Leader of red shirts who burnt Ubon city hall given life sentence

[sjaak327]

Shooting down over 90 people in BKK was state sponsored terrorism right ? What still baffles me is some people being shocked at the partial burning of Central World (a tasteless mall) but not about over 90 people being killed. And before the usual suspects start the ridiculous terrorism claim, this happened BEFORE even a single building was put on fire.

I get it, those som tam eating red shirts aren't proper citizens right ?

Reconciliation my ass, when are the people responsible for this state initiated terrorism going to be put on trial, the answer is never.

Get your facts right before you start venting gas. The reason your betters keep quiet about 2010 is that they know as well as the rest of us that the shooting was started by the men in black (scumbag UDD and other low-life mercenaries) with the intention of creating a bloodbath using the other gullible innocent people. All earlier attempts to compromise were refused because non led to a collapse of the government and the potential for the goblin to return as the hero who saved Thailand.

'State Sponsored terrorism' is Pheu-Thai sending red-shirts to fire M79 grenades at random into crowds of innocent, peaceful protesters with the intention of clinging on to power. Only one side was firing in over 90 attacks and thirty of the other side dead including women and children.

You infer Central World deserved to be burned down therefore it was OK. Thus you inadvertently admit you acknowledge who was behind it. Take your disgusting ethics back to your village and share them with your like-minded mates.

You give us an excellent example of the red-shirt who never wants reconciliation and are a stereotype who is racked with spite against the 'Bangkok Elite' who have all that money and you want it. I am quite sure you felt happiness at every report of the death of an anti-government protester after the disgraceful amnesty bill.

Every one of those protesters was worth 10 of your all-expenses-paid party-goers.

My facts straight ? The person responsible for those deaths isn't Thaksin, his name is Suthep, one of yours...

Still whining about amnesty John, what about the amnesty granted to NCPO, hypocrite.

Oh, and I am not a red shirt, nor do I approve of any human being killed. Not by snipers, and not by people throwing grenades. And yes, dead people shock me more than a burnt Central World, that is just a building, not worth getting upset about.

I guess that message went right over your head.

Edited December 20, 2015 by sjaak327

[Richard W]

'Terrorism' indeed it was, it checks all the boxes of the definition, look it up, like it or not...

you are being silly, if fits the definition of ARSON, look it up, like it or not.

And the recent massacre at the Bataclan in Paris fits the definition of MURDER. That doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism.

Returning to the burning down of Ubon city hall:

• Action intended to influence the government
• Done for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause
• Caused serious damage to a property

It checks all the boxes, so it is terrorism. There are alternatives for some of the boxes; I've chosen the ones that I believe to apply.

Unfortunately, 'terrorism' is no longer a useful word, e.g. the 'terrorism' sponsored by the USA in Syria. (Like a lot of countries, the USA was founded by 'terrorists'.)

[tbthailand]

Shooting down over 90 people in BKK was state sponsored terrorism right ? What still baffles me is some people being shocked at the partial burning of Central World (a tasteless mall) but not about over 90 people being killed. And before the usual suspects start the ridiculous terrorism claim, this happened BEFORE even a single building was put on fire.

I get it, those som tam eating red shirts aren't proper citizens right ?

Reconciliation my ass, when are the people responsible for this state initiated terrorism going to be put on trial, the answer is never.

Now let me see. about 16 military, police and other non-red-shirt supporters killed out of 93.

Now people are more important than buildings for sure. That doesn't make burning down buildings get any better. It was done on purpose, planned before and executed by red-shirts who didn't realise they could possibly be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed.

When the de facto UDD leader said to come back and stand with them if shots were fired and he just went to Paris to go shopping with his daughters, even those red-shirts should have realise their importance in the eyes of those leaders.

So, Pichet Thabuddha, who ordered 'his' red-shirts to set fire to the Ubon Ratchathani city hall, sentence to jail for life.

Nowhere did I claim that burning buildings was 'okay' I did raise a point which you again ignored. It's pretty simple, when are the people responsible for killing over 90 people going to have justice ?

A lot of text, not one sentence on topic. Nice one rubl,

nice also as it's not at all clear where he gets his numbers, ... although it makes no difference if "only" 77 Thais were killed by the army, does it?

