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

[smedly]

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.

Fact or Fiction - I don't believe half of what this man writes in publication or on here - he is neither trustworthy nor independent and as such is ignored with great prejudice, so no point in posting anything from him here, most of the posters here apart from 3 or 4 are generally neutral and voice unbiased opinions based on what they consider to be right and wrong, I've said it already - the army were less than perfect in doing a difficult job of restoring order in Bangkok - the protestors should have packed up and gone home with the deal they were offered - someone said "no" and the lemmings and possibly some inocent people paid the price - why is it so hard to understand

[Rich teacher]

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".

While trying to trivialise the blatant perversion of democracy you don't address why the chief of the army was hosting coalition formation meetings at his personal residence. It is not the 'same thing as Thaksin did.' He did not need the explicit help of the army.

[Rich teacher]

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.

In 2008 Anupong Paojinda was the RTA Commander in Chief, not a politician. So could you please inform us of why it was his business to host coalition formation meetings for the Democrat party at his personal residence?

[bigbamboo]

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".

While trying to trivialise the blatant perversion of democracy you don't address why the chief of the army was hosting coalition formation meetings at his personal residence. It is not the 'same thing as Thaksin did.' He did not need the explicit help of the army.

No. He had the explicit help of the police, a luxury Abhisit was denied.

[Rich teacher]

No. He had the explicit help of the police, a luxury Abhisit was denied.

Did the Chief of Police call potential TRT coalition partners to his personal residence???? LOL

[bigbamboo]

No. He had the explicit help of the police, a luxury Abhisit was denied.

Did the Chief of Police call potential TRT coalition partners to his personal residence???? LOL

Political machinations are often the best option for a country in times of trouble...... Churchill being a prime example.

[rubl]

No. He had the explicit help of the police, a luxury Abhisit was denied.

Did the Chief of Police call potential TRT coalition partners to his personal residence???? LOL

My dear Rich teacher, the needle got stuck in the record I think, you sound just like my dear, too early departed, friend ppd. In this topic on 'Abhist/Suthep could face 700 charges', referring to a possible TRT coalition is totally off topic. The last time the TRT participated in an election was April, 2006 and their behaviour got them disbanded May 30th, 2007. We've had two general elections since then, but no TRT.

This topic is on charges related to the March - May 2010 mayhem. The period some would like the ICC to investigate in all it's sordid details

Edited December 24, 2012 by rubl

[Rich teacher]

My dear Rich teacher, the needle got stuck in the record I think, you sound just like my dear, too early departed, friend ppd. In this topic on 'Abhist/Suthep could face 700 charges', referring to a possible TRT coalition is totally off topic. The last time the TRT participated in an election was April, 2006 and their behaviour got them disbanded May 30th, 2007. We've had two general elections since then, but no TRT.

This topic is on charges related to the March - May 2010 mayhem. The period some would like the ICC to investigate in all it's sordid details

Just admitting defeat is OK too, in fact far more manly than your deflections.

[rubl]

My dear Rich teacher, the needle got stuck in the record I think, you sound just like my dear, too early departed, friend ppd. In this topic on 'Abhist/Suthep could face 700 charges', referring to a possible TRT coalition is totally off topic. The last time the TRT participated in an election was April, 2006 and their behaviour got them disbanded May 30th, 2007. We've had two general elections since then, but no TRT.

This topic is on charges related to the March - May 2010 mayhem. The period some would like the ICC to investigate in all it's sordid details

Just admitting defeat is OK too, in fact far more manly than your deflections.

Deflections? Trying to return to the topic at hand is a deflection? Referring to the ICC regarding the 2010 mayhem is a deflection? At times I think you might be a closetted yellow-shirt

[muttley]

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)

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belittle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this?

Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman. Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

Edited December 24, 2012 by muttley

[rubl]

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belttle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this? Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?

I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"

Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman

Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

Would that be the red-shirt protester who tried to hide at a petrol station in the 'life fire zone'?

BTW even NN wrote about having bumped into red-shirt militants, those friendlies who made life miserable for legitimate protesters just by their presence.

2012-05-17:

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me. Sorry, but i fear that i may lack hero qualities - in those situations my life is more dear to me than my rights as a journalist."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

[muttley]

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belttle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this? Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?

I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"

Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman

Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

Would that be the red-shirt protester who tried to hide at a petrol station in the 'life fire zone'?

BTW even NN wrote about having bumped into red-shirt militants, those friendlies who made life miserable for legitimate protesters just by their presence.

2012-05-17:

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me. Sorry, but i fear that i may lack hero qualities - in those situations my life is more dear to me than my rights as a journalist."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

No this would be the red shirt protester who was dying at the petrol station having been gut-shot by the army for posessing a wooden catapult. Want to see some pictures - a real menace to society this one, needs to be killed don't you think.

