Prawit back PM's insistence that Thaksin return home to face justice first

[ginjag]

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Well the democratically elected government which called those anti-government upon itself by trying to push through a blanket amnesty bill which included both the criminal fugitive and their own first two years in office, seemed to think they were above the law because they were elected. "we have a mandate, thanks for voting, please go home now".

How easy it is to corrupt democracy in a country where democracy doesn't mean a bloody thing to a larger part of the population.

JAG is quite aware by now that only his side of the story is important, All his reaction is about the present PM and why he should not be where he is.

JAG is not interested in how badly PTP Shin government was managed. He only thinks that being elected is democratic.

[rubl]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

This may surprise you, but the government in power should not and does not have any say in the justice system. You as American should understand that.

[Taworn]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

It's amazing how the Shin Defenders can't even get the rudimentary facts right, which leads one to think that don't have anything right.

[martinhp]

city post # 3

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

You might well consider the fact that the current administration has received approval to run the country hence they are not illegal. the accusation you make concerning ''treason '' indeed far off of target. You need to consider very carefully the blanket statement you made concerning ''treason.''.

You might do well to remember that the buying of votes and the intimidation of canvassers in certain areas in the North in previous elections could also be regarded as illegal activities, which of course equates to a ''grab of power also serious attempts at subverting the then current system .

Haw you know the bought votes I think they don't need to

And in the 1930+the king gave the country to the thais in a constitution wich mean any no elected system never are a legal ruling system wich again means any convicted under a rule like the one there is in place now is not legal convicted and if you have a brain you figure it out .

If you not one of clever one from the UK

Treason noun

1.

the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.

a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3.

the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

[northernjohn]

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Well the democratically elected government which called those anti-government upon itself by trying to push through a blanket amnesty bill which included both the criminal fugitive and their own first two years in office, seemed to think they were above the law because they were elected. "we have a mandate, thanks for voting, please go home now".

How easy it is to corrupt democracy in a country where democracy doesn't mean a bloody thing to a larger part of the population.

To be honest with you rubl I have to disagree with you on that. I feel that if the population was to only half understand Democracy they would go for it.

That half would also have to stress the importance and result of them being able to vote their own decision rather than take a few baht that will only last them a month. How there vote could reflect on the future.

As always just my opinion. Not necessarily easy to implement but a worth while goal.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

The Shins and the PTT throw around the words reconciliation and democracy like they are handing out candy at Halloween. The fact is they are hiding behind these words and they just use them to cover up their crimes.

[mathias67]

Why did Thaksin did what he did?

It is called MONEY and him coming back NOT a hope in hell

[Ricardo]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

It's amazing how the Shin Defenders can't even get the rudimentary facts right, which leads one to think that don't have anything right.

It certainly damages their credibility, and suggests that they weren't here when all this was happening, but perhaps they've been misinformed themselves, by whom or for what reasons I wouldn't care to speculate.

Whatever, anyone who cares at all about the truth can only speak up, or history gets rewritten unchallenged, which is IMO unacceptable.

This isn't about red or yellow, democracy or fascism, it's a matter of integrity to accept when one has made a mistake, and acknowledge that fact.

[mikemac]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

.................."which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that..."..........................

So wrong, so desperate and so comical in oh so many ways. The more this Shin soap opera drags on the funnier it gets !

Keep em comin boys, I quite often need a good laugh after a hard day's work and the Keystone Cops style Shin/red fans on TVF and good source of laughs.

And "city", please stop posting blatant bs......................

[halloween]

Prawit would back any insistence the PM dreams up. He's the new Chalerm, with better shirts and better connections, and no ear wax medicine.

The new Chalerm? Where are the murderous sons and disappearing witnesses, the flaunting of wealth, the drunken public appearances, the claims of insider knowledge (someone with the initial P), the sycophancy and nepotism, the miraculous solutions that never appear?

Prawit would be within his rights to shoot sue you for making such a statement.

[tbthailand]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

[halloween]

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

It's amazing how red "camp followers" insist that the courts are biased (except when they rule in their favour) in some huge conspiracy, citing political bias of those prosecuting the charges, and ignoring that sufficient evidence was presented for a conviction. And NEVER mentioning the attempt to bribe his way out of the charges.

Occam's Razor would suggest that they just might be guilty.

