Red Shirt Activists Sue Former P M Abhisit For Attempted Murder

[Ricardo]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

[Pimay1]

I wonder why they didn't press charges against all the members of CRES?

I wondered the same exact thing. But this would not fit their agenda (red idiot democracy)

[Pimay1]

Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

Which was as we all know one of the idiot red shirt peaceful mob.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Pimay1

[DaamNaam]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

Well said.

Unfortunately the morons outnumber the wise here, and the vote went south big time.

[phantomfiddler]

I believe I once read that reconciliation was to be the priority ! This is absolutely ridiculous, but to be expected considering the powers that be. Pathetic.

[orchidlady]

I hope Abhisit will file attempted murder charges against the Red shirts who stormed the Pattaya meeting and the ones who attacked and damaged his car while he was in it. in his damaged car -INTENT to kill was plain visible and highly personal -if you will.

[culicine]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

They (the army if the police weren't willing) should have gassed the crap out of them form the start. They should NEVER have been allowed to hold a city at ransom for weeks on end. They airport by PAD was bad enough...but the red-shirt protest took that to a whole new level.....Abhisit is his own worst enemy. He was too soft handed with these thugs.

[DaamNaam]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

They (the army if the police weren't willing) should have gassed the crap out of them form the start. They should NEVER have been allowed to hold a city at ransom for weeks on end. They airport by PAD was bad enough...but the red-shirt protest took that to a whole new level.....Abhisit is his own worst enemy. He was too soft handed with these thugs.

The difference is nobody got hurt at the airport. They missed their precious flights, boo hoo. made people notice though, being the whole point.

[Insight]

I hope Abhisit will file attempted murder charges against the Red shirts who stormed the Pattaya meeting and the ones who attacked and damaged his car while he was in it. in his damaged car -INTENT to kill was plain visible and highly personal -if you will.

Although I can see the temptation, I don't think they will. Again, it'll just be pathetic red-shirt-style tit-for-tat.

Then again, does a passive-assertive approach really do anybody any favours in Thailand...?

[bigbamboo]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

And if there are any courts left.

[hellodolly]

I feel that the Government of Thailand should sue the Red Shirt Activists for wasting perfectly breathable air.

Perfectly breathable air? In Bangkok?

Don't breath it for one hour and let me know how it works out.

[rubl]

I feel that the Government of Thailand should sue the Red Shirt Activists for wasting perfectly breathable air.

Perfectly breathable air? In Bangkok?

Don't breath it for one hour and let me know how it works out.

To make it a bit more scientifically correct, stand at Victory Monument around Friday afternoon 6PM till 7PM. Mind you, just watching all there might take your breath away, in which case we have to work hard on a proper correlation factor. Girls in school uniform might do the trick.

Edited January 11, 2013 by rubl

[Tanaka]

"Volunteer security guards!

cum thug

cum terrorist

cum arsonist

cum armed rebel

The scum are all coming out now. It should have been murder for these scum, instead of attempted murder.

So it's a normal situation for you that the government of the day can murder their opponents?

Read post #2 and try understand what it says.

[hellodolly]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

I like your post how ever I would like to point out a flaw in it. You said

"His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom."

they lost there democratic freedom when they illegally seized part of down town Bangkok and refused to move out.

At that point the army should have moved in on them.

[DaamNaam]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

I like your post how ever I would like to point out a flaw in it. You said

"His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom."

they lost there democratic freedom when they illegally seized part of down town Bangkok and refused to move out.

At that point the army should have moved in on them.

True.

[Rich teacher]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

I like your post how ever I would like to point out a flaw in it. You said

"His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom."

they lost there democratic freedom when they illegally seized part of down town Bangkok and refused to move out.

At that point the army should have moved in on them.

True.

Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason. There were various elements, some wanting peaceful protest, some wanting civil war, but they all shared that valid reason.

[rubl]

Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason. There were various elements, some wanting peaceful protest, some wanting civil war, but they all shared that valid reason.

They thought and had ? And because that was (assumed) a valid reason their's was a valid cause? So, some thought, you think, allegedly valid reasons, obviously no explanation required as obviously valid reasons. So sue them. Clear as mud pie.

My dear, very dear (aka rich) teacher, I also think a lot. My upbringing and education focused on questioning in order to make sure to understand.

BTW AV stands for Abhisit Vejjajiva. Don't try to say too much in a single phrase, it tends to diminish your legitimacy

PS welcome back from Christmas / NewYear holiday. All the best for 2556

Edited January 11, 2013 by rubl

[OzMick]

Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason. There were various elements, some wanting peaceful protest, some wanting civil war, but they all shared that valid reason.

That was the purpose of the red "democracy schools" and why the red"leaders" were employed - to spread misinformation and to whip up feelings of disenfranchisement.

Did you think these things happened spontaneously? There is no validity to a reason based on a lie.

