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

[Ferangled]

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.

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.

Here's what I've actually written on this thread you deceitful bugger. How does this sit with your statements above?

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.

[rubl]

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

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

Two things here. One, even when the protest was declared illegal that's not sufficient reason to shoot unarmed protesters. Two, militant elements mingled freely with unarmed and really peaceful protesters. That made it difficult for the army especially at night. Now if only those normal protesters had distanced themselves from the militant ones ... ...

[rubl]

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.

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.

Here's what I've actually written on this thread you deceitful bugger. How does this sit with your statements above?

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.

"aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted", "mixed with the valid reasons for protest there was an undercurrent of revenge".

The best explanation and justification for violence yet! Now I really understand why ex-PM "kill me some" Abhisit is charged for attempted murder. How could I have been so blind and missed this

Edited December 23, 2012 by rubl

[whybother]

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.

So, because the protesters didn't like how Abhisit came to power, they were justified in trying to force Abhisit to step down, even though he came to power completely legally?

What is a "precedented response" to protesters having guns and grenades?

[Moruya]

@Thai at heart ...

For who?

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

Two things here. One, even when the protest was declared illegal that's not sufficient reason to shoot unarmed protesters. Two, militant elements mingled freely with unarmed and really peaceful protesters. That made it difficult for the army especially at night. Now if only those normal protesters had distanced themselves from the militant ones ... ...

Concur with you

[Moruya]

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.

So, because the protesters didn't like how Abhisit came to power, they were justified in trying to force Abhisit to step down, even though he came to power completely legally?

What is a "precedented response" to protesters having guns and grenades?

What they were attempting to do was in fact the very thing they supposedly despise. A coup.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts attacking other posters have been removed. Stay on topic or don't bother posting.

[JemJem]

I don't see Abhisit or Thaksin doing any jail time. Do you, folks ?

Edited December 23, 2012 by JemJem

[whybother]

I don't see Abhisit or Thaksin doing any jail time. Do you, folks ?

Thaksin won't come back to Thailand to face any charges, and IMO Abhisit will be found not guilty.

[Moruya]

You for a start. H090, Buchholz, Nickymaster, Pimay1 and thats without thinking.

Find me one pro-yellow post by me and I'll buy you a keg of Heineken.

Daengophile posts are 10 a penny. Righteous, for example, has drafted his own manual

Hell! I'll throw in the glasses, the cooler and pour the beer too!

[smedly]

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

[Ferangled]

Find me one pro-yellow post by me and I'll buy you a keg of Heineken.

Daengophile posts are 10 a penny. Righteous, for example, has drafted his own manual

Hell! I'll throw in the glasses, the cooler and pour the beer too!

Would this count Moruya? It has been suggested to me on this very thread that to defend a group one would have to be supportive of it (ie pro)? You didn't object when that methodology was raised so I assume you concur?

Surely defence of a group to the point that one ignores video evidence would indicate support? It's certainly a supportive stance to defend them so vigorously to the point that you can actually ignore blatant evidence of their wrong doing...

Red Shirts Urged To Gather Outside Court To Offer 'Moral Support' To...

Posted by

Moruya

on 2012-08-05 14:42:21 in

Thailand News

whybother, on 2012-08-05 12:23:31, said:

Moruya, on 2012-08-05 12:21:07, said:

There are thousands of catalogued photos of the armed reds. Guns, knives, grenade launchers, machetes, catapaults.

My memories of the PAD don't quite ring the same. Mainly happy people enjoying themselves and waving their yellow hand clappers.

Selective memory.

That video fro PPD looks to me to be the night after a Milwall Norwich match.

If it is in Thailand then it can only be flase PAD supporters

. Red thigs sent to masquerade as such and tarnish their reputation.

You certainly have very positive recollections of the yellows, while I recall "happy" yellow protesters at points, as I do with the reds, I also recall thuggery and acts of aggression. I recall the yellows overwhelming hundreds of riot police with use of force, I recall the army refusing to intervene in their seizure of the airport and several seizures of yellow firearms.

