Attorney general orders indictment against Abhisit, Suthep

[gemini81]

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gemini81

[jayboy]

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

Leaving aside the ignorance (Thaksin intimidated by the opposition!!) and slightly crazed rhetoric there does remain one interesting thought - namely what the position will be after Thaksin disappears from the scene.Do the usual suspects really believe the genie can be crammed back into the bottle?

[jayboy]

and the pressure is turned up to help the Thaksin white wash bill to get over the line.

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

[Thaddeus]

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

Leaving aside the ignorance (Thaksin intimidated by the opposition!!) and slightly crazed rhetoric there does remain one interesting thought - namely what the position will be after Thaksin disappears from the scene.Do the usual suspects really believe the genie can be crammed back into the bottle?

No, this djin is not going back in the bottle.

When a verruca is removed all you have is a gaping hole. How well it heals is down to the treatment it is given.

Here I think both sides would just carry on sticking pins in it.

[FarangTalk]

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

It is not Thaksin trying to divide the nation. I was a Thaksin detractor when he was in power and remain so however...

...he could be dead and gone tomorrow and the major players, including those trying to manipulate Thai politics for their own benefit will still be there and Thailand will continue down this merry path of self-destruction and implosion.

I'm continually astounded at the amount of posters that don't know or refuse to acknowledge the real reasons behind the PAD protests and the 2006 coup.

Of course the fact that discussion of the key topics at hand is forbidden makes it more difficult, but come on people, are you really that naive and uninformed?

Just as Thais bottle up their emotions and often explode, the real reasons for the political maneuvering have been bottled up and will soon explode, and send the country into turmoil unlike any it experienced in the 20th Century. If they don't acknowledge what is going on it can never be prepared for.

Thaksin has shown he is now a force to be reckoned with, and was not so easily removed as they thought he would be. The military knows another intervention would result in a bloody coup and prolonged civil conflict.

Buckle up folks, the ride is only beginning.

[Local Drunk]

The AG is not of sound mind. The PTP is playing to the hands of the Democrats and the Democrats want this because they will win in the end. What the Demos need to do now is to present a policy of "We can do it better than you." The current govt is going to cave and the Demos need to be ready and live up to their promises to the people.

[aussieinthailand]

My comment-Bleeding ridiculous, where on earth are these so called officials dragged from. A complete waste of Thai money and time, the more important things are to get these persons that have already been charged back here to face up to their crimes, and the rest of the corrupt bunch.

Save your games for your computers/mobiles. All this rubbish and you cannot shut the mouth of an ex PM who is openly running this country, and already charged with more crimes to be aired. AMAZING

"and already charged with more crimes to be aired." ok so if your right about the not yet aired (charges) i'm guessing you have access to details on said charges?

Please enlighten us...

[oldsailor35]

If the court finds them guilty the fallout will be immense. Dark days ahead me thinks.

But no doubt that at least one of them is guilty.

[oldsailor35]

"causing others to commit murders with foreseeable results "

That's the red shirt leadership they're thinking about there.

Were you there? These two gave the order to shoot with live ammo. Not the red shirts.

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Proof please ?

[FarangTalk]

The AG is not of sound mind. The PTP is playing to the hands of the Democrats and the Democrats want this because they will win in the end. What the Demos need to do now is to present a policy of "We can do it better than you." The current govt is going to cave and the Demos need to be ready and live up to their promises to the people.

Wishful thinking.

The Democrats are un-electable by the core of voters in the North and North East because of their policies in the 90's, the collapse of their corrupt government under Chuan and Suthep post financial crisis, and their backers.

In addition, they are not a populist party, and remain loyal to the status quo and the feudal, military regime that the majority of thinking Thai people are so desperate to get rid of.

Their incompetence and refusal to move with the times are what gifted Thaksin his two landslide election victories in 2001 and 2005.

[waza]

and the pressure is turned up to help the Thaksin white wash bill to get over the line.

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

[Docno]

"causing others to commit murders with foreseeable results "

That's the red shirt leadership they're thinking about there.

Were you there? These two gave the order to shoot with live ammo. Not the red shirts.

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

Oh wait! Perhaps it was just that all those heavily armed Red Shirts were poor shots. Or maybe they just didn't have those snazzy high-powered sniper rifles the army used on the civilians... you know, like the one that killed the Italian journalist (even though our friend, Sutthep, lied by claiming he'd been killed by a Red Shirt grenade).

Edited October 29, 2013 by Docno

[gemini81]

"causing others to commit murders with foreseeable results "

That's the red shirt leadership they're thinking about there.

Were you there? These two gave the order to shoot with live ammo. Not the red shirts.

