FangFerang Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 The headline should have read "Abhisit, considering retirement, and Suthep, who broadcast his retirement, will seem to go through the motions while being exempt from the result as punishment. There will never be a criminal charge, since the courts ruled that they have no jurisdiction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FangFerang Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 When will the Red Shirts paymaster be brought to justice?? Maybe when the Blue Diamond, Red-bull Heir, Aussie-murdering Elite have to face the same justice.... Meaning never, but for reasons you hate as much as anyone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiva Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 These charges are the most ridiculous I have ever seen. I won't even bother going into the detail again : those who don't know it by now are brainwashed or stupid. The only question which really matters is who was behind the decision to escalate the protests. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. Well that's what happens when you deploy live fire zones and snipers, sorry, marksmen, in an urban environment with orders to shoot under modified rules of engagement* - innocent people get killed. *On May 14, the government set out new rules of engagement for security forces, allowing them to use live fire under specific circumstances. These included using warning shots for self-defense, and when troops had clear visual site of “terrorists,” a dangerously vague term. In practice, the security forces began deploying snipers to shoot anyone who tried to enter “no-go” zones between the UDD and security force barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. On many occasions, security forces appear to have randomly shot into crowds of UDD supporters who posed no threat to them, often with lethal consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 He was equally upbeat and confident when he was charged criminally for the same case and the criminal court reciprocated by dropping the case. Why shouldn't he be confident this time. Anyway, both should be charged for criminal conduct and not for alleged mishandling which the NACC said will be decided later. Doubt that. Just like Thaksin was confident about the case in which he was convicted - he legged it, lying about returning. His promises mean nothing. He won't even face the other 15 serious outstanding charges - he's so confident. Oh of course, in your eyes that's because he's totally innocent, regardless of charges and evidence, but just can't get a fair trial. Even with pastry boxes to "sweeten" the judges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiva Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) He was equally upbeat and confident when he was charged criminally for the same case and the criminal court reciprocated by dropping the case. Why shouldn't he be confident this time. Anyway, both should be charged for criminal conduct and not for alleged mishandling which the NACC said will be decided later. Doubt that. It's easy to be confident when you are "covered" by an amnesty provided under the Emergency Decree in place at the time. That amnesty only stands if it is decreed that a proportionate response was applied to the situation at the time - one would hope that level headed, non partisan people know that Live Fire Zones and the deployment and use of snipers are not a proportionate response. Edited February 26, 2015 by TheDiva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 These charges are the most ridiculous I have ever seen. I won't even bother going into the detail again : those who don't know it by now are brainwashed or stupid. The only question which really matters is who was behind the decision to escalate the protests. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. Well that's what happens when you deploy live fire zones and snipers, sorry, marksmen, in an urban environment with orders to shoot under modified rules of engagement* - innocent people get killed. *On May 14, the government set out new rules of engagement for security forces, allowing them to use live fire under specific circumstances. These included using warning shots for self-defense, and when troops had clear visual site of “terrorists,” a dangerously vague term. In practice, the security forces began deploying snipers to shoot anyone who tried to enter “no-go” zones between the UDD and security force barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. On many occasions, security forces appear to have randomly shot into crowds of UDD supporters who posed no threat to them, often with lethal consequences. No you are correct. There were snipers. They were dressed in black and mixed in with the sheep paid red shirt rioters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerboxer Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 He was equally upbeat and confident when he was charged criminally for the same case and the criminal court reciprocated by dropping the case. Why shouldn't he be confident this time. Anyway, both should be charged for criminal conduct and not for alleged mishandling which the NACC said will be decided later. Doubt that. It's easy to be confident when you are "covered" by an amnesty provided under the Emergency Decree in place at the time. However that amnesty only stands if it is decreed that a proportionate response was applied to the situation at the time - Live Fire Zones and the deployment and use of snipers are not a proportionate response one would have thought. What would your response have been to the black shirted snipers, petrol bombs and grenade attacks from the rioters; who were being incited into arson by their criminal leaders? Someone wanted the violence increased and vetoed the agreement to stop the protests when an election date was agreed. Someone wanted martyrs, Any ideas who might have benefited? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiva Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 These charges are the most ridiculous I have ever seen. I won't even bother going into the detail again : those who don't know it by now are brainwashed or stupid. The only question which really matters is who was behind the decision to escalate the protests. