Ex-Thai P M Abhisit To Hear Murder Charge Over Protest Death

[rubl]

"However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here."

So the fact that the army going about their legally approved job have been video taped frequently, but militant protesters going about their unlawful activities haven't been taped, clearly indicates k. Abhisit/Suthep need to be charged for murder.

Now that makes sense, obviously, that is

[philw]

Here a NewMandela article on the issue at hand, with lots of comments from posters. Although from 2010-06-07 not really much different from the discussion now.

http://asiapacific.a...hts-yes-indeed/

Nice to see you citing some constructive and informed sources.

Well done.

[OzMick]

Which have yet to be seen.

Before you twist my words to say that I am denying red shirts fired grenades or fired at security personnel that is not the case.

However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here.

I've seen and heard the effect of grenades but have no idea who fired/threw them especially the period before the red shirts were in Bangkok.

I am aware of a "self confessed" red shirt guard who admitted to firing/throwing 60 odd grenades .

I am aware of Sae Daengs right hand man who admitted to firing a grenade/grenades at the Dusit Hotel in response to where he thought the shots that killed Sae Daeng had come from.

I am aware of a former policeman of no political affiliation who admitted to firing a grenade/s at the Defence Ministry (not the Emerald Buddha which was widely pushed by the government as the target for obvious propaganda reasons and still is touted as such on this forum, suprise,suprise) and I believe an empty fuel tank on the outskirts of a RTAF base which he said he was paid to do.

I am aware of the red shirt ( I think it was later proved not to be the case ) who blew himself up and a house making a bomb.

I am also aware of the b/s so called Chiang Mai 11 who were supposed to have been trained by the Cambodians were arrested and the disappeared into "police protection" on behalf of the government never to be heard from again.

So, so far, 1 guy who says he is a red shirt guard who appears to be responsible for every grenade attack both in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, one of Sae Daengs right hand men (according to the papers he had a couple both with different names) an ex copper and another maybe red shirt who failed bombmaking 101.

Not exactly Bomber Command is it.

Or 500 Ronin as the Military Intelligence had it and Abhisit was fond of touting around. Not one dead protester found armed (and don't give me that spirited away crap)

Now if I didn't have such a "ridiculous bias" some people may believe me when I said that the vast majority of the Red Shirts were peaceful and have a legitimate right to the truth - some of which is now coming out from the inquests.

And the more that comes, the more the abject abhisit apologists cries grow shriller.

I mean what does he have to fear, he did nothing wrong.........

Yes ... and for every incident the army is being blamed for you can also find something that could put into doubt them doing it.

Would you like to try the first three inquests as incidents you can raise doubt over? I'm sure the courts (not to mention abhisit and suhep) would mop up any such crucial info you have that they don't.

Abhisit said that the troops weren't shooting anybody.He lied. Not for the first time.

Actually yes. the 3rd instance the police officer claimed he was paid by a senior police officer whose wife was a red leader (identified, but details not to hand). He also stated the target was the Emerald Buddha. FYI the fuel tank was NOT empty as it would be much more likely to explode than if full. IMHO the failure of this attempt was incompetence in using an armour piercing grenade which punched a small hole (what it is designed to do) rather than a HE round which could have split the tank wall.

How many violent members does it take? What level of arson and scattered explosions should be allowed as a political statement before authorities take action?

[muttley]

Are using the 2009 protests as an excuse for the 2010 protesters to get violent?

Did the army attack the red shirts in 2009, or was it the other way around?

A bit of a trick question that as yes it was the Army proxy, The Blue Shirts. Newin/Suthep set up to raise trouble with the red shirts at the Pattaya summit. At first Suthep claimed that the blue shirts were local residents fighting to protect the government. This bs unravelled as first Newin and Suthep were videoed walking the route and discussing tactics the day before and then photos of Newin giving orders from the back of a motorcycle to the blue shirts in the thick of it appeared..

Further complicated by the cosy relationship between the blue shirts and the army as seen in the last video. As is the usual way the blue shirts with their military haircuts and clothing faded away and were not mentioned. Apparently the red shirts had come to "kill" abhisit according to the press hyperbole to come and all memories of blue shirt faction faded away, especially on here, to be kept ready for their next performance in 2010.

1st video shows the blue army going for a little stroll along walking street.

The 2nd video shows that they found what they came looking for.

