Soldiers confiscate 'Thaksin Strawberry Jam'

[sjaak327]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The soldiers weren't prosecuted or given a pardon. They didn't attack any government supporters. What they did was legal.

The stall owner wasn't prosecuted or given a pardon. As far as I know he didn't attack any government supporters.

I am not saying it is "OK" for this to happen. I am just stating that it's legal.

Comparing the government to Putin and Mugabe is hyperbole.

Hmm, it was endorsed by the head of state, so it is therefore legal. Yet when Yingluck called for elections, people on here argued against it, even though that election also received endorsement from the same head of state.

There is nothing legal about the coup, martial law and the current government. If it was, why would there be a need for amnesty which the Junta granted themselves.

Edited December 15, 2014 by sjaak327

[whybother]

Er, no. It is not legal, moral or just when the military seize power and such actions always lead to abuse of power. As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters. To you that seems OK but in fact 'those who may not be criticised' have the morals of Putin and the concern for the people of Mugabe. The foreign apologists for 'those who must not be disobeyed' are shameful.

It wasn't legal, moral or just for the military to seize power. But the PM has been endorsed by the King, so that makes martial law legal.

"As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters.

"

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The soldiers weren't prosecuted or given a pardon. They didn't attack any government supporters. What they did was legal.

The stall owner wasn't prosecuted or given a pardon. As far as I know he didn't attack any government supporters.

I am not saying it is "OK" for this to happen. I am just stating that it's legal.

Comparing the government to Putin and Mugabe is hyperbole.

Hmm, it was endorsed by the head of state, so it is therefore legal. Yet when Yingluck called for elections, people on here argued against it, even though that election also received endorsement from the same head of state.

There is nothing legal about the coup, martial law and the current government.

So either

Yingluck calling for elections was legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was legal,

Or

Yingluck calling for elections was not legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was not legal.

Which one do you want to pick?

btw. I wasn't one that was saying Yingluck calling for elections was illegal.

[sjaak327]

Er, no. It is not legal, moral or just when the military seize power and such actions always lead to abuse of power. As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters. To you that seems OK but in fact 'those who may not be criticised' have the morals of Putin and the concern for the people of Mugabe. The foreign apologists for 'those who must not be disobeyed' are shameful.

It wasn't legal, moral or just for the military to seize power. But the PM has been endorsed by the King, so that makes martial law legal.

"As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters.

"

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The soldiers weren't prosecuted or given a pardon. They didn't attack any government supporters. What they did was legal.

The stall owner wasn't prosecuted or given a pardon. As far as I know he didn't attack any government supporters.

I am not saying it is "OK" for this to happen. I am just stating that it's legal.

Comparing the government to Putin and Mugabe is hyperbole.

Hmm, it was endorsed by the head of state, so it is therefore legal. Yet when Yingluck called for elections, people on here argued against it, even though that election also received endorsement from the same head of state.

There is nothing legal about the coup, martial law and the current government.

So either

Yingluck calling for elections was legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was legal,

Or

Yingluck calling for elections was not legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was not legal.

Which one do you want to pick?

btw. I wasn't one that was saying Yingluck calling for elections was illegal.

Nope, you are not going to get away with this. I never used the head of state as an argument, I am merely pointing out the flaw in using the endorsement from the head of state as the sole reason. Yingluck calling an election was 100% in accordance with the 2007 constitution. The coup was not in accordance with that same constitution.

So no need to pick in this case, the first case was legal, the second isn't. Endorsement of the head of state is inconsequential.

[whybother]

Nope, you are not going to get away with this. I never used the head of state as an argument, I am merely pointing out the flaw in using the endorsement from the head of state as the sole reason. Yingluck calling an election was 100% in accordance with the 2007 constitution. The coup was not in accordance with that same constitution.

So no need to pick in this case, the first case was legal, the second isn't. Endorsement of the head of state is inconsequential.

The endorsement by the head of state is very relevant. Even Yingluck became PM through endorsement by the head of state.

Besides that, martial law was in place before the coup.

[The manic]

Er, no. It is not legal, moral or just when the military seize power and such actions always lead to abuse of power. As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters. To you that seems OK but in fact 'those who may not be criticised' have the morals of Putin and the concern for the people of Mugabe. The foreign apologists for 'those who must not be disobeyed' are shameful.

It wasn't legal, moral or just for the military to seize power. But the PM has been endorsed by the King, so that makes martial law legal.