Did you selectively forget the armed element within the yellow shirts or is your support so zealous that you will defend them despite knowing that they had the very same type of militant armed elements that you condemn so vigorously on the part of the reds, even the same shadowy power brokers dictating in the wings, we was evidenced so clearly as a result of the airport seizure. Perhaps this might jog your memory?

The PAD was defiant. PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila announced that the PAD would fight off police. "If the government wants to clear the protesters, let it try. The PAD will protect all locations because we are using our rights to demonstrate peacefully without causing damages to state properties or rioting," Suriyasai said.

^[117]

Suriyasai also threatened to use

human shields

if police attempted to disperse the PAD.

^[118]

Human shields of 300-400 women were assigned to physically surround each per PAD leader.

^[119]

Foreign journalists reported that the PAD was paying people to join them at the airport, with extra payment being given to parents bringing babies and children.

^[120]

On the morning of 28 November, PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang announced to PAD forces that he had received a call from an unspecified "senior person" (ผู้ใหญ่ท่านหนึ่ง) telling him to end the rallies. But he refused to do what the senior person told him. "For the past 108 days, the Alliance has protested together under hardship, while another group of people has remained in comfort. They can't just suddenly ask us to stop protesting," he told the assembled forces.

^[121]

Addressing supporters on ASTV, Sondhi said, "If we have to die today, I am willing to die. This is a fight for dignity."

^[122]

Police manned checkpoints on roads leading to the airport. At one checkpoint, police found 15 home-made guns, an axe and other weapons in a Dharma Army six-wheel truck taking 20 protesters to Suvarnabhumi airport.

^[123]

Another checkpoint found an

Uzi

submachine gun, homemade guns, ammunition, sling shots, bullet-proof vests and metal rods. The vehicle had the universally recognised

Red Cross

signs on its exterior to give the impression it was being used for medical emergencies.

^[124]

At another checkpoint, about 2 kilometers from the airport, was attacked by armed PAD forces in vehicles, causing the police to withdraw. Police Senior Sgt Maj Sompop Nathee, an officer from the Border Patrol Police Region 1, later returned to the scene of the clash and was detained by PAD forces. He was interrogated by Samran Rodphet, a PAD leader, and then detained inside the airport. Reporters and photographers tried to follow Sompop to his interrogation, but PAD forces did not allow them.

^[125]

PAD supporters were moved from Government House to the airport.

^[126]

Yes all in all a happy bunch waving hand clappers never mind the uzis, human shields of women and babies. Do you recall the happy kidnap of the policewoman and her public humiliation and assault at the hands of the yellows, forced onto stage for their amusement while the threw things at her and tried to hit her? Yes, a happy bunch they were...

A plainclothes policewoman at the airport was identified and captured by PAD security forces and forced onto the main PAD stage inside the airport. Angry PAD protesters threw water at her and many tried to hit her. She was eventually allowed to leave the airport

So when can I expect you to bring my beer around? I've quite a thirst, get lively and I'll put my feet up...

[Moruya]

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

Indeed we do not need Ferangled to type anything to know his reply. Any number of us could do it for free!

[Ferangled]

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

That's one way of avoiding debate I guess, pre empt responses with a put down! No hypocrisy to see here, move along...

[Ferangled]

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

Indeed we do not need Ferangled to type anything to know his reply. Any number of us could do it for free!

Never one to speculate about others and so accepting of differing viewpoints... you are an example to us all Moruya

[Pimay1]

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

Indeed we do not need Ferangled to type anything to know his reply. Any number of us could do it for free!

Never one to speculate about others and so accepting of differing viewpoints... you are an example to us all Moruya

Well Ferangled I have been expecting a response to you like this. You know very well or at least you should exactly why. Back in Kentucky we say when you make your bed you have to sleep in it. So you have made your bed here on TVF now you have to sleep in it.

[Moruya]

Find me one pro-yellow post by me and I'll buy you a keg of Heineken.

Daengophile posts are 10 a penny. Righteous, for example, has drafted his own manual

Hell! I'll throw in the glasses, the cooler and pour the beer too!