[muttley]

Are using the 2009 protests as an excuse for the 2010 protesters to get violent?

Did the army attack the red shirts in 2009, or was it the other way around?

A bit of a trick question that as yes it was the Army proxy, The Blue Shirts. Newin/Suthep set up to raise trouble with the red shirts at the Pattaya summit. At first Suthep claimed that the blue shirts were local residents fighting to protect the government. This bs unravelled as first Newin and Suthep were videoed walking the route and discussing tactics the day before and then photos of Newin giving orders from the back of a motorcycle to the blue shirts in the thick of it appeared..

Further complicated by the cosy relationship between the blue shirts and the army as seen in the last video. As is the usual way the blue shirts with their military haircuts and clothing faded away and were not mentioned. Apparently the red shirts had come to "kill" abhisit according to the press hyperbole to come and all memories of blue shirt faction faded away, especially on here, to be kept ready for their next performance in 2010.

1st video shows the blue army going for a little stroll along walking street.

The 2nd video shows that they found what they came looking for.

And heres the 3rd video which shows that the Blue shirts have nothing to do with the Army or security forces at all. Some of them might have short haircuts and discipline but thats just coincidence

But you'll have to link to it yourself as apparently you can't post more than two media links which is a bit strange but there you go. Rules is rules.You can't even put the full address but I guess most people are savvy enough to find it.

youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=kfszdYeLt7A

Edited December 29, 2012 by muttley

[muttley]

"However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here."

So the fact that the army going about their legally approved job have been video taped frequently, but militant protesters going about their unlawful activities haven't been taped, clearly indicates k. Abhisit/Suthep need to be charged for murder.

Now that makes sense, obviously, that is

Did I say that Rubl, did I? No.

Focus on what I say if you're going to reply, not try and create diversions with your imaginary logic on what you think I said. A common tactic of poor debate.

[muttley]

Sigh! Another one whom think he knows everyting. Did you know that Thaksin wasn´t even a legal Caretaker Premier in time the coup happend?

I really don't understand my friend why you guys respond to this troll's posts. If we ignore him maybe he will go away, take his toys to another forum and play.

All right I'll go with it. How was he not legal caretaker Prime Minister? You're not going to tell me he resigned are you?

[rubl]

Since we seem to be looking for historical context on peaceful, orderly protesters here some reliable quotes

"After the dispersal in April 2009 the Red Shirts completely restructured their organization. Their grass roots network became much more organized, and on a much larger extend than before an ideological foundation was taught and discussed, in which Thaksin of course remained a strong rallying symbol, but which at the same time transcended Thaksin and went into attacking the system itself. This has already begun during early 2009 with the final definition of the Red Shirt's opponent – the so called "Amart" – traditional elites may be the most suitable translation for this term. Red Shirt intellectuals and thinkers, such as Tida Thawornset, the present acting chairwoman and wife of Dr. Weng, was then already a strong force in the background. She was the main thinker behind the UDD schools, for example. These leaders analyzed the mistakes they have made leading to the disaster of April 2009, such as completely loosing control over the protesters in areas other than the immediate stage environment, and tried to improve their organization so these mistakes will not be repeated. Unfortunately, as we have seen in 2010 during the latter part of the protests, their efforts were not sufficient, and more mistakes have been made, especially during the Ratchaprasong occupation. The Red Shirts were not alone in making mistakes though; the state has done so as well, and continues to. But right now I do not want to go too deeply into 2010 – I still haven't completed my research, and I also want to have something to say for the launch of my next book, which will cover 2010's events."

http://asiapacific.a...ical-awakening/

AS for 'blue shirts'

"I walked up the hill. There was a large group of Red Shirts in front of the Hotel where the ASEAN Summit was to be held. Apparently one or two Red Shirts were shot by Blue Shirts, but I am still confused about when exactly that happened, during the brief clash, or during the previous night. Red Shirt leader Arisamun Pongruengrong demanded that the government deliver the responsible Blue Shirts to justice. He held a press conference inside the entry area of the conference building of the Hotel. Several Red Shirts have shown off a sack of blue shirts that they found during their approach to the Hotel. After a lull of about one or two hours, suddenly Red Shirts walked into the grounds directly in front of the Hotel doors. Army and police appeared to be lost for an answer. Red Shirts stood at the front doors, and suddenly began pushing. One large glass window suddenly broke, and Red Shirts stood inside the Hotel. I was completely astounded, and let myself be carried with the flow of protesters who streamed into the hotel like an overflowing river. There were bewildered journalists, delegates and observers from many Asian countries watching on. In between were tourists in swimming trunks. Some Red Shirts stood next to them and snapped pictures with their mobile phones, and the tourists took their images. There was no violence, it was just plain bizarre and surreal. Soldiers ran to protect the entry of the main hotel building; Red Shirts ignored them, walked around and entered through a side entrance, searching for Abhisit. In general, the protesters were noisy, but very well behaved."

