Contentious Case Against Abhisit Marks A New Era

[khunken]

Twisting the truth again. Of course the army entered the area - the colonel was the army leader there. The weapons of the army were not armed (you know bullets & the like) and that very incident rightly allowed the army to protect themselves against armed men.

None of your claims are proven either and are just your opinion. My opinion differs because I don't swallow the propaganda that this was a simple poor vs rich or left vs right. This is the simplistic opinion put out by many of the western media who couldn't be bothered to delve a bit deeper into the real reason behind the protests in 2010. Gullability permeates the shallow thinking of pro red-PTP-Thaksin farang who cannot change their western stereotype view of politics into an understanding of Thai-style politics.

"The weapons of the army were not armed (you know bullets & the like) and that very incident rightly allowed the army to protect themselves against armed men." <deleted>? Are you confused or are your writing skills limited?

LOL- re the swallowing propaganda cos it looks like you've swallowed the army/Dem propaganda against TS all the way. 'Western stereotype of politics' double LOL. Your take on the millions of pro-red/PTP/Thaksin falangs/Thais/ educated/uneducated/ rich/poor.... is what is simplistic

I wrote that first sentence so that it could be understood by those with an intellect deficit. It seems it was even over your head. Do I have to explain the word 'simplistic' too? It's meaning is a lack of ability or comprehension to understand a process or conflict in any depth. I should have added the word 'distortion' which you have continued to do with your utterings in this thread.

I don't believe most of the propaganda issued by either side in this conflict. However the red-shirt/Thaksin propaganda is so outrageous that it is totally unbelievable & only swallowed by the most gullible. It is issued by, mostly, a collection of liars. If you want to believe them - my sympathies. There is at least some small smidgen of truth coming from Abhisit & others & this overrules total lies.

Now if you have nothing constructive to offer other than spluttering over what I said - goodnight.

Edited December 10, 2012 by khunken

[MaiChai]

I think the attempt to try Abhisit in this way just shows how corrupted Thailands institutions have become. That is, they no longer remain impartial to the government in power, but are directly controlled by the government. I remember when the PT government came into power, that there was a raft of shuffling of heads of government departments to ensure the PT representatives had control of them. Now we see the DSI being used as a tool by the government to attack the opposition, and as suggested, to provide a lever to force the opposition to support the get Taksin back bills. There is no impartial departments within government; everything is controlled by the party in power. Its a very sad state of affairs that the system has been so manipulated to the benefit of one man and his family.

[Thai at Heart]

Well gentlemen you've given me a good laugh today.

Most of your comments could when added together make for a great comedy or slapstick event on TV.

The facts are that the instruments of governance in Thailand are trying to proceed in a rational and lawful manner without prejudice in the expectation that all law breakers will be brought to book.

Then we the public can understand what transpired and who the transgressors are.

the problem is that the army pulled the trigger, so essentially, no one is allowed to know the truth.

[whybother]

How about looking at the foremost democracies in the world?

Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Denmark are the worlds top democracies. And have a long history of minority governments.

As well as of governments where the largest party wasn't part of the coalition government.

An example:

Sweden 1979: (http://en.wikipedia...._election,_1979)

Socialdemokraterna: 154 MPs (largest party)

Moderaterna: 73 MPs. (second largest party)

Is that substantial enough for you? (took about 5 minutes to find on Wiki)

Quite misleading indeed. In this case there were very clear political leanings in the coalition groups; one side centre-right and the other socialist/ communist.

Misleading? Or just doesn't fit your agenda?

Given that Thai political parties don't have political leanings, I don't see what relevance political leanings has.

[whybother]

Back on subject I wonder if Abhisit and Suthep will get instant bail?

Red shirts charged on lesser serious crimes than murder have been refused bail until now

and all Red shirt leaders of spent time in a cell with chains.

Tarit has said that he won't ask for remand. So no bail required.

[nurofiend]

on the first page we have 9 out of 25 posts that are only about yingluck.

and that 25 includes the article and two moderation posts!

