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

[maidu]

Many large money transfers from Thaksin's overseas accounts to Red coordinators in Thailand.

Evidence?

Bank records. I'll let you do the searches. It won't be easy, because banks don't like to divulge such info to anyone who just walks in the door to request it. There were newspaper reports of transfers at the time - including references to particular people on the receiving end. I'm sure that all the money rec'd was dutifully paid out to the protesters as directed, 5 5 5 5 5

[OzMick]

Why should the military have no part in politics?

Were you born in a democratic country?

You might think my posting name would answer your question, but on the other hand I find it hard to believe that you are either rich or a teacher.

[moe666]

In this argument even if you had the evidence it would be refused as being insuficient.

[marshbags]

Will Taksin be charged for the thousands killed in his war on drugs?

Will Yingluck be charged for all of the deaths in the south in her war against the Muslims?

No, because multiple investigations were unable to substantiate the allegations against former PM Thaksin.

No, because PM Yingluck has not been accused of targeting non combatants nor of crimes against muslims. And why do you describe it as "her war against muslims"? The insurgency has been going on for decades, nor is there a war against muslims. Thailand has a duty to protect its citizens of all religions against violent insurgents.

Thaksin's questionable let offs re the substantiating of allegations (?????? ) can easily be shown as a farce when considering the media evidence he has provided while wanting and showing the whole world how hands on he was.

When compared to the ridiculous accusations being lodged against Abhisit and Suthep that grow by the day it beggars belief and the end result will justify their actions, if true justice in this case is shown to be done and also make clear the reasons why.

The PT aka Thaksin and his coherts are deviously milking the propaganda gleaned from this charade for all it,s worth so as to keep the more important issues out of the headlines....

Both are related re as to reason why the above is continuing and expanding and getting more rediculous as it goes on and on and on.

The highly controversial rice scheme for one which is becoming mega trouble for them and will NOT go away.

The latest IMHO relates to the Dawei Investments in Myanmar ( were Thaksin in the first instance made several visits to the country for secretive meetings withThein Sein, among others ) and of late, two days ago 18-12-2012 made it official via representative PM Yingluck who also admits to taking advice from her brother, another of the Shinawatra clan self interest in the making no doubt hmmmm.

I find it very odd indeed that it hasn,t gleened more headlines and detailed publication, especially when you consider how huge it is and what benefits should be now in the public domain.

Those sticky fingers of the self serving fugitive in exile hold no barriers on his self enrichment objectives.

marshbags

Edited December 20, 2012 by marshbags

[smedly]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but as I've said many times I'm not on any "team". I'm neither a supporter of the reds or the yellows and I think that both/all are as bad as each other.

I do dislike it when people talk crap however whilst either ignoring or misunderstanding the blatantly obvious.

By any stretch of the imagination, it was not a peaceful protest. It caused untold problems and chaos and damage and went on far too long. Thaksin initiated this, Arisman promoted it including inciting his followers to riot and burn. Which they did.

The criticism I have of Abhisit is that he let it go too far for too long. In any other western country, things would have been stopped far quicker before they escalated and got entrenched.

For those that don't remember or choose to ignore, the rioters burned buildings, burned cars, threatened people, prevented businesses and a huge section of central Bangkok to operate normally, they stormed buildings, the list goes on.

Apologies for any mis-spellings, the keyboard is rather small, it auto-corrects badly sometimes and I have big fingers.

Where is your evidence that 'Thaksin initiated this'? The Dems tried hard but could pin nothing on him. Most of the violence you report remains unsolved, including the identity of the black-shirts, and could certainly be the work of the authorities looking for an excuse to end the protests. The great majority of the reds were peaceful and justified to be protesting against what was for all purposes a military-installed administration thanks to the explicit influence of the Army chief.

So while soldiers in green are being attacked (I refer you to the video where soldiers who refused to drive over or shoot protesters were dragged from their truck and badly beaten, one shot), you suggest that others put on black and suddenly get a free pass to wander through the red ranks? Is that likely or rational?

Is it not more likely that the protesters had been told they had "protectors" dressed in black and not to hinder them?

In Thailand it is legal for lobbyists to attempt to sway an MPs stance (short of outright bribery), it is legal for Thaksin to literally buy minor parties after elections - but if the military influence an MPs decision it is "for all purposes a military-installed administration thanks to the explicit influence of the Army chief." Wake up.

The military should play no part in politics full stop. You defending it is wrong. Wake up.

