Attorney general orders indictment against Abhisit, Suthep

[473geo]

In that you are right; they know exactly what they are getting with the Democrats.

And that is why i think that although they are as useless as anyone else, and quite possibly as corrupt, they don't represent the same danger that Thaksin and his parties do, because nobody, or very few, are under any illusions about what they are about.

You speak about a lot of cynicism towards Thaksin, and an acceptance of his corrupt nature, but what i see far more of is something akin to hero worship. If they are accepting of his flaws, why do they jump to his defence for some of the blatantly bad things he has done?

Say to them, he was responsible for thousands of innocent people dying thanks to his war on drugs campaign, the response will be ah, but yes, people supported it so that makes it ok. Say to them, he was tried whilst his own party was in power and was still found guilty, and the fact that he tried to bribe the courts in the process, and has run away, makes it all the more damning, the response will be, the elite stacked things against him, it wasn't fair. Say to them, he blatantly hid assets in 2001 and used the power of his popularity to put pressure on people to subvert justice, the response will be ah but that is what they all do.

There is an excuse and a justification for every bad thing he has ever done. That doesn't sound to me like the workings of a cynical and critical mind. Sounds more like a football supporter. And that is how i feel most red shirts are. They have chosen their side and will now stick by it, defend it and forgive it, no matter what it does.

I'm sure this is where you will tell me the other side's supporters are just the same. Perhaps they are, but their numbers are so much smaller, what with the PAD being such a fringe group these days, and with the Democrats being stuck in the dark ages, i just don't see the same scale of tribal-like mindedness going on.

You mention "the power of his popularity" so perhaps it would provide a more complete summary of your assertion as to why people are prepared to ignore some of the actions you attribute to Thaksin, if you also provide detailed explanation of the circumstances/actions that led to a man gaining such popularity.

[waza]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The Red Shirt movement developed from the anti-coup movement in 2006. Most of the first leaders of the anti-coup movement were noted Thaksin opponents, such as NGO activist Sombat Boonngamanong who led the "anti 19th September coup group", which formed immediately after Giles Ungpakorn (another Thaksin opponent) held the first anti coup protest at Siam Paragon. Soon after Dr. Weng Tojirakan led the larger groups together with Prateep Ungsongtham Hata of the Duang Prateep Foundation. Dr. Weng was also briefly allied with the PAD in 2006. The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

The TRT remnants only came later into the game, in the form of better funded PTV, and formed then an alliance with the other anti-coup groups - the first UDD (Nor Por Chor), which later transformed itself into the present UDD (Nor Por Kor).

Yes like with his elections Thaksin likes to buy the best politicians and political parties he can, this is how he formed TRT. With the redshirts he bought a few different group, even the communists, and formed them into the redshirts.

How many times did they protest in 2006 against the Military government?

[rixalex]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Quite so, and a point well proven when you consider the timing of the protests, that just happened to coincide with money being confiscated, and the fact that at the actual time of the coup, barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?

OK, let's look at the timing shall we?

Thaksin Assets seized February 29th 2010

First march to Bangkok starts March 12th

Major Rally held 14th March calls for dissolution of parliament and new elections

Government start talks with UDD about dissolution of parliament and new elections ( the topic of Thaksins confiscated assets are not discussed) on Mach 28th

Talks break down March 29th

And now at the time of the coup why did "barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?"

Mmmm, that took some thinking. Do you think it might be because Martial Law was slapped on all 76 Provinces in Thailand until the 26th January 2007, but then left active in 35 Provinces. Can you guess what provinces they were? That's right, the ones traditionally supporting Thaksin.

And you have the cheek to talk about perverted history............

With regard the timing of the protests and how they coincidentally coincided with frozen assets, all you have done in the above is confirm that point.

With regards your explanation for why not a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf at the time when people most logically would, ie at the time he was actually ousted - being because of laws that were in place that prevented them, well, laws didn't seem to make a blind bit of difference in 2010 to what they did then, why were they so keen to follow the laws in 2006 but didn't give a toss about them in 2010?

Took them 4 years to work out how angry they were i guess.

[waza]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The Red Shirt movement developed from the anti-coup movement in 2006. Most of the first leaders of the anti-coup movement were noted Thaksin opponents, such as NGO activist Sombat Boonngamanong who led the "anti 19th September coup group", which formed immediately after Giles Ungpakorn (another Thaksin opponent) held the first anti coup protest at Siam Paragon. Soon after Dr. Weng Tojirakan led the larger groups together with Prateep Ungsongtham Hata of the Duang Prateep Foundation. Dr. Weng was also briefly allied with the PAD in 2006. The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

The TRT remnants only came later into the game, in the form of better funded PTV, and formed then an alliance with the other anti-coup groups - the first UDD (Nor Por Chor), which later transformed itself into the present UDD (Nor Por Kor).

Yes like with his elections Thaksin likes to buy the best politicians and political parties he can, this is how he formed TRT. With the redshirts he bought a few different groups, even the communists, and formed them into the redshirts.

How many times did they protest in 2006 against the Military government?

The Red Shirts roots are in the various groups who protested against military Coup in 2006, such as the Federation for Democracy back in 1992, the Saturday Voice Against Dictatorship, 19th September Group, PTV Group and Ex-Thai Rak Thai members. These groups protested against the Military Coup of 19 September 2006 and have gradually grown from small gatherings to large protests. The Red color was first adopted in 2007 as a symbol against the 2007 constitution which was drafted by the 2006 coup makers.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waza

[rixalex]

You mention "the power of his popularity" so perhaps it would provide a more complete summary of your assertion as to why people are prepared to ignore some of the actions you attribute to Thaksin, if you also provide detailed explanation of the circumstances/actions that led to a man gaining such popularity.