Edited December 11, 2012 by nurofiend

[Skywalker69]

As for the link - one-sided rubbish. All quotes anti-PAD. Police reported confiscating the UZIs etc - yet no real proof (& we know which side they were on). Even this article doesn't pretend that the group who occupied the airport were armed in any way. More propaganda.

I was at the airport when they first started setting up the barricades. I flew out on one of the last flights.

I saw quite clearly that the first wave was of young, armed men who were blocking the main road to the airport. I drove through their barricade and I mistook them for bonafide security officials. Most had clubs, machetes and some had firearms. They were there well ahead of the main body of protesters obviously to secure the roads.

I also returned to the airport several days later to collect my car (I returned to BKK overland out of necessity), when the little old ladies and other stooges had arrived, and our taxi driver was extremely scared. As we drove through the barricades once more I noticed the armed men were still there (more intimidating this time as there was far more of them), and they were screening vehicles for weapons. Our taxi was searched. I also saw one of them with a pistol in his waistband.

During both times I was there it was apparent these were thuggish young men who were ready for violence.

You mean the were armed like this?

[OzMick]

on the first page we have 9 out of 25 posts that are only about yingluck.

and that 25 includes the article and two moderation posts!

It's called having fun - you should try it!

When you put a clown in the circus, don't be surprised when people laugh.

[nurofiend]

on the first page we have 9 out of 25 posts that are only about yingluck.

and that 25 includes the article and two moderation posts!

It's called having fun - you should try it!

When you put a clown in the circus, don't be surprised when people laugh.

'having fun'... jesus h christmas lol.

anyhoo, it's just off topic and if it was the other way around, the posts would have gone the way of the dodo within seconds, after the whinges of "but abhisit, but the yellows" of course.

i couldn't care less, people can say what they want about her.. she's not my girlfriend.

i just find it amusing the constant state of confusion that some posters seem to be in, one minute they're lambasting people for pushing the "but whoever" button and the next minute they're doing exactly that.

[Soutpeel]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

Edited December 11, 2012 by Soutpeel

[nurofiend]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

didn't see it so don't know if this is the full clip

[Ricardo]

Not sure it is fair to charactise Ahbisit as the democratically elected leader at that time. He was the leader of the democratics which lost the Dec 2007 election. Samak was installed by parliament as the prime minister. He was then removed for taking a payment to appear on a cooking show. After that Somchai was prime minister. It was democratic party members who setup the PAD movement and started the protests. Abhisit came to power through the support of Newin's party after the coup government exited the scene. Abhisit never won an election!

"It was democratic party members who setup the PAD movement and started the protests."

PAD was set up a few years earlier than you suggest, if I understant you correctly, by Sondhi (who had a personal beef with his former chum Thaksin) and others, but not by "democratic party members" I'm afraid. Which is why they had no problem later-on to start their own political party, in competition with the Dems and TRT/PPP/PTP.

Those early protests were weekly meetings to present allegations & evidence of corruption or wrong-doing under the TRT-government, which had then been in-power for about four years, and were beginning to be seen to be mainly (not exclusively) about benefiting the poo-yai leadership & friends. Which certainly upset the power-groups & politicians & regional-politicians who had previously had their noses in-the-trough.

Thaksin couldn't take the criticism, one suspects because a high proportion of it was indeed justified, so tried hard to clamp-down on the Sondhi & the early-PAD and prevent them broadcasting or publicising their (at that point) small-but-irritating rallies. This is also about when (11th December 2003) Thaksin responded to attempts to constrain him, with the famous statement that "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal", and many farangs here began to suspect that he wasn't after-all the new populist great-hope that he'd previously been portrayed as.

However the middle-aged ladies of the PAD, and several minor groups/leaders (not Democratic Party members) who had formed PAD kept plugging away, despite the media clamp-down, which at one point led to the PAD retailing VCDs with each previous-weeks' rally and allegations on it, because ASTV was blocked.