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

Try looking into the story then. Its not like football scores or stats. To be so daft as to take this at surface value is silly; mobs of rioters upon the shutdown city for months?! C'mon.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gemini81

[waza]

"causing others to commit murders with foreseeable results "

That's the red shirt leadership they're thinking about there.

Were you there? These two gave the order to shoot with live ammo. Not the red shirts.

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military successfully cracked down on the protesters on 19 May.

number of redshirts=?

Don't forget some of those killed were in BTS station ect when they were fired on by redshirts/blacksirts/fake redshirts/third hand. for example: On the 10th of April 10 protesters, nine civilians and five uniformed soldiers were killed.

How many redshirts died from friendly fire?

A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Black Shirts were often well-trained active duty and former soldiers claiming that their objective is to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers, and some actually wore military uniforms.^[135]

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[fab4]

A small coward behind skype on his screen is intimidated by opposition and wants to eliminate it. Hope he is eliminated first, as a law of nature and consequence, having done more harm than good unto others & attempting to divide and destroy a nation for personal benefit. At least he is one unhappy little man, worried over safety and a struggle for power- an unhappy state he deserves to live in. Soon he'll be too old and in poor health to operate as an attempting dictator.

Leaving aside the ignorance (Thaksin intimidated by the opposition!!) and slightly crazed rhetoric there does remain one interesting thought - namely what the position will be after Thaksin disappears from the scene.Do the usual suspects really believe the genie can be crammed back into the bottle?

Well, for a start, the Thai Visa political news forum would wither and die. What would they talk about - everything is down to Thaksin so there would just be the gallant few whinging about the TAT or the road accidents.

[Docno]

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

Try looking into the story then. Its not like football scores or stats. To be so daft as to take this at surface value is silly; mobs of rioters upon the shutdown city for months?! C'mon.

You obviously didn't get the allusion to Harper's (which presents stats in exactly this format to highlight contrasts and make a point). The point in this case is that these numbers tell of disproportional use of lethal force. Or perhaps you believe that lethal force is justified on mostly unarmed protesters. Perhaps you've noticed that people around the world are generally outraged when government forces fire into crowds of protesters. Governments are expected to use the minimum force necessary to maintain order and protect lives; the numbers I quoted suggest that the Thai authorities went well beyond that minimum.

[Docno]

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military successfully cracked down on the protesters on 19 May.

number of redshirts=?

Don't forget some of those killed were in BTS station ect when they were fired on by redshirts/blacksirts/fake redshirts/third hand. for example: On the 10th of April 10 protesters, nine civilians and five uniformed soldiers were killed.

How many redshirts died from friendly fire?

A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Black Shirts were often well-trained active duty and former soldiers claiming that their objective is to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers, and some actually wore military uniforms.^[135]

Yes, I've previously referred to that Human Rights Watch report in this thread (and it was dismissed as leftist propaganda by others here). And yes, I've also referred to the Black Shirts and their role in the situation. But let me use the same 'ammo' you are to make my point. Here's what Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch had to say (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations):

“Abuses by soldiers took place in full view of the Thai public and the world’s media...” and,

"It is ludicrous for the army chief to claim that the army did not deploy snipers who fired on civilians..."

[waza]

The red shirts were shooting with live ammunition too. Did Abhisit and Suthep give those orders too?

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military successfully cracked down on the protesters on 19 May.

number of redshirts=?

Don't forget some of those killed were in BTS station ect when they were fired on by redshirts/blacksirts/fake redshirts/third hand. for example: On the 10th of April 10 protesters, nine civilians and five uniformed soldiers were killed.

How many redshirts died from friendly fire?

A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Black Shirts were often well-trained active duty and former soldiers claiming that their objective is to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers, and some actually wore military uniforms.^[135]

Yes, I've previously referred to that Human Rights Watch report in this thread (and it was dismissed as leftist propaganda by others here). And yes, I've also referred to the Black Shirts and their role in the situation. But let me use the same 'ammo' you are to make my point. Here's what Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch had to say (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations):

“Abuses by soldiers took place in full view of the Thai public and the world’s media...” and,

"It is ludicrous for the army chief to claim that the army did not deploy snipers who fired on civilians..."

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

[Chrisswe]

Yes they should be honest and stand like a man for there's responsibility during the "crack down" and killing 91 people's !!!!

[jayboy]

and the pressure is turned up to help the Thaksin white wash bill to get over the line.

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Edited October 29, 2013 by jayboy

[waza]

It may help or it may backfire.

Abhisit is remaining very cool under the circumstances.