You're the fan, leave you to tell us why he was/is so popular. Personally i don't think it is a great mystery, but go ahead..

[fab4]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Quite so, and a point well proven when you consider the timing of the protests, that just happened to coincide with money being confiscated, and the fact that at the actual time of the coup, barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?

OK, let's look at the timing shall we?

Thaksin Assets seized February 29th 2010

First march to Bangkok starts March 12th

Major Rally held 14th March calls for dissolution of parliament and new elections

Government start talks with UDD about dissolution of parliament and new elections ( the topic of Thaksins confiscated assets are not discussed) on Mach 28th

Talks break down March 29th

And now at the time of the coup why did "barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?"

Mmmm, that took some thinking. Do you think it might be because Martial Law was slapped on all 76 Provinces in Thailand until the 26th January 2007, but then left active in 35 Provinces. Can you guess what provinces they were? That's right, the ones traditionally supporting Thaksin.

And you have the cheek to talk about perverted history............

With regard the timing of the protests and how they coincidentally coincided with frozen assets, all you have done in the above is confirm that point.

With regards your explanation for why not a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf at the time when people most logically would, ie at the time he was actually ousted - being because of laws that were in place that prevented them, well, laws didn't seem to make a blind bit of difference in 2010 to what they did then, why were they so keen to follow the laws in 2006 but didn't give a toss about them in 2010?

Took them 4 years to work out how angry they were i guess.

The repatriation of Thaksin assets was and is a long term aim - see where we are now. If, as you claim the events of 2010, were about Thaksins assets, surely you would hold the rally on the very day the decision was being made (he had enough notice of the date) not 2 weeks later.

You don't think Martial Law and the armies previous in violent attacks on the own citizens in the not too distant past would have an effect on citizens protesting.

And then the old chestnut about "4 years to realise they were angry."

You didn't notice that the Constitution being rewritten, gave extensive power to the Senate and Judicial organisations (in particular their self serving voting-in arrangement) and the placement of Junta approved Judges which led to two Thaksin backed Political Parties being driven from office and the final insult, army involvement in the forming of an democrat led coalition government?

It's as if the coup had never happened - in your world.

Edited October 31, 2013 by fab4

[Nickymaster]

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

In the end though - it is the criminal court which will make the decisions. So, far, having followed several cases quite closely, i found the judgements surprisingly fair and evidence based - and not politically motivated.

But if you go back to the period of 2010 and following, and read some of my posts, where i had to argue to the teeth with some of you about soldiers having shot unarmed protesters - you can also see that i have spoken about particular cases which were judged the way how i described these incidents then.

In case the revised amnesty is not rejected, and the cases against Suthep and Abhisit will go to trial, you can be sure that their legal team will present their evidence. If you feel that the OAG misrepresents the evidence regarding the MIB, you can be sure that the Democrat's legal team will present whatever evidence they have regarding this issue.

It must be a bit stronger though than what the soldiers and members of the Democrat Party who have testified so far have shown. What they presented at court was a mixture of piss poor excuses and outright lies - which in some cases judges have pointed out as well, albeit in a slightly more polite language.

And before i am again accused of being a Thaksin lackey - i am very much against the revised amnesty bill. I believe that amnesty for leaders, soldiers and politicians of all sides should come after the completion of the judicial process. I do not wish to see anyone in prison as it won't make the dead alive again, but i wish that as many facts of what took place should be presented to the public.

Thanks, we are getting somewhere...step by step

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

Are you saying that the DSI has (could have) made up the existence of Red shirts and MIB (who have killed security forces?). If your answer is yes, then please explain who killed those people mentioned in my earlier post (as was reported by the DSI in Nov 2010). Forget about all the Youtube videos etc. I would like to know your opinion because you have been following these events very closely.

I know you said you are no legal expert but could it be that the DSI have also filed charges against Abhisit and Suthep because of pressure from Thaksin/PT? Could it be that the OAG has accepted the case because it is under pressure from Thaksin/PT?

(next would be the legal aspect of the premeditated murder charge)

[473geo]

You mention "the power of his popularity" so perhaps it would provide a more complete summary of your assertion as to why people are prepared to ignore some of the actions you attribute to Thaksin, if you also provide detailed explanation of the circumstances/actions that led to a man gaining such popularity.

You're the fan, leave you to tell us why he was/is so popular. Personally i don't think it is a great mystery, but go ahead..

Cop-out Rixalex....not unexpected......

Edited October 31, 2013 by 473geo

[nicknostitz]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The Red Shirt movement developed from the anti-coup movement in 2006. Most of the first leaders of the anti-coup movement were noted Thaksin opponents, such as NGO activist Sombat Boonngamanong who led the "anti 19th September coup group", which formed immediately after Giles Ungpakorn (another Thaksin opponent) held the first anti coup protest at Siam Paragon. Soon after Dr. Weng Tojirakan led the larger groups together with Prateep Ungsongtham Hata of the Duang Prateep Foundation. Dr. Weng was also briefly allied with the PAD in 2006. The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

The TRT remnants only came later into the game, in the form of better funded PTV, and formed then an alliance with the other anti-coup groups - the first UDD (Nor Por Chor), which later transformed itself into the present UDD (Nor Por Kor).

Yes like with his elections Thaksin likes to buy the best politicians and political parties he can, this is how he formed TRT. With the redshirts he bought a few different group, even the communists, and formed them into the redshirts.

