Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit

[muttley]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

It's neither, you've probably just reached a stage of indifference caused by being in constant exposure to B/S. A common complaint. I've discovered that some posters regard the above as reasonable debate.

[gl555]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

[philw]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

I like " misinformed little people", they have potential...........

And your comment says it all........

[rubl]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

If you feel the need to ask, the answer is most likely 'none of the two options'. As I understand it a successful brainwashing will make you feel enlightened

Edited December 20, 2012 by rubl

[jackspratt]

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

To answer that question requires a huge presupposition regarding the "washing" bit.

[Moruya]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

Close. But no cigar

[OzMick]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

Your post is symptomatic of withdrawal from red propaganda, with exaggeration of reality. Don't worry, if you keep away from the junk for a month or two, the hyperbole will fade away and you will be back to normal in touch with reality.

If symptoms persist, seek help from a qualified psychiatrist. Probably a good idea anyway.

[Rich teacher]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

The same logical people who told us before the election last year that PT was in disarray and that the Thai electorate would not support a party of terrorists. The sentiment expressed here or on the other paper by expats is so far removed from the Thai public. Most expats here don't have the ability in Thai to engage in meaningful conversation and/ or watch Thai news/ parliament/ talk shows, etc. therefore they are subjected to bias through 1. The English newspapers and 2. Those Thais who speak good English, (who are not representative of the whole country and tend heavily to support the Dems)

[Siripon]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

The same logical people who told us before the election last year that PT was in disarray and that the Thai electorate would not support a party of terrorists. The sentiment expressed here or on the other paper by expats is so far removed from the Thai public. Most expats here don't have the ability in Thai to engage in meaningful conversation and/ or watch Thai news/ parliament/ talk shows, etc. therefore they are subjected to bias through 1. The English newspapers and 2. Those Thais who speak good English, (who are not representative of the whole country and tend heavily to support the Dems)

The Bangkok Post is read by more Thais than foreigners.

The electorate supported the populist policies of Pheua Thai, not the red shirts. Even in my home town of Ban Pai support for the red shirts is tepid, it was the pledged price for rice (a financial fiasco for the country) that won the election with Issanites.

[OzMick]

The Bangkok Post is read by more Thais than foreigners.

The electorate supported the populist policies of Pheua Thai, not the red shirts. Even in my home town of Ban Pai support for the red shirts is tepid, it was the pledged price for rice (a financial fiasco for the country) that won the election with Issanites.

The forum is used overwhelmingly (as here) by expats.

The Dems lost because a huge section of the populace despise them and their leader. Some may hate TS but they are a relative minority.

That would be an educated minority? While talking about Thaksin's thefts from this country, I find myself having to explain concepts like monopoly, price gouging, shares, capital gains tax, etc . It seems economics, politics and ethics aren't taught in Thailand schools, at least not at the level reached by Thaksin supporters.

[Moruya]

The Bangkok Post is read by more Thais than foreigners.

The electorate supported the populist policies of Pheua Thai, not the red shirts. Even in my home town of Ban Pai support for the red shirts is tepid, it was the pledged price for rice (a financial fiasco for the country) that won the election with Issanites.

The forum is used overwhelmingly (as here) by expats.

The Dems lost because a huge section of the populace despise them and their leader. Some may hate TS but they are a relative minority.

"Relative Minority" - Must be a Shinawatra thing......

[marshbags]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

The same logical people who told us before the election last year that PT was in disarray and that the Thai electorate would not support a party of terrorists. The sentiment expressed here or on the other paper by expats is so far removed from the Thai public. Most expats here don't have the ability in Thai to engage in meaningful conversation and/ or watch Thai news/ parliament/ talk shows, etc. therefore they are subjected to bias through 1. The English newspapers and 2. Those Thais who speak good English, (who are not representative of the whole country and tend heavily to support the Dems)

There are many expats, myself included who base their observations and comments on actual physical witnessing and do not / did not depend on the media you mention for what was seen.

Then there is the vast amount of video evidence available, that was posted during the rioting of 2010...among other harrowing instances.

Thaksin was more than willing to contribute to via his tele casts to inflame and wind his followers to increase their violence and intimidation and this was also available for all expats to see via video real time.

Last of all it was all available and seen around the globe and many who are here now will be familiar vis this uncensored video material.

