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

[whybother]

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

[Ferangled]

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

Not at all. Exactly who is defending the red shirts? Is being critical of AV and the military during 2010 somehow defence of the red shirts? Since when did criticism of one party equal support of the other? One can defend someone without being supportive of them and one can criticise without being anti. It's all a bit too black and white for some...

Incidentally I notice that no one wants to tackle the question I posed and I sincerely doubt they will. To do so exposes a very biased trend in attacking those that hold differing viewpoints. I'll ask it again and let's see if anyone is honest enough to give an accurate response...

How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Ferangled

[Tatsujin]

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

Not at all. Exactly who is defending the red shirts? Is being critical of AV and the military during 2010 somehow defence of the red shirts? Since when did criticism of one party equal support of the other? One can defend someone without being supportive of them and one can criticise without being anti. It's all a bit too black and white for some...

Incidentally I notice that no one wants to tackle the question I posed and I sincerely doubt they will. To do so exposes a very biased trend in attacking those that hold differing viewpoints. I'll ask it again and let's see if anyone is honest enough to give an accurate response...

How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

I think people have got the impression you were pro-Red by your repeated statements that the protests were peaceful, that the protestors never did anything wrong, and that lots of the events that were reported and witnessed by independent parties at the time didn't actually happen.

Again though, we are way off topic.

I don't want to put words in your mouths, but (I think) that RT and Ferangled (and a few others) think that the protests were completely legal at all points of those months and that someone should be held accountable for the deaths that occurred throughout. They put the blame on Abhisit.

Myself and many more (I believe) think that the protests were (talking about the initial peaceful gatherings) legal initially, but subsequent to the ISA/SoE being implemented they then became illegal protests and that the people in charge at the time operated within the law that those powers gave them. Because of those laws, I don't believe that they can be held accountable.

I also believe that the protests were instigated by, paid for and encouraged by Thaksin from his self-imposed exile and that if anyone should be held accountable it should be Thaksin, Arisman and others of their ilk.

Referring to this "reconciliation" garbage that is floating around, I believe it's a complete waste of time, with nothing but finger pointing at anything and everything and nothing being achieved by it. If Thaksin truly wanted reconciliation and for Thailand to be non-divisive, then come back, serve your time, and let everyone else move on with their lives.

But (again), that's just my opinion.

[Thai at Heart]

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Abhisit. They should surely have got someone to deem that the protest had broken some law?

Basically, the army shot people who weren't breaking the law

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

She ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

[Thai at Heart]

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Abhisit. They should surely have got someone to deem that the protest had broken some law?

Basically, the army shot people who weren't breaking the law

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[whybother]

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

The courts judged that they didn't need a court judgement.

Edited December 23, 2012 by whybother

[Tatsujin]

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

[Thai at Heart]

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

[geriatrickid]

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

No. One can defend a position based upon the known facts of a case.

[whybother]

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

Why would you get a court judgement to put the SOE in place?

[yoshiwara]

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

No. One can defend a position based upon the known facts of a case.

Except that the red cheerleaders don't. They brazenly make assertions as if they were facts. As for the dispassionate defenders of the truth cloak, pull the other one.

[rubl]

""One can defend a position based upon the known facts of a case.""

The Devil surely seems to have a lot of advocates here :-)

BTW 'facts' are not necessarily the same as the obvious and clearly for all to see opinions although some here seem to be oblivious of the difference

[Tatsujin]

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Any PM can declare a SoE, they don't need a Court Order to allow them to do so, they already have that power as a matter of course.

The problem was that the Red protestors didn't "accept" that the SoE was legal (because it didn't fit in with their ideas of how the law should operate) and continued to protest. The Govt then decided to "check" whether a separate legal Court Order (which perhaps the Red protestors "might" then accept) could be given to evict the protestors on or around the 10th April, and the Court deemed it completely unnecessary as all the powers needed to evict the protestors were contained already within the ISA and SoE.

Simple enough for you now? Or does you not accept this also?

[Thai at Heart]

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

Why would you get a court judgement to put the SOE in place?

No, to get a judgment that the protest was illegal.

Can't very well say it was legal until the SOE was enabled. If it was legal why you need the SOE? A bit Asset backwards not to get it deemed illegal first and then bring in the SOE right;

[muttley]

The protests had already been declared illegal through the SOE.

The court said that they didn't need to rule on stopping the red shirts from occupying Ratchaprasong.

Ah ok. Bit strange though. Would have made it better to have got a court judgment though surely.