This is a great example of Rubl-tripe...

Now people are more important than buildings for sure. That doesn't make burning down buildings get any better.

Yes, that is exactly the point. It is better than killing people outright. Most people would not take such a perverse perspective and instead would just call it as it is: killing people is worse than burning down a building...

As far as those numbers go, I recall about 7 fatalities were security personnel, but that is worth checking. I guess some of the rest of the 16 non-protesters could include the Japanese and Italian journalists. It could also include the aid workers in the temple. But hey, they were all shot by the army, too. So where is his point, anyway?

[tbthailand]

'Terrorism' indeed it was, it checks all the boxes of the definition, look it up, like it or not...

you are being silly, if fits the definition of ARSON, look it up, like it or not.

And the recent massacre at the Bataclan in Paris fits the definition of MURDER. That doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism.

Returning to the burning down of Ubon city hall:

• Action intended to influence the government
• Done for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause
• Caused serious damage to a property

It checks all the boxes, so it is terrorism. There are alternatives for some of the boxes; I've chosen the ones that I believe to apply.

Unfortunately, 'terrorism' is no longer a useful word, e.g. the 'terrorism' sponsored by the USA in Syria. (Like a lot of countries, the USA was founded by 'terrorists'.)

by your definition, some people would consider graffiti or defacing a building or a statue as terrorism, ... so much for that interpretation...

ps; should add that the US was not founded by "terrorists", but one would think that such things hardly need mentioning...

Edited December 20, 2015 by tbthailand

[sjaak327]

'Terrorism' indeed it was, it checks all the boxes of the definition, look it up, like it or not...

you are being silly, if fits the definition of ARSON, look it up, like it or not.

And the recent massacre at the Bataclan in Paris fits the definition of MURDER. That doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism.

Returning to the burning down of Ubon city hall:

• Action intended to influence the government
• Done for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause
• Caused serious damage to a property

It checks all the boxes, so it is terrorism. There are alternatives for some of the boxes; I've chosen the ones that I believe to apply.

Unfortunately, 'terrorism' is no longer a useful word, e.g. the 'terrorism' sponsored by the USA in Syria. (Like a lot of countries, the USA was founded by 'terrorists'.)

by your definition, some people would consider graffiti or defacing a building or a statue as terrorism, ... so much for that interpretation...

ps; should add that the US was not founded by "terrorists", but one would think that such things hardly need mentioning...

He left out the defining definition of terrorism, which is to cause a maximum amount of casualties. This defining definition is absent in this particular case, which can only lead to one conclusion, this was NOT an act of terrorism.

[Richard W]

Returning to the burning down of Ubon city hall:

• Action intended to influence the government
• Done for the purpose of advancing a political or ideological cause
• Caused serious damage to a property

It checks all the boxes, so it is terrorism. There are alternatives for some of the boxes; I've chosen the ones that I believe to apply.

Unfortunately, 'terrorism' is no longer a useful word, e.g. the 'terrorism' sponsored by the USA in Syria. (Like a lot of countries, the USA was founded by 'terrorists'.)

by your definition, some people would consider graffiti or defacing a building or a statue as terrorism, ... so much for that interpretation...

ps; should add that the US was not founded by "terrorists", but one would think that such things hardly need mentioning...

He left out the defining definition of terrorism, which is to cause a maximum amount of casualties. This defining definition is absent in this particular case, which can only lead to one conclusion, this was NOT an act of terrorism.

I don't know what law you base your definition on; I was taking the British definition, available in Seciton 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 . Maximisation of casualties is no part of the legal definition.

Graffiti on a building is unlikely to be serious damage.

As to the USA, I always understood it was established by the American War of Independence, which I understood was largely established by American rebels taking up arms (Box 3: threat of serious violence against a person) against the British Government (Box 1: to influence the government) to establish what they considered their rights (Box 2: political cause). What have I misunderstood? Were the British simply kept out by the French and Spanish?

Apparently, one of the problems with the offence of glorifying terrorism, part of the Terrorism Act 2006 that has still not come into force, was that it would cause severe problems for Irish governments with respect to commemorating the Easter Rising (1916).

