Thailand's bogus Human Rights Report

[Thai at Heart]

If the army broke the rules of engagement, they should be on the hook.

Very simple really.

[hellodolly]

Surely the reds were justified in fighting the results of an illegal coup?

What the hell are you talking about. The results of the illegal but beneficial coup to Thailand was a government controlled by Thaksin. They through there stupidity were disbanded and another Thaksin controlled government of equal lack of smarts became the government. They through there own stupidity were dis banded. Hence the Democrats were elected legally and the insurgents attacked them.

They never said a word about the two Thaksin governments. The first one was the one brought about by the illegal coup.

To much red shirt school for you maybe with a pad you can learn some thing all though I doubt it. But according to the Government it is going to give you a better education. I hope it helps you.

[hellodolly]

Topics like this always follow the same pattern people who know nothing about it other than Thaksin pays good money for votes and up until the last few weeks was paying good money for the attempted coup,

Then there is the other side who correctly say it was the Governments job to stop the coup.

My question is why is it 95% of the time overlooked that the red shirts were the instigators?

It seems to be that the red shirts felt they had some sort of justification for their armed actions. Even that invasion of a hospital was OK.

[Issangeorge]

I flew from Toronto to Bangkok and during my flight the coup took place. When I arrived in Bangkok there was a new government. All I remember about that night and the next few days, was everybody seemed very happy. People were taking flowers to the soldiers and thanking them. As a matter of fact you had to look hard to find a soldier, because there was no resistance so soldiers were not needed. It was not until a long time later when Thaksin was able to pay his puppets to organize the redshirts that any kind of resistance occurred. The biggest mistake the coup leaders made was they tried to do everything by the rule of law. They should have frozen Thaksin's accounts right away rather than weeks or perhaps months later. Consequently Thaksin had lots of time to get money out of the country and to hide it so that he could finance the redshirts. Remember it was at this time he bought Manchester City. Where did he get the money to do that? It should have been frozen.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ginjag]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

Mr Jim, have you lost your marbles ???/ the bib walked away couldn't cope with the masses of crazy reds. THE ARMY was NEVER sent in to shoot the protesters- <deleted>.

OK, I would put it to you, how would you disperse a mob that was causing mass chaos and armed, all ready to torch. If the army had not taken action---outcome ???? sweet people them reds.

Can you imagine the police walking in and arresting the reds, you are bleeding joking ? -see sense please.

[daboyz1]

You present yourself as leader of your party to the nation in a general election.If you win the general election fairly and are able to form a government - whether outright or with the aid of other parties in a coalition - you have a personal mandate however narrow the overall margin of seats.Abhisit never had this personal mandate whereas Yingluck obviously has.

This is not just debating theory.For example in the UK Gordon Brown became PM without ever having presented himself as potential PM to the electorate.There was no problem with him becoming PM under the rules of a parliamentary democracy.However in a year or so his authority began to be eroded and could only be recharged through facing the country.When he finally did so he lost - just like Abhisit.

The sensible course is to face the electorate sooner rather than later.If Abhisit had called a snap election much earlier in his premiership he might well have won.

Maybe Abhisit would have won, maybe not. Abhisit and his govt. were not required to call for elections at that time. I doubt the convicted criminal leader of the opposition in the UK (if there was such a thing) would pay for protestors to come to London, hold it hostage for 2 months, and support it being burned to the ground if elections weren't called when he wanted them called. Nothing justifies that.

The bottom line is that Thaksin didn't get his way because one of the TRT/PPP/PTP coalition members left and sided with the Democrats. He didn't get his way, and like a spoiled little brat that doesn't get his way, he threw a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, unlike a child's temper tantrum where a toy or two may get broken, this guy's temper tantrum resulted in people dieing and a good potion of the capitol being held hostage, and then burned and looted.

I wonder how the rural supporters are viewing their savior now with all the broken promises and the latest rice fiasco. Hopefully one day they'll realize that the man only cares for himself. I kinda doubt it though.

[Thai at Heart]

I flew from Toronto to Bangkok and during my flight the coup took place. When I arrived in Bangkok there was a new government. All I remember about that night and the next few days, was everybody seemed very happy. People were taking flowers to the soldiers and thanking them. As a matter of fact you had to look hard to find a soldier, because there was no resistance so soldiers were not needed. It was not until a long time later when Thaksin was able to pay his puppets to organize the redshirts that any kind of resistance occurred. The biggest mistake the coup leaders made was they tried to do everything by the rule of law. They should have frozen Thaksin's accounts right away rather than weeks or perhaps months later. Consequently Thaksin had lots of time to get money out of the country and to hide it so that he could finance the redshirts. Remember it was at this time he bought Manchester City. Where did he get the money to do that? It should have been frozen.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Well, it made a novelty from the army shooting everyone during a coup. The timing was opportune and they took Bangkok and the rest of the country fell into line.

Thaksin got caught out by his own arrogance.

Any smart thai businessman has been squirreling cash offshore since time immemorial. You think any of them get walloped with a full take off tax on domestic operations?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[rametindallas]

It was illegal because a government that was democratically elected was kicked out by the military in 2006. It's likely these protestors (yes some of them violent) attempted to get the government they wanted back in.