And for what is 'likely' or not regarding the unsolved elements during the protests, it it pure speculation.

and who else is going to protect democracy - the people - the country when a band of corrupt theives and thugs get voted into government and twist and turn every - law - court - proceedure - charter - constitution that stands in their way ???? and the referendum rules are next to be changed because it doesn't suit them (as I predicted)

This country is not ready for democracy because the people don't understand what it is and how it should be implemented - the current government being a fine example - if a rule doesn't fit their purpose change it - that is not how it works

I'll predict this government is on it's last legs - you heard it here first

[Moruya]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but as I've said many times I'm not on any "team". I'm neither a supporter of the reds or the yellows and I think that both/all are as bad as each other.

I do dislike it when people talk crap however whilst either ignoring or misunderstanding the blatantly obvious.

By any stretch of the imagination, it was not a peaceful protest. It caused untold problems and chaos and damage and went on far too long. Thaksin initiated this, Arisman promoted it including inciting his followers to riot and burn. Which they did.

The criticism I have of Abhisit is that he let it go too far for too long. In any other western country, things would have been stopped far quicker before they escalated and got entrenched.

For those that don't remember or choose to ignore, the rioters burned buildings, burned cars, threatened people, prevented businesses and a huge section of central Bangkok to operate normally, they stormed buildings, the list goes on.

Apologies for any mis-spellings, the keyboard is rather small, it auto-corrects badly sometimes and I have big fingers.

Where is your evidence that 'Thaksin initiated this'? The Dems tried hard but could pin nothing on him. Most of the violence you report remains unsolved, including the identity of the black-shirts, and could certainly be the work of the authorities looking for an excuse to end the protests. The great majority of the reds were peaceful and justified to be protesting against what was for all purposes a military-installed administration thanks to the explicit influence of the Army chief.

So while soldiers in green are being attacked (I refer you to the video where soldiers who refused to drive over or shoot protesters were dragged from their truck and badly beaten, one shot), you suggest that others put on black and suddenly get a free pass to wander through the red ranks? Is that likely or rational?

Is it not more likely that the protesters had been told they had "protectors" dressed in black and not to hinder them?

In Thailand it is legal for lobbyists to attempt to sway an MPs stance (short of outright bribery), it is legal for Thaksin to literally buy minor parties after elections - but if the military influence an MPs decision it is "for all purposes a military-installed administration thanks to the explicit influence of the Army chief." Wake up.

The military should play no part in politics full stop. You defending it is wrong. Wake up.

And for what is 'likely' or not regarding the unsolved elements during the protests, it it pure speculation.

How many military in the PTP? How many police? Do you think there are less than the Dems? Are they there as true politicians or because of their DNA? Seem to be quite a few Shinawatras and Damapongs

[smedly]

Why should the military have no part in politics?

Were you born in a democratic country?

this certaintly isn't one, just because they have elections doesn't make it a democracy - go educate yourself and come back and tell us what a democracy should be

[Rich teacher]

Many large money transfers from Thaksin's overseas accounts to Red coordinators in Thailand.

Evidence?

Bank records. I'll let you do the searches. It won't be easy, because banks don't like to divulge such info to anyone who just walks in the door to request it. There were newspaper reports of transfers at the time - including references to particular people on the receiving end. I'm sure that all the money rec'd was dutifully paid out to the protesters as directed, 5 5 5 5 5

You are the one putting it up for evidence, the onus is on you to prove it.

The DSI/Dems did freeze 170 bank accounts of individuals and companies, but as usual didn't come up with anything.

[mrtoad]

DL, enough said.

[Skywalker69]

I can't speak for anyone else here, but as I've said many times I'm not on any "team". I'm neither a supporter of the reds or the yellows and I think that both/all are as bad as each other.

I do dislike it when people talk crap however whilst either ignoring or misunderstanding the blatantly obvious.

By any stretch of the imagination, it was not a peaceful protest. It caused untold problems and chaos and damage and went on far too long. Thaksin initiated this, Arisman promoted it including inciting his followers to riot and burn. Which they did.

The criticism I have of Abhisit is that he let it go too far for too long. In any other western country, things would have been stopped far quicker before they escalated and got entrenched.

For those that don't remember or choose to ignore, the rioters burned buildings, burned cars, threatened people, prevented businesses and a huge section of central Bangkok to operate normally, they stormed buildings, the list goes on.