[Ricardo]

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

Thanks for responding, although I wish city would, it was his/her error.

I do see your point, Thaksin's criminality (or otherwise) would be more clear, if all those other cases against him had also proceeded, I do wish they had but he seems to prefer to delay for a decade & let them 'time-out'.

Which is his decision of course, but does suggest that he/his-lawyers weren't confident of winning, one can speculate or have an opinion about why.

Regarding Yingluck, I'd like to see the evidence, as I'm by-no-means convinced that she benefited personally. She was IMO negligent to ignore the many warnings, and perhaps trusted her advisers too much, perhaps that may come out ?

As always, one watches with interest, and occasional bemusement at the antics !

[tbthailand]

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

It's amazing how red "camp followers" insist that the courts are biased (except when they rule in their favour) in some huge conspiracy, citing political bias of those prosecuting the charges, and ignoring that sufficient evidence was presented for a conviction. And NEVER mentioning the attempt to bribe his way out of the charges.

Occam's Razor would suggest that they just might be guilty.

it's amazing how yellow "camp followers" think that everyone else is a red "camp follower".

The courts have demonstrated their bias and have been politicized and turned into another tool of the elite. That is not my opinion, but the conclusion of academics whose job it is to analyze these things.

Of course the evidence is obvious for any basically unbiased observer.

Just to set the record straight, since you don't seem capable of understanding the different shades of non-yellow thinking, it is obvious that Thaksin was (and is) corrupt. It's also equally obvious that his conviction was political. It's really not clear that he even broke the law in that particular case, but he was convicted. In my opinion, there are much worse things that he did compared to signing (as the law required) for his wife to purchase a property in an open bid in which she was the highest bidder and it was above the assessed value. Yeah, I think he did many things much worse than that, ... but that is what he was convicted for.

As for Yingluck, I feel that the mood among the Thai elite is so ugly that they will force a conviction even if it is a strategically stupid move. Yeah, I think it is a strategically stupid move. But just so your little yellow mind can figure this out, take note that my making such a statement doesn't actually mean that I am defending her. You guys tend to have a problem with that kind of mental exercise.

OK mai?

[tbthailand]

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

Thanks for responding, although I wish city would, it was his/her error.

I do see your point, Thaksin's criminality (or otherwise) would be more clear, if all those other cases against him had also proceeded, I do wish they had but he seems to prefer to delay for a decade & let them 'time-out'.

Which is his decision of course, but does suggest that he/his-lawyers weren't confident of winning, one can speculate or have an opinion about why.

Regarding Yingluck, I'd like to see the evidence, as I'm by-no-means convinced that she benefited personally. She was IMO negligent to ignore the many warnings, and perhaps trusted her advisers too much, perhaps that may come out ?

As always, one watches with interest, and occasional bemusement at the antics !

well, I like your last comment. This is, after all, a spectator sport for most of us.

Under "normal" circumstances, it would make sense to produce evidence and follow the process of law. But even in the best of times in Thailand (and elsewhere) the results tend to depend on who you are, who you know, and what means you have rather than the evidence.

And these are not the best of times, or even close to "normal".

BTW, since I follow US politics where we have had a number of corruption cases recently, it is interesting (at least for me) to see how the "corruption" cases in Thailand are so politically motivated compared to the USA where people just do stupid things and get caught...

[Fatty123]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Can't stand Toxin myself, but many on here can't see that elephant in the room. In fact, it's not even an elephant. It's a singing, dancing mammoth covered with flashing disco lights.

Before you start, the military had already 'fixed' the courts by the time PT got in. PT just wanted whatever power they could have, even the watered down version offered by the military. They could still feed at the trough to some extent. Which is why I dislike PT. Yingluck tried to 'fix it' with a suicidal amnesty bill and what 'power' they had went away altogether.

The Yingluck administration had little power. Probably the most toothless administration Thailand has ever had. They couldn't even get the security forces to help them hold elections. Or clear government buildings. Or give amnesty to its most powerful member, overthrown during an illegal (at the time) coup. Or tell the governor of Bangkok to open the gates during the floods.If you think nothing changed after 2006, then...

Edited February 18, 2015 by Fatty123

[rubl]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Can't stand Toxin myself, but many on here can't see that elephant in the room. In fact, it's not even an elephant. It's a singing, dancing mammoth covered with flashing disco lights.

