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

philw · December 23, 2012

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

That is pretty damning................

AleG · December 23, 2012

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.co...tute-of-the-ICC

My, a secret document unveiled by Thaksin's paid propagandist, well I'm convinced.

animatic · December 23, 2012

^"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.

Correct it was failure of PPP leader Somchai, to call dissolve the government and call an election,

that directly and 100% with in the legal legislative process, brought about the election,

by MP vote, of Abhisit to PM. All PM's are elected by a SECOND vote between MP's.

And just as Somchai was voted in as PM replacing Samak,

so was Abhisit voted in to replace Somchai.

Abhisit got elected because Somchai was inept. End of story.

Edited December 23, 2012 by animatic

moe666 · December 23, 2012

Heheheh its like beating your head aganist a wall here.

rubl · December 23, 2012

That is pretty damning................

'leaked government documents' followed by Robert A.'s interpretation. CRES documents (in Thai) appended as well. I especially like how the letter to the ICC ends

""Our position remains that Mr. Abhisit deserves a fair trial conducted under no presumption of guilt. Nonetheless, given the evidence of Mr. Abhisit’s involvement in serious crimes, it is not possible to describe the charges against him as “far fetched.” Increasingly far-fetched are rather the excuses Mr. Abhisit offers for why, in his words, “unfortunately some people died” as a result of his actions.""

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2012/12/13/letter-to-the-prosecutor-of-the-international-criminal-court-icc-concerning-abhisits-criminal-liability/

I wonder how much credibility Robert A. statements would get in a court of law in the Western world. Maybe that's why the ICC is studiously silent about this 'case' ?

BTW "enforced disappearance of hundreds of protesters"? I thought the latest list had about 54 persons whose where-abouts was unknown? Is Robert again referring to the mass-graves in Rayong?

nurofiend · December 23, 2012

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?

,,,

No, not a directive to disappear or get rid of, the directive was to shoot them dead.

Thaksin's Speech Launching the War on Drugs:

Chiang Rai is another example of a province which was serious about suppression and rehabilitation, including using some police stations for rehab, and seizing assets. Sometimes people were shot dead and had their assets seized as well. I think we have to be equally ruthless. The drug sellers have been ruthless with the Thai people, with our children, so if we are ruthless with them it is not a big deal.

Spin away...

easy for him to say he meant in shootouts with police, hardly concrete evidence of orders to kill, and unfortunetly you need evidence for such things

my belief is that thaksin didn't care less when people were getting killed as long as his goal was being achieved.

my belief is that abhisit didn't care less when people were getting killed as long as his goal was being achieved.

OzMick · December 23, 2012

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.co...tute-of-the-ICC

Armed response to looters, arsonists and rioters - that would never happen any where else in the world.

What is the significance of the number of rounds fired, other than to indicate that the vast majority of discharges were intended to frighten and deter? EACH soldier would carry at least 90 rounds of ammunition, and given orders to deliberately kill, could account for the TOTAL number of deaths if he folloed those orders. If the protesters had not been armed with lethal weapons, a lesser response would have been suitable. That they chose to escalate the conflict was the root cause of ALL deaths.

righteous · December 23, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

OzMick · December 23, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Are you from the US? You seem to have difficulty understanding the Westminster system. Single MPs and factions have the right to defect from a party, especially when that party has been found guilty of malfeasance such as electoral fraud, equally as much as minor parties that declared that they would never form a coalition with PTP can decide later to do so.

The ignorant and uneducated may be led to believe that this was an unethical, even illegal, procedure by persons hoping to cause unrest, but their feelings of being disenfranchised are based on false premise. Or given your phrasing, sold a pig in a poke.

whybother · December 23, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.
Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

The PPP weren't "popularly elected" though. They were the largest party, but they still needed to make deals to form government. Some of those deals just happened to be with parties that had campaigned that they wouldn't support the PPP.

Sent from my HTC phone.

righteous · December 24, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Are you from the US? You seem to have difficulty understanding the Westminster system. Single MPs and factions have the right to defect from a party, especially when that party has been found guilty of malfeasance such as electoral fraud, equally as much as minor parties that declared that they would never form a coalition with PTP can decide later to do so.