Where is your evidence that 'Thaksin initiated this'? The Dems tried hard but could pin nothing on him. Most of the violence you report remains unsolved, including the identity of the black-shirts, and could certainly be the work of the authorities looking for an excuse to end the protests. The great majority of the reds were peaceful and justified to be protesting against what was for all purposes a military-installed administration thanks to the explicit influence of the Army chief.

There is a lot of evidence that Thaksin paid for and incited the rioters. Here are just two: Money openly handed out to p.u. drivers and protesters in the provinces - to pay them to attend the rallies. Many large money transfers from Thaksin's overseas accounts to Red coordinators in Thailand. Granted, many protesters appeared peaceful, though they chanted encouragement to trouble-makers. Sae Daeng (the head of MIB was killed, we don't know by whom) which is sad because he can't be hauled before a tribunal to tell his story. Even though several MIB were ID'd by photos, none will venture to tell the truth, which is keeping with their paymaster, Thaksin, who couldn't tell the truth if he tried.

As for Reds being peaceful - how peaceful is it to launch a grenade to a BTS platform and kill an innocent woman? How peaceful is it to torch large department stores, or raid hospitals?

[Skywalker69]

Why should the military have no part in politics?

Were you born in a democratic country?

You might think my posting name would answer your question, but on the other hand I find it hard to believe that you are either rich or a teacher.

PPD?

[Ferangled]

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Worth a laugh at least. Is this a why did the police do a walkabout thread? Oh were they missing we hear the cry? Surely not!

Paid off by Thaksin. As for the army Thaksin's only objection is/was that the army isn't controlled by him.

If the riots to bring down the government had succeeded then there was a chance for Thaksin to stick his fingers into the autumn army leadership appointments round. He failed on that one. So now a little bit of revenge on Abhisit. All we need to remember with these Thaksin apologists is that everything is predicated to his interests. The democracy flag is thoroughly dirty when waved by these guys. So now we are beginning to make a little list:

The Arisman tape doesn't exist.

The police weren't paid off by Thaksin.

The armed MIB nothing to do with the reds.

......keep 'em coming guys.

Why is it that you guys can't actually respond to the points raised in a post! Is it so hard?

I raise a legitimate point and after countless replies no one has actually even tried to answer it. You maintain the police were paid of by Thaksin and refused to act against the protesters in 2010. If that is the case, why are the red shirts being accused of targeting the police? Reference back to the start of this conversation, Nickmasters list of events - you must have seen it by now, he seems to post in on every single thread on TV.

Here are the questions I raised in my post, yet again. If you would like to try and answer them and enlighten us all, please do. If not, please stop replying to my posts with this irrelevant speculative bile. Thanks.

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

[Siripon]

Ex police in the Cabinet include Chalerm, Chat, Pracha- all men with shining unblemished records!!!!

[Tatsujin]

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

If not why were they targeted and by who? What do you mean? Thaksin has a lot of support within the Police hence their failure to do as asked initially in quelling the protests.

If they were then why the SOE and military intervention? Because the Police weren't doing their job.

For those that have short memories, I quote from Wikipedia, it covers most of it pretty well:

A prolonged series of political protests occurred in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010 from March to May against the Democrat Party-led government. The protests were organized by the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) (known as "Red-Shirts"). The UDD called for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and hold elections earlier than the end of term elections scheduled in 2012. The UDD demanded that the government stand down, and negotiations failed to set an election date. The protests escalated into prolonged violent confrontations between the protesters and the military, and attempts to negotiate a ceasefire failed. More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military successfully cracked down on the protesters on 19 May.

Popular opposition against Abhisit Vejjajiva's government rose throughout 2009, due to the controversial 2008 "judicial coup" that banned the Palang Prachachon Party and "silent coup" that allowed the Democrats to form a coalition government, albeit within the bounds of Thai Democratic law.^[3][4] In February 2010, Abhisit tightened security in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling to seize Thaksin Shinawatra's bank accounts frozen since the 2006 military coup. The UDD did not protest, but announced protests on 14 March in Bangkok to call for new elections. Abhisit further tightened security. Censorship was heightened, and radio, TV stations and Web sites sympathetic to the UDD were closed, due in part to a number of broadcasts that inaccurately were demonising the Prime Minister using a doctored tape.^{[citation needed]}

