Attorney general orders indictment against Abhisit, Suthep

[Docno]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_massacre

This link describes pro-democracy protests that took place in South Korea in 1980 against a government that had been installed through a military coup. As many as 165 people died, but in this case, the civilian protesters armed themselves with rifles and even machine guns stolen from armories that they had raided. The army was sent in, and the fighting was more coordinated (on the protesters' side) and more intense than it was in Bangkok. Did I mention machine guns? Interestingly, however, those protesters are now remembered in a yearly commemoration day, and those who died have a national cemetery in honour of them; there's even been a degree of compensation to victims' families. It took about 20 years for a positive evaluation to emerge. Unfortunately, I'm unlikely to be around in 2030 to see if things take the same course in Thailand... All this to say that the chapter is not yet finished.

[waza]

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.

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[Thai at Heart]

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 worlds 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.

Only in Thailand would the leaders in this context be in trial. It's just a judicial freak show.

[gemini81]

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.

You know full well not a single other country would have been as patient and tolerated those thugs for as long as they carried out violent acts. This is certainly the only place where so many would be spared and not even incarcerated.

It was in no way shape or form a protest. It was a city under siege on the verge of civil war.

Actions were a response to violent civilians. Had they merely protested, that is one thing. The violence that the thugs craved and sought, and civil war they sought was answered appropriately, was it not? What leaders are going to tolerate such nonsense? Not over injustices, over fools getting paid to be bums and thugs, and die to benefit one little weasel abroad. How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling or not have been here at the time & doesn't wanna do research; or only looking at surface stats rather than the cause, the actions, the evidence, the results, the warnings, the laws, the diplomacy and negotiations offered...c'mon.

Edited October 29, 2013 by gemini81

[mikemac]

You know full well not a single other country would have been as patient and tolerated those thugs for as long as they carried out violent acts. This is certainly the only place where so many would be spared and not even incarcerated.

It was in no way shape or form a protest. It was a city under siege on the verge of civil war.

Actions were a response to violent civilians. Had they merely protested, that is one thing. The violence that the thugs craved and sought, and civil war they sought was answered appropriately, was it not? What leaders are going to tolerate such nonsense? Not over injustices, over fools getting paid to be bums and thugs, and die to benefit one little weasel abroad. How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling or not have been here at the time & doesn't wanna do research; or only looking at surface stats rather than the cause, the actions, the evidence, the results, the warnings, the laws, the diplomacy and negotiations offered...c'mon

.

"How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling................................................................."

You hit the nail right on the head with this line, gemini81. I am firmly convinced that over half of the Thaksin / redshirts so called "supporters" on this forum are nothing but trolls, and the rest of them are not too bright.

It's funny, I have met countless people from overseas who are living in Thailand and never come across Thaksin fans, yet these forums are abundant with them. I guess forums attract these lowlife trolls like moths to a streetlight.

[kutjebu]

In 2009, Suthep was accused of violating the Constitution of Thailand by holding equity in a media firm that had received concessions from the government. Under the 1997 Constitution of Thailand, which Suthep had supported, Members of Parliament are banned from holding stakes in companies which have received government concessions. In July 2009, the Election Commission announced that it would seek a ruling by the Constitutional Court to disqualify Suthep and 12 other Democrat MPs for having allegedly violated the charter. Suthep held a press conference a day later, announcing his decision to resign from Parliament. Suthep's resignation as an MP did not affect his status as Deputy Prime Minister and as a Cabinet member. If his case had been submitted to the Constitution Court, he would have been suspended from duty as Deputy Prime Minister. He insisted that his resignation was not a proof that he had done something wrong but that he was worried about status as Deputy Prime Minister.

He is a real rat.I cannot understand farangs who back him up.

[ginjag]

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.

You have this regime on your mind that much that you cannot see wood for trees, my point is quite clear in my post, what benefits have Thailand had in the last 2 years, The poor people you believe have been helped.

Please be honest and tell me, and also tell me what have been the down side to this administration. Doubt whether you could find any fault.

Do you agree with the orders sent from the fugitive on how to govern ???

[nicknostitz]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Edited October 29, 2013 by nicknostitz

[bigbamboo]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

The problem with your line is 'prove their innocence'.