The ignorant and uneducated may be led to believe that this was an unethical, even illegal, procedure by persons hoping to cause unrest, but their feelings of being disenfranchised are based on false premise. Or given your phrasing, sold a pig in a poke.

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway.

Although technically correct as you say, given parliamentary procedures and all, it is a litte bit like a murderer getting off on a technicality. Talking about murderers....no, another time.

Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Edited December 24, 2012 by righteous

whybother · December 24, 2012

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway ...... Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Every MP was elected in popular elections. The PPP formed a coalition through parliamentary machinations. If they didn't make deals with smaller parties, they wouldn't have been able to form government.

After the PPP were disbanded, the balance changed. The remaining PPP MPs mainly went two ways ... to the PTP or BJT. The only problem for the PTP was that the BJT didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party. Regional MP groups are fickle like that.

yoshiwara · December 24, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Are you from the US? You seem to have difficulty understanding the Westminster system. Single MPs and factions have the right to defect from a party, especially when that party has been found guilty of malfeasance such as electoral fraud, equally as much as minor parties that declared that they would never form a coalition with PTP can decide later to do so.

The ignorant and uneducated may be led to believe that this was an unethical, even illegal, procedure by persons hoping to cause unrest, but their feelings of being disenfranchised are based on false premise. Or given your phrasing, sold a pig in a poke.

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway.

Although technically correct as you say, given parliamentary procedures and all, it is a litte bit like a murderer getting off on a technicality. Talking about murderers....no, another time.

Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Elections are not counterposed to parliamentary decision-making process except when Thaksin's cheerleaders thinks it suits them. In a parliamentary democracy electors elect parliamentary representatives who then attempt to form a government which can command a majority in parliament. Sometimes a single party and sometimes a coalition. And a parliamentary majority cannot be used to specially exempt an individual for common criminal convictions, particularly when claiming otherwise. It is Thaksin's apologists who are clutching at straws when they attempt to intimidate the leader of the opposition into giving a free pass for Thaksin after the PTP has failed to so far railroad the changes to bring back their man. Like government ministers visiting Thaksin and denying that they discuss government matters, the lies are necessary to advance a dishonest agenda.

maidu · December 24, 2012

Below are excerpt quotes from then-PM Thaksin, speaking to police chiefs in an open forum, January 2003. I don't disagree with all he says and I appreciate his passion for the issue, but in the 9 page speech, he doesn't mention the 'due process' or the judicial system. Over 2,000 men and women were killed extrajudicially, in a matter of weeks. Who can say how many innocents were in that group? Those killings were by police, and it's possible some (or many) of those killings may have been to 'hush up' dealers who talk too loud - about which officials may have a hand in the biz.

"If drug traders are listening they must make up their minds whether to stop selling or carry on. If they don’t stop, there is a chance they will be dealt with in every way, both life and limb."

"With the traders, you must use hammer and fist, that is, act decisively and without mercy. Police General Phao Sriyanon once said “There is nothing under the sun that the Thai police cannot do.” So I’m confident that drugs are something that the Thai police can deal with. Do it to the full."

"If some drug traders die, it will be a common thing. We have to send a message that they have to quit. Traders will get no return except risk to their own lives..."

source

animatic · December 24, 2012

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway ...... Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Every MP was elected in popular elections. The PPP formed a coalition through parliamentary machinations. If they didn't make deals with smaller parties, they wouldn't have been able to form government.

After the PPP were disbanded, the balance changed. The remaining PPP MPs mainly went two ways ... to the PTP or BJT. The only problem for the PTP was that the BJT didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party. Regional MP groups are fickle like that.

SInce there was no PM, Somchai had lost the PM seat and failed to call a snap election by dissolving the government,

In that instance there was NO ONE to call a snap election. But there was a legislature / House, with elected MP's,

so they had no choice but to VOTE AS THEY SAW FIT. Not having a viable PTP working yet,

and knowing what had happened to PPP leadership and why, there was little incentive to

vote for a dfisorganized shambles vs. the organized Dems.

rubl · December 24, 2012

Is this the topic on "Abhisit/Suthep could face 700 charges of attempted murder" or is it the general topic on re-hashing the truth, untruth, beliefs and opinions?

