NSPTR Leader Killed During Election Blockade Rally

[CNXnamjai]

All the red lovers in T.V. will now be happy - of course it was Suthep's own people who did it - just ask a red and bear in mind they never lie

sarcasm, though quite funny, is usually lost in translation. i now only one man, whose son is a sniper for the police force. and he is a madman, a killer, and a rapist. it saddens me to watch my own people kill eachother over nothing. ... NOTHING. the best way to get things done in thailand is not by direct approach, but by flanking.

"sarcasm, though quite funny, is usually lost in translation"

Dude that is epic, your epic and I now have serious man love for you

Always glad to see strangers falling in love, seriously, na

[sjaak327]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

You are avoiding the issue. Preventing someone from voting is a clear violation of their democratic right. And such a violation is just as illegal as burning down a shopping mall, which usually isn't referred as terrorism, but arson. You yourself are misusing the term terrorist as you see fit, talk about being consistent !

[Pongpat]

Where were the police?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[Prbkk]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

These people crossed the fence into acts of terror the night they attacked that bus. Then the taxi, then the intimidation of workers. They have upped the ante and expected people to cave. People are not giving in to the thugs and goons no matter how frequently they are described as good , middle class people. Good people don't pay thugs to carry out their violent acts and pretend they are just innocent whistlers

[englishoak]

he did not just protest though, he tried to prevent Thai citizens from voting, which is a democratic right. A right that cannot and should not be taken away by anyone.

Therefore don't look for any sympathy from me, as he quite clearly doesn't deserve any.

The only criticism here is that he should have been arrested (by the police) and be tried for violating the law instead of being shot dead.

No one expects your sympathy knowing where it lies.

Whatever the case, preventing someone from voting is a far cry from being a 'terrorist'. People like to use that word a lot. They either don't know what a terrorist is or are deliberately misusing the word.

This was never about upholding the law. This was cold blooded murder. Simple as that.

And where exactly do you think my sympathy lies ? Is that some reference to me being a red shirt supporter ? If it is, you are more deluded than I originally thought.

My sympathy lies with the Thai people and with their constitutional democratic rights.

Preventing someone from voting is indeed not a far cry from a terrorist act, unless you really believe voting and running for office aren't fundamental democratic rights, or unless you believe exercising the democratic right to protest does give you the ability to prevent others from exercising their democratic rights and therefore implying that whilst protesting laws suddenly don't apply !

Preventing someone from voting is not terrorism, unless you're blowing polling stations. People deliberately misuse that word for political purpose.

it is when combined with threats and abuse and physical intrusion.... They are terrorists holding hostage the entire country's freedom of choice for the few.

Sorry but its beyond using an excuse its not terrorism, we have seen far too many threats and acts that clearly show the truth....

Whatever support this idea and listening ears protest may have had in the first place has been firmly silenced now...... It really is either you are with this fascist attempt to take away peoples right to vote or your not... and not delaying isnt an excuse for terrorism.

Call it what it is, a fascist right wing movement in modern day Thailand.... sick, simple and they wont find sympathy or help from any communist or democratic nation on earth now...

Ultimately another nail in the coffin of the Fascists here, your days are numbered here, no matter what

[firestar]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

Edited January 26, 2014 by firestar

[CNXnamjai]

The poor poor victim here, who before lunchtime none of the posters here even knew he existed, suddenly becomes a hero, a fighter for his cause and a leader!!

He was one of the founding members of PAD's political party, New Politics Party, with a very facistlike ideologi: Only 30% of the parliament should be elected, and the rest appointed by different pressure groups in Thai society (An early "peoples council")

The party is by Asian Human Rights Commission described as a neo-facist party.

According to the party themselves, they are a Royalist, Nationalist, Rightwing party!

So here is a facts on your "hero"!

Normally I don't condone violence, but with this small rat, I see it as pestcontrol.

He played with fire and got burned!!

You're a person... easy to give live or death... na, so easily:

"He played with fire and got burned!!"

.

"Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed." The one who left no traces

[Pikeybkk]

for all of you who think the current government is wrong, lets see what khun suthep said during the redshirt protests...