I thought the onus is on the court to prove guilt.

[ginjag]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

The problem with your line is 'prove their innocence'.

I thought the onus is on the court to prove guilt.

Maggie Thatcher should be prosecuted because of the Brixton riots and the miners strike-problems, ???? There is 1 and one only that stands out in all the problems Thailand has encountered over the years, He is on the run

Edited October 29, 2013 by ginjag

[nicknostitz]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

The problem with your line is 'prove their innocence'.

I thought the onus is on the court to prove guilt.

Of course you are right.

But if the court cannot prove their guilt, then they are to be considered innocent. Why do all the people here who cry wolf over the charges against Abhisit and Suthep as they consider them innocent, are so enraged about these charges. It isn't exactly that they are sitting in jail with bail refused.

They will just have to bear with the inconvenience to attend the trial, and the public will have the chance to hear evidence presented by both sides. Isn't that something that should be welcomed?

[rubl]

Jayboy, you may have missed the memo on this, but the current term is just "anti-government protesters"

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.

[rubl]

Personally I believe this is a rather sinister plot by the Democrat Party. By sacrificing Abhisit/Suthep and throwing them for the wolvesbuffaloes, they want to set the stage for charging other ex-PMs for premeditated murder and maybe even our eversmiling PM Yingluck who has been on record for ordering 'solve me this problem' in relation to the current 'war on drugs' and 'take care of the problem down South'. IMHO

Edited October 29, 2013 by rubl

[waza]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Hi Nicostitiz thanks for your rather confusing comments on my post, I am not sure if its criticism or confirmation. What it certainly doesn't do address the core issue of my post, that of PTP hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is a forum, not a court of law, and my "I believe" comments are my opinion not evidence, and as such completely appropriate in a forum.

Secondly, I am opposed to the murder charges purely because they are so obviously politically motivated that it highlights how corrupt and draconian the present administration is and how their policies and actions not only embarrass themselves but reflect badly on Thailand as a whole. Having said that I whole heartedly agree that an unfettered and transparent investigation and trial would prove their innocence and highlight government processes and policies. Also likewise, I am opposed to an amnesty in any form and believe the rule of law should be adhered to and applied.

I conclusion, you may want evidence and proof, but as we are all aware, history is written by the victor and this struggle is far from over.

[fab4]

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.

It used to be me he was referring to. Hence my "signature".

[centrala]

You know full well not a single other country would have been as patient and tolerated those thugs for as long as they carried out violent acts. This is certainly the only place where so many would be spared and not even incarcerated.

It was in no way shape or form a protest. It was a city under siege on the verge of civil war.

Actions were a response to violent civilians. Had they merely protested, that is one thing. The violence that the thugs craved and sought, and civil war they sought was answered appropriately, was it not? What leaders are going to tolerate such nonsense? Not over injustices, over fools getting paid to be bums and thugs, and die to benefit one little weasel abroad. How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling or not have been here at the time & doesn't wanna do research; or only looking at surface stats rather than the cause, the actions, the evidence, the results, the warnings, the laws, the diplomacy and negotiations offered...c'mon

.

"How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling................................................................."

You hit the nail right on the head with this line, gemini81. I am firmly convinced that over half of the Thaksin / redshirts so called "supporters" on this forum are nothing but trolls, and the rest of them are not too bright.

It's funny, I have met countless people from overseas who are living in Thailand and never come across Thaksin fans, yet these forums are abundant with them. I guess forums attract these lowlife trolls like moths to a streetlight.

Possibly they wish to emulate red shirt advocate Australian Conor Purcell.

The allure of being called a "hero" is, no doubt, strong motivation.

[Thai at Heart]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Hi Nicostitiz thanks for your rather confusing comments on my post, I am not sure if its criticism or confirmation. What it certainly doesn't do address the core issue of my post, that of PTP hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is a forum, not a court of law, and my "I believe" comments are my opinion not evidence, and as such completely appropriate in a forum.

Secondly, I am opposed to the murder charges purely because they are so obviously politically motivated that it highlights how corrupt and draconian the present administration is and how their policies and actions not only embarrass themselves but reflect badly on Thailand as a whole. Having said that I whole heartedly agree that an unfettered and transparent investigation and trial would prove their innocence and highlight government processes and policies. Also likewise, I am opposed to an amnesty in any form and believe the rule of law should be adhered to and applied.