TRT won the next (2004) election, although less-convincingly, and the revelations/rallies continued. After another year, and the sale of his group to Temasek (which irritated a lot more people), Thaksin called an un-necessary snap-election and failed to win it, partly due to many of his opponents boycotting it, and eventually the army pressed the Reset-Button. PAD then went quieter, before reviving during the PPP-led coalition-governments of Samak & Somchai, which brings us up to 2008 which you're discussing.

But PAD was definitely formed earlier, and by different people, than you say.

[nurofiend]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

didn't see it so don't know if this is the full clip

2:35

"you accept that they (the military) were responsible for some the deaths, you do accept that?"

"no.... (avoidance) the charge that is being put against me" etc

[Soutpeel]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

didn't see it so don't know if this is the full clip

2:35

"you accept that they (the military) were responsible for some the deaths, you do accept that?"

"no.... (avoidance) the charge that is being put against me" etc

I do accept the military caused some deaths, but as regards responsiblity or rather accountability, as stated in my previous post,...Bangkok at the time was in a state of civil unrest with terrorist acts being committed, therefore the mandate from a standing goverment was to restore order, which was done....if within the process of restoring order there were casualites then so be it, this was not a peaceful protest, therefore accountability sits with both parties, as if the red shirts intention was for peaceful protest, they should have done a better job controlling their supporter's and therefore they are also accountable

If the previous PM/goverment is accountable for these events, then so are the Red shirt leaders.

[philw]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

didn't see it so don't know if this is the full clip

2:35

"you accept that they (the military) were responsible for some the deaths, you do accept that?"

"no.... (avoidance) the charge that is being put against me" etc

I do accept the military caused some deaths, but as regards responsiblity or rather accountability, as stated in my previous post,...Bangkok at the time was in a state of civil unrest with terrorist acts being committed, therefore the mandate from a standing goverment was to restore order, which was done....if within the process of restoring order there were casualites then so be it, this was not a peaceful protest, therefore accountability sits with both parties, as if the red shirts intention was for peaceful protest, they should have done a better job controlling their supporter's and therefore they are also accountable

If the previous PM/goverment is accountable for these events, then so are the Red shirt leaders.

Fully agree with your last sentence.

There should be responsibility and accountability all round.

This is the way Thailand will progress and hopefully is the way to prevent it ever happening again.

[Meetoo]

on the first page we have 9 out of 25 posts that are only about yingluck.

and that 25 includes the article and two moderation posts!

And your point is .................?????

[Meetoo]

I thought Abhisit conducted himself rather well on the BBC interview last night, it appears he is standing by his decision's, and is prepared to accept the legal systems decision, although there was a little grandstanding when he said if a death penalty was passed down he would be prepared to accept that, which we all know will nor happen. His conduct to date on this matter appears to have been put across with conviction and dignity, unlike the other little snivelling coward who ran for the hills when handed down a two year jail sentance...

Facts are in this matter....Abhisit was the standing PM, the capital of the country was undergoing civil unrest, with terrorist overtones and he ordered the military to restore order and if within restoring this order there was some collaterial damage.....so be it, if in farangland the same thing was happening, I can assure you the standing PM or president would do exactly the same...

And the said PM would NEVER be charged with MURDER.... and what's her face who interviewed him.... Man I would of loved to just stick something, anything into her big agressive stupid mouth !! As I said BBC...Pfff! totally biaised then and now ....!

Edited December 11, 2012 by Meetoo

[nurofiend]

on the first page we have 9 out of 25 posts that are only about yingluck.

and that 25 includes the article and two moderation posts!

And your point is .................?????

an obvious one.......

and explained later on if you had bothered to read on.

[Publicus]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Publicus

[rubl]

I really love it. 'firing squads', it gets better by the day. 'Thaksin found guilty by even more guilty', wonderful. 'accountability', oh my, don't know, let me ask some UDD leaders first.