"If they violate the laws, such as blocking roads and intruding into government offices, we will have to disperse them." Then Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand Suthep 'Adolf' Thaugsuban, March 12, 2010

Whats this....hmmmm...hypocrisy , the guy has back footed on everything he says and instigated all of what has happened in the current situation.

Every Thai has a constitutional right to vote, just like in all other countries which abide by a democratic process and it is not the right of a minority to disrupt the democratic process , just because they cannot win a vote. This guy died for what he believed in, good for him, still does not make it right!

[TVGerry]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

These people crossed the fence into acts of terror the night they attacked that bus. Then the taxi, then the intimidation of workers. They have upped the ante and expected people to cave. People are not giving in to the thugs and goons no matter how frequently they are described as good , middle class people. Good people don't pay thugs to carry out their violent acts and pretend they are just innocent whistlers

Oh yes the protestors are 'bad people'. The 'good people' are the ones that had someone shot dead in cold blood today.

[lostinsurin]

Where were the police?

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Okay another one!

Where do you think they where?

and why were they not where you thought they should be?

take your time then let us know of your conclusions.

[Beetlejuice]

All the red lovers in T.V. will now be happy - of course it was Suthep's own people who did it - just ask a red and bear in mind they never lie

So what`s it to you as a foreigner? You can not have any official say in this anyhow, unless you are one of anti Government protesters trying to gain sympathy and support from abroad?

My only interests as an ex-pat living in Thailand is that whoever gains power continues to allow me to live my life in the Kingdom without harassment and to plod on as I have always done.

About 11 people have now died in this dispute, and for what? All I want to see is a quick resolution and no more violence, and that`s all that should be concerning ex-pats at the moment without taking sides in these affairs.

Hear-hear. Well said that man.

Quite a selfish view, normally paraphrased as "I'm alright, Jack!"

Some of us have wives and children who will continue to live long after our death. Forgive me if I wish them the best life possible.

Sorry mate, but you’re talking out of your ear.

I have a wife and 3 kids in Thailand, 1 son is a policeman here in Chiang Mai and if the troubles extend up to the North, he is going to be in the front line, so I have good reasons for wanting to see a quick resolution to these disputes.

Many Thais have no particular political affiliation to either one party or the other, like me they just want to get on with their lives.

What I said in my previous post still stands, my reasons being anything other than selfishness, but as a foreigner living in this foreign land I consider my situation different from the average Thai citizen and cannot actively support any side within this Thailand political dispute, plus also considering the Thai authorities would take umbrage if I showed my pale face among the mobs of protesters. In general our political opinions regarding this country are not welcome by the Thais. I’m only being realistic and giving the facts for what they are.

Otherwise, how else would you like me to explain this?

[sjaak327]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

These people crossed the fence into acts of terror the night they attacked that bus. Then the taxi, then the intimidation of workers. They have upped the ante and expected people to cave. People are not giving in to the thugs and goons no matter how frequently they are described as good , middle class people. Good people don't pay thugs to carry out their violent acts and pretend they are just innocent whistlers

Oh yes the protestors are 'bad people'. The 'good people' are the ones that had someone shot dead in cold blood today.

Actually both are bad. The shooter should be arrested and prosecuted with the same effort as the protestors that are breaking the law. I personally hold the current government accountable for their apparent inability to do so.

[lostinsurin]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

These people crossed the fence into acts of terror the night they attacked that bus. Then the taxi, then the intimidation of workers. They have upped the ante and expected people to cave. People are not giving in to the thugs and goons no matter how frequently they are described as good , middle class people. Good people don't pay thugs to carry out their violent acts and pretend they are just innocent whistlers

Oh yes the protestors are 'bad people'. The 'good people' are the ones that had someone shot dead in cold blood today.

And who helped you to finally come to this conclusion gerry?

Edited January 26, 2014 by lostinsurin

[soi41]

Have mulled through different reports and video footage today and the only salient point is <deleted> were the police. Not a single trace to be seen of the bastions of law and order.