No Thai language was needed to get a meaningful / true perspective on the infamous reds and their paymaster ect.

AS for the media reporting can differ, depending on what they may have seen and from their positions of observation.

My bias is based on my actual experiences with the Udonthani reds, local government and policing ( lack of in the case of the latter two. )

Plus if I need to get additional info it is all out in real time video evidence.

AS for the PT / government their actions speak volumes and make it abundantly clear as to who and what kind of society they support, terrorist type groups included.

As for real democracy for all and genuine reconciliation forget it while their bias in favour of a fugitive on the run, it is never going to happen.

marshbags

Edited December 21, 2012 by marshbags

[gemini81]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

It's neither, you've probably just reached a stage of indifference caused by being in constant exposure to B/S. A common complaint. I've discovered that some posters regard the above as reasonable debate.

The above is what happened (IF you were here at time and saw it for yourself). Nothing to debate. An armed uprising got what is was asking for.

Edited December 21, 2012 by gemini81

[gemini81]

There's definitely a lot of BS on this board for sure coming from red sympathizers and apologists. Thank goodness there are more logical people posting here to educate these misinformed little people.

Gotta defend and support their bar girlfriend's opinions and family.

[Ferangled]

My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV...

The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms.

The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation.

Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms...

One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed?

It's neither, you've probably just reached a stage of indifference caused by being in constant exposure to B/S. A common complaint. I've discovered that some posters regard the above as reasonable debate.

The above is what happened (IF you were here at time and saw it for yourself). Nothing to debate. An armed uprising got what is was asking for.

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Were there those with ulterior aims working behind the scenes of the reds? I'm quite sure there were; mixed with the valid reasons for protest there was an undercurrent of revenge and that is quite clear as is the backdrop that created this situation. There were divisive elements and there were those who sought to settle their own scores that day, that is clear. There were violent elements and there were those riding the wave for their own personal gain and gratification.

Democracy is far from perfect and we see those that twist it's ideals to serve themselves in all democracies the world over. One need only look to Europe or the US to see similar shady characters that occasionally rise to power and are blatant in their shameful twisting of the system to suit their own goals... the names Bush & Berlusconi leap to mind. This said the overriding cause of the protests in 2010 was one that garnered international sympathy as it's one that most democratic countries have had to fight for at some point in their history. The proof as they say, is in the pudding. They had the numerical support and they amply demonstrated this in the ensuing elections. That is the most damning indicator for AV and his fellow; a clear demonstration to all that they did not have the majority support of the population at that time.

Now personally I think reconciliation is the only way forward for Thailand and overtime the electorate will grow and mature to the point where they will be able to see past empty policies and worthless rhetoric. They will recognise a self serving politician and they will learn that the power is actually theirs not their sponsors. With this power comes responsibility and we must hope and trust that the people grow to use their vote productively. We have to trust that from the ashes of the old political parties will arise a a new party, a true leader, one that bridges the gap between the old elite and the new power of the people and serves his/her country selflessly without recourse for power brokers and back room influence.

It's high time that petty differences are put aside and people realise that red, yellow, pink or blue, whatever shirt they wear, these people have one unifying characteristic; they are all Thais and every single one of them has the same right to have his/her say in the running of their country, irrelevant of wealth, education or status.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Ferangled

[philw]

Nice post Ferangled and well stated.

[maidu]

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Now personally I think reconciliation is the only way forward for Thailand and overtime the electorate will grow and mature to the point where they will be able to see past empty policies and worthless rhetoric. They will recognise a self serving politician and they will learn that the power is actually theirs not their sponsors. With this power comes responsibility and we must hope and trust that the people grow to use their vote productively. We have to trust that from the ashes of the old political parties will arise a a new party, a true leader, one that bridges the gap between the old elite and the new power of the people and serves his/her country selflessly without recourse for power brokers and back room influence.

It's high time that petty differences are put aside and people realise that red, yellow, pink or blue, whatever shirt they wear, these people have one unifying characteristic; they are all Thais and every single one of them has the same right to have his/her say in the running of their country, irrelevant of wealth, education or status.

Sorry to edit your post so severely, but I think we're coming closer to agreement on some items. We don't have to see 'eye to eye' on all that happened during those troubled times. Being from a western country, I'm surprised at how easily many Thais' thoughts can be manipulated. I've been residing here 14 years (started visiting 26 yrs ago) so I have some ideas of why Thais are so easily led to believe in false assertions. Some reasons: Rote learning system, always follow what elders/power brokers say, unquestioning, paucity of analytical thinking, belief in hocus pocus, etc.