His daughter is an official in the Air Force. She said this

"[They] fired like life was worthless. Was it too much? I can’t take this. But what can we do? We can do nothing, since they say my father was a terrorist. Who can we make demands from? They are the ones who make the accusation, and the ones we have no chance to fight with anyway.’

‘When I wear this uniform, some are against me. Some taxi drivers refused to take me. Some look at me strangely. People in general have the perception of the military as violent, but I see it as irrelevant. The Air Force is the Air Force. The Army is the Army. If you ask what I feel about the uniform I’m wearing, I still feel proud of it. It’s only a specific person in uniform who sees a human as not a human."

Perhaps it's not only "specific people in uniform" who feel that way.

Edited December 24, 2012 by metisdead
: Copyrighted photos removed.

[Hugo6]

^"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.

Abhisit was put in power via elections, as I asserted.

that is just plain nonsense.

[Hugo6]

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belttle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this? Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?

I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"

Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman

Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

Would that be the red-shirt protester who tried to hide at a petrol station in the 'life fire zone'?

BTW even NN wrote about having bumped into red-shirt militants, those friendlies who made life miserable for legitimate protesters just by their presence.

2012-05-17:

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me. Sorry, but i fear that i may lack hero qualities - in those situations my life is more dear to me than my rights as a journalist."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

Would that be the red-shirt protester who tried to hide at a petrol station in the 'life fire zone'?

did you ever see the video of that?

don't be a callous insensitive human about someone who had no reason to be shot.

[Thait Spot]

No. He had the explicit help of the police, a luxury Abhisit was denied.

Did the Chief of Police call potential TRT coalition partners to his personal residence???? LOL

I'm sure the Damapong household hosted way, way more meetings than the army ever did bin that respect. Get real

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Thait Spot]

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belittle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this?

Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman. Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

We shall ultimately see what the courts make of it. Don't be surprised if they turn around very quickly and refuse the cases for a whole heap of sensible reasons such as cases brought against Abhisit the individual.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[rubl]

That fateful day, 2010-05-15 in the Live Fire Zone. Some recent articles from 26th of November, 2012

"A few minutes later, while the protesters were pushing tyres about 20-50 meters further, Charnnarong was the first person to be hit, in the stomach. Some shouted to the troops asking them to stop firing because someone was injured, but the soldiers probably did not hear or did not care, and kept on firing."

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1899

"The red-shirt taxi driver was shot and killed in front of a gas station on Ratchaprarop Rd on the afternoon of 15 May 2010."

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/3440

[philw]

You are fixated with the grenade injuries to the army and completely ignore or belttle or make fun of civilian casualties through your various posts that I have come across, why is this? Obviously some connection with an army at some stage, compassion over civilian deaths has been driven out of you - its just collateral damage to you isnt it?

I can show you images of deaths of red shirts shot in the head and killed by military snipers that look a lot less pretty than the grenade casualties you keep on bleating on about, "even though none of them are red-shirts" but I'm not into that sort of sick point scoring world that you inhabit.

"Bodies have been moved, arms may have been moved"

Pathetic arguments and one tried at the time by the Army propaganda spokesman

Want to explain this sequence of events - see/google for "nick nostitz in the killing fields"

This is the evidence covering the death of Charnnarong Polsrila, subject of the first inquest. He was shot and killed by the army, apparently the round shredded his intestines. He was photographed by Nick Nostitz posing with a wooden catapault. His body was removed eventually by other people braving and getting hit by army fired rounds for all of the time they were at the "barricade". The video is 7 minutes long.

Armed Terrorist my Ass!

Yet according to the Abhisit agreed rules of engagement this guy was a "legitimate" target. I wonder if the Criminal Courts will agree with that "arrangement"?

Would that be the red-shirt protester who tried to hide at a petrol station in the 'life fire zone'?

BTW even NN wrote about having bumped into red-shirt militants, those friendlies who made life miserable for legitimate protesters just by their presence.

2012-05-17:

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me. Sorry, but i fear that i may lack hero qualities - in those situations my life is more dear to me than my rights as a journalist."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

No this would be the red shirt protester who was dying at the petrol station having been gut-shot by the army for posessing a wooden catapult. Want to see some pictures - a real menace to society this one, needs to be killed don't you think.

His daughter is an official in the Air Force. She said this

"[They] fired like life was worthless. Was it too much? I can’t take this. But what can we do? We can do nothing, since they say my father was a terrorist. Who can we make demands from? They are the ones who make the accusation, and the ones we have no chance to fight with anyway.’

‘When I wear this uniform, some are against me. Some taxi drivers refused to take me. Some look at me strangely. People in general have the perception of the military as violent, but I see it as irrelevant. The Air Force is the Air Force. The Army is the Army. If you ask what I feel about the uniform I’m wearing, I still feel proud of it. It’s only a specific person in uniform who sees a human as not a human."