How many times did they protest in 2006 against the Military government?

They protested at least once a week, often more. The Saturday Group, for example, named itself after the regular Saturday Sanam Luang gatherings (at first they called themselves D-Code). They were a initially internet based discussion group that split from the pantip forum, and decided then to form a protest group. The Anti-19 september coup group hald their first meetings in Thammasat university, and held then their first tentative marched to the Democracy Monument and to the Army Headquarters further down Ratchadamnern.

In 2007 the protests became much larger, and better organized, and held a permanent presence at Sanam Luang for several months, at which time the UDD was formed.

[jpeg]

Unfortunately, I have to leave for a business meeting in a few minutes, so I will postpone a detailed response until later.

We await your detailed response with bated breath

[rixalex]

You mention "the power of his popularity" so perhaps it would provide a more complete summary of your assertion as to why people are prepared to ignore some of the actions you attribute to Thaksin, if you also provide detailed explanation of the circumstances/actions that led to a man gaining such popularity.

You're the fan, leave you to tell us why he was/is so popular. Personally i don't think it is a great mystery, but go ahead..

Cop-out Rixalex....not unexpected......

I'm not copping out on anything. You want to make a point, you go ahead and make it.

I've made my point, and that was in response to the claim that Thaksin supporters are actually quite cynical about him. I don't think they are, and the way they defend him at every turn, even for ridiculous and blatant abuses, such as when he hid his assets and used his popularity to get himself off the hook and remain in power, more than proves that point.

[rixalex]

They protested at least once a week, often more. The Saturday Group, for example, named itself after the regular Saturday Sanam Luang gatherings (at first they called themselves D-Code). They were a initially internet based discussion group that split from the pantip forum, and decided then to form a protest group. The Anti-19 september coup group hald their first meetings in Thammasat university, and held then their first tentative marched to the Democracy Monument and to the Army Headquarters further down Ratchadamnern.

In 2007 the protests became much larger, and better organized, and held a permanent presence at Sanam Luang for several months, at which time the UDD was formed.

An internet discussion group being held up as evidence?! Deary me. Talk about clutching at straws. As i said, "barely a soul".

[473geo]

You mention "the power of his popularity" so perhaps it would provide a more complete summary of your assertion as to why people are prepared to ignore some of the actions you attribute to Thaksin, if you also provide detailed explanation of the circumstances/actions that led to a man gaining such popularity.

You're the fan, leave you to tell us why he was/is so popular. Personally i don't think it is a great mystery, but go ahead..

Cop-out Rixalex....not unexpected......

I'm not copping out on anything. You want to make a point, you go ahead and make it.

I've made my point, and that was in response to the claim that Thaksin supporters are actually quite cynical about him. I don't think they are, and the way they defend him at every turn, even for ridiculous and blatant abuses, such as when he hid his assets and used his popularity to get himself off the hook and remain in power, more than proves that point.

That's ok Rixalex you made made my point too, if a person cannot evaluate both sides of an equation and subsequently presents a one sided summary, I guess it will just come across as.......partisan.....rather than being accurate .Thanks...Bye

[rixalex]

That's ok Rixalex you made made my point too, if a person cannot evaluate both sides of an equation and subsequently presents a one sided summary, I guess it will just come across as.......partisan.....rather than being accurate .Thanks...Bye

There is nothing remotely partisan or inaccurate about saying that Thaksin used his popularity to avoid being held accountable for hiding his assets amongst maids and other staff. It's a stone cold fact, and how he became popular, whether it be because he splashed his money around and bought people, or whether it be because he sacrificed himself to help the poor and needy, much as Mother Theresa once did, doesn't change the fact one iota. If you think it does, it's your job to argue why you think that, not mine.

[nicknostitz]

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

In the end though - it is the criminal court which will make the decisions. So, far, having followed several cases quite closely, i found the judgements surprisingly fair and evidence based - and not politically motivated.

But if you go back to the period of 2010 and following, and read some of my posts, where i had to argue to the teeth with some of you about soldiers having shot unarmed protesters - you can also see that i have spoken about particular cases which were judged the way how i described these incidents then.

In case the revised amnesty is not rejected, and the cases against Suthep and Abhisit will go to trial, you can be sure that their legal team will present their evidence. If you feel that the OAG misrepresents the evidence regarding the MIB, you can be sure that the Democrat's legal team will present whatever evidence they have regarding this issue.

It must be a bit stronger though than what the soldiers and members of the Democrat Party who have testified so far have shown. What they presented at court was a mixture of piss poor excuses and outright lies - which in some cases judges have pointed out as well, albeit in a slightly more polite language.

And before i am again accused of being a Thaksin lackey - i am very much against the revised amnesty bill. I believe that amnesty for leaders, soldiers and politicians of all sides should come after the completion of the judicial process. I do not wish to see anyone in prison as it won't make the dead alive again, but i wish that as many facts of what took place should be presented to the public.

Thanks, we are getting somewhere...step by step

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

Are you saying that the DSI has (could have) made up the existence of Red shirts and MIB (who have killed security forces?). If your answer is yes, then please explain who killed those people mentioned in my earlier post (as was reported by the DSI in Nov 2010). Forget about all the Youtube videos etc. I would like to know your opinion because you have been following these events very closely.

I know you said you are no legal expert but could it be that the DSI have also filed charges against Abhisit and Suthep because of pressure from Thaksin/PT? Could it be that the OAG has accepted the case because it is under pressure from Thaksin/PT?

