Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Lite Beer]

Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'
The Nation

National Anti-Corruption Commission chairman Parnthep Klanarongrarn has told former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban they must clarify their decision to order the dispersal of red shirt demonstrators in 2010.

Abhisit and Suthep have been accused of mishandling the bloody crackdown on supporters of the red shirts' United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship.

At least 99 people were killed over a two-month period.

Parnthep said Abhisit and Suthep must either make their clarifications in person or in writing by Wednesday.

He said if the men want to use witnesses in an attempt to bolster their cases, the NACC will scrutinise the request under the law and determine if it is necessary to the case.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-and-Suthep-must-explain-dispersal-of-red-s-30256461.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-21

[Robby nz]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

[rasmus5150]

The only difference between the Red Shirts in Bangkok in 2010 and Jihad Extremists, is that the Red Shirts received 500 thb pr. day. They needed to be removed, or there would have been a civil war, and Bangkok would have burned to the ground. Even the Red Shirts leaders said so themselves from their stage, before they fled with their tails between their legs.

[oneday]

Quite a difference in how they treat Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban compared to Yingluck, the red shirts, the MP's that tried to get a senate that was 100% voted and other's associated with Pheu Thai...quite a difference. That's OK Abhisit...99 people were killed and all you have to do is write your answer and submit it, because we don't want to stress you too much and we want you as next PM again. Oh, and don't worry about that military mix-up stuff either.

[whybother]

Quite a difference in how they treat Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban compared to Yingluck, the red shirts, the MP's that tried to get a senate that was 100% voted and other's associated with Pheu Thai...quite a difference. That's OK Abhisit...99 people were killed and all you have to do is write your answer and submit it, because we don't want to stress you too much and we want you as next PM again. Oh, and don't worry about that military mix-up stuff either.

Different?

Rice-pledging scheme: PM Yingluck won't acknowledge charges in person

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/705678-rice-pledging-scheme-pm-yingluck-wont-acknowledge-charges-in-person/

[z42]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.
And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

[JOC]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

[geriatrickid]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

Why are you rehashing an issue that has already been addressed by the NACC? There was an investigation. Why bring up an unrelated issued? Why are you afraid to deal with this specific subject?

[geriatrickid]

The only difference between the Red Shirts in Bangkok in 2010 and Jihad Extremists, is that the Red Shirts received 500 thb pr. day. They needed to be removed, or there would have been a civil war, and Bangkok would have burned to the ground. Even the Red Shirts leaders said so themselves from their stage, before they fled with their tails between their legs.

What is the point of raising unsubstantiated allegations that have no relationship to the subject of this thread? The issue of compensation paid to UDD supporters has been dealt with at length and was intended to cover the costs associated with attending the rallies. Suthep's group did the same thing, although it is alleged he paid more. PAD did the same thing. In western countries, political activists will subsidize attendance at rallies whether it be with lodging discounts, transportation, or hospitality centres that provide showers, food, wifi access etc. Whether it is right or wrong is a subject for another thread.

As for your comparisons to jihadis, you undercut your position with such a claim. If you really believe the groups are comparable, I suggest you visit Iraq,or Tunisia or Syria or Niger to understand how jihadis behave.

The allegations in respect to UDD speakers encouraging vandalism are a separate issue and have been addressed by the Thai judicial system. They have no relevance to the alleged illegal acts of Suthep and Abhisit.

The fact of the matter is that Abhisit is being offered up as fodder to show that the NACC is non partisan. I believe the conclusion has already been reached. However, it will be interesting to see if Suthep is made the fall guy thereby getting rid of a political pain in the butt to the current administration.

[off road pat]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

I'm happy to see some people remember what really happened...and are not just bashing .....and shooting there heads of...great.!!!

Edited March 21, 2015 by off road pat

[off road pat]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

Again, I'm happy to see some people remember what really happened...and are not just bashing .....and shooting there heads of...great.!!!

[wow64]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

[rubl]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Since you mention 'elite', it's interesting to notice that the protests took real shape when the criminal court ruled to confiscate 46 or so billion of Thaksin's ill-gotten gains.

Nonetheless, let's have Abhisit and Suthep explain their decision and actions. Since Ms. Yingluck has asked for and is offered the opportunity to explain herself in the RPPS that's only fair.

[arrowsdawdle]

Quite a difference in how they treat Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban compared to Yingluck, the red shirts, the MP's that tried to get a senate that was 100% voted and other's associated with Pheu Thai...quite a difference. That's OK Abhisit...99 people were killed and all you have to do is write your answer and submit it, because we don't want to stress you too much and we want you as next PM again. Oh, and don't worry about that military mix-up stuff either.

Wink and a nod politics in action.

[rubl]

Although 99 is considered a lucky number by many Thai (and especially 999), in this case I think we should stick to 93 deaths.

[arrowsdawdle]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Since you mention 'elite', it's interesting to notice that the protests took real shape when the criminal court ruled to confiscate 46 or so billion of Thaksin's ill-gotten gains.

Nonetheless, let's have Abhisit and Suthep explain their decision and actions. Since Ms. Yingluck has asked for and is offered the opportunity to explain herself in the RPPS that's only fair.

That's only fair?....99 dead and a thousand wounded versus a few bags of rice missing.

[arrowsdawdle]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

I'm happy to see some people remember what really happened...and are not just bashing .....and shooting there heads of...great.!!!