I'm not saying sheeple don't exist in other countries, it's just that Thais (and most other Asians) are easily led by the nose.

[Moruya]

Nice post Ferangled and well stated.

The complimentary peanut has arrived.

[yoshiwara]

The Bangkok Post is read by more Thais than foreigners.

The electorate supported the populist policies of Pheua Thai, not the red shirts. Even in my home town of Ban Pai support for the red shirts is tepid, it was the pledged price for rice (a financial fiasco for the country) that won the election with Issanites.

The forum is used overwhelmingly (as here) by expats.

The Dems lost because a huge section of the populace despise them and their toffee-nosed leader. Some may hate TS but they are a relative minority.

That would be an educated minority? While talking about Thaksin's thefts from this country, I find myself having to explain concepts like monopoly, price gouging, shares, capital gains tax, etc . It seems economics, politics and ethics aren't taught in Thailand schools, at least not at the level reached by Thaksin supporters.

Was anyone actually talking about Thaksin's thefts from this country? No, I didn't think so. The topic is actually concerning Abhisit but as usual you'd struggle to gleam that from the comments on here!

I guess that in your world only those educated to a certain level at private schools should be able to vote, eh? Are you in anyway familiar with this south east Asian country called Thailand? The majority populace here are poor and relatively uneducated as a result of centuries of feudal system oppression to keep them firmly in their place. We can see the same parallels in many countries that are now developed but centuries ago went through the process of developing from a medieval feudal system with absolute monarchy to democracy. This change has rarely been peaceful anywhere.

At the times these changes happened many of the more wealthy, established families were rightly scared of the changes. Those leading the changes were often deemed as rebellious, self serving and inherently dangerous individuals but history shows us that change is inevitable. The path to democracy is rarely straight forward and is always met with staunch resistance by those who are positioned to lose the most.

Like it or not democracy boils down to a numbers game and the party with the most support rules the day. Personal flaws are irrelevant, the right to rule is decided by numbers alone. Not liking someone or indeed hating someone is irrelevant when the majority of the population favour them and ignoring the wishes of the population is tantamount to dictatorship. Using the military to control the populace despite having only minority public support is known as military dictatorship.

Resisting the wishes of the people does the country no good nor does vilifying their chosen leader, no matter how much water the allegations hold. In a country where the majority of those with money and power play by their own rules and do so with impunity the singling out of one man for accountability for his actions, while all those around him operate with impunity is not the best way forward for the country.

If one man is to be held accountable for his past deeds then all must be held accountable by the very same standards. In a country where most support corruption this presents no easy task.

'er not if he is to be held accountable. He has been held accountable and convicted. A convicted criminal on the run. A bizarre attempt to give Thaksin a get out of jail card on the grounds that others are guilty of other offences. Except that the corruption extends to putting pressure (squeezing) Abhisit to force compliance to 'liberate' Thaksin. Apart from that a novel interpretation of election trumping the law.

[rixalex]

The Dems lost because a huge section of the populace despise them and their toffee-nosed leader.

I travel up and down the country, have been living here well over a decade, and am able to converse with locals in their own language, and i think you are plain wrong about people hating Abhisit. Hate for the Dems? Yes certainly, in certain parts of the country. More often than not though, the over-riding impression i get about how people feel about both the Dems and Abhisit, is more along the lines of apathy. They feel like the Dems are slow and dithering and to some extent stuck in the past. They feel like Abhisit is a nice guy but question his ability to get things done. There is also a growing sense of sympathy for the way he was stuck in between a rock and a hard place whilst he was in power, and sympathy for the way he is now at the centre of the most blatant and ridiculous hatchet job. That's not to say they want him back in power - recent election results bear that out - but they don't think he deserves what is happening.

And whereas Abhisit illicits little in the way of strong emotion, Thaksin is the polar opposite. I have yet to meet one single Thai person who is on the fence about him. Have you? They either love him with a passion, or they despise his very being. I put it to you that he is likely the single most divisive person in modern day Thai history.