The 14 March protests were originally labelled by organisers as the "Million Person March" although in reality at its peak early on numbers were estimated^{[by whom?]} to be at most approximately 100,000, rapidly falling to around 10–20,000. At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79 grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).^[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date. On 22 April, grenade attacks killed one and injured 86 others. UDD members illegally entered Chulalongkorn Hospital in an unsuccessful search for the attackers, drawing widespread condemnation from the Thai press, as the protests started to become substantially more siege like, with barricades and armed guards creating a UDD fortress within the area of Ratchaprasong. Forensics expert Pornthip Rojanasunand later indicated that it might or might not have been the source of the attacks. No arrests were made.^[8] A UDD proposal for elections in three months was rejected by Abhisit. On 28 April, the military and protesters clashed in northern Bangkok, wounding at least 16 protesters and killing one soldier. The UDD moved out of Phan Fah and consolidated at Ratchaprasong. On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory road map and elections on 14 November. The road map was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions allegedly at the request of Thaksin Shinawatra, who at that point was regularly phoning in by video to the protest sites, the government declined to add additional conditions and thus no compromise could be made.

As the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army as well as a multi coloured shirt protest in Saladaeng, Ratchaprasong was surrounded with armoured vehicles and snipers.^[9] On the evening of 13 May, Khattiya Sawasdiphol ("Seh Daeng"), a prominent security advisor to the protesters and alleged leader of the armed "Ronin" guards also known as the black shirts, was shot in the head by what was apparently a sniper's bullet while he was giving an interview to press. It is unknown who shot him, with rumours including that it was ordered by the Army, by Thaksin, or a stray bullet. Thereafter, the state of emergency was expanded to 17 provinces and the military commenced an extended crackdown, which the Thai media dubbed "Savage May" (Thai: พฤษภาอำมหิต), leading to an additional 41 civilians deaths (including one Italian journalist) and over 250 injuries by 8.30 pm on 18 May.^[10][11] One military death occurred due to accidental friendly fire.^[12] The government claimed that all civilians killed were either armed terrorists or civilians shot by terrorists, and noted that some civilians were shot by terrorists disguised in Army uniforms.^[13]| deadurl= no}}</ref> The government denied being behind his assassination.--> The military declared the area a "live fire zone", in which anybody, be they protester, resident, tourist or journalist would be shot on sight, with medics banned from entering.^{[14][15][16][17]} On 14 May, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon encouraged protesters and the government to return to dialogue.^[18] On 16 May, UDD leaders said again they were ready for talks as long as the military pulled back, but the government demanded the unconditional dispersal of the protesters.^[19] A state of emergency was declared in 5 Northeastern provinces on 16 May. The government rejected a Senate call for a ceasefire and Senate-mediated negotiations. On 17 May, Amnesty International called for the military to stop using live ammunition.^[20] Armored vehicles led the final assault into Ratchaprasong in the early morning of 19 May, killing at least five, including an Italian journalist.^[21] Soldiers were reported to have fired on medical staff who went to the aid of the shooting victims.^[21] By 1.30 pm, UDD leaders surrendered to police and told protesters to give themselves up. Dozens of arson attacks soon broke out nationwide on red-shirt targets including the CentralWorld building, various banks and civic buildings and government buildings. People arrested and charged for arson include a number of Red Shirt supporters. A curfew was declared and troops were authorized to shoot on sight anybody inciting unrest.^[21] An undisclosed number of arrests and detentions occurred. 51 protesters remained missing as of 8 June.^[22] The government claimed the protests cost 150 billion baht (approximately US$ 5 billion) to organize.^[23]

[metisdead]

Posts discussing other posters posting habits have been removed. Stay on the topic.

[Ferangled]

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

If not why were they targeted and by who? What do you mean? Thaksin has a lot of support within the Police hence their failure to do as asked initially in quelling the protests.

If they were then why the SOE and military intervention? Because the Police weren't doing their job.

-----Snipped huge quote from Wikipedia.-------

So the police were loyal to Thaksin, didn't act to control the protests (or did but reticently), hence the military involvement/ SOE but the police were then targeted by red shirts? Presumably because the red shirts were so out of control in their wanton destruction of Bangkok that they were attacking everyone in sight?

I've got some things to do but will be back to discuss the Wikipedia quote if that's ok, raises some interesting points given your assertion that it's a pretty fair account of the events.

Edited December 20, 2012 by PoorSucker
Made modification of quote.

[Tatsujin]

So the police were loyal to Thaksin, didn't act to control the protests (or did but reticently), hence the military involvement/ SOE but the police were then targeted by red shirts? Presumably because the red shirts were so out of control in their wanton destruction of Bangkok that they were attacking everyone in sight?