Before you start, the military had already 'fixed' the courts by the time PT got in. PT just wanted whatever power they could have, even the watered down version offered by the military. They could still feed at the trough to some extent. Which is why I dislike PT. Yingluck tried to 'fix it' with a suicidal amnesty bill and what 'power' they had went away altogether.

The Yingluck administration had little power. Probably the most toothless administration Thailand has ever had. They couldn't even get the security forces to help them hold elections. Or clear government buildings. Or give amnesty to its most powerful member, overthrown during an illegal (at the time) coup. Or tell the governor of Bangkok to open the gates during the floods.If you think nothing changed after 2006, then...

Please use the correct name of the gentleman. It's Thaksin.

The rest is nonsense.

Thanks,

uncle rubl

[rubl]

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

Thanks for responding, although I wish city would, it was his/her error.

I do see your point, Thaksin's criminality (or otherwise) would be more clear, if all those other cases against him had also proceeded, I do wish they had but he seems to prefer to delay for a decade & let them 'time-out'.

Which is his decision of course, but does suggest that he/his-lawyers weren't confident of winning, one can speculate or have an opinion about why.

Regarding Yingluck, I'd like to see the evidence, as I'm by-no-means convinced that she benefited personally. She was IMO negligent to ignore the many warnings, and perhaps trusted her advisers too much, perhaps that may come out ?

As always, one watches with interest, and occasional bemusement at the antics !

well, I like your last comment. This is, after all, a spectator sport for most of us.

Under "normal" circumstances, it would make sense to produce evidence and follow the process of law. But even in the best of times in Thailand (and elsewhere) the results tend to depend on who you are, who you know, and what means you have rather than the evidence.

And these are not the best of times, or even close to "normal".

BTW, since I follow US politics where we have had a number of corruption cases recently, it is interesting (at least for me) to see how the "corruption" cases in Thailand are so politically motivated compared to the USA where people just do stupid things and get caught...

For a moment I thought you were suggesting that corruption in Thailand was part of political programs. If that were so, you're really damning Ms. Yingluck who frequently stated that she, her cabinet and government took special care of corruption.

Edited February 18, 2015 by rubl

[Fatty123]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Can't stand Toxin myself, but many on here can't see that elephant in the room. In fact, it's not even an elephant. It's a singing, dancing mammoth covered with flashing disco lights.

Before you start, the military had already 'fixed' the courts by the time PT got in. PT just wanted whatever power they could have, even the watered down version offered by the military. They could still feed at the trough to some extent. Which is why I dislike PT. Yingluck tried to 'fix it' with a suicidal amnesty bill and what 'power' they had went away altogether.

The Yingluck administration had little power. Probably the most toothless administration Thailand has ever had. They couldn't even get the security forces to help them hold elections. Or clear government buildings. Or give amnesty to its most powerful member, overthrown during an illegal (at the time) coup. Or tell the governor of Bangkok to open the gates during the floods.If you think nothing changed after 2006, then...

Please use the correct name of the gentleman. It's Thaksin.

The rest is nonsense.

Thanks,

uncle rubl

Nonsense is it?

So, PT managed to clear all the voting booths and hold elections without any hiccups? And the courts weren't filled with patsies post 2006? And Yingluck managed to get the forces to help her clear the government buildings? She also managed to stop people just north of Bangkok from putting up with toxic water for 3 months, depsite her asking/telling the governor of BKK to start to open some of the gates bit by bit? She got her brother home to Thailand under her successful amnesty bill, too?

Yes, it was all a dream.

And I'm not your nephew. That part is nonsense.

[JAG]

Doesn't alter the fact that they seized power by a military coup, having done their level best to ensure that the election called according to the constitution and promulgated by royal decree was prevented by a violent minority. Things become so much easier to understand when you leave out inconvenient facts don't rhey?

Hello JAG .... Just checked on the definition of your pen-name.. Prick with a sharp object.... how appropriate..!

Sorry merely my initials, but if personal abuse ( which I always thought was against the rules) floats your boat you carry on. Edited February 18, 2015 by JAG

[northernjohn]

which is just a red herring.

He was indicted by the junta's AEC and convicted under the same royalist courts that side with the military...

The "government in power" had precious little say in all of that...