Of course i can only go on what i have heard, what i have seen, and other people may have different experiences. You for one obviously have. I can't help wondering though, for you to have the impression of Thai people despising "toffee nose", as you call him, just how deep within red heartland you are residing? My guess is very deep, and perhaps surrounded by red fanatical in-laws. It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me. It's either that or I, by some freak occurrence, and happening upon Thai people who are completely unrepresentative of all other Thais.

[Ferangled]

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Now personally I think reconciliation is the only way forward for Thailand and overtime the electorate will grow and mature to the point where they will be able to see past empty policies and worthless rhetoric. They will recognise a self serving politician and they will learn that the power is actually theirs not their sponsors. With this power comes responsibility and we must hope and trust that the people grow to use their vote productively. We have to trust that from the ashes of the old political parties will arise a a new party, a true leader, one that bridges the gap between the old elite and the new power of the people and serves his/her country selflessly without recourse for power brokers and back room influence.

It's high time that petty differences are put aside and people realise that red, yellow, pink or blue, whatever shirt they wear, these people have one unifying characteristic; they are all Thais and every single one of them has the same right to have his/her say in the running of their country, irrelevant of wealth, education or status.

Sorry to edit your post so severely, but I think we're coming closer to agreement on some items. We don't have to see 'eye to eye' on all that happened during those troubled times. Being from a western country, I'm surprised at how easily many Thais' thoughts can be manipulated. I've been residing here 14 years (started visiting 26 yrs ago) so I have some ideas of why Thais are so easily led to believe in false assertions. Some reasons: Rote learning system, always follow what elders/power brokers say, unquestioning, paucity of analytical thinking, belief in hocus pocus, etc.

I'm not saying sheeple don't exist in other countries, it's just that Thais (and most other Asians) are easily led by the nose.

Refreshing reply devoid of insults or speculation. Thank you. Your comments regarding education here are spot on. One of the problems being the drummed in mantra of never questioning your elders/ power brokers is being broken but the levels of education need to rise in accordance so that the populace are properly equipped to form their own opinions on matters. That said it is clear from many of the comments on here that even the more established education systems of the West have failed many in that regard.

My opinion has always been some sort of balance between the extremes that are often voiced on here. As it stands the overwhelming amount of gross speculation and false assertion comes predominantly from one side on TV and this prompts me to reply to these posts with regularity. I am sick of having false opinions and positions applied to others by those that are unwilling to see any middle ground or accept the faults that lie on both sides of the equation. It is this uncompromising refusal to accept that their are two sides to every coin and that events here are rarely as simple a black and white, right and wrong, that is really holding Thailand back.

The zealous nature of many posters on TV unfortunately echoes the issues Thailand now faces in trying to move forward. There are far too many that are unable to empathise with others or apply their strong criticism of others to themselves and those who have their sympathies.

[Ferangled]

'er not if he is to be held accountable. He has been held accountable and convicted. A convicted criminal on the run. A bizarre attempt to give Thaksin a get out of jail card on the grounds that others are guilty of other offences. Except that the corruption extends to putting pressure (squeezing) Abhisit to force compliance to 'liberate' Thaksin. Apart from that a novel interpretation of election trumping the law.

I'm afraid you miss the point. You can't expect to single out one man for investigation while ignoring others that engage in the very same shenanigans and have that deemed as fair practice. If all men are measured equally and by the same token then no one can complain that they have been unfairly treated.

We see the hypocrisy now when the same games are played by the current Government with remarkably similar special investigation committees being formed. The agenda is clear as it was previously but the parallels fail to get drawn by their respective supporters. To be fair Rich Teacher raised this point earlier but his thoughts were deafened by the usual suspects belligerence in seeing the similarities.

The crimes of others do not absolve the crimes of one man, but one man should not be singled out for special treatment when the crimes of others go unchecked and they are allowed to operate with impunity.

[Ferangled]

You cannot reconcile with a dictator. Thaksin and his clan run Pheua Thai as a personal fiefdom, every important decision is decided by Thaksin, Yaowapa,Yingluk and Pojaman.

Until Pheua Thai and \or the red shirts can shake them off they'll never be anything more than foot soldiers to be used at the whims of the leaders.

Those that hold power rarely relinquish their grip with ease. If they did the protests in 2010 would not have run for so long and elections would have been called prior to any bloodshed. Dictators do not generally have the weight of public support and when they are elected by the majority populace they cease to be dictators.