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

[473geo]

A great deal of regurgitated, re-used, re-hashed, and just down right disconected rhetoric here

Simple fact......is the man at the top in this case Abhisit responsible for the decisions and consequences......if yes, then he may be brought to account and summoned to justify his decision making process and clarify exactly who passed down what instructions.........and consequently so should any other head of a government that is seen to inflict death on it's own or other citizens

Alternatively, if he is not responsible, and has no case to answer, as some would have it on this forum "you cannot chase it all the way back to the top"........then the posters frequently debasing Thaksin for Tak Bai and the war on drugs have demonstrated an ignorance and lack of knowledge

Edited December 29, 2012 by 473geo

[muttley]

Since we seem to be looking for historical context on peaceful, orderly protesters here some reliable quotes

"After the dispersal in April 2009 the Red Shirts completely restructured their organization. Their grass roots network became much more organized, and on a much larger extend than before an ideological foundation was taught and discussed, in which Thaksin of course remained a strong rallying symbol, but which at the same time transcended Thaksin and went into attacking the system itself. This has already begun during early 2009 with the final definition of the Red Shirt's opponent the so called "Amart" traditional elites may be the most suitable translation for this term. Red Shirt intellectuals and thinkers, such as Tida Thawornset, the present acting chairwoman and wife of Dr. Weng, was then already a strong force in the background. She was the main thinker behind the UDD schools, for example. These leaders analyzed the mistakes they have made leading to the disaster of April 2009, such as completely loosing control over the protesters in areas other than the immediate stage environment, and tried to improve their organization so these mistakes will not be repeated. Unfortunately, as we have seen in 2010 during the latter part of the protests, their efforts were not sufficient, and more mistakes have been made, especially during the Ratchaprasong occupation. The Red Shirts were not alone in making mistakes though; the state has done so as well, and continues to. But right now I do not want to go too deeply into 2010 I still haven't completed my research, and I also want to have something to say for the launch of my next book, which will cover 2010's events."

http://asiapacific.a...ical-awakening/

AS for 'blue shirts'

"I walked up the hill. There was a large group of Red Shirts in front of the Hotel where the ASEAN Summit was to be held. Apparently one or two Red Shirts were shot by Blue Shirts, but I am still confused about when exactly that happened, during the brief clash, or during the previous night. Red Shirt leader Arisamun Pongruengrong demanded that the government deliver the responsible Blue Shirts to justice. He held a press conference inside the entry area of the conference building of the Hotel. Several Red Shirts have shown off a sack of blue shirts that they found during their approach to the Hotel. After a lull of about one or two hours, suddenly Red Shirts walked into the grounds directly in front of the Hotel doors. Army and police appeared to be lost for an answer. Red Shirts stood at the front doors, and suddenly began pushing. One large glass window suddenly broke, and Red Shirts stood inside the Hotel. I was completely astounded, and let myself be carried with the flow of protesters who streamed into the hotel like an overflowing river. There were bewildered journalists, delegates and observers from many Asian countries watching on. In between were tourists in swimming trunks. Some Red Shirts stood next to them and snapped pictures with their mobile phones, and the tourists took their images. There was no violence, it was just plain bizarre and surreal. Soldiers ran to protect the entry of the main hotel building; Red Shirts ignored them, walked around and entered through a side entrance, searching for Abhisit. In general, the protesters were noisy, but very well behaved."

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

It's normally a flow of invective when you mention NN. Why the change of heart? Oh by the way, I haven't the faintest idea what your point is with the two quoted texts above.

[rubl]

"However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here."

So the fact that the army going about their legally approved job have been video taped frequently, but militant protesters going about their unlawful activities haven't been taped, clearly indicates k. Abhisit/Suthep need to be charged for murder.

Now that makes sense, obviously, that is

Did I say that Rubl, did I? No.