Rich teacher · December 24, 2012

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway ...... Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Every MP was elected in popular elections. The PPP formed a coalition through parliamentary machinations. If they didn't make deals with smaller parties, they wouldn't have been able to form government.

After the PPP were disbanded, the balance changed. The remaining PPP MPs mainly went two ways ... to the PTP or BJT. The only problem for the PTP was that the BJT didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party. Regional MP groups are fickle like that.

You know this is untrue but persist in spouting it as the truth. If you keep saying it, you may end up believing it, but you won't change reality. Just ask Chumporn Silpaarcha why smaller parties joined the Dem coalition. Ask yourself why Anupong was referred to as the 'coalition formation manager' as he hosted meetings of the Dem and smaller party leaders at his personal residence. Why bother trying to manipulate what happened to suit your own agenda.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Rich teacher

whybother · December 24, 2012

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway ...... Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Every MP was elected in popular elections. The PPP formed a coalition through parliamentary machinations. If they didn't make deals with smaller parties, they wouldn't have been able to form government.

After the PPP were disbanded, the balance changed. The remaining PPP MPs mainly went two ways ... to the PTP or BJT. The only problem for the PTP was that the BJT didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party. Regional MP groups are fickle like that.

You know this is untrue but persist in spouting it as the truth. If you keep saying it, you may end up believing it, but you won't change reality. Just ask Chumporn Silpaarcha why smaller parties joined the Dem coalition. Ask yourself why Anupong was referred to as the 'coalition formation manager' as he hosted meetings of the Dem and smaller party leaders at his personal residence. Why bother trying to manipulate what happened to suit your own agenda.

Silpa-archa said "I didn't have a choice". What does that mean? If he didn't join he'd wouldn't get a spot at the trough? Is there really much difference with going to Dubai for meetings with a convicted fugitive before forming a coalition? The army is involved in politics. The coup general is now a part of Thaksin's coalition. TIT

The fact is, in parliament, a majority of MPs (representatives elected by the Thai people) elected Abhisit as PM.

animatic · December 24, 2012

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway ...... Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Every MP was elected in popular elections. The PPP formed a coalition through parliamentary machinations. If they didn't make deals with smaller parties, they wouldn't have been able to form government.

After the PPP were disbanded, the balance changed. The remaining PPP MPs mainly went two ways ... to the PTP or BJT. The only problem for the PTP was that the BJT didn't want to support another Thaksin proxy party. Regional MP groups are fickle like that.

You know this is untrue but persist in spouting it as the truth. If you keep saying it, you may end up believing it, but you won't change reality. Just ask Chumporn Silpaarcha why smaller parties joined the Dem coalition. Ask yourself why Anupong was referred to as the 'coalition formation manager' as he hosted meetings of the Dem and smaller party leaders at his personal residence. Why bother trying to manipulate what happened to suit your own agenda.

And this is your opinion, and Chumporn trying to maneuver for advantage later.

There was nothing particularly unusual or un-Thai in how they cobbled together that coalition.

Same thing Thaksin did to put together Thai Rak Thai, he strong armed and used power and pressure

to force, purchase, cajole, or all three, those who could be manipulated into his camp.

Yes Chumporn Silpaarcha had no choice.

He was always the guy most likely to go where the power and money is,

no matter who that is at any time. So he had no choice but to "Follow The Money".

Edited December 24, 2012 by animatic

maidu · December 24, 2012

Is this the topic on "Abhisit/Suthep could face 700 charges of attempted murder" or is it the general topic on re-hashing the truth, untruth, beliefs and opinions?

Sounds like a definition of Thai politics, with a dose of vindictiveness thrown in for good measure.

In most societies, there is a refuge of last resort in the highest courts. Unfortunately for Thailand, the courts can be unduly influenced by whichever political party is looking over their shoulders. It happened in spades, when they excused T of hiding assets, and it was happening before and has happened after that travesty. Imagine if just one or two justices did the right thing back then. T would have been stripped of his PMship, and the country would not have been hounded and hobbled by him the past decade .....or perhaps it would have been. Rust doesn't sleep.

muttley · December 24, 2012

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.co...tute-of-the-ICC

Armed response to looters, arsonists and rioters - that would never happen any where else in the world.