(next would be the legal aspect of the premeditated murder charge)

What i am saying is that the leaked preliminary investigation results reflected the facts, while the public statements of the DSI, and especially Tarit, as reported at the time, were politically colored. Even though Tarit and the Democrats denied the leaked documents initially, they were still proven to have been true.

I do not pay too much attention what this or the other side claims in public statements. What is of interest to me is the result of investigations and hard evidence. In this way, i do naturally not doubt that on April 10 armed militants fired at and killed a number of soldiers. But - there are certain issues over time line and other aspects that will become highly interesting when political obfuscation is taken out of the equation and facts may be allowed to speak for themselves.

In this sense, regardless of alleged political pressure - in the end evidence and investigations tell the story. While many people believe that the timing of the AOG's decision to indict Suthep and Abhisit may suggest political pressure to conform to the revised amnesty bill, i have my doubts over this theory. The judicial process takes time, and all the necessary steps were followed, such as the results of the inquests on which these indictments are based, additional questioning of witnesses by the DSI, the DSI handing over their investigation results to the OAG, etc.

Don't forget, please, the judgements of the inquests were quite clear, and based on a mountain of evidence, including photos, video footage of both reporters and surveillance cameras, forensic investigations, etc, and in most cases conforming to witness accounts. Political pressure may be able to do some, but it cannot create all that from nothing. Don't forget - in many of the cases journalists have been testifying, including foreign journalists.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there may be grounds, but that is my entirely unqualified opinion.

[nicknostitz]

They protested at least once a week, often more. The Saturday Group, for example, named itself after the regular Saturday Sanam Luang gatherings (at first they called themselves D-Code). They were a initially internet based discussion group that split from the pantip forum, and decided then to form a protest group. The Anti-19 september coup group hald their first meetings in Thammasat university, and held then their first tentative marched to the Democracy Monument and to the Army Headquarters further down Ratchadamnern.

In 2007 the protests became much larger, and better organized, and held a permanent presence at Sanam Luang for several months, at which time the UDD was formed.

An internet discussion group being held up as evidence?! Deary me. Talk about clutching at straws. As i said, "barely a soul".

What are you on about? Do you have reading comprehension issues?

The Saturday Group began as an internet based political discussion group and decided to form a protest group. This is a historical fact.

This was but one of the many early anti-coup protest groups.

[waza]

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

In the end though - it is the criminal court which will make the decisions. So, far, having followed several cases quite closely, i found the judgements surprisingly fair and evidence based - and not politically motivated.

But if you go back to the period of 2010 and following, and read some of my posts, where i had to argue to the teeth with some of you about soldiers having shot unarmed protesters - you can also see that i have spoken about particular cases which were judged the way how i described these incidents then.

In case the revised amnesty is not rejected, and the cases against Suthep and Abhisit will go to trial, you can be sure that their legal team will present their evidence. If you feel that the OAG misrepresents the evidence regarding the MIB, you can be sure that the Democrat's legal team will present whatever evidence they have regarding this issue.

It must be a bit stronger though than what the soldiers and members of the Democrat Party who have testified so far have shown. What they presented at court was a mixture of piss poor excuses and outright lies - which in some cases judges have pointed out as well, albeit in a slightly more polite language.

And before i am again accused of being a Thaksin lackey - i am very much against the revised amnesty bill. I believe that amnesty for leaders, soldiers and politicians of all sides should come after the completion of the judicial process. I do not wish to see anyone in prison as it won't make the dead alive again, but i wish that as many facts of what took place should be presented to the public.

Thanks, we are getting somewhere...step by step

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

Are you saying that the DSI has (could have) made up the existence of Red shirts and MIB (who have killed security forces?). If your answer is yes, then please explain who killed those people mentioned in my earlier post (as was reported by the DSI in Nov 2010). Forget about all the Youtube videos etc. I would like to know your opinion because you have been following these events very closely.

I know you said you are no legal expert but could it be that the DSI have also filed charges against Abhisit and Suthep because of pressure from Thaksin/PT? Could it be that the OAG has accepted the case because it is under pressure from Thaksin/PT?

(next would be the legal aspect of the premeditated murder charge)

What i am saying is that the leaked preliminary investigation results reflected the facts, while the public statements of the DSI, and especially Tarit, as reported at the time, were politically colored. Even though Tarit and the Democrats denied the leaked documents initially, they were still proven to have been true.

I do not pay too much attention what this or the other side claims in public statements. What is of interest to me is the result of investigations and hard evidence. In this way, i do naturally not doubt that on April 10 armed militants fired at and killed a number of soldiers. But - there are certain issues over time line and other aspects that will become highly interesting when political obfuscation is taken out of the equation and facts may be allowed to speak for themselves.

In this sense, regardless of alleged political pressure - in the end evidence and investigations tell the story. While many people believe that the timing of the AOG's decision to indict Suthep and Abhisit may suggest political pressure to conform to the revised amnesty bill, i have my doubts over this theory. The judicial process takes time, and all the necessary steps were followed, such as the results of the inquests on which these indictments are based, additional questioning of witnesses by the DSI, the DSI handing over their investigation results to the OAG, etc.

Don't forget, please, the judgements of the inquests were quite clear, and based on a mountain of evidence, including photos, video footage of both reporters and surveillance cameras, forensic investigations, etc, and in most cases conforming to witness accounts. Political pressure may be able to do some, but it cannot create all that from nothing. Don't forget - in many of the cases journalists have been testifying, including foreign journalists.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there may be grounds, but that is my entirely unqualified opinion.

I agree, no amnesty and let the ICC do the investigation....