Would this count Moruya? It has been suggested to me on this very thread that to defend a group one would have to be supportive of it (ie pro)? You didn't object when that methodology was raised so I assume you concur?

Surely defence of a group to the point that one ignores video evidence would indicate support? It's certainly a supportive stance to defend them so vigorously to the point that you can actually ignore blatant evidence of their wrong doing...

Red Shirts Urged To Gather Outside Court To Offer 'Moral Support' To...

Posted by

Moruya

on 2012-08-05 14:42:21 in

Thailand News

whybother, on 2012-08-05 12:23:31, said:

Moruya, on 2012-08-05 12:21:07, said:

There are thousands of catalogued photos of the armed reds. Guns, knives, grenade launchers, machetes, catapaults.

My memories of the PAD don't quite ring the same. Mainly happy people enjoying themselves and waving their yellow hand clappers.

Selective memory.

That video fro PPD looks to me to be the night after a Milwall Norwich match.

If it is in Thailand then it can only be flase PAD supporters

. Red thigs sent to masquerade as such and tarnish their reputation.

You certainly have very positive recollections of the yellows, while I recall "happy" yellow protesters at points, as I do with the reds, I also recall thuggery and acts of aggression. I recall the yellows overwhelming hundreds of riot police with use of force, I recall the army refusing to intervene in their seizure of the airport and several seizures of yellow firearms.

Did you selectively forget the armed element within the yellow shirts or is your support so zealous that you will defend them despite knowing that they had the very same type of militant armed elements that you condemn so vigorously on the part of the reds, even the same shadowy power brokers dictating in the wings, we was evidenced so clearly as a result of the airport seizure. Perhaps this might jog your memory?

The PAD was defiant. PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila announced that the PAD would fight off police. "If the government wants to clear the protesters, let it try. The PAD will protect all locations because we are using our rights to demonstrate peacefully without causing damages to state properties or rioting," Suriyasai said.

^[117]

Suriyasai also threatened to use

human shields

if police attempted to disperse the PAD.

^[118]

Human shields of 300-400 women were assigned to physically surround each per PAD leader.

^[119]

Foreign journalists reported that the PAD was paying people to join them at the airport, with extra payment being given to parents bringing babies and children.

^[120]

On the morning of 28 November, PAD leader Chamlong Srimuang announced to PAD forces that he had received a call from an unspecified "senior person" (ผู้ใหญ่ท่านหนึ่ง) telling him to end the rallies. But he refused to do what the senior person told him. "For the past 108 days, the Alliance has protested together under hardship, while another group of people has remained in comfort. They can't just suddenly ask us to stop protesting," he told the assembled forces.

^[121]

Addressing supporters on ASTV, Sondhi said, "If we have to die today, I am willing to die. This is a fight for dignity."

^[122]

Police manned checkpoints on roads leading to the airport. At one checkpoint, police found 15 home-made guns, an axe and other weapons in a Dharma Army six-wheel truck taking 20 protesters to Suvarnabhumi airport.

^[123]

Another checkpoint found an

Uzi

submachine gun, homemade guns, ammunition, sling shots, bullet-proof vests and metal rods. The vehicle had the universally recognised

Red Cross

signs on its exterior to give the impression it was being used for medical emergencies.

^[124]

At another checkpoint, about 2 kilometers from the airport, was attacked by armed PAD forces in vehicles, causing the police to withdraw. Police Senior Sgt Maj Sompop Nathee, an officer from the Border Patrol Police Region 1, later returned to the scene of the clash and was detained by PAD forces. He was interrogated by Samran Rodphet, a PAD leader, and then detained inside the airport. Reporters and photographers tried to follow Sompop to his interrogation, but PAD forces did not allow them.

^[125]

PAD supporters were moved from Government House to the airport.

^[126]

Yes all in all a happy bunch waving hand clappers never mind the uzis, human shields of women and babies. Do you recall the happy kidnap of the policewoman and her public humiliation and assault at the hands of the yellows, forced onto stage for their amusement while the threw things at her and tried to hit her? Yes, a happy bunch they were...