This is a power play by the Thaksin camp & I wonder what Abhisit knows or has up his sleeve.

He is certainly no fool. It will be interesting if this ever goes to trial.

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[ginjag]

Jay boy, you know as well as I do that Money controls Thailand and it's people, Thaksin rules because of monies given out and promises made, He is only clever at manipulation backed by money. The only reason for his motives is power and control he cannot stop he never will he is addicted to this.

To gain the said 4 years is a massive bonus to family and his cronies, once in power the 80% of Thai people get nothing, look at the 2 years in office where have the people prospered or the country ???. can you actually answer without Abhisit being mentioned, I will say again in the last 2 years-prosperity ??

[mikemac]

I don't like terrorists, especially the ones wearing red shirts in the employ of a spineless criminal. As far as I am concerned Abhisit did the city a favor by routing this rabble and the only mistake he made was letting it go on as long as it did.

I wonder how long the current government would allow it to happen if the shoe was on the other foot ?

And can anyone spot the blatant troll haunting these redshirt related topics ?

[nicknostitz]

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

Your point is faulty.

While the deaths of protesters killed by soldiers - as ruled by the courts - are part of a CRES ordered dispersal action, with clearly established hierarchies, and with Suthep (and Abhisit) on top of that hierarchy, there must be clear evidence of direct links between armed militants under the Red Shirts and the UDD leadership. Which so far, none came out or were presented.

In a court system it is not about what you believe to be true, but about evidence.

Anyhow, the UDD leadership is charged with terrorism, which also carries a death penalty as a maximum punishment, together with several alleged armed militants already since almost a year in the trial phase, and, when parliament rests, attend twice a week court sessions.

On the other hand - cases against the political leadership during 2010 have not even started yet. The trials so far only been inquests into cause of death of protesters. The murder trials against Suthep and Abhisit have not even yet begun.

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Why is it such a problem to let the courts decide over the legalities of the crackdown and related matters? If Abhisit and Suthep are indeed innocent, as you believe, then what is the problem with this court case? Why not give them a chance to prove themselves in front of a court?

One might get the impression that you are actually in agreement with the government, which thinks that justice and reconciliation efforts are best served with a broad amnesty, and with it stopping all trials and investigations into 2010, so that facts of what took place may never come out.

Aren't you as exited as me to see what these trials against both sides bring to light?

[Docno]

Hmmm.... I think the numbers tell the story. I'll do it Harper's style for effect:

Number of soldiers killed: 8

Number of civilians killed: 79

More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military successfully cracked down on the protesters on 19 May.

number of redshirts=?

Don't forget some of those killed were in BTS station ect when they were fired on by redshirts/blacksirts/fake redshirts/third hand. for example: On the 10th of April 10 protesters, nine civilians and five uniformed soldiers were killed.

How many redshirts died from friendly fire?

A Human Rights Watch investigation found that Black Shirts were often well-trained active duty and former soldiers claiming that their objective is to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers, and some actually wore military uniforms.^[135]

Yes, I've previously referred to that Human Rights Watch report in this thread (and it was dismissed as leftist propaganda by others here). And yes, I've also referred to the Black Shirts and their role in the situation. But let me use the same 'ammo' you are to make my point. Here's what Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch had to say (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations):

“Abuses by soldiers took place in full view of the Thai public and the world’s media...” and,

"It is ludicrous for the army chief to claim that the army did not deploy snipers who fired on civilians..."

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

I almost agree with you and would add that there is nonetheless an important difference between forces of the state and anti-government protestors. Police and soldiers have a well-defined chain of command, rules of engagement, and extensive training and practice in the use of various levels of force. As such, they are expected to act in a disciplined manner and use only the degree of force necessary to meet their objectives. They certainly should not be intentionally taking the lives of unarmed civilians. The clear chain of command also means it is more straightforward to attribute responsibility when things go wrong (e.g., when civilians are needlessly killed).

Anti-government protesters don't have the same training and clarity of command, regardless of how much they would like to emulate these features of state forces.This means that rogue elements can sometimes act out of motives that are at variance with those of the majority of protestors and the protest leadership. We saw this in some of the Occupy protests where self-proclaimed anarchists attached themselves to the demonstrations and engaged in violence and the destruction of property. Foreign observers of the Red Shirt protests commented that the leadership appeared to be losing control as more extreme elements took advantage of the growing tension.

That doesn't mean that there should not be investigations of the Red Shirt extremists and charges laid. But the top leaders cannot be held to the same standard of responsibility as state officials unless they have clearly given orders for the mayhem that occurred. The accountability is different, especially given that the state is responsible for protecting civilians. The difference in the number of deaths and casualties on both sides further suggests that the state used unnecessary lethal force in putting down the protests.