Think about your comments and try to apply them not just to the man you hate but to those on the other side of the fence. It really is not as clear cut as you suggest. People need to start asking themselves whether one man is really more important than the good of the people because all they have achieved so far is to grant their opponent cult status; the man that took on the establishment and lived to fight another day.

Making a martyr of your opponent is not a wise move and neither is putting your persecution of him before what's good for the people or the country. A little more selflessness and a little less selfishness is what Thailand desperately needs and reconciliation is the only way forward to avoid further violent conflict. This comment applies, as it usually does here in Thailand, to both sides of the fence.

[AleG]

...

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

...

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections.

Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then?

Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

The instigators of the protest and the violence have the blood of every single person that died in their hands. They aim with the protests was to discredit Abhisit's government, if they managed to overthrew it all the better, but they must had been uncorking the champagne as people started dying on the streets, such powerful electoral campaign material!

[rixalex]

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

The plan i think was a little more sophisticated and subtle than the slegde hammer type approach that you allude to and dismiss. Thaksin knew from the outset that he could never really match the military for fire power, so i agree that the plan was not to topple the government directly by force. The plan rather was:

• to bring the capital city to a complete stand still for weeks and weeks, stop business, stop trading, stop tourists ✓
  
• to create a sense of fear and panic ✓
  
• to create a distraction big enough to prevent the government from doing anything during their term besides managing the "protest" ✓
  
• to refuse all proposals to end things amicably ✓
  
• to destroy property, burn buildings, intimidate ✓
  
• to continue prodding and poking the military with a various assortment of armaments like grenades and rocket launchers, until such a point that the military has no choice but to react, bringing about bloodshed and death, and subsequently allowing for claims to be made about evil dictatorial anti-democratic clampdowns ✓
  

It was with all these tactics that Thaksin hoped intense pressure would be put on the government, to such a point that it would have to stand down, or the military would have to step in and take over, and when one of those things happened, the government would leave completely disgraced, with human rights violations aplenty, thus vindicating him in the process, showing to the world how he was only ever the innocent victim.

[AleG]

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

The plan i think was a little more sophisticated and subtle than the slegde hammer type approach that you allude to and dismiss. Thaksin knew from the outset that he could never really match the military for fire power, so i agree that the plan was not to topple the government directly by force. The plan rather was:

• to bring the capital city to a complete stand still for weeks and weeks, stop business, stop trading, stop tourists ✓
  
• to create a sense of fear and panic ✓
  
• to create a distraction big enough to prevent the government from doing anything during their term besides managing the "protest" ✓
  
• to refuse all proposals to end things amicably ✓
  
• to destroy property, burn buildings, intimidate ✓
  
• to continue prodding and poking the military with a various assortment of armaments like grenades and rocket launchers, until such a point that the military has no choice but to react, bringing about bloodshed and death, and subsequently allowing for claims to be made about evil dictatorial anti-democratic clampdowns ✓
  

It was with all these tactics that Thaksin hoped intense pressure would be put on the government, to such a point that it would have to stand down, or the military would have to step in and take over, and when one of those things happened, the government would leave completely disgraced, with human rights violations aplenty, thus vindicating him in the process, showing to the world how he was only ever the innocent victim.

A hypothesis supported by evidence:

UDD co-leader Jakkrapob has told some contacts privately that he favors instigating small acts of violence in hopes of triggering an overreaction by security forces, which in turn would give momentum to red calls for systemic change.

[Ferangled]

You know what would had saved every single live lost? waiting for the scheduled elections.

Abhisit had not declared himself dictator for life, there were elections scheduled to happen about one and a half years from the time the Red Shirts threw their violent tantrum. What did those deaths did to advance Democracy then?

Some Red Shirt apologist have the mantra that they were right because they knew they were the majority then why not wait for the elections and show it?

It's good to know that Abhisit only intended to be dictator for a short period and not for life. I'm sure the Thai populace should have trusted him to willingly hand over the reigns once his term was over...

What did the protests achieve? An early election; The people actually got to vote in their own chosen party and leader as opposed to the military deciding for them. I would have thought that was quite obvious as was the illegitimacy of the Dem Government given the election results. It also brought Thailand's Government firmly under the international eye, curbing the impunity with which the powers that be could act.