What is the significance of the number of rounds fired, other than to indicate that the vast majority of discharges were intended to frighten and deter? EACH soldier would carry at least 90 rounds of ammunition, and given orders to deliberately kill, could account for the TOTAL number of deaths if he folloed those orders. If the protesters had not been armed with lethal weapons, a lesser response would have been suitable. That they chose to escalate the conflict was the root cause of ALL deaths.

Well it provided you the excuse to miss discussing the most important part of the document for a start. If you have nothing to add regarding the original rules of engagement and the modified r.o.e's there's really not much point you bothering - I'll give you a clue it's nothing to do with how many rounds of ammunition they used, that is meant to illustrate the indiscriminate nature of their shooting as evidenced by several witnesses.

Having said that if their compatriots in the first inquest are anything like setting the standard perhaps the number of bullets expended are relevant. I mean whilst shooting at a van , A Van <deleted>, they manage to spray the area with bullets, shoot a 14 year old kid in the back and kill him and kill another bystander at the same time. John Wayne, these guys, not.

OzMick · December 24, 2012

"Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted. The MP's who made the coalition to choose him were elected" - From Post 537 ^ (Maidu) ----- This is what is normally referred to as "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear", suggesting the technically correct Parliamentary machinations conferred popular electoral blessings on Abhisit's being hoisted into PM position.

Also trying to muddy the waters by suggesting Somchai was elected similarly is a reach. His Party was popularly elected and was just changing leadership. Big difference. Again, trying to use those minor personal-fiefdom, so-called political parties as lending legitimacy to anything, is scraping the bottom of-the-barrel for justification.

There is another saying.... Abhisit, with his political baggage, will win a national election ":When H... freezes over".

That being the case, the PAD-Dem's are stuck with a "sow's ear". As long as they remain stuck with an Alleged murderer as their leader they remain in purgatory....Good luck to them. Glad I'm not trying to defend that position.

Are you from the US? You seem to have difficulty understanding the Westminster system. Single MPs and factions have the right to defect from a party, especially when that party has been found guilty of malfeasance such as electoral fraud, equally as much as minor parties that declared that they would never form a coalition with PTP can decide later to do so.

The ignorant and uneducated may be led to believe that this was an unethical, even illegal, procedure by persons hoping to cause unrest, but their feelings of being disenfranchised are based on false premise. Or given your phrasing, sold a pig in a poke.

Popular, National Elections vs. Parliamentary machinations........My dear man, what is so difficult to understand about that. Trying to confer similar status and legitimacy on the latter as the former, is grasping at straws. But then that is all some have....and if all else fails, just have a coup. Those dam_n elections anyway.

Although technically correct as you say, given parliamentary procedures and all, it is a litte bit like a murderer getting off on a technicality. Talking about murderers....no, another time.

Mr. Abhisit would love to have the electoral clout of the guy he constantly tries to self-servingly demonize....who can blame him for that, poor fellow.....what was that I said about grasping at straws!

Mr Righteous (may I call you Self?), please stop your self-serving BS. You say you understand, and then prove that you don't. One more time, voters elect MPs, who once elected are allowed to make decisions. That you or others do not like the decisions they make doesn't affect their legitimacy, and the only recourse of the voters is to elect somebody else next time.

It is nothing like a murderer getting off on a technicality because no crime has been committed except offending your illusions.

muttley · December 24, 2012

'leaked government documents' followed by Robert A.'s interpretation. CRES documents (in Thai) appended as well. I especially like how the letter to the ICC ends

""Our position remains that Mr. Abhisit deserves a fair trial conducted under no presumption of guilt. Nonetheless, given the evidence of Mr. Abhisit’s involvement in serious crimes, it is not possible to describe the charges against him as “far fetched.” Increasingly far-fetched are rather the excuses Mr. Abhisit offers for why, in his words, “unfortunately some people died” as a result of his actions.""

http://robertamsterd...inal-liability/

I wonder how much credibility Robert A. statements would get in a court of law in the Western world. Maybe that's why the ICC is studiously silent about this 'case' ?