I conclusion, you may want evidence and proof, but as we are all aware, history is written by the victor and this struggle is far from over.

The whole concept of murder charges in this context is really quite worrying. It shows how easily the legal system can be manipulated in this country. I for one absoutely believe that the way that Thaksin was found guilty was an amazing bit of revisionism, and this whole mess serves to show, that in reality, Thailand is barely one step above being a banana republic.

The courts can be made to sway this way and that, and for that reason alone I find the whole thing very worrying. This really is a case of the Thai's have made their bed and they are going to have to sleep in it, becuase this endless politicisation of the courts, with the only way to steer the country being a coup, or accept one mans undemocratic view of progress, will hurt this country for a long time. All of the people in positions of power who have taken decisions over the years which have been expedient, instead of building a proper judiciary and strong institutions are to blame.

They are slowly screwing the pooch.

[nicknostitz]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Hi Nicostitiz thanks for your rather confusing comments on my post, I am not sure if its criticism or confirmation. What it certainly doesn't do address the core issue of my post, that of PTP hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is a forum, not a court of law, and my "I believe" comments are my opinion not evidence, and as such completely appropriate in a forum.

Secondly, I am opposed to the murder charges purely because they are so obviously politically motivated that it highlights how corrupt and draconian the present administration is and how their policies and actions not only embarrass themselves but reflect badly on Thailand as a whole. Having said that I whole heartedly agree that an unfettered and transparent investigation and trial would prove their innocence and highlight government processes and policies. Also likewise, I am opposed to an amnesty in any form and believe the rule of law should be adhered to and applied.

I conclusion, you may want evidence and proof, but as we are all aware, history is written by the victor and this struggle is far from over.

Have you entertained the possibility that either Abhisit or Suthep, or both of them, might be found guilty, and that the charges might not be politically motivated, based on evidence? Would you accept a guilty verdict?

If i am correct, you belonged to the faction of posters that did not believe that soldiers shot unarmed protesters. Now, in 13 out of 15 dead of 2010 the military was ruled of having shot unarmed protesters, civilians, one soldier and one photojournalist. With more rulings coming. Do you accept these verdicts of the inquests, or do you dismiss them as "politically motivated" as well? Have these verdicts somewhat altered your perception of what took place in 2010?

What do you think of the previously government's credibility in face of their position that soldiers never killed protesters, while now the courts ruled differently?

These are key questions, as the charges against Suthep and Abhisit are based on the results of those inquests.

[Thai at Heart]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Hi Nicostitiz thanks for your rather confusing comments on my post, I am not sure if its criticism or confirmation. What it certainly doesn't do address the core issue of my post, that of PTP hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is a forum, not a court of law, and my "I believe" comments are my opinion not evidence, and as such completely appropriate in a forum.

Secondly, I am opposed to the murder charges purely because they are so obviously politically motivated that it highlights how corrupt and draconian the present administration is and how their policies and actions not only embarrass themselves but reflect badly on Thailand as a whole. Having said that I whole heartedly agree that an unfettered and transparent investigation and trial would prove their innocence and highlight government processes and policies. Also likewise, I am opposed to an amnesty in any form and believe the rule of law should be adhered to and applied.

I conclusion, you may want evidence and proof, but as we are all aware, history is written by the victor and this struggle is far from over.

Have you entertained the possibility that either Abhisit or Suthep, or both of them, might be found guilty, and that the charges might not be politically motivated, based on evidence? Would you accept a guilty verdict?

If i am correct, you belonged to the faction of posters that did not believe that soldiers shot unarmed protesters. Now, in 13 out of 15 dead of 2010 the military was ruled of having shot unarmed protesters, civilians, one soldier and one photojournalist. With more rulings coming. Do you accept these verdicts of the inquests, or do you dismiss them as "politically motivated" as well? Have these verdicts somewhat altered your perception of what took place in 2010?

What do you think of the previously government's credibility in face of their position that soldiers never killed protesters, while now the courts ruled differently?

These are key questions, as the charges against Suthep and Abhisit are based on the results of those inquests.

The army is guilty of breaking the roe, not abhisit.