They were supposed to have been ordered to provide protection to the protesters and keep the Red faction renowned for their violence, away from each other, however, to do that you must have presence and that is something these Thaksin lackeys do not possess as their training only involves taking handouts and falsifying or ignoring evidence. They are truly a bloody disgrace to both the people and the country.

As most people apart from yourself realise, is that the police are hated by the yellow shirts!

which is why they keep a low profile!

Do you get it now or what?

The EC could have asked for police assistance to ensure voting ran smoothly, but because they are biased PRDC supporters, they didn't. As soon as Suthep's mob arrived they happily packed up shop leaving 400,000+ voters inconvenienced & disenfranchised. The mob even had pre-made signs saying that voting had been suspended, that must have been ordered days ago. In cahoots & should all be fired along with the bent judges.

400,000+ disenfranchised voters ?

Hope you have evidence for that statement

According to Bangkok Post today 19:10: 440.000 people could not cast their advance votes on Sunday as 89 constituencies out of 375 had been closed!

Democracy, Suthep style. With a little help from his friends in the EC and his thugs!!

[CNXnamjai]

I am watching PBS and they just showed a video of people being violently being prevented from voting. Voting is a basic right of people in Thai society. Whether by physical force or padlocking gates, preventing people from voting is an assault on democracy.

Nope. Once the game is rigged, the mere "act of voting"... resembles sheep entering the slaughter house. Thank you.

Stupid post, its not rigged what do you think happens when you are violently stopped from having your voice ? Expect more if this continues...violence begats violence only the manner of it differs.

A dead vote or a dead body you end up with silence, neither are justifiable and totally unacceptable but the results are the same.

The people are legion, they do not forgive and they do not forget, expect them.

Stop taking too much of the medicine before posting. I can't follow the words that are meant to make reason..., _ANYHOW_... but I'm wondering ab this one...:

"The people are legion, they do not forgive and they do not forget, expect them."

Oh really? Maybe I expect them in _your_ home... of idiocy?

[TVGerry]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

You are avoiding the issue. Preventing someone from voting is a clear violation of their democratic right. And such a violation is just as illegal as burning down a shopping mall, which usually isn't referred as terrorism, but arson. You yourself are misusing the term terrorist as you see fit, talk about being consistent !

No it's not arson when you're burning it down to intimidate the people of this city. It's terrorism.

[englishoak]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

You are avoiding the issue. Preventing someone from voting is a clear violation of their democratic right. And such a violation is just as illegal as burning down a shopping mall, which usually isn't referred as terrorism, but arson. You yourself are misusing the term terrorist as you see fit, talk about being consistent !

No it's not arson when you're burning it down to intimidate the people of this city. It's terrorism.

So is locking people out of their right to vote and threats to thier person and work..... terrorism is not defined just by bombs, go read the definition you silly person

Oh and anyone who thinks this isnt a very real national state of emergency now needs their head examined.

Edited January 26, 2014 by englishoak

[wave]

To make a simple analogy I would say this... the yellow Mob has been acting like a schoolyard bully .... but the rest of kids have had enough and are about gang up on the "Bully" and kick his YELLOW ASS.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

How this mans death fills you with so much smug satisfaction is beyond me. The attempts to block voting is wrong but no one deserves to die for it. Yours and others gloating over his death is vile.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.

People have fought and many have died for the right to vote throughout history.

This basic right to self determination is clearly defined within the Constitution of Thailand.

Citizens are free to oppose the notion of voting but attempts to obstruct, remove or limit the right to vote destroys the very essence of the Democratic process.

I am in no way condoning the death of anyone, but, attempts to obstruct an individuals right to vote will be seen by the vast majority as indefensible and it's hardly surprising for it to be met with frustration ,anger and violent opposition.

I can not imagine how any of us from democratic countries would respond if we were obstructed in the manner we have seen today in our home countries.

[SteveB2]

Popularism - theoretical definition ... Ref: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/populism

A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

• (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people
• The principles and doctrines of any political party asserting that it represents the rank and file of the people.
• The political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite

Popularism - in real life

• (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political strategy based on creating policies that appeal to the interests or prejudices of the voting majority, which inevitably leads to the implementation of policies that bankrupts the state and causes the collapse of the elected government.