Focus on what I say if you're going to reply, not try and create diversions with your imaginary logic on what you think I said. A common tactic of poor debate.

If I understand your post #86 correctly the gist is in the end of it

"Now if I didn't have such a "ridiculous bias" some people may believe me when I said that the vast majority of the Red Shirts were peaceful and have a legitimate right to the truth - some of which is now coming out from the inquests.

And the more that comes, the more the abject abhisit apologists cries grow shriller.

I mean what does he have to fear, he did nothing wrong........."

So, you don't really say anything, just post for the fun of it, winding up people as you happily twist your tail.

[rubl]

Since we seem to be looking for historical context on peaceful, orderly protesters here some reliable quotes

"After the dispersal in April 2009 the Red Shirts completely restructured their organization. Their grass roots network became much more organized, and on a much larger extend than before an ideological foundation was taught and discussed, in which Thaksin of course remained a strong rallying symbol, but which at the same time transcended Thaksin and went into attacking the system itself. This has already begun during early 2009 with the final definition of the Red Shirt's opponent – the so called "Amart" – traditional elites may be the most suitable translation for this term. Red Shirt intellectuals and thinkers, such as Tida Thawornset, the present acting chairwoman and wife of Dr. Weng, was then already a strong force in the background. She was the main thinker behind the UDD schools, for example. These leaders analyzed the mistakes they have made leading to the disaster of April 2009, such as completely loosing control over the protesters in areas other than the immediate stage environment, and tried to improve their organization so these mistakes will not be repeated. Unfortunately, as we have seen in 2010 during the latter part of the protests, their efforts were not sufficient, and more mistakes have been made, especially during the Ratchaprasong occupation. The Red Shirts were not alone in making mistakes though; the state has done so as well, and continues to. But right now I do not want to go too deeply into 2010 – I still haven't completed my research, and I also want to have something to say for the launch of my next book, which will cover 2010's events."

http://asiapacific.a...ical-awakening/

AS for 'blue shirts'

"I walked up the hill. There was a large group of Red Shirts in front of the Hotel where the ASEAN Summit was to be held. Apparently one or two Red Shirts were shot by Blue Shirts, but I am still confused about when exactly that happened, during the brief clash, or during the previous night. Red Shirt leader Arisamun Pongruengrong demanded that the government deliver the responsible Blue Shirts to justice. He held a press conference inside the entry area of the conference building of the Hotel. Several Red Shirts have shown off a sack of blue shirts that they found during their approach to the Hotel. After a lull of about one or two hours, suddenly Red Shirts walked into the grounds directly in front of the Hotel doors. Army and police appeared to be lost for an answer. Red Shirts stood at the front doors, and suddenly began pushing. One large glass window suddenly broke, and Red Shirts stood inside the Hotel. I was completely astounded, and let myself be carried with the flow of protesters who streamed into the hotel like an overflowing river. There were bewildered journalists, delegates and observers from many Asian countries watching on. In between were tourists in swimming trunks. Some Red Shirts stood next to them and snapped pictures with their mobile phones, and the tourists took their images. There was no violence, it was just plain bizarre and surreal. Soldiers ran to protect the entry of the main hotel building; Red Shirts ignored them, walked around and entered through a side entrance, searching for Abhisit. In general, the protesters were noisy, but very well behaved."

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

It's normally a flow of invective when you mention NN. Why the change of heart? Oh by the way, I haven't the faintest idea what your point is with the two quoted texts above.

'flow of invective'? Please read what I wrote, following read what's in the quotes and then think about your previous posts on peacefull protesters, a few videos on 'blue shirts', the lack of criminals posing while lobbing grenades and some more of that.

BTW I appreciate NN's photo's and description, I may disagree when his leanings start to shine through in the description, or when he interprets. Like the 'In general, the protesters were noisy, but very well behaved' describing the storming of the ASEAN venue and looking for PM Abhisit, probably to ask his signature and pose with them for a nice picture to be shown back home

[rubl]

Here a NewMandela article on the issue at hand, with lots of comments from posters. Although from 2010-06-07 not really much different from the discussion now.

http://asiapacific.a...hts-yes-indeed/

Nice to see you citing some constructive and informed sources.

Well done.

Although it sounds like a left-handed compliment, I thank you for your kind words

[muttley]

"However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here."

