trying to push and pull the situation to their way. Abhisit and the Dems are just one part of the plan, but basically they have failed, because they have been left behind by the mood of the country.

It isn't enough to offer 2 baht a day increases in minimum wage, it isn't enough any more to have all the industry and benefits around the Eastern Seaboard and Bangkok, it isn't enough any more to take care of Bangkok at the expense of the rest of the country, it isn't enough or even logical to be seen as favouring more economic development in Bangkok anymore, it isnt' enough to back industry without considering what the people get out of it too.

They misread the people so massively after the 1997 debacle, so here we are today.

[AleG]

Who -if any- would be charged in the following scenario; A group of men rob a bank. The police get to the scene. The robbers try to get away by driving their getaway vehicle through a roadblock. The police fire at the vehicle. An innocent pedestrian gets shot by accident and is killed...

The Prime Minister or President of the country that happened in, of course. It happens all the time, look it up.

[Rancid]

Abbhisit and especially Suthep ready to go to jail to thwart a Taksin amnesty. Certainly sounds noble, but hang on a moment, these guys are politicians, when has a politicain in living memory ever done something on principle? And they are Thai politicians to boot. Good PR but more going on here than meets the eye, methinks.

[lungmi]

Sometimes politicians know whereisthe bigger devil.

[ianf]

Abbhisit and especially Suthep ready to go to jail to thwart a Taksin amnesty. Certainly sounds noble, but hang on a moment, these guys are politicians, when has a politicain in living memory ever done something on principle? And they are Thai politicians to boot. Good PR but more going on here than meets the eye, methinks.

There are many politicians who do things on principle. (Off course there are also many who don't.) And there are many politicians all over the world who have been jailed, tortured or murdered for their beliefs. You only have to read the Amnesty International Annual Report to get some inkling on how daft the poster's statement is!

[taff33]

Lets not forget the saying 'not on my shift' (used a lot by mad Mr Bush) .Well ex leader and dept leader it has happend on your shift,so both stand up and take it like the 'men' you are.