BTW "enforced disappearance of hundreds of protesters"? I thought the latest list had about 54 persons whose where-abouts was unknown? Is Robert again referring to the mass-graves in Rayong?

It's hardly relevant what credibility Amsterdam "would get in a court of law in the western world" (though his website gives examples) As I told you and others on this forum try and read the message without the "amsterdam" mist descending. If you can't do that and read the content, don't tell me, I'm not interested.

Think of the content being presented in a court of law with back up evidence - now what do you have to say? Amsterdam doesn't write this stuff - it's evidence he just happens to be presenting.

And some posters on here reckon they have open minds and the "red shirt apologists" just spout propaganda?

As for your last attempt at misinformation, No, Amsterdam is not again referring to the mass graves in Rayong. That rumour was started by the local police who suggested that they maybe red shirts, picked up by some red shirts but was quickly denied by the Amsterdam website.

Police suspect they have found bodies of missing reds

http://www.nationmul...163165&x=17&y=9

You seem to have had plenty to say at the time and since, accusing others of spin whereas you knew all along, remember writing this?

"As it is 03:38AM I hope you forgive me when I say 'plain and utter bullshit'.

The OP mentions "Police will examine the 169 bodies found buried at two temples in Rayong province to determine if they could be the red-shirt protesters said to have gone missing during last year's riots." and at least the following 300 posts DO NOT mention 'mass murder by the military', not real/fake, no not at all.

The very fact that you see it necessary to mention 'mass murder by military' even without the 'real/fake' seems to indicate a prejudice. You started on the right tone 'Whatever the spin anybody tries to put on this strange story' and it seems you got lost in the spin you were maybe trying to avoid. You may not have made up your mind, but still saw it necssary to bring up 'mass-murder' without any reason to do so, unless you did make up your mind and feel it might really be a possibility. Did you miss the correction Robert A. made about his original facebook item on this, about a day before the Thai newspapers reported and this topic was created?

From the very first reply to the original topic till now lots of people has speculated, insinuated, suggested, plainly told 'must be Abhisit, the Dem's, Suthep, etc.'. As it seemed less likely it had anything to do with the last two years unrest, the plain insinuations started, 'maybe a few red-shirts hidden amongst them', still without a single shred of evidence. Till now no bodies have even been dug up (as far as I know), still some suggest there must be a (previous) government burial of fact (pun intended).

Keep speculating, keep mentioning 'mass-murder' real or fake, there are always those who wish to believe what they wish to believe. No need for proof, fools pointing the way is enough"

Oh look, you seem to have remembered that Amsterdam had already denied that the bodies were red shirts (in bold)

It seems your memory is selective when you want it to be.

metisdead · December 24, 2012

Baiting posts commenting on other posters have been removed as well as other off topic posts.

rubl · December 24, 2012

'leaked government documents' followed by Robert A.'s interpretation. CRES documents (in Thai) appended as well. I especially like how the letter to the ICC ends

""Our position remains that Mr. Abhisit deserves a fair trial conducted under no presumption of guilt. Nonetheless, given the evidence of Mr. Abhisit’s involvement in serious crimes, it is not possible to describe the charges against him as “far fetched.” Increasingly far-fetched are rather the excuses Mr. Abhisit offers for why, in his words, “unfortunately some people died” as a result of his actions.""

http://robertamsterd...inal-liability/

I wonder how much credibility Robert A. statements would get in a court of law in the Western world. Maybe that's why the ICC is studiously silent about this 'case' ?

BTW "enforced disappearance of hundreds of protesters"? I thought the latest list had about 54 persons whose where-abouts was unknown? Is Robert again referring to the mass-graves in Rayong?

It's hardly relevant what credibility Amsterdam "would get in a court of law in the western world" (though his website gives examples) As I told you and others on this forum try and read the message without the "amsterdam" mist descending. If you can't do that and read the content, don't tell me, I'm not interested.

Think of the content being presented in a court of law with back up evidence - now what do you have to say? Amsterdam doesn't write this stuff - it's evidence he just happens to be presenting.