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

If there was a

popular government in place

what were all the demonstrators doing.? Remember Suthep did not instigate the demonstrations. They were started by several different groups of people who were not in the employ of any one they just wanted a descent government. Suthep came after the ball was opened.

Also How do you figure they were popular.? 51% of the people voted against them.

[Artisi]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

"that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule"

Except that, as we all recall, Thaksin was convicted while his own PPP-led coalition-government was in power, so not "under military rule" at all !

well you do need to make allowances for some people, especially those who open their mouth before engaging brain.

[rubl]

Maybe its just me. How ironic that a guy who commits treason and grabs power, and then absolves himself of the crime can say that somebody must face a justice system that convicted a Thai citizen whilst under military rule.

Can't stand Toxin myself, but many on here can't see that elephant in the room. In fact, it's not even an elephant. It's a singing, dancing mammoth covered with flashing disco lights.

Before you start, the military had already 'fixed' the courts by the time PT got in. PT just wanted whatever power they could have, even the watered down version offered by the military. They could still feed at the trough to some extent. Which is why I dislike PT. Yingluck tried to 'fix it' with a suicidal amnesty bill and what 'power' they had went away altogether.

The Yingluck administration had little power. Probably the most toothless administration Thailand has ever had. They couldn't even get the security forces to help them hold elections. Or clear government buildings. Or give amnesty to its most powerful member, overthrown during an illegal (at the time) coup. Or tell the governor of Bangkok to open the gates during the floods.If you think nothing changed after 2006, then...

Please use the correct name of the gentleman. It's Thaksin.

The rest is nonsense.

Thanks,

uncle rubl

Nonsense is it?

So, PT managed to clear all the voting booths and hold elections without any hiccups? And the courts weren't filled with patsies post 2006? And Yingluck managed to get the forces to help her clear the government buildings? She also managed to stop people just north of Bangkok from putting up with toxic water for 3 months, depsite her asking/telling the governor of BKK to start to open some of the gates bit by bit? She got her brother home to Thailand under her successful amnesty bill, too?

Yes, it was all a dream.

And I'm not your nephew. That part is nonsense.

Nonsense. Plus I'm wondering what Yingluck's power or lack of power has to do with her big brother being invited to come and face the music.

BTW I may not be your uncle as in relative, but I am an uncle and even a genuine Dutch uncle.

Stay on the straight and narrow, young master fatty.

Edited February 18, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

It's amazing how red "camp followers" insist that the courts are biased (except when they rule in their favour) in some huge conspiracy, citing political bias of those prosecuting the charges, and ignoring that sufficient evidence was presented for a conviction. And NEVER mentioning the attempt to bribe his way out of the charges.

Occam's Razor would suggest that they just might be guilty.

it's amazing how yellow "camp followers" think that everyone else is a red "camp follower".

The courts have demonstrated their bias and have been politicized and turned into another tool of the elite. That is not my opinion, but the conclusion of academics whose job it is to analyze these things.

Of course the evidence is obvious for any basically unbiased observer.

Just to set the record straight, since you don't seem capable of understanding the different shades of non-yellow thinking, it is obvious that Thaksin was (and is) corrupt. It's also equally obvious that his conviction was political. It's really not clear that he even broke the law in that particular case, but he was convicted. In my opinion, there are much worse things that he did compared to signing (as the law required) for his wife to purchase a property in an open bid in which she was the highest bidder and it was above the assessed value. Yeah, I think he did many things much worse than that, ... but that is what he was convicted for.

As for Yingluck, I feel that the mood among the Thai elite is so ugly that they will force a conviction even if it is a strategically stupid move. Yeah, I think it is a strategically stupid move. But just so your little yellow mind can figure this out, take note that my making such a statement doesn't actually mean that I am defending her. You guys tend to have a problem with that kind of mental exercise.

OK mai?

Absolutely. I would have been really surprised if you as an American would defend a corrupt person who lost the country 700 billion Baht.

[MaxLee]

"Prawit back PM's insistence that Thaksin return home to face justice first

He can wait 4ever

Edited February 18, 2015 by MaxLee

[TheDiva]

If there was a

popular government in place

what were all the demonstrators doing.? Remember Suthep did not instigate the demonstrations. They were started by several different groups of people who were not in the employ of any one they just wanted a descent government. Suthep came after the ball was opened.

Also How do you figure they were popular.? 51% of the people voted against them.