So the fact that the army going about their legally approved job have been video taped frequently, but militant protesters going about their unlawful activities haven't been taped, clearly indicates k. Abhisit/Suthep need to be charged for murder.

Now that makes sense, obviously, that is

Did I say that Rubl, did I? No.

Focus on what I say if you're going to reply, not try and create diversions with your imaginary logic on what you think I said. A common tactic of poor debate.

If I understand your post #86 correctly the gist is in the end of it

"Now if I didn't have such a "ridiculous bias" some people may believe me when I said that the vast majority of the Red Shirts were peaceful and have a legitimate right to the truth - some of which is now coming out from the inquests.

And the more that comes, the more the abject abhisit apologists cries grow shriller.

I mean what does he have to fear, he did nothing wrong........."

So, you don't really say anything, just post for the fun of it, winding up people as you happily twist your tail.

You decide to read the end without the rest? Now that to me rubl is a strange way to debate points if you don't bother reading them instead just make personal accusations, but hey thats me.

[whybother]

Are using the 2009 protests as an excuse for the 2010 protesters to get violent?

Did the army attack the red shirts in 2009, or was it the other way around?

A bit of a trick question that as yes it was the Army proxy, The Blue Shirts. Newin/Suthep set up to raise trouble with the red shirts at the Pattaya summit. At first Suthep claimed that the blue shirts were local residents fighting to protect the government. This bs unravelled as first Newin and Suthep were videoed walking the route and discussing tactics the day before and then photos of Newin giving orders from the back of a motorcycle to the blue shirts in the thick of it appeared..

Further complicated by the cosy relationship between the blue shirts and the army as seen in the last video. As is the usual way the blue shirts with their military haircuts and clothing faded away and were not mentioned. Apparently the red shirts had come to "kill" abhisit according to the press hyperbole to come and all memories of blue shirt faction faded away, especially on here, to be kept ready for their next performance in 2010.

<snipped videos>

Given that the army didn't attack the red shirts in Pattaya, I'm not sure how relevant it is. Did the army attack the red shirts in Bangkok?

[Buchholz]

I am aware of the red shirt ( I think it was later proved not to be the case ) who blew himself up and a house making a bomb.

very much a Red Shirt...

Red Shirt Bomber Samai Wongsuwan...

and how he ended all their aspirations of three other people.

A staunch red shirt supporter, Samai Wongsuwan, was earlier identified as the suspect in the bomb blast. Samai was arrested last year in connection with an assault on a group of yellow shirt supporters.

Police found a severed arm in the room rented by Samai Wongsuwan, a man earlier identified as the suspect. A driver's license with Samai's name was found near the body part, according to an officer at the Crime Suppression Division involved in the case.

Also dead at the scene were Apirak Sajjabanyongkij, age 20 and two others, who were a married couple, Jaturong Khamrod and Thassanee Larpcharoen, who all resided in adjoining rooms.

[Buchholz]

lots of other threads on Red Shirt Bombers

Bombs suspect a 'former red-shirt guard'

Carrying on the long and proud traditions of the Red Shirt Bomber Squad Posted Image

If one were to look at several of the recent bombings in which the perpetrators were identified, such as Bhum Thai Party headquarters and at Big C, one could find that the Red Shirt Bomber Squad is responsible. They've acknowledged this themselves by admitting to them.

Do you have the source so I can read where they have admitted to this?

The thread:

Thailand's Fragile Peace Threatened, Bomb Attack

http://www.thaivisa....ace-threatened/

is chockablock full of various recent bombings and information and arrests and admissions of the Red Shirt Bomber Squad.

It's been going on for several months now.

[Buchholz]

as well as...

The six suspects facing prosecution are Mr Kampol Kamkong, Mr Dejpol Puthajong, Mr Kobchai Boonplod, Ms Varisariya Boonsom, Mr Anek Singkhunthod and Mr Suriya Phumwong. They are charged for producing, possessing and detonating bombs as well as terrorism.