And some posters on here reckon they have open minds and the "red shirt apologists" just spout propaganda?

As for your last attempt at misinformation, No, Amsterdam is not again referring to the mass graves in Rayong. That rumour was started by the local police who suggested that they maybe red shirts, picked up by some red shirts but was quickly denied by the Amsterdam website.

Police suspect they have found bodies of missing reds

http://www.nationmul...163165&x=17&y=9

You seem to have had plenty to say at the time and since, accusing others of spin whereas you knew all along, remember writing this?

"As it is 03:38AM I hope you forgive me when I say 'plain and utter bullshit'.

The OP mentions "Police will examine the 169 bodies found buried at two temples in Rayong province to determine if they could be the red-shirt protesters said to have gone missing during last year's riots." and at least the following 300 posts DO NOT mention 'mass murder by the military', not real/fake, no not at all.

The very fact that you see it necessary to mention 'mass murder by military' even without the 'real/fake' seems to indicate a prejudice. You started on the right tone 'Whatever the spin anybody tries to put on this strange story' and it seems you got lost in the spin you were maybe trying to avoid. You may not have made up your mind, but still saw it necssary to bring up 'mass-murder' without any reason to do so, unless you did make up your mind and feel it might really be a possibility. Did you miss the correction Robert A. made about his original facebook item on this, about a day before the Thai newspapers reported and this topic was created?

From the very first reply to the original topic till now lots of people has speculated, insinuated, suggested, plainly told 'must be Abhisit, the Dem's, Suthep, etc.'. As it seemed less likely it had anything to do with the last two years unrest, the plain insinuations started, 'maybe a few red-shirts hidden amongst them', still without a single shred of evidence. Till now no bodies have even been dug up (as far as I know), still some suggest there must be a (previous) government burial of fact (pun intended).

Keep speculating, keep mentioning 'mass-murder' real or fake, there are always those who wish to believe what they wish to believe. No need for proof, fools pointing the way is enough"

Oh look, you seem to have remembered that Amsterdam had already denied that the bodies were red shirts (in bold)

It seems your memory is selective when you want it to be.

My dear mutt,

the Robert A. page we were quoting from has near the end

"Finally, former Prime Minister Abhisit is responsible for the crime against humanity of imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty, through his knowledge and approval of the CRES policy that authorized the illegal detention and enforced disappearance of hundreds of protesters after the rallies were dispersed."

So I just got wondering again about the "enforced disappearance of hundreds of protesters". I think the mist is created by Robert A. who's very good at barely hinting at what possibly might be a construed as misinformation.

PS don't forget, for a mutt happiness is a wet nose

maidu · December 24, 2012

Well it provided you the excuse to miss discussing the most important part of the document for a start. If you have nothing to add regarding the original rules of engagement and the modified r.o.e's there's really not much point you bothering - I'll give you a clue it's nothing to do with how many rounds of ammunition they used, that is meant to illustrate the indiscriminate nature of their shooting as evidenced by several witnesses.

Having said that if their compatriots in the first inquest are anything like setting the standard perhaps the number of bullets expended are relevant. I mean whilst shooting at a van , A Van <deleted>, they manage to spray the area with bullets, shoot a 14 year old kid in the back and kill him and kill another bystander at the same time. John Wayne, these guys, not.

Soldiers are not trained to use their weapons in the same manner as police. Police brass in Bkk in 2010 didn't do their assigned jobs. They even giggled among each other when derelicting their duty. For example, when ordered to resist and arrest a Red gang who were attacking a radio station, the police just pranced around in a nearby field with smirks on their faces. For that and other reasons, the military was called in. Anyone who was not a combatant and was near 'fire zones' was putting his/her life in danger. The 14 yr old kid had some mental problem and was supposedly under the watch of some 'specialists' or foundation. That's who should have been keeping that kid far from places where bullets are flying. Yet that brings us back to why Abhisit was compelled to do his duty as PM: Namely: protect people and property in his jurisdiction (Bkk and Thailand). In case you forgot, there were armed agents in downtown Bkk for two months, much of that time within with petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out.

smedly · December 24, 2012

The protestors had a choice - accept the deal they were being offered (which is more than I would have given them) pack up and leave peacefully or confront the authorities with guns and grenades and suffer the consequence, unfortunately they were duped into the latter and paid the price

I feel really sorry for those inocents that lost their lives but I suspect many of the dead and injured deserved everything they got and if the army had been near central before they burned it down more people would have been justifiably shot

and if you want to rely on witness accounts then those that believe them are extremely naieve, independent witnesses (two members of the foreign press) that were shot dead may have had a different story to tell but they never got the chance, I strongly suspect this was not the action of the army.