Holding Thai in power accountable, but exclude Pheu Thai party list MPs who happen to be UDD leader (or was it the other way round?).

Of course all this means that the 'amnesty bill' should not be pushed through by the current government

[OzMick]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

" What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill,............?"

Leave, as requested.

[valerian]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

[nurofiend]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

"Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people."

"But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc."

the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business.

Edited December 12, 2012 by nurofiend

[Siripon]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

"Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people."

"But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc."

the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business.

And what gave birth to the coup was Thaksin and his utter arrogance and meglomania.

Why do you think so many educated people supported the coup of 2006 whilst vehemently opposing Sujinda in Black May 1992?

Because they could see the terrible spectre of Thaksinland, a dictatorship by evil people.And it still threatens today.

[nurofiend]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

"Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people."

"But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc."

the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business.

And what gave birth to the coup was Thaksin and his utter arrogance and meglomania.

Why do you think so many educated people supported the coup of 2006 whilst vehemently opposing Sujinda in Black May 1992?

Because they could see the terrible spectre of Thaksinland, a dictatorship by evil people.And it still threatens today.

oh well then i stand corrected, i had forgotten that it was going to be a dictatorship by evil people.

i also forgot it was only uneducated people who didn't support the thaksin coup.

Edited December 12, 2012 by nurofiend

[valerian]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

"Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people."

"But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc."

the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business.

So? Are you saying that the red violence was justified?

Are you saying that it is ok to choose a violent way? Instead of peaceful means.

So long as you have understandable or even sympathetic reasons for doing so?

Because if you do, then you do realise that you can justify the coup but those very same arguments, don't you?

If you're not saying these things, then what ARE you saying?

[nurofiend]

What would the Thai Army do if it had to fight another country's army instead of shooting its own unarmed people on the streets of the capital city of the country? The firing squad that fired ito the temple from the elevated expressway next to it is particularly offensive and unjustifiable. Civilians volunteer medical personnel on the the temple grounds were shot and killed indiscriminately, which is what can and does happen when the army is used against its own people. The mother of a dead volunteer, unarmed nurse, continues in vain to seek accountability, justice. Accountability is necessary. Holding the perps accountable certainly would be a long overdue first for Thailand.

Thaksin was convicted of much less, got off free for his so called drug war, but got nailed in court for corruption while corrupt coupmakers were in charge of the country and the usual suspects were being as corrupt as ever. If Thaksin is guilty of corruption then everyone in power is guilty of corruption.

Accountability is required any time the army is ordered into action against its own people and ordered to use deadly force. Yes, some Thais were armed and themselves doing some shooting against the army. However, if the army came after me I'd be unable to ask about an arrest warrant as one could do with the police. What does a citizen do when the army is his enemy and is shooting to kill, the police nowhere in sight?

Holding Thais in power accountable for using the army and its lethal force against their own people is necessary and long overdue. Then perhaps the vicious cycle of the army killing its own people might finally stop in Thailand, or at the least begin to cause those in government power to have second thoughts about it.

How many coups have there been in Thailand post WWII? Post 1932??? No more, not ever again.

Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people. (in fact - it shouldn't be used at all)

Yes - Thailand desperately needs accountability for excessive force.

But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc.

Why exactly do you think that the police where nowhere in sight?

Thailand is full of under-educated trigger-happy male boors quickly willing to take the law into their own hands.

One crowd goes by the name of "Police", "Tam ruat", "BiB" or plain and simply "Maffia".

Another trigger-happy crowd is dressed in green, full of self-righteousness and goes under the name of "Tahaan".

These are the tools any government will have to use to uphold the "law".

Unleash any of these tigers to "clean up" areas that have been occupied by armed hooligans and you're bound to have casualties.

Especially when the occupants are a third such crowd that has no problems at all storming and occupying buildings, shooting grenades at various opponents for months at end, chasing and killing political opponents holding peaceful assembly etc etc etc.