Perhaps it's not only "specific people in uniform" who feel that way.

Horrible point, nicely made.

Thank you.

[maidu]

This discussion is getting very frayed at the edges. I hope the judges throw out the spurious charges against Abhisit, and the Thai people see the charges for what they are: pure political posturing by Thaksin worshiping PT and the Reds - trying to tar a man who did a decent job in a tough situation. When a PM makes tough decisions, such as declaring a 'state of emergency' - he/she is not personally legally responsible for every mishap that ensues. That's a perverted interpretation of the situation.

When there's a riot at a soccer match, is the authority who called in security guards - personally responsible for every injury that ensues?

[backtonormal]

^"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.

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

[whybother]

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

Done in parliament, where all PMs are elected.

[Rich teacher]

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

Done in parliament, where all PMs are elected.

That was just the formal part, not where the real deal was done.

[muttley]

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

Done in parliament, where all PMs are elected.

That was just the formal part, not where the real deal was done.

It really doesn't matter if anybody accepts it was a done deal legitimately or otherwise even Abhisit must have realised how underhanded it all was but grabbed the chance with both hands. Why not, he knew he there was no way he and his party were electable in a real election with real people voting, not his peers in parliament, but real people.

Anybody with the courage of his convictions would have called an election there and then, to ensure the mandate of the people, but he knew he'd lose. It explains the mentality of the man. Desperate to get power he was desperate not to lose it once he had his foot in the door. It would explain the reticence any UDD leader would have had dealing with him, just look at the conditions he proposed on even calling for the dissolution of parliament , the so called 5 point plan, any one of which he could say had been contravened and all deals off. He wouldn't name a date for an election so who was going to believe this man?

He even turned down point blank the last ditch attempt by Senators to broker talks. That arrogant action alone caused the deaths of 12 more people, including the 6 at the wat.

[rubl]

I see history is somewhat rewritten again, as speculation only to explain opinions. May I assume that the UDD grandstanding was coming to an end? "We fight till the last drop of (your) blood" ? "It's over, go home" and surrendered to the police who happily took them in to protect them from angry supporters ?

Now that arrogant action alone was enough to make some supporters really cold to the point they needed some more fires to get warm.

[Jawnie]

Can't stand either Abhisit or Suthep but this many charges seems a bit over the top. Folks, we are just looking for a little truth, justice, and reconciliation...not a bunch of whacko grand-standing by government prosecutors.

[smedly]

It is undesputed that the reds were armed with lethal weapons and using them

It is undisputed that the governmet were restrained in actions against the protestors for weeks (way beyend I would have given)

A deal was reached for early elections at which point the protest should have ended (critical fact)

The deal was rejected (turning point)

The government gave warnings about impending action to remove the thugs from central Bangkok (not all thugs)

They all knew the rules (fact) and most went home but a hard core (or easily bought thugs) decided to stay and fight it out (how stupid was that)

No government on the planet would have allowed this to continue (fact)

did innocent people die (yes I think so)

who do they really blame (families of innocent tragic deaths) - that would be an interesting interview - I suspect they would be blaming the protestors for not going home when they were offered a deal - I'm pretty sure the people living or working in the occupied areas of BKK were sick of it after a few days never mind weeks, but they should also have stayed indoors out of harms way

interesting thought (off topic I guess)

would PT win an election if it was called next month - truth be told - I doubt it

in fact I don't see them lasting much longer - anyone that honestly thinks they are doing a good job and are good for this country say aye

[Siripon]

^"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.

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

You're talking about Banharn Silpacha, please don't be naive about Banharn- he never refuses to join a government, he once said to be in the Opposition is to have a dry throat. An example of the type of politician Thailand doesn't need.

[Rich teacher]

^"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.

Done in an army base. A current member of this coalition and the Thaksins last government said he was made "an offer he could not refuse" most on here will know what that means...still doing business under the cover of the same umbrella

You're talking about Banharn Silpacha, please don't be naive about Banharn- he never refuses to join a government, he once said to be in the Opposition is to have a dry throat. An example of the type of politician Thailand doesn't need.

This does not at all explain why he needed to change from PPP/PT. If there were no outside pressures everyone could have stayed put to retain the status quo. He and others were told they had to desert ship.

[whybother]

This does not at all explain why he needed to change from PPP/PT. If there were no outside pressures everyone could have stayed put to retain the status quo. He and others were told they had to desert ship.

Maybe he was told that PTP won't have the numbers and this is the only chance you'll have.

[Rich teacher]

This does not at all explain why he needed to change from PPP/PT. If there were no outside pressures everyone could have stayed put to retain the status quo. He and others were told they had to desert ship.

Maybe he was told that PTP won't have the numbers and this is the only chance you'll have.

Who 'told' him?