[jayboy]

The trick up his sleeve is the knowledge that the case will never go to trial but above all the knowledge he will never be convicted.That's why he can be so blase on the subject.

It reminds me of a battle between two great jungle beasts which is in fact just a ritualistic dance because they don't want to wound each other too gravely.

For all the fighting words there is in fact nothing political or ideological which separates Thaksin and Abhisit.Two rich Sino Thai politicians committed to private enterprise and the status quo.Both have strengths and weaknesses.But it's absurd to call the former a dictator or the latter a murderer.

Is the current warming up of the judicial assault on Abhisit/Suthep politically inspired? Of course just as were the charges against Thaksin (we know that from Wikileaks).The serious charges against Thaksin were never made (too much support for drugs war etc from Abhisit's military and feudal friends).

Not even close Jayboy, Thaksin is a poorly educated,convicted criminal who made a fortune through peddling political favours, corrupt politics and ripping off business partners, he is also a failed businessman who spent more time bankrupt than in business. He is also a failed politician who's corrupt dictatorial style and stubborn refusal to give up power caused a military coup and subsequently the division of Thai society. To add to his failures he is also a failed husband, having divorce his wife and currently lives a lavish lifestyle on a fortune of corrupted money in exile, as a fugitive from justice, issuing order on skype to his proxy government whom he rules through the politics of money.

While Abihist is a highly educated professional politician who has never worked in the private sector. He has a reputation as an honest hard working politician and an active astute opposition leader, who lives on inherited money and his MP salary.

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

We will let others be the judge of who is making well considered points and who is just ranting.

[jayboy]

Jay boy, you know as well as I do that Money controls Thailand and it's people, Thaksin rules because of monies given out and promises made, He is only clever at manipulation backed by money. The only reason for his motives is power and control he cannot stop he never will he is addicted to this.

To gain the said 4 years is a massive bonus to family and his cronies, once in power the 80% of Thai people get nothing, look at the 2 years in office where have the people prospered or the country ???. can you actually answer without Abhisit being mentioned, I will say again in the last 2 years-prosperity ??

I'm sorry but I don't really follow this at all.If however you are suggesting there is a nexus of money and politics, you are of course correct.But that applies across parties and individuals

[ginjag]

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

We will let others be the judge of who is making well considered points and who is just ranting.

Do you have time to answer my post, would be interesting---without the usual waffle--- #112

Edited October 29, 2013 by ginjag

[jayboy]

I don't like terrorists, especially the ones wearing red shirts in the employ of a spineless criminal. As far as I am concerned Abhisit did the city a favor by routing this rabble and the only mistake he made was letting it go on as long as it did.

I wonder how long the current government would allow it to happen if the shoe was on the other foot ?

And can anyone spot the blatant troll haunting these redshirt related topics ?

Actually under this government and governments prior to that of Abhisit, there was amazingly restrained reaction to quasi fascist/ PAD /yellowshirt disturbances and protests (a lot of the same people involved so I lump them together).The murder and bloodshed began with the last government.

Incidentally I don't know if you are referring to me or someone else as the blatant troll.However it's also very evident there's a tendency for those who can't persuade others of their views to describe contrary opinion as "trollish".This is a widely recognised phenonomen now throught the internet and on some forums (not sure about Thai Visa) is regarded as a serious breach of the rules.

[jayboy]

This simply makes my point for me.There is a school of thought, obviously including yourself, that is so consumed with hatred of Thaksin that logic and good sense escapes it.Nobody disputes Abhisit is intelligent and well educated nor that Thaksin is morally deeply suspect.However that isn't the point.The truth is that Thaksin and Abhisit have no significant difference between them in political or economic outlook.Can I just draw your attention to a couple of your most egregious errors.

1.Thaksin is hardly a failed politician.His parties keep on winning elections and look like doing so in the future.If that is failure most politicians would like to emulate him.

2.Abhisit despite his various qualities is hardly an astute politician.The proof is his continued failure to win over the Thai people (and of course he is tainted by murder charges).Hence the current flirtation by the Democrats with non-democratic means of gaining power.

Unbelievable, you only quoted three words from my post and you twisted, misquoted and or misrepresented them to make your red spin sound credible. I wont lower myself to address the personal flame nor the fact your posts are again off topic and to formula.

We will let others be the judge of who is making well considered points and who is just ranting.

Do you have time to answer my post, would be interesting---without the usual waffle--- #112

I have responded but I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say.If you can organise your thoughts more clearly and then articulate them coherently I will do my best to reply.