[waza]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

Hi Nicostitiz thanks for your rather confusing comments on my post, I am not sure if its criticism or confirmation. What it certainly doesn't do address the core issue of my post, that of PTP hypocrisy.

Firstly, this is a forum, not a court of law, and my "I believe" comments are my opinion not evidence, and as such completely appropriate in a forum.

Secondly, I am opposed to the murder charges purely because they are so obviously politically motivated that it highlights how corrupt and draconian the present administration is and how their policies and actions not only embarrass themselves but reflect badly on Thailand as a whole. Having said that I whole heartedly agree that an unfettered and transparent investigation and trial would prove their innocence and highlight government processes and policies. Also likewise, I am opposed to an amnesty in any form and believe the rule of law should be adhered to and applied.

I conclusion, you may want evidence and proof, but as we are all aware, history is written by the victor and this struggle is far from over.

Have you entertained the possibility that either Abhisit or Suthep, or both of them, might be found guilty, and that the charges might not be politically motivated, based on evidence? Would you accept a guilty verdict?

If i am correct, you belonged to the faction of posters that did not believe that soldiers shot unarmed protesters. Now, in 13 out of 15 dead of 2010 the military was ruled of having shot unarmed protesters, civilians, one soldier and one photojournalist. With more rulings coming. Do you accept these verdicts of the inquests, or do you dismiss them as "politically motivated" as well? Have these verdicts somewhat altered your perception of what took place in 2010?

What do you think of the previously government's credibility in face of their position that soldiers never killed protesters, while now the courts ruled differently?

These are key questions, as the charges against Suthep and Abhisit are based on the results of those inquests.

Ok, obviously you didn't get the reaction you were expecting from your first critic of my post and need more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank have a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

and to be honest, Nicnostitz, if I was a Thai soldier witnessing this I would shoot these unarmed protestors to get them to stop.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[nicknostitz]

The army is guilty of breaking the roe, not abhisit.

I am not a legal expert. But i have read about the revised ROE permitting soldiers to use firearms in extremely questionable circumstances, and that those revised ROE were countersigned by Abhisit.

This whole thing is quite confusing. In the inquests the soldiers (Col. Sansern, for example) have in their testimonies always stated that they followed orders of CRES (and of course they stated that they have not shot protesters), while Suthep has stated that he has only given legal orders.

While i am not aware of what other than the inquest verdicts the DSI and the prosecution have as a base for the murder charges, would it not prudent to first see when (and if) this case comes to trial what evidence evidence is presented before prematurely dismissing these charges as "politically motivated"? The mountain of boxes full of files the DSI has delivered to the Attorney General was quite impressive, and i don't think that it just contained toilet paper.

[nicknostitz]

Ok more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank has a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

[Docno]

You know full well not a single other country would have been as patient and tolerated those thugs for as long as they carried out violent acts. This is certainly the only place where so many would be spared and not even incarcerated.

It was in no way shape or form a protest. It was a city under siege on the verge of civil war.

Actions were a response to violent civilians. Had they merely protested, that is one thing. The violence that the thugs craved and sought, and civil war they sought was answered appropriately, was it not? What leaders are going to tolerate such nonsense? Not over injustices, over fools getting paid to be bums and thugs, and die to benefit one little weasel abroad. How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling or not have been here at the time & doesn't wanna do research; or only looking at surface stats rather than the cause, the actions, the evidence, the results, the warnings, the laws, the diplomacy and negotiations offered...c'mon

.

"How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling................................................................."

You hit the nail right on the head with this line, gemini81. I am firmly convinced that over half of the Thaksin / redshirts so called "supporters" on this forum are nothing but trolls, and the rest of them are not too bright.

It's funny, I have met countless people from overseas who are living in Thailand and never come across Thaksin fans, yet these forums are abundant with them. I guess forums attract these lowlife trolls like moths to a streetlight.

Please show me where I said I was a "fan of Thaksin". He is your bogeyman, not mine. If you want to resort to personal attacks I can come down and play the game too. Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters. I see for myself the challenges they face and hear their sense of disenfranchisement, how they feel the 'amnat' run the place for their own benefit and have no concern or respect for the people who literally put the rice on their table. Most of them are quite pragmatic when it comes to Thaksin ... they know he's no angel. But he was the first politician to speak to their concerns and to actually do things for them. They consider all politicians corrupt, but at least Thaksin made them feel like they mattered (and of course, you have the right to be cynical about what his true motives were). But, of course, you will learn none of this if you spend most of your time on a bar stool in Patpong or Pattaya. There... I stooped.