So far the DSI has focused on cases that may have been accidental shooting of people in the wrong place at the wrong time and perhaps should have realised to stay away - I have yet to hear of any investigation of Army or Police that were killed or injured carrying out their lawful duty - the whole thing is a sham and a disgrace, the DSI should be disbanded

What happened the two independent reports of the disturances - they are being ignored because their contents don't suit the Red agenda

The tactics of the army and police may not have been perfect but the protestors were well aware at all times what would happen if they crossed the line - is there a defence for their actions - I think not apart from pure stupidity - they should have gone home and claimed a victory - but the puppet master thought differently from the safety of his luxury mansion in Dubai

Don't see much more to add here

muttley · December 24, 2012

Well it provided you the excuse to miss discussing the most important part of the document for a start. If you have nothing to add regarding the original rules of engagement and the modified r.o.e's there's really not much point you bothering - I'll give you a clue it's nothing to do with how many rounds of ammunition they used, that is meant to illustrate the indiscriminate nature of their shooting as evidenced by several witnesses.

Having said that if their compatriots in the first inquest are anything like setting the standard perhaps the number of bullets expended are relevant. I mean whilst shooting at a van , A Van <deleted>, they manage to spray the area with bullets, shoot a 14 year old kid in the back and kill him and kill another bystander at the same time. John Wayne, these guys, not.

Soldiers are not trained to use their weapons in the same manner as police. Police brass in Bkk in 2010 didn't do their assigned jobs. They even giggled among each other when derelicting their duty. For example, when ordered to resist and arrest a Red gang who were attacking a radio station, the police just pranced around in a nearby field with smirks on their faces. For that and other reasons, the military was called in. Anyone who was not a combatant and was near 'fire zones' was putting his/her life in danger. The 14 yr old kid had some mental problem and was supposedly under the watch of some 'specialists' or foundation. That's who should have been keeping that kid far from places where bullets are flying. Yet that brings us back to why Abhisit was compelled to do his duty as PM: Namely: protect people and property in his jurisdiction (Bkk and Thailand). In case you forgot, there were armed agents in downtown Bkk for two months, much of that time within with petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out.

Oh OK then. I'll take just one "fact" ( I really can't be bothered with people like this but I'll try). Lets just ignore completely the extremely controversial rules of engagement (that in reality meant you could shot just for the sake of it) signed off on by the PM and take your last "fact".

While Abhisit was bravely protecting people and property from the sanctuary of the 11th Army Barracks, according to you armed agents spent much of their time "within petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" how is that nearly 80 unarmed protesters were shot and killed not at these "petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" but elsewhere? Now the rules of engagement have been revealed for what they are.

The dead protesters with slingshots (I remember one picture of a body with a slingshot nearby) which the rest of the world regard as unarmed are regarded by Abhisit and his private army as a threat to life and can be shot and killed like a dog.

rubl · December 24, 2012

Well it provided you the excuse to miss discussing the most important part of the document for a start. If you have nothing to add regarding the original rules of engagement and the modified r.o.e's there's really not much point you bothering - I'll give you a clue it's nothing to do with how many rounds of ammunition they used, that is meant to illustrate the indiscriminate nature of their shooting as evidenced by several witnesses.

Having said that if their compatriots in the first inquest are anything like setting the standard perhaps the number of bullets expended are relevant. I mean whilst shooting at a van , A Van <deleted>, they manage to spray the area with bullets, shoot a 14 year old kid in the back and kill him and kill another bystander at the same time. John Wayne, these guys, not.