Oh, you mean the official scripted version.

[whybother]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

How should a nation deal with armed protesters?

[whybother]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Should the then government have sent in soldiers with riot shields to deal with the armed protesters? Edited March 21, 2015 by whybother

[Baerboxer]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Why did the reds wait from 2006 - when Thaskin was removed from illegally holding the caretaker PM position from which he previously resigned and then illegally reappointed himself until 2010 to protest?

Was the seizing of Thaksin's assets at that time purely coincidental?

The red shirt leaders, now millionaires, former MP's and Ministers for PTP, and who have never being jailed for inciting violence captured on video, agreed an early election to resolve matters. They then reversed this - who made that decision?

Live rounds and grenade attacks started from the red side - including killing innocent bystanders. Almost like someone was trying to provoke an escalation and body count. Who would benefit the most from this? Maybe the same person/people who reversed the early election agreement?

[Baerboxer]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

How should a nation deal with armed protesters?

In most nations the police would be dealing with the protesters not the army. But the police here simply refused to to their duty and do anything that Thaksin might not like.

Having agreed to an early election to resolve the protests peacefully, the red shirts changed their minds and the violence was cranked up instead. The government had little choice to respond. Wonder who thought that all up - and hoped to benefit the most?

[rixalex]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

Usually it's a nation's police force who shot their own people. Do you oppose that?

Unfortunately in some countries the police forces aren't sufficiently trained or equipped to deal with large scale violent rioting. The choice then becomes to either give up trying to control the country and allow rioters to do as they wish, or send in the soldiers.

Those organising the protests knew full well what the situation was. They knew that the police would do nothing to try and stop them, and they knew that if they dragged things on for weeks and weeks and started getting increasingly violent, that the army would be sent out to control things, and they knew that would end in deaths.

Don't know about you, but were I a protest leader, I wouldn't want to be responsible for people losing their lives. I'd tell them thanks for their support but to go home to their families. That never happened. Speaks volumes about the organisers.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

[Docno]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

How should a nation deal with armed protesters?

Certainly not with free fire zones, snipers, and soldiers firing on unarmed civilians taking refuge in a place of worship. For a counter model to your assumption that a violent, full-blown military assault is the only option, I invite you to read up on how Canada dealt with a much more openly aggressive insurrection by Mohawk warriors in the 1990s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

[Docno]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

[diehard60]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

WOW! Some of those questions are really dumb.

Why they were there in the first place ? - the same reason suptep and his gunmen were out last year.

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ? the army just like this time.

enough said??? Thank you

[Pi Sek]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

I respectfully disagree. There are numerous eventualities in every country where a nation's army has to act against its own citizens. 2010 was a fine example.

[robertson468]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

You clearly do not understand the International Rules of Engagement, which are: In the event of the life of people being in danger or their property, the use of deadly force may be authorised. As an ex-soldier, this appeared to be the case and the Army was right to engage those who had first engaged them with deadly force furthermore had destroyed a considerable amount of property. Ask yourself the question, "who are they to shoot, kill, maim and destroy the property of others, many of whom just happened to be there and to have property in the area they decided to create mayhem"? Or perhaps you would rather the innocent civilians who happen to live in the area to be shot at, maimed and killed without recourse or the soldiers who are trying to protect the Country from violence and destruction also be shot at, maimed and killed. Sorry to say, but you write complete nonsense.

[Robby nz]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

WOW! Some of those questions are really dumb.

Why they were there in the first place ? - the same reason suptep and his gunmen were out last year.

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ? the army just like this time.

enough said??? Thank you

Your answer is really dumb, but then you probably weren't here at the time.

Hay, I didn't realize there was an amnesty bill proposed by the Abhisit Govt that brought the people out to protest against corruption being forgiven and a criminal fugitive and his proxy governments given amnesty so no charges could ever have been brought against them.

And Suthep never had gunmen he had guards who were forced to arm themselves when the protesters were attacked with grenades and bullets an a daily basis and the police refused to protect them.

If you have proof that the men in black were supplied with weapons by the army I am sure the NACC will be keen to hear from you, I don't mean the ones the reds stole from the army, we know about that.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Robby nz

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

If these protesters came to Bkk with the blatant intent of burning the city down (as the reds did). If they were armed and barricaded, if they were launching grenades at the opposition protesters (killing several). if they started shooting at the military and killed the military personnel and had taken over their equipment (because if you remember the military did not retaliate when the reds attacked them the first time killing a colonel and another soldier and injuring countless others). If the protesters were burning and blowing up city buses with propane bottles, then YES, I would have defended Yingluck for protecting the citizens by using force.

What you fail to see with your biased head, way up your biased you know what, is that these protesters (led by Suthep) were peaceful!!! yes, it was inconvenient for all of us to put up with it but they were there to remove a cancer from society and IMO this needed to be done. I believe Thailand is better off because of it and we are seeing many improvements as a result. Things are not perfect but we are taking baby steps in the right direction. This will take generations to change the culture of this place but it has to start somewhere.

I am just curious....how long do you think it would have been before Ying bankrupted the country? How long before she granted amnesty to her brother and hundreds of other corrupt thieves that steal from the people and country they swore an oath to serve?

How long before Taksin would have been back as the ultimate dictator of Thailand? That was the whole point of everything the reds were trying to achieve. They came very very close to making it happen. Thank God they were stopped is all I can say.