On Sunday, UDD lawyer Robert Amsterdam posted an article that lists all the reasons why Thailand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong Tovichakchaikul should grant the ICC jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity that were committed in April-May 2010. The article, entitle “Answering the Call of History in Thailand”, makes a strong case for why ICC involvement would benefit Thailand.

[rixalex]

They protested at least once a week, often more. The Saturday Group, for example, named itself after the regular Saturday Sanam Luang gatherings (at first they called themselves D-Code). They were a initially internet based discussion group that split from the pantip forum, and decided then to form a protest group. The Anti-19 september coup group hald their first meetings in Thammasat university, and held then their first tentative marched to the Democracy Monument and to the Army Headquarters further down Ratchadamnern.

In 2007 the protests became much larger, and better organized, and held a permanent presence at Sanam Luang for several months, at which time the UDD was formed.

An internet discussion group being held up as evidence?! Deary me. Talk about clutching at straws. As i said, "barely a soul".

What are you on about? Do you have reading comprehension issues?

The Saturday Group began as an internet based political discussion group and decided to form a protest group. This is a historical fact.

This was but one of the many early anti-coup protest groups.

Calm down. No i don't have reading comprehension issues.

This line of discussion began when i asserted that barely a soul protested at the time the coup actually happened. I asked why that was. The first answer i got was because of laws in place that made people scared to do anything. Personally i don't buy that. Perhaps you do. The second answer i got, seemed to take a different approach, and argue that in fact there was protest to it, and evidence of his was an internet discussion group that then became a protest group.

An internet discussion group for me falls into the category of "barely a soul".

So still no closer to understanding why it took all those years for them to take to the streets, when their feelings about the injustice of Thaksin being ousted, should have been highest at the time when it happened, not at the time Thaksin just happened to be having his assets frozen.

Not saying that all those protesters in 2009 and 2010 didn't feel Thaksin being ousted was an injustice, i'm sure they did, i'm saying that were it not for Thaksin supplying the necessary funds and giving the instructions, they never would have protested on his behalf off their own backs.

Rent a mob is still rent a mob, even if the mob does actually genuinely support you.

[nicknostitz]

They protested at least once a week, often more. The Saturday Group, for example, named itself after the regular Saturday Sanam Luang gatherings (at first they called themselves D-Code). They were a initially internet based discussion group that split from the pantip forum, and decided then to form a protest group. The Anti-19 september coup group hald their first meetings in Thammasat university, and held then their first tentative marched to the Democracy Monument and to the Army Headquarters further down Ratchadamnern.

In 2007 the protests became much larger, and better organized, and held a permanent presence at Sanam Luang for several months, at which time the UDD was formed.

An internet discussion group being held up as evidence?! Deary me. Talk about clutching at straws. As i said, "barely a soul".

What are you on about? Do you have reading comprehension issues?

The Saturday Group began as an internet based political discussion group and decided to form a protest group. This is a historical fact.

This was but one of the many early anti-coup protest groups.

Calm down. No i don't have reading comprehension issues.

This line of discussion began when i asserted that barely a soul protested at the time the coup actually happened. I asked why that was. The first answer i got was because of laws in place that made people scared to do anything. Personally i don't buy that. Perhaps you do. The second answer i got, seemed to take a different approach, and argue that in fact there was protest to it, and evidence of his was an internet discussion group that then became a protest group.

An internet discussion group for me falls into the category of "barely a soul".

So still no closer to understanding why it took all those years for them to take to the streets, when their feelings about the injustice of Thaksin being ousted, should have been highest at the time when it happened, not at the time Thaksin just happened to be having his assets frozen.

Not saying that all those protesters in 2009 and 2010 didn't feel Thaksin being ousted was an injustice, i'm sure they did, i'm saying that were it not for Thaksin supplying the necessary funds and giving the instructions, they never would have protested on his behalf off their own backs.

Rent a mob is still rent a mob, even if the mob does actually genuinely support you.

Sorry, i misunderstood you.

I think that the main reason why it took a while to gather momentum is less the fact that people were scared (which people were, i was also initially somewhat careful when i photographed these protests - at the time i only made notes, but did not yet write publicly. Nobody really knew at the time what the reaction of the military towards those protests was going to be), but that the supporters of Thaksin, including the TRT were just not prepared to protest against a coup. TRT was a political party, not a street protest movement, and just did not have the organization in place back then, and had to build it from scratch.

By mid 2007 though there were protests with increasing numbers, often several ten thousands of protesters. The protests ceased when elections were announced, and the different parties concentrated on election campaigning. Which, as we know the TRT placeholder PPP won convincingly, even 111 of their most experienced politicians were banned. They began protesting again after the PAD decided to oust the elected government, in spring 2008.

For many people the Red Shirts came to their attention in 2009 and 2010, and it often is forgotten that already in 2007 they have had substantial mass protests (then though not under the label of "Red Shirts" but simply as UDD, or Nor Por Chor, and later Nor Por Kor), and from autumn 2008 onwards their mass gatherings dwarfed any previous and ongoing PAD protests, especially in the second mass gathering as Red Shirts in the Rajamangala Stadium.

[Nickymaster]

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

In the end though - it is the criminal court which will make the decisions. So, far, having followed several cases quite closely, i found the judgements surprisingly fair and evidence based - and not politically motivated.

But if you go back to the period of 2010 and following, and read some of my posts, where i had to argue to the teeth with some of you about soldiers having shot unarmed protesters - you can also see that i have spoken about particular cases which were judged the way how i described these incidents then.