A plainclothes policewoman at the airport was identified and captured by PAD security forces and forced onto the main PAD stage inside the airport. Angry PAD protesters threw water at her and many tried to hit her. She was eventually allowed to leave the airport

So when can I expect you to bring my beer around? I've quite a thirst, get lively and I'll put my feet up...

Your trawl itself is worthy of a beer indeed but if you consider me saying that I don't recall photos of armed yellow shirts to be supportive of them then I'd politely disagree.

PM me your location and I shall ensure that I pass a few cold ones on to you. In the same way as Jatuporn once did, I shall attach a belated condition. No red articles of clothing. Underpants excepted.

[maidu]

I don't see Abhisit or Thaksin doing any jail time. Do you, folks ?

Thaksin won't come back to Thailand to face any charges, and IMO Abhisit will be found not guilty.

It's not so important, to PT and the Reds, whether Abhisit sees the inside of a jail cell. I think even the PT/Reds would concede that's very unlikely. Instead, the reason for this witch hunt is to tie up the man's time (and money to pay lawyers). Also, it's an attempt to try and tar the man's reputation and to dissuade any other opposition members from directing legal aspersions toward PT/Reds/Thaksin.

Even if the charges are thrown out of court, PT/Reds are still ahead of the game. Last but not least, the spurious (some might say ludicrous) charges are a way to try and force Abhisit to make a deal - to go easy on Thaksin's tresspasses.

Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases.

[righteous]

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

Edited December 23, 2012 by righteous

[whybother]

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

A majority of MPs (representatives of the Thai people) decided they wanted him to be PM.

Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Sent from my HTC phone.

[philw]

"........Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases....."

Quote from post #528.

So, is it Ok to use this logic to defend the mass murder of about 2,500 people in extra judicial killings of alleged drug dealers then ???

Good for the gander and all that...........

[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?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE

[AleG]

"........Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases....."

Quote from post #528.

So, is it Ok to use this logic to defend the mass murder of about 2,500 people in extra judicial killings of alleged drug dealers then ???

Good for the gander and all that...........

Did Abhisit set as his policy the extrajudicial killing of people as Thaksin did? No? Then it's not the same.

[philw]

"........Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases....."

Quote from post #528.

So, is it Ok to use this logic to defend the mass murder of about 2,500 people in extra judicial killings of alleged drug dealers then ???

Good for the gander and all that...........

Did Abhisit set as his policy the extrajudicial killing of people as Thaksin did? No? Then it's not the same.

"Terrorists."

State of Emergency.

30,000 troops.

Snipers.

Etc...........

Clearly AV set extra judicial killing as his method of dealing with the situation.

[muttley]

"........Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases....."

Quote from post #528.

So, is it Ok to use this logic to defend the mass murder of about 2,500 people in extra judicial killings of alleged drug dealers then ???

Good for the gander and all that...........

Did Abhisit set as his policy the extrajudicial killing of people as Thaksin did? No? Then it's not the same.

Ah well, as Mr. Shakespeare would probably have it said, there's the rub.

Did Thaksin set as his policy "the extrajudicial killing of people? ". According to you and in your mind, obviously so.

According to three independant investigations including one by the "venerated" (on here, by some anyway) Abhisit. No.

[Hugo6]

...

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!

this is too unbelievably true.

if during 2008, Abhisit had waited for scheduled elections, none of this would have happened...

you guys are a laugh a minute

[maidu]

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected, therefore elections were part of the process. Thailand has a parliamentary system, not a winner takes-all-mechanism like the US.

"........Any court worth its salt would throw the charges out in a Bangkok minute. A standing MP, who was put in power by election, should not have to worry about individual harm done (collateral damage and such) - in the course of doing his duty to protect citizens and property (which is what A was doing in Spring 2010). If that were an acknowledged law, over half the legislators worldwide would be hounded by such silly court cases....."

Quote from post #528.

So, is it Ok to use this logic to defend the mass murder of about 2,500 people in extra judicial killings of alleged drug dealers then ???

Good for the gander and all that...........