Bakseeda, just because you (and a minority of voters) don't like a political party does not justify a military coup.

Check your Thai history. There was no elected government in power when the coup occurred in 2006.

What the red shirts tried to do in 2010 was force a democratically elected government to step down.

The Abhisit government was never democratically elected. It came to power as a result of the coup, and the following judicial coup.

Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin.

When an election was called, the Democrats promptly were removed of stewardship by a mandate of the people.

The Democrat government was never democratically elected nor did it ever have a mandate from the people.

Which election did Ms. Yingluck win? What district did she win in? She didn't get even one vote from the electorate.

"Abhisit was elected by his peers after brokering a deal with one of the most corrupt factions previously allied to Thaksin"

Condemned out of your own mouth. Abhisit was elected PM by his peer MPs as ALL MPs are elected. And yes, all those factions previously allied to Dr. Thaksin were most corrupt as was Dr. Thaksin and the current government controlled by him.

You will have more success spreading your propaganda on some Red Shirt forum because on this forum there are enough people who know the truth. Your statement, "The Abhisit government was never democratically elected." Is a provable lie. Can you quote even one anti-Abhisit government official who states the Abhisit government was illegal? No, you can't. Only within Red Shirt circles is this considered 'fact'. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[GentlemanJim]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

What do they do in "civilised" countries when armed protesters set up fuel soaked barricades encircling a business/shopping district?

In a so-called 'civilised' country the airport takeover would never have been allowed nor many of the other actions of the yellow shirts, thus never setting the precedent for the red shirts to protest in such a manner after the coup.

Of course the divisive figures behind the yellow shirt movement and the coup, would not be in a position of such influence in a 'civilised' country, certainly not over the military and its actions, as the government of such a 'civilised' country, elected by the people, controls the armed forces.

Nope! The question was, what would they do in any civilized country when faced with what the reds did. Your purile attempt to imply that the reds were entitled to do something because nobody moved the yellows is pathetic. People were murdered by the reds. Paid (therefore mercenaries)people were killing innocent Thais, have you had your head in a bucket of sand? So, just what would any 'civilized' country do when the capital city is invaded by 100 000 people, barricades are put up, guards with automatic weapons, rpg's and hand grenades are positioned at barricades and the leadership call for murder and arson on stage. What would a civilized country do then? I know, negotiate with them, so Abhisit did, he then conceded to every single demand the reds made, thereby completely disarming them....or so he thought. What Abhisit and everyone else did not legislate for was that when they had conceded to every demand the red leadership would change their minds and run off from the meeting. No further demands were made so that nothing more could be negotiated. the reds and Thaksin were obviously there for a fight and they never expected Abhisit to agree to their demands. Then the reds started fighting, what would a civilized country without a police force (as Thaksin had all the commanders in his pocket) do then?????

[noitom]

Stop calling the the red shirts at that time protestors. They were insurgents who were coddled and allowed to commit crime after crime until the government was forced to step in and stop them. The red shirts invaded and destroyed private property. They should be happy not more was done to them. My sig pretty much says it all, as far as the mentality of the red shirts at that time.

And the yellow shirts who managed to close the international airport for a week.

[tominbkk]

Stop calling the the red shirts at that time protestors. They were insurgents who were coddled and allowed to commit crime after crime until the government was forced to step in and stop them. The red shirts invaded and destroyed private property. They should be happy not more was done to them. My sig pretty much says it all, as far as the mentality of the red shirts at that time.

And the yellow shirts who managed to close the international airport for a week.

I never said that what the yellows did was right. At least though they did not murder anybody. And left on their own accord.

[sdanielmcev]

I notice many here do not understand that a coup, if unsuccessful, is bad. But, then I am from the country that had the most successful coup of all time. Politics is like a hot coal path you have to walk on, or turn back. Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or perchance to sleep.

[Jim walker]

Send in the army with live ammunition, easy way to disperse protesters, they do this in many countries as we all know, especially countries run by the military junta.

[oldsailor35]

After the debacle at Kok Wua intersection, where Col. Romklao was targeted for death and black shirts were brought in, armed with war weapons, to try to get the Army to overreact and kill many civilians, any ‘peaceful’ protestors should have realized that they were no longer part of a peaceful demonstration and dropped out to wait for another time and place to protest. Instead, they escalated their protest and moved to the most provocative place they could find; Ratchaprasong intersection. This was a coup attempt and in any Western country it would have been suppressed quickly with whatever force was required. I fault the Abhisit government for not initiating Martial Law as soon as the violence broke out. Soldiers should have cleared all areas of the city of protesters by morning after the violence of Kok Wua.

Are you talking about the "fringe dwelling" men in black who were equipped with modern weapons and all wearing RTA issue boots ?

[oldsailor35]

In any civilised country if the protesters were getting out of hand the police would come in and arrested them, not send in the army to shoot the protesters. The army is paid by the public to defend the country from invading forces.

What do they do in "civilised" countries when armed protesters set up fuel soaked barricades encircling a business/shopping district?