In case the revised amnesty is not rejected, and the cases against Suthep and Abhisit will go to trial, you can be sure that their legal team will present their evidence. If you feel that the OAG misrepresents the evidence regarding the MIB, you can be sure that the Democrat's legal team will present whatever evidence they have regarding this issue.

It must be a bit stronger though than what the soldiers and members of the Democrat Party who have testified so far have shown. What they presented at court was a mixture of piss poor excuses and outright lies - which in some cases judges have pointed out as well, albeit in a slightly more polite language.

And before i am again accused of being a Thaksin lackey - i am very much against the revised amnesty bill. I believe that amnesty for leaders, soldiers and politicians of all sides should come after the completion of the judicial process. I do not wish to see anyone in prison as it won't make the dead alive again, but i wish that as many facts of what took place should be presented to the public.

Thanks, we are getting somewhere...step by step

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

Are you saying that the DSI has (could have) made up the existence of Red shirts and MIB (who have killed security forces?). If your answer is yes, then please explain who killed those people mentioned in my earlier post (as was reported by the DSI in Nov 2010). Forget about all the Youtube videos etc. I would like to know your opinion because you have been following these events very closely.

I know you said you are no legal expert but could it be that the DSI have also filed charges against Abhisit and Suthep because of pressure from Thaksin/PT? Could it be that the OAG has accepted the case because it is under pressure from Thaksin/PT?

(next would be the legal aspect of the premeditated murder charge)

What i am saying is that the leaked preliminary investigation results reflected the facts, while the public statements of the DSI, and especially Tarit, as reported at the time, were politically colored. Even though Tarit and the Democrats denied the leaked documents initially, they were still proven to have been true.

I do not pay too much attention what this or the other side claims in public statements. What is of interest to me is the result of investigations and hard evidence. In this way, i do naturally not doubt that on April 10 armed militants fired at and killed a number of soldiers. But - there are certain issues over time line and other aspects that will become highly interesting when political obfuscation is taken out of the equation and facts may be allowed to speak for themselves.

In this sense, regardless of alleged political pressure - in the end evidence and investigations tell the story. While many people believe that the timing of the AOG's decision to indict Suthep and Abhisit may suggest political pressure to conform to the revised amnesty bill, i have my doubts over this theory. The judicial process takes time, and all the necessary steps were followed, such as the results of the inquests on which these indictments are based, additional questioning of witnesses by the DSI, the DSI handing over their investigation results to the OAG, etc.

Don't forget, please, the judgements of the inquests were quite clear, and based on a mountain of evidence, including photos, video footage of both reporters and surveillance cameras, forensic investigations, etc, and in most cases conforming to witness accounts. Political pressure may be able to do some, but it cannot create all that from nothing. Don't forget - in many of the cases journalists have been testifying, including foreign journalists.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there may be grounds, but that is my entirely unqualified opinion.

I am going to be lazy and take some text from when Abhisit was interviewed by The Nation concerning the charges (AG). I believe the interview happened yesterday.

Question: What do you think of the charges?

Answer: The strange thing is that they are taking me and Suthep to court in personal capacities on ordinary murder charges, claiming that it had nothing to do with the fact that we were officials who were tasked with keeping order.

Question: What do you think is behind this approach?

Answer: If they were to charge me with abuse of power, then the Department of Special Investigation (on whose investigation the attorney general’s decision was based) would not have the power to investigate me. The case would instead have to go to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is an independent body under the constitution.

And as you said Nick: The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there are no grounds.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Nickymaster

[nicknostitz]

I am going to be lazy and take some text from when Abhisit was interviewed by The Nation concerning the charges (AG). I believe the interview happened yesterday.

Question: What do you think of the charges?

Answer: The strange thing is that they are taking me and Suthep to court in personal capacities on ordinary murder charges, claiming that it had nothing to do with the fact that we were officials who were tasked with keeping order.

Question: What do you think is behind this approach?

Answer: If they were to charge me with abuse of power, then the Department of Special Investigation (on whose investigation the attorney general’s decision was based) would not have the power to investigate me. The case would instead have to go to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, which is an independent body under the constitution.

And as you said Nick: The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there are no grounds.

And do you honestly think that the NACC is any more independent than the DSI?

Already their investigations into the Oct. 7, 2008, incident were blatantly biased towards the PAD's version of events, by using tactics such as steadfastly refusing to interview elementary witnesses that would have contradicted their foregone conclusion.

The 2010 incidents, by the way, were not just investigated by the DSI, but by the police as well. The indictment of Abhisit and Suthep is to a large part based on the result of the court inquests, which were ruled by the court, and not by the DSI.

You may want to hang on the lips of Abhisit, but he is not exactly a neutral party in this, and you should also not ignore the judgements of the court inquests.

[rixalex]

Sorry, i misunderstood you.

I think that the main reason why it took a while to gather momentum is less the fact that people were scared (which people were, i was also initially somewhat careful when i photographed these protests - at the time i only made notes, but did not yet write publicly. Nobody really knew at the time what the reaction of the military towards those protests was going to be), but that the supporters of Thaksin, including the TRT were just not prepared to protest against a coup. TRT was a political party, not a street protest movement, and just did not have the organization in place back then, and had to build it from scratch.

By mid 2007 though there were protests with increasing numbers, often several ten thousands of protesters. The protests ceased when elections were announced, and the different parties concentrated on election campaigning. Which, as we know the TRT placeholder PPP won convincingly, even 111 of their most experienced politicians were banned. They began protesting again after the PAD decided to oust the elected government, in spring 2008.