I've got some things to do but will be back to discuss the Wikipedia quote if that's ok, raises some interesting points given your assertion that it's a pretty fair account of the events.

Fine. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I quoted the article and said it covers the main things that happened "pretty well", I didn't say it was 100% accurate or 100% complete.

However, it does seem that nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong and that it was all the Govt/Army's fault. I'm assuming you were not actually at any of these places when the rioting and barricades were in place? If you were, and you had your eyes open, or you even watched the live tv footage, you'd have seen what actually was going on, not simply buying into the red/Thaksin propaganda machine.

But feel free to discuss it at length and to no purpose. There's none so blind as those as those that will not see.

[Thai at Heart]

Werent several police accused of various offences during the break up of the PAD protests, which would have made most pretty wary of getting too up front and personal. Of course the police were it could be said, sympathetic to the reds and Thaksin, but how enthusiastic would you be if you end up with possible criminal charges for engaging this mob????

National Police Commander Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan and his Deputy, Police General Wiroj Paholvej, as well as Metropolitan Police Commander Police Lieutenant-General Suchart Mueankaew and his Deputies, Police Major-General Likhit Klinuan and Police Major-General Ekkarat Meepreecha.

Now you see, the army gets a get out of jail free card for doing the job, but the police don't. I don't want to say which is right or wrong, but these situations where the various bodies are used for "political" punishments depending on who is in power at the time have been going on for a while. No wonder the coppers didn't fancy getting their hands dirty to help out Abhisit, when in doing their job against the PAD, they end up being accused of pretty spurious criminal offences.

What did ever come of any of these supposed charges? I presume nothing, but, are any of them still sitting at the bottom of a pile in Bangkok somewhere?

[Ferangled]

So the police were loyal to Thaksin, didn't act to control the protests (or did but reticently), hence the military involvement/ SOE but the police were then targeted by red shirts? Presumably because the red shirts were so out of control in their wanton destruction of Bangkok that they were attacking everyone in sight?

I've got some things to do but will be back to discuss the Wikipedia quote if that's ok, raises some interesting points given your assertion that it's a pretty fair account of the events.

Fine. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I quoted the article and said it covers the main things that happened "pretty well", I didn't say it was 100% accurate or 100% complete.

However, it does seem that nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong and that it was all the Govt/Army's fault. I'm assuming you were not actually at any of these places when the rioting and barricades were in place? If you were, and you had your eyes open, or you even watched the live tv footage, you'd have seen what actually was going on, not simply buying into the red/Thaksin propaganda machine.

But feel free to discuss it at length and to no purpose. There's none so blind as those as those that will not see.

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

[Ferangled]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Ferangled

[Tatsujin]

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

OK Ferangled, what questions do you need answers to specifically? List them here and I'll respond to them directly as the thread's got rather large and confusing.

[Ferangled]

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

OK Ferangled, what questions do you need answers to specifically? List them here and I'll respond to them directly as the thread's got rather large and confusing.

Wasn't it you that said "There's none so blind as those as those that will not see" ? Seems a rather fitting response to your deliberate refusal to open your eyes and respond to the actual questions posed. Well done for keeping the insults out of your response, some small step towards civil discussion...

[Tatsujin]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

You're very good at quoting and missing out the salient facts. What continued AFTER your quote above was:

On 22 April, grenade attacks killed one and injured 86 others. UDD members illegally entered Chulalongkorn Hospital in an unsuccessful search for the attackers, drawing widespread condemnation from the Thai press, as the protests started to become substantially more siege like, with barricades and armed guards creating a UDD fortress within the area of Ratchaprasong.

The protests initially started out peacefully, but rapidly turned into a siege of downtown BKK. The Police were unwilling/unable to do much about it in those early stages and the Military were then brought in. After the SoE was declared, the whole thing turned into illegal actions.

On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory road map and elections on 14 November. The road map was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions allegedly at the request of Thaksin Shinawatra, who at that point was regularly phoning in by video to the protest sites, the government declined to add additional conditions and thus no compromise could be made.

Attempts to compromise were made and rejected at the behest of Thaksin who wanted to see Bangkok burn and the Govt to be discredited.

As the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army as well as a multi coloured shirt protest in Saladaeng, Ratchaprasong was surrounded with armoured vehicles and snipers.

Peaceful?