I guess by the same token we should have tolerated Hitler for a bit longer, I'm sure he would have kept good on his promises of peace keeping; indeed invading the neighbouring countries and massacring large swathes of the population were just misconstrued acts. I'm sure he would have handed over the power and called free and fair elections when he was done...

Now comparing Abhisit to Hitler is disingenuous at best but the ideals of democracy are that important. You can't simply pick and choose when democracy suits and fall back on military power and dictatorship when it doesn't. Thailand is either a democracy or it isn't and such abuse of power can't be permitted; in such situations the people have every right to take to the streets and let their voices be heard.

[philw]

Nice post Ferangled and well stated.

The complimentary peanut has arrived.

How sweet of you...........

[rixalex]

'er not if he is to be held accountable. He has been held accountable and convicted. A convicted criminal on the run. A bizarre attempt to give Thaksin a get out of jail card on the grounds that others are guilty of other offences. Except that the corruption extends to putting pressure (squeezing) Abhisit to force compliance to 'liberate' Thaksin. Apart from that a novel interpretation of election trumping the law.

I'm afraid you miss the point. You can't expect to single out one man for investigation while ignoring others that engage in the very same shenanigans and have that deemed as fair practice. If all men are measured equally and by the same token then no one can complain that they have been unfairly treated.

We see the hypocrisy now when the same games are played by the current Government with remarkably similar special investigation committees being formed. The agenda is clear as it was previously but the parallels fail to get drawn by their respective supporters. To be fair Rich Teacher raised this point earlier but his thoughts were deafened by the usual suspects belligerence in seeing the similarities.

The crimes of others do not absolve the crimes of one man, but one man should not be singled out for special treatment when the crimes of others go unchecked and they are allowed to operate with impunity.

It's not the case that one man has been singled out, it's rather the case that one man for once was unable to evade justice, in spite of million baht lunch boxes. The term singling out evokes a sense of someone having been some how hard done by, or having been harshly treated. Thaksin has not. Yes, it's true that there are many who have been softly treated by the law, including both those opposing Thaksin, and including those supporting Thaksin. The focus of energy should be on bringing those to justice also... instead all we get is all these measly attempts at illiciting sympathy.

[Ferangled]

Unfortunately that was actually a tongue in cheek account as one might expect to hear from the most biased and impartial mind. It is blatantly obvious to all that no one was attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms. One need only look at the casualties to see where the real aggression and force of arms lay. Had Thaksin and the reds wanted to overthrow the Government through force of arms the death toll would have been magnified tenfold. That is quite clear as is the reality that this was not the aim; the man is many things but an idiot is surely not one of them.

The plan i think was a little more sophisticated and subtle than the slegde hammer type approach that you allude to and dismiss. Thaksin knew from the outset that he could never really match the military for fire power, so i agree that the plan was not to topple the government directly by force. The plan rather was:

• to bring the capital city to a complete stand still for weeks and weeks, stop business, stop trading, stop tourists ✓
  
• to create a sense of fear and panic ✓
  
• to create a distraction big enough to prevent the government from doing anything during their term besides managing the "protest" ✓
  
• to refuse all proposals to end things amicably ✓
  
• to destroy property, burn buildings, intimidate ✓
  
• to continue prodding and poking the military with a various assortment of armaments like grenades and rocket launchers, until such a point that the military has no choice but to react, bringing about bloodshed and death, and subsequently allowing for claims to be made about evil dictatorial anti-democratic clampdowns ✓
  

It was with all these tactics that Thaksin hoped intense pressure would be put on the government, to such a point that it would have to stand down, or the military would have to step in and take over, and when one of those things happened, the government would leave completely disgraced, with human rights violations aplenty, thus vindicating him in the process, showing to the world how he was only ever the innocent victim.

If that's the case then it worked remarkably well didn't it? The end result being that early elections were called and the people had a chance to decide their own Government, which they duly did, affirming that the previous Government was a sham that didn't enjoy majority public support. Trying your best to twist the events of 2010 and focus purely on the "evils" of Thaksin and the Red shirts is pointless. The reality is somewhere between the deliberate slant you add to the events and the more rouge tinted recollections that are also voiced on occasion.

Are you aware of the French Revolution or the English Civil War? The tactics employed were less than savoury and the bloodshed considerable. The end however justified the means. Democracy is a system born out of bloodshed, it's a system that allows us to move forward peacefully but to implement it power often has to be wrestled from those that are less than willing to relinquish it.