The six suspects facing prosecution are -

Kampol Kamkong:

(Red Shirt Bomb Assembler)

http://www.thailando...?DataID=1031284

Mr Dejpol Puthajong:

(Red Shirt Bomb Assembler)

http://www.thailando...?DataID=1031284

Mr Kobchai Boonplod:

(Red Shirt Bomb Mastermind)

http://www.thailando...?DataID=1032047

Ms Varisariya Boonsom,

(Red Shirt Bomb Mastermind)

http://www.thailando...?DataID=1032047

Mr Anek Singkhunthod

(Non-specific Bomb Pushcarter)

http://www.mcot.net/...page/74325.html

Mr Suriya Phumwong

(Non-specific Bomb Assembler)

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3865119

Today's update regarding the case against Anek Singkhunthod listed above:

Bhum Jai Thai bomber to serve 35 years in jail

The Criminal Court on Tuesday convicted and sentenced Anek Singkhunthod with a 35-year jail term for bombing the Bhum Jai Thai Party headquarters in 2010.

The court initially handed down a life imprisonment before citing the defendant's confession and guilty plea as grounds for leniency.

Anek, a fruit vendor, sustained serious injuries after accidentally triggering the home-made bomb he wired to the push-cart left in front of the party headquarters on Phaholyothin 43 Road.

The incident happened in the wake of the dispersal of red-shirt rallies.

-- The Nation 2012-04-23

[Thai at Heart]

Which have yet to be seen.

Before you twist my words to say that I am denying red shirts fired grenades or fired at security personnel that is not the case.

However is there any clear obvious footage of red shirts doing so out there? I've seen grainy footage of somebody doing so but I've also seen pictures and videos of army personnel in plain clothes mixing with army in full camo so excuse my scepticism, you know my, as Rivalex calls it Ridiculous Bias by now to question most of the bs I've seen on here.

I've seen and heard the effect of grenades but have no idea who fired/threw them especially the period before the red shirts were in Bangkok.

I am aware of a "self confessed" red shirt guard who admitted to firing/throwing 60 odd grenades .

I am aware of Sae Daengs right hand man who admitted to firing a grenade/grenades at the Dusit Hotel in response to where he thought the shots that killed Sae Daeng had come from.

I am aware of a former policeman of no political affiliation who admitted to firing a grenade/s at the Defence Ministry (not the Emerald Buddha which was widely pushed by the government as the target for obvious propaganda reasons and still is touted as such on this forum, suprise,suprise) and I believe an empty fuel tank on the outskirts of a RTAF base which he said he was paid to do.

I am aware of the red shirt ( I think it was later proved not to be the case ) who blew himself up and a house making a bomb.

I am also aware of the b/s so called Chiang Mai 11 who were supposed to have been trained by the Cambodians were arrested and the disappeared into "police protection" on behalf of the government never to be heard from again.

So, so far, 1 guy who says he is a red shirt guard who appears to be responsible for every grenade attack both in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, one of Sae Daengs right hand men (according to the papers he had a couple both with different names) an ex copper and another maybe red shirt who failed bombmaking 101.

Not exactly Bomber Command is it.

Or 500 Ronin as the Military Intelligence had it and Abhisit was fond of touting around. Not one dead protester found armed (and don't give me that spirited away crap)

Now if I didn't have such a "ridiculous bias" some people may believe me when I said that the vast majority of the Red Shirts were peaceful and have a legitimate right to the truth - some of which is now coming out from the inquests.

And the more that comes, the more the abject abhisit apologists cries grow shriller.

I mean what does he have to fear, he did nothing wrong.........

Yes ... and for every incident the army is being blamed for you can also find something that could put into doubt them doing it.

The issue is proportional action. The reds had war weapons and the army didn't know where.

If they were shot at they were more than justified in shooting back. However, obviously, in the fog of combat they did shoot some innocent people.

L putting abhisit on the hook for this action is blatant stupidity, but the army remain untouchable. This will always be the issue.

[473geo]

Are you sure this is thread about Abhisit Rubl?

Was he a bomber or something?

I thought he used alternative means at his disposal to disperse the protest..........thousands of armed troops, live fire zones, snipers, etc......must be on the wrong thread!!

[rubl]

Are you sure this is thread about Abhisit Rubl?

Was he a bomber or something?

I thought he used alternative means at his disposal to disperse the protest..........thousands of armed troops, live fire zones, snipers, etc......must be on the wrong thread!!

The topic is "ex-PM Abhisit to hear murder charge". It relates to a 14-year old boy who was killed when soldiers fired on a van which ignored a stopsign, or took a wrong turn. The same 'incident' which had a taxi driver running out of the house to look who was shooting and catching a bullet instead.