"As for the soldiers actions? How many were prosecuted? Or were they given a pardon? Oh no, there were not brought to trial or court martial because they attacked government supporters.

"

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The soldiers weren't prosecuted or given a pardon. They didn't attack any government supporters. What they did was legal.

The stall owner wasn't prosecuted or given a pardon. As far as I know he didn't attack any government supporters.

I am not saying it is "OK" for this to happen. I am just stating that it's legal.

Comparing the government to Putin and Mugabe is hyperbole.

Hmm, it was endorsed by the head of state, so it is therefore legal. Yet when Yingluck called for elections, people on here argued against it, even though that election also received endorsement from the same head of state.

There is nothing legal about the coup, martial law and the current government.

So either

Yingluck calling for elections was legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was legal,

Or

Yingluck calling for elections was not legal and Prayuth enacting martial law was not legal.

Which one do you want to pick?

btw. I wasn't one that was saying Yingluck calling for elections was illegal.

Nope, you are not going to get away with this. I never used the head of state as an argument, I am merely pointing out the flaw in using the endorsement from the head of state as the sole reason. Yingluck calling an election was 100% in accordance with the 2007 constitution. The coup was not in accordance with that same constitution.

So no need to pick in this case, the first case was legal, the second isn't. Endorsement of the head of state is inconsequential.

You used the The Most Revered Personage to justify your shallow view. This is the end of the matter. I have reported your abuse and suggested parts of this should be deleted. I suggested you study constitutional law more thoroughly and look up the

words, electorate, vote, majority, democracy and universal suffrage rather than just rely on your own confirmation bias.

[sjaak327]

Nope, you are not going to get away with this. I never used the head of state as an argument, I am merely pointing out the flaw in using the endorsement from the head of state as the sole reason. Yingluck calling an election was 100% in accordance with the 2007 constitution. The coup was not in accordance with that same constitution.

So no need to pick in this case, the first case was legal, the second isn't. Endorsement of the head of state is inconsequential.

The endorsement by the head of state is very relevant. Even Yingluck became PM through endorsement by the head of state.

Besides that, martial law was in place before the coup.

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

Edited December 15, 2014 by sjaak327

[whybother]

You used the The Most Revered Personage to justify your shallow view. This is the end of the matter. I have reported your abuse and suggested parts of this should be deleted. I suggested you study constitutional law more thoroughly and look up the

words, electorate, vote, majority, democracy and universal suffrage rather than just rely on your own confirmation bias.

Well, that's how people become Prime Minister. Maybe you should study constitutional law.

[whybother]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

[sjaak327]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

Ah so coups are illegal ! So how does anything that resulted form the coup suddenly become legal.

Wait, don't answer, I already know, you write your own constitution and make up your own rules, which then suddenly become the law of the land, hence legal.

Of course the credibility is out of the window. a fact lost on most of the coup supporters.

But hey, you could Always point to PTP and how they broke the law right ?

[whybother]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

Ah so coups are illegal ! So how does anything that resulted form the coup suddenly become legal.

Wait, don't answer, I already know, you write your own constitution and make up your own rules, which then suddenly become the law of the land, hence legal.

Of course the credibility is out of the window. a fact lost on most of the coup supporters.

But hey, you could Always point to PTP and how they broke the law right ?

You said it yourself: Amnesty. And particularly endorsement. That trumps everything.

[sjaak327]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

Ah so coups are illegal ! So how does anything that resulted form the coup suddenly become legal.

Wait, don't answer, I already know, you write your own constitution and make up your own rules, which then suddenly become the law of the land, hence legal.

Of course the credibility is out of the window. a fact lost on most of the coup supporters.

But hey, you could Always point to PTP and how they broke the law right ?

You said it yourself: Amnesty. And particularly endorsement. That trumps everything.

For you maybe, for many people it doesn't.

The irony is that amnesty is what caused all of this. Suthep didn't particually dislike this amnesty though, which paints his actions in a whole different light. He is a bit like you, onesided and anything but consistent.

[whybother]

For you maybe, for many people it doesn't.

The irony is that amnesty is what caused all of this. Suthep didn't particually dislike this amnesty though, which paints his actions in a whole different light. He is a bit like you, onesided and anything but consistent.

"For you maybe" For the law.

Can you please point to anywhere where I have agreed with the coup?

I haven't said that Prayuth being PM is right, but it is legal.

[tbthailand]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

not in the eyes of many people. He not only does not have a mandate, as you point out, his government is illegitimate as well.