Soldiers are not trained to use their weapons in the same manner as police. Police brass in Bkk in 2010 didn't do their assigned jobs. They even giggled among each other when derelicting their duty. For example, when ordered to resist and arrest a Red gang who were attacking a radio station, the police just pranced around in a nearby field with smirks on their faces. For that and other reasons, the military was called in. Anyone who was not a combatant and was near 'fire zones' was putting his/her life in danger. The 14 yr old kid had some mental problem and was supposedly under the watch of some 'specialists' or foundation. That's who should have been keeping that kid far from places where bullets are flying. Yet that brings us back to why Abhisit was compelled to do his duty as PM: Namely: protect people and property in his jurisdiction (Bkk and Thailand). In case you forgot, there were armed agents in downtown Bkk for two months, much of that time within with petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out.

Oh OK then. I'll take just one "fact" ( I really can't be bothered with people like this but I'll try). Lets just ignore completely the extremely controversial rules of engagement (that in reality meant you could shot just for the sake of it) signed off on by the PM and take your last "fact".

While Abhisit was bravely protecting people and property from the sanctuary of the 11th Army Barracks, according to you armed agents spent much of their time "within petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" how is that nearly 80 unarmed protesters were shot and killed not at these "petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" but elsewhere? Now the rules of engagement have been revealed for what they are.

The dead protesters with slingshots (I remember one picture of a body with a slingshot nearby) which the rest of the world regard as unarmed are regarded by Abhisit and his private army as a threat to life and can be shot and killed like a dog.

Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved. Armed militants were encountered and reported by various reporters including foreign ones. The cannonfodder may have been at the barricades, but militants roam.

As for pictures, well those grenade casualties don't look nice even though none of them are red-shirts.

PS since when is a mutt so casual about 'killed like a dog', apart from this being Thailand where dogs are just left wandering about (or sold as food)

whybother · December 24, 2012

Well it provided you the excuse to miss discussing the most important part of the document for a start. If you have nothing to add regarding the original rules of engagement and the modified r.o.e's there's really not much point you bothering - I'll give you a clue it's nothing to do with how many rounds of ammunition they used, that is meant to illustrate the indiscriminate nature of their shooting as evidenced by several witnesses.

Having said that if their compatriots in the first inquest are anything like setting the standard perhaps the number of bullets expended are relevant. I mean whilst shooting at a van , A Van <deleted>, they manage to spray the area with bullets, shoot a 14 year old kid in the back and kill him and kill another bystander at the same time. John Wayne, these guys, not.

Soldiers are not trained to use their weapons in the same manner as police. Police brass in Bkk in 2010 didn't do their assigned jobs. They even giggled among each other when derelicting their duty. For example, when ordered to resist and arrest a Red gang who were attacking a radio station, the police just pranced around in a nearby field with smirks on their faces. For that and other reasons, the military was called in. Anyone who was not a combatant and was near 'fire zones' was putting his/her life in danger. The 14 yr old kid had some mental problem and was supposedly under the watch of some 'specialists' or foundation. That's who should have been keeping that kid far from places where bullets are flying. Yet that brings us back to why Abhisit was compelled to do his duty as PM: Namely: protect people and property in his jurisdiction (Bkk and Thailand). In case you forgot, there were armed agents in downtown Bkk for two months, much of that time within with petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out.

Oh OK then. I'll take just one "fact" ( I really can't be bothered with people like this but I'll try). Lets just ignore completely the extremely controversial rules of engagement (that in reality meant you could shot just for the sake of it) signed off on by the PM and take your last "fact".

While Abhisit was bravely protecting people and property from the sanctuary of the 11th Army Barracks, according to you armed agents spent much of their time "within petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" how is that nearly 80 unarmed protesters were shot and killed not at these "petrol-soaked tire barricades with sharpened spikes sticking out" but elsewhere? Now the rules of engagement have been revealed for what they are.

The dead protesters with slingshots (I remember one picture of a body with a slingshot nearby) which the rest of the world regard as unarmed are regarded by Abhisit and his private army as a threat to life and can be shot and killed like a dog.

Most of the people killed weren't at the main barricades surrounding the red shirt protest area. They were killed when they went outside the protest area to set up more tyre barricades and to attack the army.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US