The topic is on "ex-PM 'talk only' Abhisit", so surely he wouldn't bomb anyone. Just use the means available to a PM to restore peace and calm in the capital city two months after it started. People really wondered why this 'talk only' figure waited so long.

Edited December 29, 2012 by rubl

[metisdead]

Nonsense posts and replies have been removed.

[gatorsoft]

Muttley Discussion 96: Please be careful. I hate to see you getting close to stooping to the level of the majority of protesters here by stating conclusions that may seem obvious to you, but have not really been proven. Granted, you supply a fair amount of evidence to support your conclusions, which only a small handful of the Marky-Mark fan club does, but still.

Most of the posters here seem to believe that they have a keen and prescient knowledge of events, thoughts, and motivations of which they couldn't possibly have first-hand knowledge.

Now a different line of thought:

The International organization: Human Rights Watch stated the following in September 2012: "The Thai government should act on the findings of an independent inquiry and prosecute all those responsible for rights abuses during the 2010 political violence, Human Rights Watch said today." http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/22/thailand-act-bring-justice-2010-violence

There are a very large amount of posters here that feel that doing just that is absurd, ridiculous, politically motivated and pure BS. That's probably because the Human Rights Watch is well-known as just another bought and paid for Thaksin apologist group. In fact they are so clever that, to through critics off the scent, in 2007 they reportedly called Thaksin "a human rights abuser of the worst kind". I'm sure that they loved HRW in 2007, but now their advice is considered absurd.

Incidentally, the same group, in referring to the "decent" Abhisit, said "This government came into office saying it was committed to protecting rights, but it has become the most prolific censor in recent Thai history." I guess that was after Thaksin purchased them. Anyone asking for evidence that Abhisit is not a decent fellow need only look at the censorship record of his administration.

One would think that the Abhisit supporters would welcome the opportunity for Abhisit and Suthep to have their day in court and set the record straght once and for all. Perhaps deep down inside they know the government took actions well outside internationally acceptable standards, and fear that justice may actually be achieved in this case.

[473geo]

So guys was Abhisit in a position to make the decision to step down immediately....to avoid confrontation?

[rubl]

So guys was Abhisit in a position to make the decision to step down immediately....to avoid confrontation?

If I say 'YES" will you stop asking ?

[rubl]

Muttley Discussion 96: Please be careful. I hate to see you getting close to stooping to the level of the majority of protesters here by stating conclusions that may seem obvious to you, but have not really been proven. Granted, you supply a fair amount of evidence to support your conclusions, which only a small handful of the Marky-Mark fan club does, but still.

Most of the posters here seem to believe that they have a keen and prescient knowledge of events, thoughts, and motivations of which they couldn't possibly have first-hand knowledge.

Now a different line of thought:

The International organization: Human Rights Watch stated the following in September 2012: "The Thai government should act on the findings of an independent inquiry and prosecute all those responsible for rights abuses during the 2010 political violence, Human Rights Watch said today." http://www.hrw.org/n...e-2010-violence

There are a very large amount of posters here that feel that doing just that is absurd, ridiculous, politically motivated and pure BS. That's probably because the Human Rights Watch is well-known as just another bought and paid for Thaksin apologist group. In fact they are so clever that, to through critics off the scent, in 2007 they reportedly called Thaksin "a human rights abuser of the worst kind". I'm sure that they loved HRW in 2007, but now their advice is considered absurd.

Incidentally, the same group, in referring to the "decent" Abhisit, said "This government came into office saying it was committed to protecting rights, but it has become the most prolific censor in recent Thai history." I guess that was after Thaksin purchased them. Anyone asking for evidence that Abhisit is not a decent fellow need only look at the censorship record of his administration.

One would think that the Abhisit supporters would welcome the opportunity for Abhisit and Suthep to have their day in court and set the record straght once and for all. Perhaps deep down inside they know the government took actions well outside internationally acceptable standards, and fear that justice may actually be achieved in this case.

No offence, dear gator, but my source of inspiration Robert A. and the group he represents (i.e. UDD) have denounced the report of the TRTC as faulty. Furthermore Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm said the commission didn't have the authority to come to the conclusion they came to.

Personally I think the court may dismiss the cases raised before k. Abhisit gets a chance to have his day in court. Also lots of people might see this as setting the wrong precedent, not reconciliatory, conflicting with amnesty, reason to dig deeper into who's involved and the like.