[whybother]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

not in the eyes of many people. He not only does not have a mandate, as you point out, his government is illegitimate as well.

In the eyes of the law, he is.

[jayboy]

I regard this reply as inflammatory because of its reference to higher personages and the replies it might invoke so I am reporting it. You are a disgrace to hide behind other people's point of reverence as though it were your own. What next? Invoking the Koran? You scored a cheap shot by superseding argument

Why would I invoke the koran?

I pointed out why martial law was legal. You may not like it, but that doesn't change whether it is legal or not.

The holocaust was legal.The Nazis' persecution of the Jews was legal.Stalin's show trials and mass murders were legal.Crimes committed by the Thai state and its agencies are invariably legal.Very recently high treason has become legal.

Not sure what point you're making other than morality is of no concern to you and that there is no abuse committed by a regime you are devoted to that you will not slavishly defend.

[mikemac]

I regard this reply as inflammatory because of its reference to higher personages and the replies it might invoke so I am reporting it. You are a disgrace to hide behind other people's symbol of reverence as though it were your own. What next? Invoking the Koran? You scored a cheap shot by supressing argument and dissent. Why am I not suprised?

Why are you not surprised ? I am quite surprised you have not yet been banned for trolling.

[rubl]

Anyway back to the topic.

If the government only had their Internet surveillance act in proper order, the soldiers would never have gotten the wrong message and none of this would have happened.

What happened with the special building Dept. PM Pol Captain Chalerm had build to put the Internet surveillance group in? Are the people still there at all? Did anyone here ever saw the building? Is it the usual government block or did they get something real nice like GCHQ in the UK did ? That doughtnut in Cheltenham is really nice

http://www.cheltenham4u.co.uk/benhall_gchq.asp?area=Benhall%2C+The+Reddings

[tbthailand]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

not in the eyes of many people. He not only does not have a mandate, as you point out, his government is illegitimate as well.

In the eyes of the law, he is.

illegal and illegitimate are not the same thing, WB.

As JB points out, things are legal in many cases, like this one, because this small group of people made their own laws. Interim Constitution from the 'NCPO'. NLA appointed by the 'NCPO'. NLA 'elects' a 'PM'...

All very legal

All a hoax. All illegitimate.

[JAG]

I said the current government is not democratic, but they can start a democratic government just like others have already said. Democracy does not appear from thin air.. someone has to start it. In this case the current government. I hope they make a good constitution and make sure that people like Thaksin will never again destroy this country.

Like they did the last time you mean ? You people are priceless. Making up your own laws just because the electorate isn't voting the way they are supposed to.

And they failed miserably at preventing Thaksin from interfering in politics, just as they will this time. After all, it's the same bunch of people doing it this time around.

the only chance they have of stopping Thaksin from interfering is to make sure elections don't matter.

Congratulations on becoming a Thai law maker, robblok !!

Has he joined the army?

[JAG]

But Yingluck didn't just get endorsed by the head of state now did she, she actually won a general election in accordance with the 2007 constitutiton. She was voted in as PM by 299 MP's again in accordance with the constitution.

Whilst Prayuth received no mandate whatsoever, and appointed the NLA which in turn appointed him as PM. All in accordance with the interim constitution that was drafted by the NCPO.

A constitution in which they awarded themselves amnesty from staging the coup and any future 'transgressions" they might deem necessary during the coup.

Why was there a need for that amnesty do you think, probably because they themselves have deemded their actions illegal.

I never said Prayuth had a mandate. They gave themselves amnesty because coups are illegal. Didn't you know that?

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

He is still the legal PM of Thailand.

not in the eyes of many people. He not only does not have a mandate, as you point out, his government is illegitimate as well.

In the eyes of the law, he is.

His law, enforced at gunpoint.

[jamhar]

Wow, strange that the army would try to get Thaksin out of a jam! Is there a hidden message here?

Yep that guy is toast!

(sorry i couldnt help myself! )

[rubl]

Illegal and illegitimate are not the same thing, WB.

As JB points out, things are legal in many cases, like this one, because this small group of people made their own laws. Interim Constitution from the 'NCPO'. NLA appointed by the 'NCPO'. NLA 'elects' a 'PM'...

All very legal

All a hoax. All illegitimate.

So, illegitimate meaning "not sanctioned by law". Will you tell the NCPO and Gen. Prayut or do you want to stay in Thailand a bit longer ?

BTW I'm sure the Brits said something similar about those rebels in the Americas.