Comparing apples to oranges. Thaksin set quotas for killings. When he was MP he sent out a directive to all the police chiefs with mandates for killings. We don't know whether it was based on comparative population of a province or on reported (comparative) drug activity within each province. He probably didn't use the word 'kill', but instead used a word like 'disappear' or 'get rid of' .....but the message was clear, and over 2,000 people got snuffed out by cops extrajudicially in short order. ....with very little judicial follow up. Much different than the attempts to restore order to downtown Bkk in 2010. Abhisit was doing his job (though somewhat meekly and belatedly) ....which was to protect citizens and property. If a tougher MP was in charge, the death toll might have been much higher, because decisive action would have been taken earlier. ....or maybe decisive action would have snuffed out the demonstration earlier, and harm would have been avoided. We don't know. What we do know is Abhisit did all he could to try and avoid harming the demonstrators. It was a well laid trap, by Thaksin and the Reds, to try and provoke bloodshed - and it worked quite well. We're seeing the results.

[bigbamboo]

^"A standing MP, who was put in power by election"...No he wasn't. Parliamentary machinations don't count. Supporters may wish to cloud this thing by referencing it as an election, it doesn't fly. Every one in the know, knows what happened. Until he wins a national, popular election he has not been elected. To confer such honour on him is far-fetched. I know Parliamentary systems, so don't even think of trying to normalize his elevation to the Prime Ministership via their procedures.

His alleged murderous intent is all wrapped up in his refusal to negotiate an offer to an agreement. He knew the consequences and took them, albeit at other's direction IMHO. He wasn't flying solo...far from it.

Abhisit was voted by the elected representatives of the Thai people, albeit as a result of defections. Not an honourable way to become PM but then neither is vote buying and since when has Thai politics been an honourable business anyway.

The current charges against Abhisit are barely credible when you consider who is orchestrating them and have already been revealed to be a way of applying pressure for amnesty.

But the geordie is proving tougher than the Chinaman.

[whybother]

this is too unbelievably true.

if during 2008, Abhisit had waited for scheduled elections, none of this would have happened...

you guys are a laugh a minute

There were elections ... for PM ... in parliament ... called for by PTP ... and they lost.

[muttley]

Comparing apples to oranges. Thaksin set quotas for killings. When he was MP he sent out a directive to all the police chiefs with mandates for killings. We don't know whether it was based on comparative population of a province or on reported (comparative) drug activity within each province. He probably didn't use the word 'kill', but instead used a word like 'disappear' or 'get rid of' .....but the message was clear, and over 2,000 people got snuffed out by cops extrajudicially in short order. ....with very little judicial follow up. Much different than the attempts to restore order to downtown Bkk in 2010. Abhisit was doing his job (though somewhat meekly and belatedly) ....which was to protect citizens and property. If a tougher MP was in charge, the death toll might have been much higher, because decisive action would have been taken earlier. ....or maybe decisive action would have snuffed out the demonstration earlier, and harm would have been avoided. We don't know. What we do know is Abhisit did all he could to try and avoid harming the demonstrators. It was a well laid trap, by Thaksin and the Reds, to try and provoke bloodshed - and it worked quite well. We're seeing the results.

So 3 Independant investigations couldn't find any link between Thaksin and the alleged extrajudicial killings of innocent people by the police yet you in your wisdom state that as an MP Thaksin sent a directive to all police chiefs telling them to "disappear" or "get rid of" these people. Where were you when the powers that be were investigating, Sherlock?

And then this gem, 80 odd civilian dead, 2000 injured and you say

"What we do know is Abhisit did all he could to try and avoid harming the demonstrators"

Well he wasn't very good at it was he? Do you think the authorisation of snipers and live killing zones helped in this regard, the ignoring of the Senators last ditch cease fire agreement? Shooting at people in the agreed shelter of a Wat?

Thai Visa Forum poster specific Health Warning:

What follows contains information obtained from the Robert Amsterdam website

Some of you posters will be frothing at the mouth right now fingers poised over keyboards ready to deny, accuse, insult etc. Don't bother. If it offends you don't read it, I don't want to hear about what you think of Amsterdam. For those of you with a more open mind, read on.