[waza]

Ok more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank has a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

My argument was the Yingluck government are hypocritical, I cant see any mention of that in another of your pointless posts and can see no rationale for them except to increase you post count.

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[philw]

Firstly, Jayboys longwinded post that didn't address my core argument, the hypocrisy of the Thaksin proxy government. But then I guess it did its job of misdirecting the topic as per the formula.

I concur with your assessment Docno, except I believe that anarchy didn't rule on the Red side, I believe the violence was orchestrated and purposeful. I believe those that funded, conducted and controlled the riots had a duty of care to the "peaceful protestors" but instead used them as cannon fodder. I believe that under close examination by an objective organisation of all the evidence, would reveal the truth and I believe the wrong people are charged with murder. That's why a 7 year blanket amnesty is a necessary for certain people.

That's the problem with your line: you *believe*...

At court it is about what can be proven, based on evidence, investigations, witness accounts, etc.

If you are so convinced that Suthep and Abhisit are wrongly charged with murder, you should welcome the trial, as they then have the chance to prove their innocence.

I am looking forward to their trial as much, if not more, as i looked forward to all the other trials related to 2010. More so, because maybe it would make the mechanics and decision making processes in CRES more transparent, one of the aspects on 2010 the public still knows very little about.

That is the reasons why i am quite opposed to the revised amnesty bill - because it would stop the information flow of what took place in 2010. I don't want to just have to believe, i want to get evidence and proof.

The problem with your line is 'prove their innocence'.

I thought the onus is on the court to prove guilt.

Of course you are right.

But if the court cannot prove their guilt, then they are to be considered innocent. Why do all the people here who cry wolf over the charges against Abhisit and Suthep as they consider them innocent, are so enraged about these charges. It isn't exactly that they are sitting in jail with bail refused.

They will just have to bear with the inconvenience to attend the trial, and the public will have the chance to hear evidence presented by both sides. Isn't that something that should be welcomed?

Yes, of course.

[kingalfred]

If the corrupt thugs even at the top of the legal ass licking part of this government which has overseen a huge increase in corrupt activities in office,think this will go unfettered they better beware.The same gang who have let their paymaster fugitive ex corrupt pm stay away until they can get laws changed to allow him back in the country. Does anyone know of a civil war in se asia recently?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Docno]

Ok more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank has a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

Yes, after Italian journalist Fabio Polenghi died while covering the protests, Suthep insisted he'd been killed by grenade (thereby leaving open the possibility that the protestors may be responsible). From the start, witnesses--including other foreign journalists--said this was nonsense. And it has since been established beyond the shadow of a doubt that Polenghi was killed by a high velocity bullet typically used in sniper rifles and coming from the direction of the government lines. This says everything you need to know about the man.

[fab4]

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

My argument was the Yingluck government are hypocritical, I cant see any mention of that in another of your pointless posts and can see no rationale for them except to increase you post count.

Ah the other argument, if the "troll" accusation doesn't get the required result, belittle any post that you don't understand/cannot respond to intelligently as "just to increase the post count". This seems to arise from the belief that high post numbers indicate higher credibility. Sad, really.

Edited October 29, 2013 by fab4

[Docno]

Now isn't this interesting... The UN's guidelines on the use of force in law enforcement: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm

Paras 9 and 10 are especially interesting:

9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

10. In the circumstances provided for under principle 9, law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.

Having snipers positioned on overhead walkways shooting at protesters (and journalists) at a distance would seem to be in contravention of these principles. Shooting unarmed civilians taking refuge in a temple would also appear to be 'problematic'.

[waza]

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

My argument was the Yingluck government are hypocritical, I cant see any mention of that in another of your pointless posts and can see no rationale for them except to increase you post count.

Ah the other argument, if the "troll" accusation doesn't get the required result, belittle any post that you don't understand/cannot respond to intelligently as "just to increase the post count". This seems to arise from the belief that high post numbers indicate higher credibility. Sad, really.

Dito