But that's the point . . . they did ask the Courts to make a ruling, and the Court ruling was that they didn't need an additional judgement as the ISA and SoE covered it all already.

Self fulfilling judgment then. They should have got a judgment prior to putting the SOE in place. Wonder why they didn't?

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

[whybother]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

[whybother]

No, to get a judgment that the protest was illegal.

Can't very well say it was legal until the SOE was enabled. If it was legal why you need the SOE? A bit Asset backwards not to get it deemed illegal first and then bring in the SOE right;

The protest was legal until the SOE was enabled. Because the protesters had taken over Ratchaprasong, and there had been a number of grenade blasts injuring people, the government decided to bring in the SOE. That made the protests illegal. The government went to the courts to get a ruling that the protesters should clear Ratchaprasong, but the court said "We don't need to rule, as the SOE is in place and the protesters are now protesting illegally, they can be cleared."

[Thai at Heart]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

[whybother]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

Interestingly, Yingluck invoked the ISA on 23rd November, two whole days before Siam Pitak and arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

[whybother]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

Setting up a stage in the middle of a major intersection probably breaks a normal day to day law.

[muttley]

""One can defend a position based upon the known facts of a case.""

The Devil surely seems to have a lot of advocates here :-)

BTW 'facts' are not necessarily the same as the obvious and clearly for all to see opinions although some here seem to be oblivious of the difference

And some just need a lot of help to be convinced what facts are, eh? Like Orphans and the like, did I miss the apology to GK?

[Pimay1]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

Setting up a stage in the middle of a major intersection probably breaks a normal day to day law.

I think there might be a law against raiding a hospital and requesting people to bring one million liters of petrol to burn down a city. If not there should be.

[Tatsujin]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

You mean other than preventing access to large parts of Bangkok, barricades, grenade attacks, shootings, arson and general disruption to everyday Bangkok residents lives? You really are an idiot if you can't see that it became far more than a simple peaceful protest very quickly.

You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_Thai_political_crisis

It paints all sides in a very bad light if you read it all. But that's what I've said all along.

[Thai at Heart]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

The ISA didn't make the protest illegal.

So did the protest ever actually break any normal day to day laws?

Setting up a stage in the middle of a major intersection probably breaks a normal day to day law.

Exactly. They should have done all the small stuff first.

[muttley]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

Interestingly, Yingluck invoked the ISA on 23rd November, two whole days before Siam Pitak and arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

She obviously learnt from the master of ass covering then didn't she.

Mind you being hauled before a judge for using tear gas on protesters is hardly in the same ball park as using 30,000 armed troops to eventually kill 80 odd civilians and injure 2000 others, but thats just my viewpoint.

[whybother]

Exactly. They should have done all the small stuff first.

What are you going on about?

[whybother]

Because Abhisit had invoked the Internal Security Act on the 11th March, two whole days before the UDD had even arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

Interestingly, Yingluck invoked the ISA on 23rd November, two whole days before Siam Pitak and arrived in Bangkok for their first rally.

She obviously learnt from the master of ass covering then didn't she.

Mind you being hauled before a judge for using tear gas on protesters is hardly in the same ball park as using 30,000 armed troops to eventually kill 80 odd civilians and injure 2000 others, but thats just my viewpoint.

When protesters threaten to burn down buildings and then shoot grenades around the place, tear gas and riot shields aren't going to do you much good.

Shooting back at armed troops also doesn't help.

[bigbamboo]

What a shame the police couldn't do their duty then there would have been no need for the army to have been brought in to do their job for them.

[rubl]

""One can defend a position based upon the known facts of a case.""

The Devil surely seems to have a lot of advocates here :-)

BTW 'facts' are not necessarily the same as the obvious and clearly for all to see opinions although some here seem to be oblivious of the difference

And some just need a lot of help to be convinced what facts are, eh? Like Orphans and the like, did I miss the apology to GK?

Nice doggy, you're off topic. Also since I asked gKid "Dear gK, I only used the info in the OP which is very limited. You seem to have a better source. Could you please provide a pointer for it?", since I got a link to more info by PM from a friendly soul, and since I formally wrote "I retract my post" and included the link to more info, I see no reason for an apology to gKid.

I didn't need help to be convinced of 'facts', I needed help to get the 'facts'.

Now here's a go play outside

Edited December 23, 2012 by rubl

[Moruya]

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

Sent from my HTC phone.

Abhisit. They should surely have got someone to deem that the protest had broken some law?

Basically, the army shot people who weren't breaking the law

it had been declared illegal