Democracy - Theoretical - Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[2] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries

///

Democracy - Observation

In Thailand, the suffrage movement has yet to convince 'the elite' that their vote is worthwhile. Maybe the cause is this...

A democracy can not succeed unless the voters make decisions based on what is right for the country, instead of considering that their vote is simply an asset to sell to the highest bidder on polling day, or electing officials that promise rewards which will obviously bankrupt the state (such as paying the farmers twice as much per ton of rice, as the rice is actually worth on the open market. durrr).

One can only guess that the effective bankruptcy/lack of funds at the Thai Bank of Agriculture to pay farmers for rice already delivered to the government warehouses 6 months ago, is thus entirely to be expected. The occurance of the slight lack of funds situation this month, must be somewhat inconvenient for YL.

[TVGerry]

So is locking people out of their right to vote and threats to thier person and work..... terrorism is not defined just by bombs, go read the definition you silly person

By definition, you can label a lot of things as 'terrorism' when we know the protestors are not. Likewise, there are a lot of things the present government has done that can be labelled as 'terrorism' by definition. Doesn't mean it's right either way.

[Netizen]

Finally, now Suthep will see the damage he has done to his country in his effort to gain leadership other than the ballot box. Shame on this terrible excuse of a man.

Thaksin is the person who corrupted and damaged Thailand and then he financed and armed redshirt thugs and installed his sister as a puppet.

Thaksin is responsible for all the violence North South East and West and now in the centre.

[CNXnamjai]

I am watching PBS and they just showed a video of people being violently being prevented from voting. Voting is a basic right of people in Thai society. Whether by physical force or padlocking gates, preventing people from voting is an assault on democracy.

Nope. Once the game is rigged, the mere "act of voting"... resembles sheep entering the slaughter house. Thank you.

Rigged, ah of course.

Allowing all those people in the north to vote, bad move.

You try to appear stupid on purpose? Or you really have no idea what's going on in this country?

Edited January 26, 2014 by CNXnamjai

[Old Man River]

You can argue semantics all day long, it still doesn't make preventing people from voting legal. Which was the point I was trying to make.

It's not semantics. There's illegal and then there's terrorism. And the big T word is usually saved for very bad people. For example, someone burning down Central World is a terrorist. Someone throwing bombs at people is a terrorist. But when someone tries to call a protestor who hasn't actually hurt or killed anyone or blow something up a 'terrorist' then that's usually a deliberate misuse for politics.

These people crossed the fence into acts of terror the night they attacked that bus. Then the taxi, then the intimidation of workers. They have upped the ante and expected people to cave. People are not giving in to the thugs and goons no matter how frequently they are described as good , middle class people. Good people don't pay thugs to carry out their violent acts and pretend they are just innocent whistlers

Prbkk, you shouldn't generalize by saying these people just like others shouldn't generalize when they discuss the RS's. Both groups are comprised of different groups. Don't paint government supporters and protestors with the same paint brush. Today, Suthin said he didn't want to confront this group of RS's and was leaving when they shot him in the head. The vast majority of RS's would not have done that. There are, unfortunately, thugs on both sides.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[englishoak]

To make a simple analogy I would say this... the yellow Mob has been acting like a schoolyard bully .... but the rest of kids have had enough and are about gang up on the "Bully" and kick his YELLOW ASS.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

How this mans death fills you with so much smug satisfaction is beyond me. The attempts to block voting is wrong but no one deserves to die for it. Yours and others gloating over his death is vile.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.

People have fought and many have died for the right to vote throughout history.

This basic right to self determination is clearly defined within the Constitution of Thailand.

Citizens are free to oppose the notion of voting but attempts to obstruct, remove or limit the right to vote destroys the very essence of the Democratic process.

I am in no way condoning the death of anyone, but, attempts to obstruct an individuals right to vote will be seen by the vast majority as indefensible and it's hardly surprising for it to be met with frustration ,anger and violent opposition.

I can not imagine how any of us from democratic countries would respond if we were obstructed in the manner we have seen today in our home countries.