In a so-called 'civilised' country the airport takeover would never have been allowed nor many of the other actions of the yellow shirts, thus never setting the precedent for the red shirts to protest in such a manner after the coup.

Of course the divisive figures behind the yellow shirt movement and the coup, would not be in a position of such influence in a 'civilised' country, certainly not over the military and its actions, as the government of such a 'civilised' country, elected by the people, controls the armed forces.

The taking over of the airport, was nothing short of International Terrorism and should be treated as such with the leaders punished appropriately.

[whybother]

The taking over of the airport, was nothing short of International Terrorism and should be treated as such with the leaders punished appropriately.

There is going to be a few taxi drivers and baggage handlers around the world that would be worried about being charged with terrorism after their various airport blockades.

[whybother]

After the debacle at Kok Wua intersection, where Col. Romklao was targeted for death and black shirts were brought in, armed with war weapons, to try to get the Army to overreact and kill many civilians, any peaceful protestors should have realized that they were no longer part of a peaceful demonstration and dropped out to wait for another time and place to protest. Instead, they escalated their protest and moved to the most provocative place they could find; Ratchaprasong intersection. This was a coup attempt and in any Western country it would have been suppressed quickly with whatever force was required. I fault the Abhisit government for not initiating Martial Law as soon as the violence broke out. Soldiers should have cleared all areas of the city of protesters by morning after the violence of Kok Wua.

Are you talking about the "fringe dwelling" men in black who were equipped with modern weapons and all wearing RTA issue boots ?

You mean like Seh Daeng and his mates? I wonder where they got their boots.

[rametindallas]

After the debacle at Kok Wua intersection, where Col. Romklao was targeted for death and black shirts were brought in, armed with war weapons, to try to get the Army to overreact and kill many civilians, any ‘peaceful’ protestors should have realized that they were no longer part of a peaceful demonstration and dropped out to wait for another time and place to protest. Instead, they escalated their protest and moved to the most provocative place they could find; Ratchaprasong intersection. This was a coup attempt and in any Western country it would have been suppressed quickly with whatever force was required. I fault the Abhisit government for not initiating Martial Law as soon as the violence broke out. Soldiers should have cleared all areas of the city of protesters by morning after the violence of Kok Wua.

Are you talking about the "fringe dwelling" men in black who were equipped with modern weapons and all wearing RTA issue boots ?

Why would you call them "fringe dwelling"? They moved freely among the protestors and on the stages where hate speech was spouted. They had their own headquarters tent in Lumpini Park.

Unmasked: Thailand's men in black

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

‘Black shirts’ on front line in Thai clashes

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fdbc3ae8-61a3-11df-aa80-00144feab49a.html#axzz2brW8Xmj0

Thai Democracy Threatened by Organized Subversion (in support of my original post)

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/thai-democracy-organized-subversion-red-shirt-thaksin-33372.html

Maybe you think the Democrats are in conspiracy with these news organizations to besmirch the reputation of the democracy loving UDD.

[SamMunich]

I think two things have to be pointed out here, because they come up again and again:

According to the Thai constitution and relevant laws that politician becomes Prime Minister, who can get more than half of all votes in Parliament. He also has to be elected via the party-list to become a minister in government.

Now except for 2000 to 2006 there was NEVER a PM elected with only the votes of his party members. Or plainly: All PMs are elected from coalitions, formed after elections. None is elected by popular vote. So the way Apisit was elected PM was not the exception but the rule.

Number two might be a bit more open to discussion, but in my humble view the Thai military has always been there and used not primarily as a defense against foreign aggression but against the own population to prevent them from rising up and demand their fair share. Sure, they had a one-day fight against the Japanese during WW II., and there were several skirmishes with Cambodian and Lao soldiers, but let's put it nicely: The Thai military did not prevail.

So the Thai military was and until today is a political force in the internal politics and power-plays of Thailand. Even if they're not as dominant as they were some 40 or 50 years ago... Their political interests may shift from one side to another within short time, if the leaders think it is useful for them.

SamM.

Edited August 14, 2013 by SamMunich

[whybother]

I think two things have to be pointed out here, because they come up again and again:

According to the Thai constitution and relevant laws that politician becomes Prime Minister, who can get more than half of all votes in Parliament. He also has to be elected via the party-list to become a minister in government.

Now except for 2000 to 2006 there was NEVER a PM elected with only the votes of his party members. Or plainly: All PMs are elected from coalitions, formed after elections. None is elected by popular vote. So the way Apisit was elected PM was not the exception but the rule.

<snip>

SamM.

I believe that the rules are that the PM must be an MP, not that he must be a party list MP.

Other ministers and deputies ministers don't have to be MPs.

In 2001, Thaksin formed a coalition. TRT didn't get a majority of the seats.

In 2005, TRT got the majority of seats (after buying a few smaller parties into TRT before the election).

In 2006, parliament wasn't formed so no one was elected PM.

In 2011, PTP got a majority of seats. So Yingluck could have been elected with only her party. But, because of other rules about who can vote for bills in parliament, the PTP needed a coalition to ensure they could pass laws easily.

But, in all cases above, and in 2007/2008, the PM was elected in parliament, even if they only needed votes from their own party.