For many people the Red Shirts came to their attention in 2009 and 2010, and it often is forgotten that already in 2007 they have had substantial mass protests (then though not under the label of "Red Shirts" but simply as UDD, or Nor Por Chor, and later Nor Por Kor), and from autumn 2008 onwards their mass gatherings dwarfed any previous and ongoing PAD protests, especially in the second mass gathering as Red Shirts in the Rajamangala Stadium.

The reasoning you give for why the protests didn't start the day after the coup, being mainly that the supporters of Thaksin were simply not prepared, is a good one, providing you buy into the idea that it is simply not possible for spontaneous protests in which a large mass of people are mobilized and take to the streets not after being given funding and instruction, but by pure strength of feeling, to occur.

Personally i believe they can occur, but what is required is a really strong ground swell of public opinion. Might not happen overnight, but after a few thousand congregate, gradually more people take it upon themselves to join, and before you know it, things have snowballed into a very large public demonstration.

The fact that Thaksin's supporters never did that, but instead waited to be funded and instructed, is perhaps how Thaksin will one day, reconcile himself with having to do the dirty on them; knowledge that his friends in Thailand have only ever truly been there for him, when he has opened his cheque book.

[waza]

Sorry, i misunderstood you.

I think that the main reason why it took a while to gather momentum is less the fact that people were scared (which people were, i was also initially somewhat careful when i photographed these protests - at the time i only made notes, but did not yet write publicly. Nobody really knew at the time what the reaction of the military towards those protests was going to be), but that the supporters of Thaksin, including the TRT were just not prepared to protest against a coup. TRT was a political party, not a street protest movement, and just did not have the organization in place back then, and had to build it from scratch.

By mid 2007 though there were protests with increasing numbers, often several ten thousands of protesters. The protests ceased when elections were announced, and the different parties concentrated on election campaigning. Which, as we know the TRT placeholder PPP won convincingly, even 111 of their most experienced politicians were banned. They began protesting again after the PAD decided to oust the elected government, in spring 2008.

For many people the Red Shirts came to their attention in 2009 and 2010, and it often is forgotten that already in 2007 they have had substantial mass protests (then though not under the label of "Red Shirts" but simply as UDD, or Nor Por Chor, and later Nor Por Kor), and from autumn 2008 onwards their mass gatherings dwarfed any previous and ongoing PAD protests, especially in the second mass gathering as Red Shirts in the Rajamangala Stadium.

The reasoning you give for why the protests didn't start the day after the coup, being mainly that the supporters of Thaksin were simply not prepared, is a good one, providing you buy into the idea that it is simply not possible for spontaneous protests in which a large mass of people are mobilized and take to the streets not after being given funding and instruction, but by pure strength of feeling, to occur.

Personally i believe they can occur, but what is required is a really strong ground swell of public opinion. Might not happen overnight, but after a few thousand congregate, gradually more people take it upon themselves to join, and before you know it, things have snowballed into a very large public demonstration.

The fact that Thaksin's supporters never did that, but instead waited to be funded and instructed, is perhaps how Thaksin will one day, reconcile himself with having to do the dirty on them; knowledge that his friends in Thailand have only ever truly been there for him, when he has opened his cheque book.

So true Rixalex, the proof is evident now, Thaksin has taken away the redshirt leadership and their funding and the most they can get to a protest is 200 people after work. They haven't the numbers to make more than a token effort to dissent against Abihists amnesty.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waza

[dominique355]

And do you honestly think that the NACC is any more independent than the DSI?

Well, look at the fact that the director of the DSI, Khun Tarit, was also a member of the "Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation" or CRES, who ordered the crack-down of the April 2010. Now, this same Tarit is investigating against the members of the CRES and conveniently forgets his own responsibility.

So much for the "Independence" of the DSI.

And about the independence of the Office of the Attorney General: The day after they indicted Abhisit and Suthep, the Yingluck government gave them a hefty raise of salary. Coincidence? Hardly.

[rubl]

"the judgements of the inquests were quite clear"

There were no judgements and certainly no clear ones. The Inquest results indicated that there was sufficient reason to assume the deaths investigated had been caused by military personel involved in anti-protester actions.

If the courts will accept the 'premeditated murder' charges for a trial the public prosecutor must have some really clear and damning evidence at hand, because the defense will bring up any circumstantial evidence available. The inquest concentrates on "dead man, who did it", a murder trial will need to determine if it was a murder or collateral damage caused by unexpected militant, armed opposition. Some of that evidence may point to premeditated intent by UDD leaders to cause bloodshed to happen.

The public prosecutor will not get a second chance in this, a single case lost will most likely invalidate all other cases. Of course part of the game may just be tarnishing the name and dignity of Abhisit and Suthep. IMHO

What i am saying is that the leaked preliminary investigation results reflected the facts, while the public statements of the DSI, and especially Tarit, as reported at the time, were politically colored. Even though Tarit and the Democrats denied the leaked documents initially, they were still proven to have been true.

I do not pay too much attention what this or the other side claims in public statements. What is of interest to me is the result of investigations and hard evidence. In this way, i do naturally not doubt that on April 10 armed militants fired at and killed a number of soldiers. But - there are certain issues over time line and other aspects that will become highly interesting when political obfuscation is taken out of the equation and facts may be allowed to speak for themselves.

In this sense, regardless of alleged political pressure - in the end evidence and investigations tell the story. While many people believe that the timing of the AOG's decision to indict Suthep and Abhisit may suggest political pressure to conform to the revised amnesty bill, i have my doubts over this theory. The judicial process takes time, and all the necessary steps were followed, such as the results of the inquests on which these indictments are based, additional questioning of witnesses by the DSI, the DSI handing over their investigation results to the OAG, etc.