[473geo]

So guys was Abhisit in a position to make the decision to step down immediately....to avoid confrontation?

If I say 'YES" will you stop asking ?

How do you feel this option, if proposed by Abhisit, would have been received among the 'party' decision makers? You know the 'backers' of a party who exert influence but not necessarily in the public eye.......

[rubl]

So guys was Abhisit in a position to make the decision to step down immediately....to avoid confrontation?

If I say 'YES" will you stop asking ?

How do you feel this option, if proposed by Abhisit, would have been received among the 'party' decision makers? You know the 'backers' of a party who exert influence but not necessarily in the public eye.......

Obviously the answer to my question is NO.

At times I feel like speculating and wondering about the 'Meaning of Liff' and so. This seems the closest to Abhisit (alphabethicly that is)

"ABINGER (n.)

One who washes up everything except the frying pan, the cheese grater and the saucepan which the chocolate sauce has been made in."

Edited December 29, 2012 by rubl

[473geo]

So guys was Abhisit in a position to make the decision to step down immediately....to avoid confrontation?

If I say 'YES" will you stop asking ?

How do you feel this option, if proposed by Abhisit, would have been received among the 'party' decision makers? You know the 'backers' of a party who exert influence but not necessarily in the public eye.......

Obviously the answer to my question is NO.

At times I feel like speculating and wondering about the 'Meaning of Liff' and so. This seems the closest to Abhisit (alphabethicly that is)

"ABINGER (n.)

One who washes up everything except the frying pan, the cheese grater and the saucepan which the chocolate sauce has been made in."

Perhaps the enquiry (charges) are a road to end the speculation once and for all.....thus surely a positive action

[gatorsoft]

Muttley Discussion 96: Please be careful. I hate to see you getting close to stooping to the level of the majority of protesters here by stating conclusions that may seem obvious to you, but have not really been proven. Granted, you supply a fair amount of evidence to support your conclusions, which only a small handful of the Marky-Mark fan club does, but still.

Most of the posters here seem to believe that they have a keen and prescient knowledge of events, thoughts, and motivations of which they couldn't possibly have first-hand knowledge.

Now a different line of thought:

The International organization: Human Rights Watch stated the following in September 2012: "The Thai government should act on the findings of an independent inquiry and prosecute all those responsible for rights abuses during the 2010 political violence, Human Rights Watch said today." http://www.hrw.org/n...e-2010-violence

There are a very large amount of posters here that feel that doing just that is absurd, ridiculous, politically motivated and pure BS. That's probably because the Human Rights Watch is well-known as just another bought and paid for Thaksin apologist group. In fact they are so clever that, to through critics off the scent, in 2007 they reportedly called Thaksin "a human rights abuser of the worst kind". I'm sure that they loved HRW in 2007, but now their advice is considered absurd.

Incidentally, the same group, in referring to the "decent" Abhisit, said "This government came into office saying it was committed to protecting rights, but it has become the most prolific censor in recent Thai history." I guess that was after Thaksin purchased them. Anyone asking for evidence that Abhisit is not a decent fellow need only look at the censorship record of his administration.

One would think that the Abhisit supporters would welcome the opportunity for Abhisit and Suthep to have their day in court and set the record straght once and for all. Perhaps deep down inside they know the government took actions well outside internationally acceptable standards, and fear that justice may actually be achieved in this case.

No offence, dear gator, but my source of inspiration Robert A. and the group he represents (i.e. UDD) have denounced the report of the TRTC as faulty. Furthermore Dept. PM Pol. Captain Chalerm said the commission didn't have the authority to come to the conclusion they came to.

Personally I think the court may dismiss the cases raised before k. Abhisit gets a chance to have his day in court. Also lots of people might see this as setting the wrong precedent, not reconciliatory, conflicting with amnesty, reason to dig deeper into who's involved and the like.

No offense dear Rubl, but I'm rather surprised to see you citing the words of Robert A. and Kun Chalerm as your reason for finding Abhisit's charges as absurd, and I'm not sure why you think I would be offended by that. I guess that I have misinterpreted some of your previous posts in my thinking that the opinions of the UDD and Chalerm would carry little weight with you.

And personally, I think you are probably correct that the court may dismiss the cases. Perhaps that is another incredibly clever plan to smear their impeccable reputations and then deny them their day in court.

Edited December 29, 2012 by gatorsoft