[Robby nz]

I wonder why they didn't press charges against all the members of CRES?

Simple mate the director of the DSI was on CRES

[Mosha]

I wonder why the police weren't charged with dereliction of duty? If they had done their job, the army would not have been needed.

[whybother]

Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason. There were various elements, some wanting peaceful protest, some wanting civil war, but they all shared that valid reason.

The army thought Thaksin was corrupt, and that he was heading towards a dictatorship by putting friends and family in control of things and they had a valid reason.

So that makes the coup OK. Right???

Sent from my HTC phone.

[Robby nz]

Me thinks PT must be really scared of Abhisit and what he can do to their plans if they are going to all the trouble that they are to try to pin something on him.

Also they are giving him a platform to bring out a lot of truths about what really happened.

I would think that there are many videos and recordings that could be brought out in his defence including recorded and previously unpublished phone conversations from the great one overseas, including incidentally the current PM's recent statement that it is the job of a Govt to uphold law and order,

Presuming that he would tell the truth in a court of law and I dont see why he shouldnt after all it is PT and the reds who have to lie to prove anything against him and hay they have shown repeatedly that they have no worries about doing that.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Robby nz

[InActionMan]

Believe me, gl55, I know what I posted was nothing new, but it just makes me so angry, you know? And two years ago, yeah there were Red Shirt apologists on here, but I'm not so sure if there are any left? Are there? If so, then after all this time, you'd think they would have learned something. But alas, we aren't all that progressive are we? **See above vid***

Yeah I get you. This video pisses me off too. The animals are in power now and they won't prosecute one of their own but they'll happily persecute their enemies.

As for the red apologists, yeah they're still here. Just let this thread grow and they'll all start crawling out to defend their beloved brothers!

I seem to remember someone on the platform talking about "everyone bringing a half litre of galsoline" and "leaving Bangkok in flames" but of course that's different. TIT

[hellodolly]

The only thing PM Abhisit did wrong was not using the military to greater effect to preserve the lives and property of law abiding Thai citizens from the red shirt terrorists. Filthy scum bags.

While I understand the anger, which leads some to say this sort of thing, I can also see another side of the argument.

I myself respect former-PM Abhisit, for permitting the protest while relatively-peaceful to continue, and for attempting to negotiate an honest solution, on national-television. His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom.

It is a pity that the Red-Shirt leaders directly involved chose, after the fateful phone-call, not to accept his offer, which seemed fair. They might have had their early-election, and both sides could have claimed a limited-success, with far less violence & fewer deaths, and having made limited concessions. Which is what negotiation is about.

Even after that he might have kept power until an election was mandated, four years on from the previous one, but didn't chose to hang onto power until the bitter end, credit to the man. Perhaps this was as a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations ? Whatever, he held the next election early, and the constant grenade/bomb-attacks ceased, not least because one of the bomb-makers blew himself up.

That the military eventually forced an end to the protests, under a State-of-Emergency and after more-than-ample warnings & with regrettable casualties on both sides and with the mass-arson by the disappointed hard-liners, was indeed necessary. The legal government maintained its control, the (by then) few thousand protesters had failed to overthrow the government, and a civil-war had been avoided. The PM had stood fast for rule-of-law against the remaining mob.

That he's now being accused of murder, in a clear attempt to force him to accept amnesty for the Big Boss, and continues to hold true to his democratic-principles, speaks volumes about both him and about his political opponents.

It will be interesting to see what the courts say, if the case ever reaches that point.

I like your post how ever I would like to point out a flaw in it. You said

"His reluctance to use force early-on was laudable, and showed proper respect, for their democratic freedom."

they lost there democratic freedom when they illegally seized part of down town Bangkok and refused to move out.

At that point the army should have moved in on them.

Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason. There were various elements, some wanting peaceful protest, some wanting civil war, but they all shared that valid reason.

"Reds thought AV (Anupong - Vejjajiva) were illegitimate, and they had valid reason."

Let us consider the reality of it. Abhist was legally elected Prime Minister of Thailand the same way the two previous Prime Ministers were.

Now What was it that made the red shirts think they had a valid reason. It was perfectly legal.

If we take a look at the realities of it we see the big difference was Thaksin controlled the two previous Prime Minister's and did not control Abhist Hence his feeble attempt at a coup.

To be fair to you name one Prime Minister who was elected a different way. There may have been those who tried to sieze power but when it came down to an election they were all elected the same way as Abhist.

Now let us here your valid reason to invasde a hospital and fire rockets at civilian transportation centers along with a feeble attempt to burn Bangkok down.

I strongly suspect as the red shirts were coming from areas with little schooling in fact they actually set up some of the schools there. They knew no better and were easily led by a man who promised them money. Up to 500 baht a day, which in the end he cheated them out of it by refusing to pay them. He had you all brain washed to the point where you thought he could do no wrong.

Why don't you know better.