Don't forget, please, the judgements of the inquests were quite clear, and based on a mountain of evidence, including photos, video footage of both reporters and surveillance cameras, forensic investigations, etc, and in most cases conforming to witness accounts. Political pressure may be able to do some, but it cannot create all that from nothing. Don't forget - in many of the cases journalists have been testifying, including foreign journalists.

As to the legal aspect of the murder charge - i think there may be grounds, but that is my entirely unqualified opinion.

[Nickymaster]

And do you honestly think that the NACC is any more independent than the DSI?

Well, look at the fact that the director of the DSI, Khun Tarit, was also a member of the "Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation" or CRES, who ordered the crack-down of the April 2010. Now, this same Tarit is investigating against the members of the CRES and conveniently forgets his own responsibility.

So much for the "Independence" of the DSI.

And about the independence of the Office of the Attorney General: The day after they indicted Abhisit and Suthep, the Yingluck government gave them a hefty raise of salary. Coincidence? Hardly.

Small correction, not a hefty raise of salary but a bonus.

[rubl]

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?

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.

Nick, are you surprised by the fact that the vast majority of convictions are against security forces?

There are eight cases of deaths during the anti-government protests from March to May involving the red shirts and the â??men in blackâ?, while the cause of deaths in four other cases is unknown but they could have resulted from a crackdown by security forces, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/17/politics/Reds-%E2%80%98men-in-black%E2%80%99-involved-in-eight-cases-of-30142435.html

Nick, did you know that above cases mentioned by Tharit had been forwarded to the OAG and that yesterday the Attorney General's spokesman Nanthasak Poonsuk said during a press conference that there was no evidence that armed "men in black" were present during the 2010 riots.

Don't you smell anything fishy here Nick?

Fishy?

It is then up to the defense to bring their evidence during a trial. The court then will judge based on evidence presented by defense and prosecution, not the Attorney General.

In the inquests that were so far ruled, two cases were ruled inconclusive, and the remaining - i think 13 victims - were ruled to have been shot by soldiers. None of those 13 dead were found to have been armed (and in three of them i have been in close vicinity - that means a few meters away - and can confirm that absolutely).

There are more cases to come. The April 10 cases have not been ruled, and, as far as i know, are still in the investigation stage.

So, no, i do not find it fishy, but logical, that Abhisit and Suthep are charged. If the evidence is enough for a conviction i do not know. That is when things get complicated.

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

after all your explanations and posts here (and maybe the book I didn't read) the OAG still doesn't believe you bumped into armed militants in the night? The description of military retreating from unarmed peacefull protesters in April 10th, the small bang of something thrown in the midst of a group of journalists and reporters where you were, Amazing really.

[Steve9]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

An even more appalling misrepresentation of history...

The "White Dove" reflected the early violence of the Red Shirts (even though at the time they wore black). They were "pure pro-Thaksin" alright. It was reflected in their attacks on police and injuring hundreds in 2007. Their street violence was the original street violence that pre-dates all other current groups. They were the ones that kicked off what turned into repeated red shirt violence in 2009 and 2010.

Rather than some down-home, grass-root members sitting in "plastic chairs"... they were thugs who used anything handy for a weapon.

Tony Clifton

Notice that the guy throwing a helmet is a proud t-shirt wearing member of ''White Dove'', a group that is actually known for creating turmoil. The white dove is usually a sign of peace but these opportunists simply use the image as a disguise

Edited November 1, 2013 by Steve9

[Steve9]

I think that the main reason why it took a while to gather momentum is less the fact that people were scared

The reasoning you give for why the protests didn't start the day after the coup, being mainly that the supporters of Thaksin were simply not prepared, is a good one, providing you buy into the idea that it is simply not possible for spontaneous protests in which a large mass of people are mobilized and take to the streets not after being given funding and instruction, but by pure strength of feeling, to occur.

One has to also buy into the poppycock that they were "scared".

Yeah, those White Doves look really scared.

[nicknostitz]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

An even more appalling misrepresentation of history...

The "White Dove" reflected the early violence of the Red Shirts (even though at the time they wore black). They were "pure pro-Thaksin" alright. It was reflected in their attacks on police and injuring hundreds in 2007. Their street violence was the original street violence that pre-dates all other current groups. They were the ones that kicked off what turned into repeated red shirt violence in 2009 and 2010.

Rather than some down-home, grass-root members sitting in "plastic chairs"... they were thugs who used anything handy for a weapon.

Tony Clifton

Notice that the guy throwing a helmet is a proud t-shirt wearing member of ''White Dove'', a group that is actually known for creating turmoil. The white dove is usually a sign of peace but these opportunists simply use the image as a disguise

Sorry, but that is wrong.

I was there.

The protesters after pushing through several police lines arrived in the early afternoon at Si Sao Thewet, positioned their mobile stage there, and protested against Prem. For several hours nothing occurred other than speeches on the stage, until at sometime around 20.00 the government ordered the police to disperse the protesters and to arrest the leaders. When protesters resisted, clashes erupted. Without looking at my notes, there were three rounds of clashes, where protesters fought off the police. When police began firing tear gas grenades into protesters, the protest leaders called the protest off and retreat back to their encampment at Sanam Luang at around 23.00.

The violence during the Si Sao Thewet clashes was nothing more than some average clash in Europe, no dead or badly injured, and the only violent incident during the entire coup period.