No, Suthep did not instigate the demonstrations, he hijacked them. Though Abhisit and the ex members of the misnamed democrat party were certainly at the forefront from the beginning, one could be forgiven for thinking it had been planned.

BANGKOK, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Thailand's parliament was due to debate a political amnesty bill on Wednesday as anti-government protesters marched to try to get it scrapped, saying it could let ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra return from exile without having to serve a jail sentence.

Opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva led a march of about 2,500 supporters towards parliament. "It's not about organising a mob but about spreading the truth to the people, to recognise the dangers of this amnesty bill, that there are different hidden agendas," Abhisit told his Democrat Party's Blue Sky News television channel.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-07/news/sns-rt-thailand-politicspixtv-20130806_1_amnesty-parliament-protesters-head

Yes Abhisit, I don't doubt there were hidden agendas, just not those that you were implying.

[smedly]

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

It's amazing how red "camp followers" insist that the courts are biased (except when they rule in their favour) in some huge conspiracy, citing political bias of those prosecuting the charges, and ignoring that sufficient evidence was presented for a conviction. And NEVER mentioning the attempt to bribe his way out of the charges.

Occam's Razor would suggest that they just might be guilty.

it's amazing how yellow "camp followers" think that everyone else is a red "camp follower".

The courts have demonstrated their bias and have been politicized and turned into another tool of the elite. That is not my opinion, but the conclusion of academics whose job it is to analyze these things.

Of course the evidence is obvious for any basically unbiased observer.

Just to set the record straight, since you don't seem capable of understanding the different shades of non-yellow thinking, it is obvious that Thaksin was (and is) corrupt. It's also equally obvious that his conviction was political. It's really not clear that he even broke the law in that particular case, but he was convicted. In my opinion, there are much worse things that he did compared to signing (as the law required) for his wife to purchase a property in an open bid in which she was the highest bidder and it was above the assessed value. Yeah, I think he did many things much worse than that, ... but that is what he was convicted for.

As for Yingluck, I feel that the mood among the Thai elite is so ugly that they will force a conviction even if it is a strategically stupid move. Yeah, I think it is a strategically stupid move. But just so your little yellow mind can figure this out, take note that my making such a statement doesn't actually mean that I am defending her. You guys tend to have a problem with that kind of mental exercise.

OK mai?

It's amazing how many people bring up "yellow" in these discussions - you seem to be confused

From were I can see there are a group who still refer to themselves as redshirts who by their actions threats and monetary support are funded terrorists within Thailand who are targeting anyone that doesn't support them i.e the rest of the population using guns grenades and bombs - it is you that seems to think there is polarisation

Does anyone actually know what the redshirt terrorists actually want - what is their agenda - because it seems that has been unclear for some time

[visionchaser45]

Justice, eh? 555

[tbthailand]

"which is just a red herring"

I disagree, city was wrong when he said "whilst under military rule", I know it's inconvenient but the military were not in-charge when Thaksin was convicted, something which seriously damages his case for claiming that everything was political.

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

If there was a

popular government in place

what were all the demonstrators doing.? Remember Suthep did not instigate the demonstrations. They were started by several different groups of people who were not in the employ of any one they just wanted a descent government. Suthep came after the ball was opened.

Also How do you figure they were popular.? 51% of the people voted against them.

ricardo and I were discussing the time at which Thaksin was convicted.

[rubl]

yes, city did say that, but with the charges stemming from a junta organization and the conviction from the courts from the same side of the political 'debate', the fact that there was a popular government in place doesn't impact the political nature of the conviction.

It could be the same scenario now for Yingluck if the elections are held before she is convicted. (and yes, I do not doubt that they will convict her) But whether there is a military government, a PTP-successor government, or (miracles do happen) Abhisit government will not change the course of her trial and conviction. These people are out for blood and by God, they'll get it.

It was the same for Thaksin...

If there was a

popular government in place

what were all the demonstrators doing.? Remember Suthep did not instigate the demonstrations. They were started by several different groups of people who were not in the employ of any one they just wanted a descent government. Suthep came after the ball was opened.

Also How do you figure they were popular.? 51% of the people voted against them.

ricardo and I were discussing the time at which Thaksin was convicted.

Good question. I must admit I also forgot if it was at 10AM or 2PM. I only vaguely remember it rained that 21st of October, 2008.