[Tatsujin]

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

OK Ferangled, what questions do you need answers to specifically? List them here and I'll respond to them directly as the thread's got rather large and confusing.

Wasn't it you that said "There's none so blind as those as those that will not see" ? Seems a rather fitting response to your deliberate refusal to open your eyes and respond to the actual questions posed. Well done for keeping the insults out of your response, some small step towards civil discussion...

I repeat, list your actual questions and I'll reply to them.

[AleG]

Werent several police accused of various offences during the break up of the PAD protests, which would have made most pretty wary of getting too up front and personal. Of course the police were it could be said, sympathetic to the reds and Thaksin, but how enthusiastic would you be if you end up with possible criminal charges for engaging this mob????

http://www.thaivisa....nal-misconduct/

National Police Commander Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan and his Deputy, Police General Wiroj Paholvej, as well as Metropolitan Police Commander Police Lieutenant-General Suchart Mueankaew and his Deputies, Police Major-General Likhit Klinuan and Police Major-General Ekkarat Meepreecha.

Now you see, the army gets a get out of jail free card for doing the job, but the police don't. I don't want to say which is right or wrong, but these situations where the various bodies are used for "political" punishments depending on who is in power at the time have been going on for a while. No wonder the coppers didn't fancy getting their hands dirty to help out Abhisit, when in doing their job against the PAD, they end up being accused of pretty spurious criminal offences.

What did ever come of any of these supposed charges? I presume nothing, but, are any of them still sitting at the bottom of a pile in Bangkok somewhere?

Oh, but it goes much further than playing possum, for example do you think the current police chief, an unashamed Thaksin bootlicker would had acted against his master's Red Shirts?

Beyond hypotheticals you only need to see the different approach the police had against the recent Pitak Siam rally.

Besides that there were multiple reports of police officers of all ranks colluding with Red Shirts, from the botched capture of Arisaman at the SC Park Hotel, to police officers openly giving their support to the "Red Cause", I can't find now one of the Wikileaks cables regarding the Red Shirt riot at the ASSEAN summit, identifying a police commander chumming up with the Red Shirts... heck, I even saw on live TV, a single Red Shirt protester setting up a fire on the intersection of Ekamai and Sukhumvit, while 3 or 4 police officers watched across the road.

There was a lot more than simply looking the other way.

[AleG]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

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.

That's from 2009.

Please, go on defending the actions of men that willfully sent people they claim to care so very much about to kill and be killed to satiate their greed and political ambitions.

[Ferangled]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

You're very good at quoting and missing out the salient facts. What continued AFTER your quote above was:

On 22 April, grenade attacks killed one and injured 86 others. UDD members illegally entered Chulalongkorn Hospital in an unsuccessful search for the attackers, drawing widespread condemnation from the Thai press, as the protests started to become substantially more siege like, with barricades and armed guards creating a UDD fortress within the area of Ratchaprasong.

The protests initially started out peacefully, but rapidly turned into a siege of downtown BKK. The Police were unwilling/unable to do much about it in those early stages and the Military were then brought in. After the SoE was declared, the whole thing turned into illegal actions.

On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory road map and elections on 14 November. The road map was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions allegedly at the request of Thaksin Shinawatra, who at that point was regularly phoning in by video to the protest sites, the government declined to add additional conditions and thus no compromise could be made.

Attempts to compromise were made and rejected at the behest of Thaksin who wanted to see Bangkok burn and the Govt to be discredited.

As the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army as well as a multi coloured shirt protest in Saladaeng, Ratchaprasong was surrounded with armoured vehicles and snipers.

Peaceful?

The pertinent word that you seem to have skipped over despite righting it yourself is highlighted in RED in your post.... "after", it conveys a certain meaning, a time frame to the events no?

When was the SOE declared? When did the events that you have added into the discussion occur Tatsujin?

You do understand that cause & effect works only when the cause happens previous to the effect?

[Ferangled]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

[Tatsujin]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

Are you going to list your actual questions or not?

[smedly]

Ferangled

can you give me your opinion on the following, a simple yes or no answer will do if you agree or disagree - no discussion required

- Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests

- were there any of the red shirts armed with lethal weapons

- did the protestors use lethal weapons against the police or army

- were protestors paid money to be there - if yes give a brief description of where you think the money came from

- were there threats of violence made by protest leaders from the stage

- were the protestors violent

- was Thaksin S involved

- were the protestors breaking the law

- Should the army have cleared the protestors

- should a government give in to violent mobs and rioting