I can and so does everyone else here from one, even the ones pretending this fascist and terrorist action is ok, they know exactly how their own country and people would react.

[Mackie]

I can and so does everyone else here from one, even the ones pretending this fascist and terrorist action is ok, they know exactly how their own country and people would react.

Absolutely. Life sentence for Nattwut, Jatuporn, Arisman and others responsible for carnage in 2010. If the law was applied back then we would not have to go through this crap all over again, would we? I seriously question your sanity today. Trying to justify a murder of unarmed old fella is just not on.

[Thai at Heart]

When you prevent millions of people from exercising their voting rights you are bound to make a few bad ones angry. Killing someone is always wrong but he knew the risks of his actions and paid the price.

How can people vote if there is not any opposition party ? voting in this situation is absolutely unconstitutional !!

Huh?

What do you mean. There are single party votes all over the democratic world.

Don't come the, its undemocratic line if the opposition voluntarily doesn't pitch.

[Cricketnut]

To make a simple analogy I would say this... the yellow Mob has been acting like a schoolyard bully .... but the rest of kids have had enough and are about gang up on the "Bully" and kick his YELLOW ASS.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

How this mans death fills you with so much smug satisfaction is beyond me. The attempts to block voting is wrong but no one deserves to die for it. Yours and others gloating over his death is vile.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.

People have fought and many have died for the right to vote throughout history.

This basic right to self determination is clearly defined within the Constitution of Thailand.

Citizens are free to oppose the notion of voting but attempts to obstruct, remove or limit the right to vote destroys the very essence of the Democratic process.

I am in no way condoning the death of anyone, but, attempts to obstruct an individuals right to vote will be seen by the vast majority as indefensible and it's hardly surprising for it to be met with frustration ,anger and violent opposition.

I can not imagine how any of us from democratic countries would respond if we were obstructed in the manner we have seen today in our home countries.

I can and so does everyone else here from one, even the ones pretending this fascist and terrorist action is ok, they know exactly how their own country and people would react.

In Australia and England and maybe America, there would be violence.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Spalpeen]

Oh yes the protestors are 'bad people'. The 'good people' are the ones that had someone shot dead in cold blood today.

.

Looked like an act of self defence to me. Here are some of the weapons found in the truck belonging to the dead terrorist.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Everyone wo lives in Thailand knows that if you go out looking for trouble you can find it.

[Thai at Heart]

he did not just protest though, he tried to prevent Thai citizens from voting, which is a democratic right. A right that cannot and should not be taken away by anyone.

Therefore don't look for any sympathy from me, as he quite clearly doesn't deserve any.

The only criticism here is that he should have been arrested (by the police) and be tried for violating the law instead of being shot dead.

No one expects your sympathy knowing where it lies.

Whatever the case, preventing someone from voting is a far cry from being a 'terrorist'. People like to use that word a lot. They either don't know what a terrorist is or are deliberately misusing the word.

This was never about upholding the law. This was cold blooded murder. Simple as that.

And where exactly do you think my sympathy lies ? Is that some reference to me being a red shirt supporter ? If it is, you are more deluded than I originally thought.

My sympathy lies with the Thai people and with their constitutional democratic rights.

Preventing someone from voting is indeed not a far cry from a terrorist act, unless you really believe voting and running for office aren't fundamental democratic rights, or unless you believe exercising the democratic right to protest does give you the ability to prevent others from exercising their democratic rights and therefore implying that whilst protesting laws suddenly don't apply !

Preventing someone from voting is not terrorism, unless you're blowing polling stations. People deliberately misuse that word for political purpose.

No it's not terrorism on a the basis of a single person. Preventing an entire electoral process would be unconstitutional and probably thus treasonous.

What is the standard punishment for that?

[Publicus]

Suthep is the loser here from the start.

Anyone anywhere who sees even a moment of this on the news knows the guy who wants to kill an election and a legitimately elected democratic government in some 3rd world feudal society to appoint instead a ruling council with absolute power and authority is a Mugabe clone.

Suthep and his backers are trying to drag Thailand back and down with them.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Publicus