Think about the message it contains - It's the latest addendum to the letter to the ICC.

If the following "evidence" is true (and I cannot believe that Amsterdam has submitted official accusations such as this with no backup evidence) this evidence will surface in a Thai court. Perhaps this time some peoples unwarranted total belief in the altruism of Abhisit may at last be shattered.

As set out in this letter, recently released independent investigative reports, leaked government documents, and news reports describing the contents of testimonies given by officials involved in the crackdowns to Thai law enforcement authorities provide evidence substantiating the following:

Former Prime Minister Abhisit was directly involved in the planning and approval of the military operations against the Red Shirt protesters. The former spokesperson of the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) testified that everything CRES did was based on instructions received from the government, which set the policy that CRES was tasked to implement. Because Mr. Abhisit had knowledge of the orders that had been transmitted down the chain of command when he authorized military operations against Red Shirt protesters, he is responsible for crimes committed by the security forces pursuant to such orders.

The secret government document setting out the rules of engagement under which the military crackdowns of 10 April 2010 took place explicitly mentions that the orders contained therein were issued at the request of the Prime Minister. The rules of engagement authorized security forces to use deadly force against civilians, whether armed or unarmed, “to protect property” in addition to the lives of the officials or members of the general public.

After the first failed crackdown, modified rules of engagement were approved by CRES on 18 April 2010, which expanded the powers of officials to use lethal force in order to protect “other people, official property, and private citizens under their guard.” The modified rules of engagement authorized security forces to use live ammunition against:

1) Anyone seen carrying weapons who disregarded a no trespassing order, posed any danger to others, or prepared to use the weapons against officials or the general public;

2) Unarmed civilians moving in a large crowd who contravened a no trespassing order and were perceived to pose an unspecified “danger;”

3) Anyone who resisted arrest or refused to submit to a search. The modified rules of engagement also approved the deployment of snipers who could target armed persons mixed with crowds of “innocent people” and allowed the provision of medical assistance to those injured, “according to human rights principles,” only “after officials have managed to bring the situation under control". Because the modified rules of engagement were approved almost one month in advance of the crackdown of 13-19 May 2010, former Prime Minister Abhisit was aware of the plan he was authorizing when he ordered the commencement of military operations on 12 May 2010.

The high casualty toll among unarmed civilians resulted directly from the policy authorized by the Prime Minister, as opposed to actions taken by security forces on their own initiative. Particularly under the modified rules of engagement, security forces were authorized to shoot civilians for merely throwing stones, handling slingshots, destroying property, or otherwise resisting the Army’s operations. As a direct result, by the Royal Thai Army’s own admission, troops fired nearly twohundred thousand rounds of live ammunition in the April and May crackdowns,including five hundred sniper rounds. While none of those killed or injured wereever shown to have posed any danger to the lives of the officials or the general public, the rules of engagement approved by the government nonetheless made them a legitimate target for the use of deadly force. Also responsible for the heavy loss of life during the second crackdown were the declaration of live fire zones(explicitly permitted under CRES’ secret orders), the enforcement of rules that onlyallowed the injured to receive medical treatment after the situation had already been brought under control, and the government’s failure to specify clear criteria to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets of lethal force.

Once confronted with reports of indiscriminate killings perpetrated by the armed forces, former Prime Minister Abhisit failed to exercise his authority as a superior to either suspend the operations or reshape them in a way consistent with international standards. As the second crackdown was unfolding, on 15 May 2010, Mr. Abhisit informed the public that any losses resulting from the military operations in fact had to be accepted in the interest of justice. On that basis, he refused to halt the operations. On 18 May 2010, moreover, Mr. Abhisit rejected a ceasefire proposed by a group of Senators who sought to broker an agreement with the Red Shirt leaders.As a result, twelve more people were killed on 19 May 2010, including the six gunned down by security forces at Wat Pathumwanaram, the temple designated bythe government as a safe zone.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116679170/Addendum-on-former-Prime-Minister-Abhisit-Vejjajiva%E2%80%99s-criminal-responsibility-under-the-Rome-Statute-of-the-ICC