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. It was a definite act by someone who knew that many innocent people would die and did not care about it. Well that's what happens when you deploy live fire zones and snipers, sorry, marksmen, in an urban environment with orders to shoot under modified rules of engagement* - innocent people get killed. *On May 14, the government set out new rules of engagement for security forces, allowing them to use live fire under specific circumstances. These included using warning shots for self-defense, and when troops had clear visual site of “terrorists,” a dangerously vague term. In practice, the security forces began deploying snipers to shoot anyone who tried to enter “no-go” zones between the UDD and security force barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers. On many occasions, security forces appear to have randomly shot into crowds of UDD supporters who posed no threat to them, often with lethal consequences. No you are correct. There were snipers. They were dressed in black and mixed in with the sheep paid red shirt rioters. Really, snipers? I won't waste any more time on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiva Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 He was equally upbeat and confident when he was charged criminally for the same case and the criminal court reciprocated by dropping the case. Why shouldn't he be confident this time. Anyway, both should be charged for criminal conduct and not for alleged mishandling which the NACC said will be decided later. Doubt that. It's easy to be confident when you are "covered" by an amnesty provided under the Emergency Decree in place at the time. However that amnesty only stands if it is decreed that a proportionate response was applied to the situation at the time - Live Fire Zones and the deployment and use of snipers are not a proportionate response one would have thought. What would your response have been to the black shirted snipers, petrol bombs and grenade attacks from the rioters; who were being incited into arson by their criminal leaders? Someone wanted the violence increased and vetoed the agreement to stop the protests when an election date was agreed. Someone wanted martyrs, Any ideas who might have benefited? See post #39. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDiva Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 What would your response have been to the black shirted snipers, petrol bombs and grenade attacks from the rioters; who were being incited into arson by their criminal leaders? Someone wanted the violence increased and vetoed the agreement to stop the protests when an election date was agreed. Someone wanted martyrs, Any ideas who might have benefited? See post #39. Actually, No, I'm not letting you get away with this "veto for martyrs" BS. At the time it was perceived that Abhisit was not to be trusted with promises of an election. There were two far more significant vetoes that did indeed result in more deaths, and the vetoes weren't from the UDD side. 24th April 2010; Newly tasked by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva with achieving a settlement after two rounds of failed talks with the red-shirted United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) protest group, Sukhumbhand had barely got his feet wet before the premier pulled the plug on negotiations less than 24 hours after they began. Sukhumbhand said he does not know if the dialogue will resume, saying Abhisit sees little point in the process, though without explaining why. The popularly elected governor warned that the breakdown in talks could soon escalate the conflict, which has resulted in at least 26 deaths and over 900 injuries since the UDD took to Bangkok's streets in mid-March. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LD29Ae03.html 18th May 2010; The Thai government today rejected a proposal for peace talks with leaders of the redshirt protesters to end the deadly standoff in Bangkok, saying negotiations could not start until the protesters dispersed. Cabinet minister Satit Wonghnongtaey quoted the prime minister as saying that "the situation will end only when the protest stops". The televised comments came in response to an offer made earlier in the day by protest leaders, who said they would unconditionally accept an offer by the senate to mediate talks to end five days of violence in the Thai capital. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/18/thai-government-rejects-protesters-peace-offer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 It is hilarious how apparently Abhisit was responsible for the moment by moment strategy. Defintelt taking one for the team here. Can u imagine an army general taking cues from Abhisit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seajae Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 @seajae. It's a little premature to assume on your part based on something you read from a typical lieing ex politician that he may not end up trying to stall any proceedings or even try to run away. Do you always believe what you read. Pretty naive if you do. sorry mate but I look at the facts and they all point to abhisit doing the right thing or would you rather he let the red scum randomly kill, blow up and burn down everything in Bangkok under their overlords instructions. I am also waiting for the ballistic results that show that it was actually the army that shot all those as stated by the reds, both sides had the same weapons and as yet no ballistic matches have been attempted to show who pulled the trigger. Rather than simply go along with the red propaganda like you and the rest of the thaksin lovers I like to look at the facts and they all point to an appropriate call by the govt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realenglish1 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) This is a sad state of affairs. If you are a leader then they charge you with corruption. Abhisit or Yingluk This is silly Its cheap politics. The world is laughing This form of politics is sending a load message to the population. If you become a leader then your outcome will be fighting the courts for your freedom. Who on earth, worth their salt will want to run and lead the country. The really good potential prime ministers are running away from this process. Thailand will never get a great leader if they see they can be punished for an unpopular item. My god if this was the case in the USA then Obama would have been in jail a long time ago for things such as Obama Care or Immigration or a multitude of other legislation that a lot do not agree with. Just because you may strongly disagree with something a politician might do does not give you the right to send him or her to jail . It does give you the right under democracy to not vote for them next time around Its a sad state of affairs and until the Thai people grow up it will remain the same Edited February 26, 2015 by realenglish1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 People more informed than me suggest that the army fear the Democrats cutting off their money train more than PTP. Personally i find it difficult to agree, but we shall see. It is something the Dems could win wide support on, and they should push it. Abhisit or Korn are still the best options for PM of the country, probably the latter, but they need to cut ties which is nearly impossible. It is not often that I agree with you but this time I do. I think Korn would be a better PM than Abhisit. The Democrats need to get rid of all the dinosaurs in the party executive, bring in fresh young blood and spend a huge fortune on a proper PR company to turn them from losers into winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Of course he's ready, he's already been told by NACC that he and Suthep will be found innocent! This is just to give the appearance that the Junta is unbiased. What a sham!! Do you have this on record? Perhaps some links or newspaper reports? Or was it the guy on the next barstool that gave you this priceless gem of information? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angsta Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 As much as I would like the official leader of the anti-democracy democracy party 'mark' and the grinning monk, moron Suthep get it in the ass I truly doubt that will. As David multi millionaire Cameroon likes to say, they're all in this together. However, if this turns into Army Vs Suthep & Mark there can be only one winner...Viva anti-corruption and the 'new' democracy 555!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plowman Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Abhisit is irrelevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneday Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 at least he is prepared to go to court without threatening to run away or try stalling it. Why is that the red and ptp clowns all try to stall any legal proceedings , could it be because they know they are guilty while abhisit know he isnt, shows who is more of a man in all this by facing up to his accusers. What does he have to worry about? NACC are yellow and he is yellow. Not only that, this is an "impeachment" case that carries no jail term. And BTW, Yingluck has not and did not run anywhere. She was here for her impeachment hearing which everyone knew would go against her. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 If either Mark or or that gangster with the whistle ever see the inside of a jail cell EVER!...I'll eat a hat. Why would they see the inside of a jail cell? Are they (legally) found guilty of a crime which would see them sentenced to jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Of course he's ready, he's already been told by NACC that he and Suthep will be found innocent! This is just to give the appearance that the Junta is unbiased. What a sham!! What you claim implies that there is continuing criminality in the currently rigidly controlled management of reforms by the present government. I cannot accept that that can be true because it would invalidate the entire reform process. What is claimed doesn't seem based on facts. As such to discuss what that statement implies is even more meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 at least he is prepared to go to court without threatening to run away or try stalling it. Why is that the red and ptp clowns all try to stall any legal proceedings , could it be because they know they are guilty while abhisit know he isnt, shows who is more of a man in all this by facing up to his accusers. What does he have to worry about? NACC are yellow and he is yellow. Not only that, this is an "impeachment" case that carries no jail term. And BTW, Yingluck has not and did not run anywhere. She was here for her impeachment hearing which everyone knew would go against her. Now all, sing along "we all live in a yellow world here, yellow world here, yellow world here" So, having that of the chest, let's start to be a wee bit more objective without adding colours to deflect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Personally I dont think he will be impeached , the repercussions will be wide and be unpalatable to the current situation My take on the following " He insisted that he had adjusted strategies to avoid casualties but it was not easy because armed men were mingling among the protesters " Is this an acknowledgement that he was aware that innocent people and protesters would be put in danger, By firing live ammunition into the group then it is more than reasonable to assume that innocent people would be killed, It then would follow that the generals giving the command are also responsible For Obvious reasons this cannot be the case Of course he was aware, and so were the "innocent " protesters. The message was loud and clear "Go Home!" Free transport was even provided. Those that are aware they are in a dangerous situation and refuse to leave evoke very little sympathy when they get hurt. There is a thing called Personal Responsibility, apparently you can buy it for B500/day. They didnt get hurt, some got killed, It doesnt detract from the fact it was the result of firing live ammunition , knowing that deaths would occur. If your statement " Of course he was aware, and so were the "innocent " protesters. The message was loud and clear "Go Home!" Free transport was even provided " is correct, Then his actions are as a minimum is negligent , The foreseeable likelihood that the conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm 'peaceful protesters' were warned. 'life fire zones' clearly marked and explained. So what's negligent? Is having grenades dropped on non-red-shirts negligent? Militants cowardly crawling around amongst peaceful protesters negligent? The UDD leaders didn't even acknowledge the very existence of those militants. Even the renegade general Seh Daeng when asked about the April 10th disaster said "no one saw me". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plowman Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 NACC case against Abhisit is a political move. Abhisit is aligned with the even more hardline Prem faction and this is Prawit and Prayuth moving against Abhisit in order to try to hinder Prem. It's the usual nasty politics in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sscsamui Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 he Violent ones were the Red Shirts. Get your facts strait...Abisit Did want he had to do to control the Chaos that the Reds Shirts created. I was there and Saw the brutality that the Red Shirts where creating in Bangkok and the Local people living in Bangkok. I would have done it sooner... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailand Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Simply a charade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 NACC case against Abhisit is a political move. Abhisit is aligned with the even more hardline Prem faction and this is Prawit and Prayuth moving against Abhisit in order to try to hinder Prem. It's the usual nasty politics in Thailand. Thanks for your insight in Thai politics and machinations. Now back to reality where for many years people have been asking and demanding the 2010 riots and terrorist attacks be investigated together with the Abhisit government response to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Abhisit is irrelevent. However here in Thailand he is FAR more relevant than you will ever be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 NACC case against Abhisit is a political move. Abhisit is aligned with the even more hardline Prem faction and this is Prawit and Prayuth moving against Abhisit in order to try to hinder Prem. It's the usual nasty politics in Thailand. Oh wonderful. How do YOU know all this stuff which I assume coming from you is 100% genuine? Or is it the nasty rumours that you keep floating about that have no real basis in facts. I am sure that as usual you have all the facts and links etc at your fingertips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Time to don the saffron robes Mark old chum. Well he didn´t "piss of to" Dubai to be a camel herder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Abhisit is irrelevent. However here in Thailand he is FAR more relevant than you will ever be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now