Do you really think the head of state should be accountable for the state of mind of the general violence-craving, non-thinking, obey-your-poo-yai majority of thai "men"joining these fracas?

If the head of state condones extra-judicial killings - then yes - he/she should be held accountable.

Thaksin definitely did that during the WOD. Anyone who heard his speech the day the "operations" commenced can't refute it.

But did Abhisit? Really? You do know that a state of emergency was declared a week before any deaths occured, but that the reds ignored it, don't you?

And you do remember how Abhisit pleaded with the reds to negotiate or leave the occupied areas before people got hurt, don't you?

All the while red-shirt leaders were saying "We have to prepare for another war. If the military comes you should not panic - just stay put.".

"Yes - military coups are bad and don't belong in a democracy.

Yes - the military shouldn't be used against a country's own people."

"But - none of the killings would have happened if it weren't for Thaksin speeches, PTV propaganda, the UDD violence and red havoc."

the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business.

So? Are you saying that the red violence was justified?

Are you saying that it is ok to choose a violent way? Instead of peaceful means.

So long as you have understandable or even sympathetic reasons for doing so?

Because if you do, then you do realise that you can justify the coup but those very same arguments, don't you?

If you're not saying these things, then what ARE you saying?

i AM saying exactly what i just said, if you interpret that as justifying violence then that's your issue to deal with, not mine.

[rubl]

So? Are you saying that the red violence was justified?

Are you saying that it is ok to choose a violent way? Instead of peaceful means.

So long as you have understandable or even sympathetic reasons for doing so?

Because if you do, then you do realise that you can justify the coup but those very same arguments, don't you?

If you're not saying these things, then what ARE you saying?

i AM saying exactly what i just said, if you interpret that as justifying violence then that's your issue to deal with, not mine.

Oh boy, thank you dear fiend, you just made my night.

The part which was yours rather than quote was

"the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business."

So, the coup gave birth to UDD, red havoc and PTV because a PM who tried to be sole 'ruler' was removed peacefully. The 'elected elite' mobilised the vulnerable electorate to fight against the 'unelected elite' and, as it goes with cannon fodder, died to try to get 'amply rich' people back in a position to get more rich.

The sad thing indeed is that for some this is business, as usual you should have added.

[nurofiend]

So? Are you saying that the red violence was justified?

Are you saying that it is ok to choose a violent way? Instead of peaceful means.

So long as you have understandable or even sympathetic reasons for doing so?

Because if you do, then you do realise that you can justify the coup but those very same arguments, don't you?

If you're not saying these things, then what ARE you saying?

i AM saying exactly what i just said, if you interpret that as justifying violence then that's your issue to deal with, not mine.

Oh boy, thank you dear fiend, you just made my night.

The part which was yours rather than quote was

"the only one of those that existed pre-coup, was thaksin.

the 2006 coup is what gave birth to PTV, UDD and red 'havoc'... they were stupid enough to think that they could remove a PM who was voted in by the highest ever voter turnout without extreme repercussions..

the saddest thing is that it was all business."

So, the coup gave birth to UDD, red havoc and PTV because a PM who tried to be sole 'ruler' was removed peacefully. The 'elected elite' mobilised the vulnerable electorate to fight against the 'unelected elite' and, as it goes with cannon fodder, died to try to get 'amply rich' people back in a position to get more rich.

The sad thing indeed is that for some this is business, as usual you should have added.

i have no idea how i've made your night dear Ubl,

but i'm just glad to be of service and happy to see your nights must be full of excitement.

should have added what? that it wasn't just all business for the rank and file etc, that's what you mean isn't it? ... i think most people would allow themselves a bit of freedom of thought to understand what i meant... that is, most people would.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

... i think most people would allow themselves a bit of freedom of thought to understand what i meant... that is, most people would.

Most people here know by now that trying to understand what you write and giving themselves a bit of freedom in doing so will only get a question back like 'why do you think I said that' or 'I didn't say that'.