[tbthailand]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

[halloween]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

[rubl]

Shooting down over 90 people in BKK was state sponsored terrorism right ? What still baffles me is some people being shocked at the partial burning of Central World (a tasteless mall) but not about over 90 people being killed. And before the usual suspects start the ridiculous terrorism claim, this happened BEFORE even a single building was put on fire.

I get it, those som tam eating red shirts aren't proper citizens right ?

Reconciliation my ass, when are the people responsible for this state initiated terrorism going to be put on trial, the answer is never.

Now let me see. about 16 military, police and other non-red-shirt supporters killed out of 93.

Now people are more important than buildings for sure. That doesn't make burning down buildings get any better. It was done on purpose, planned before and executed by red-shirts who didn't realise they could possibly be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed.

When the de facto UDD leader said to come back and stand with them if shots were fired and he just went to Paris to go shopping with his daughters, even those red-shirts should have realise their importance in the eyes of those leaders.

So, Pichet Thabuddha, who ordered 'his' red-shirts to set fire to the Ubon Ratchathani city hall, sentence to jail for life.

Nowhere did I claim that burning buildings was 'okay' I did raise a point which you again ignored. It's pretty simple, when are the people responsible for killing over 90 people going to have justice ?

A lot of text, not one sentence on topic. Nice one rubl,

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

But at least the case of the topic is resolved.

[rubl]

Shooting down over 90 people in BKK was state sponsored terrorism right ? What still baffles me is some people being shocked at the partial burning of Central World (a tasteless mall) but not about over 90 people being killed. And before the usual suspects start the ridiculous terrorism claim, this happened BEFORE even a single building was put on fire.

I get it, those som tam eating red shirts aren't proper citizens right ?

Reconciliation my ass, when are the people responsible for this state initiated terrorism going to be put on trial, the answer is never.

Now let me see. about 16 military, police and other non-red-shirt supporters killed out of 93.

Now people are more important than buildings for sure. That doesn't make burning down buildings get any better. It was done on purpose, planned before and executed by red-shirts who didn't realise they could possibly be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed.

When the de facto UDD leader said to come back and stand with them if shots were fired and he just went to Paris to go shopping with his daughters, even those red-shirts should have realise their importance in the eyes of those leaders.

So, Pichet Thabuddha, who ordered 'his' red-shirts to set fire to the Ubon Ratchathani city hall, sentence to jail for life.

Nowhere did I claim that burning buildings was 'okay' I did raise a point which you again ignored. It's pretty simple, when are the people responsible for killing over 90 people going to have justice ?

A lot of text, not one sentence on topic. Nice one rubl,

nice also as it's not at all clear where he gets his numbers, ... although it makes no difference if "only" 77 Thais were killed by the army, does it?

This is a great example of Rubl-tripe...

Now people are more important than buildings for sure. That doesn't make burning down buildings get any better.

Yes, that is exactly the point. It is better than killing people outright. Most people would not take such a perverse perspective and instead would just call it as it is: killing people is worse than burning down a building...

As far as those numbers go, I recall about 7 fatalities were security personnel, but that is worth checking. I guess some of the rest of the 16 non-protesters could include the Japanese and Italian journalists. It could also include the aid workers in the temple. But hey, they were all shot by the army, too. So where is his point, anyway?

Thank you very much for your kind words, my dear tbthailand.

As for numbers, these's numbers haven't changed over the last years. About 16 military personel, police and non-red-shirts and 77 red-shirt supporters. Thais were killed by the army, Thais were killed by cowardly terrorists hiding amongst red-shirt supporters who saw nothing, knew nothing and said nothing.

As for burning down building being better than killing people, that's a meaningless statement. What's next, dropping grenades on buildings is better than killing people? Better trying to talk down the non-red-shirts killed? Better trying to talk down the terorist activities of cowardly grenade lovers?

As for the point, well, our dear sjaak327 accused the army of killing 90 people. The 7 'security personel' were army personel who got a few grenades dropped on them by Men-in-black. The others include police officers, a lady who was killed by a grenade at BTS SalaDaeng.

[Richard W]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

I can no longer find authorities arguing that the nature of the government affects whether a deed is terrorism or not. This is odd, because I remember an old security question where the difference lay in whether the government was democratic.

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

[SheungWan]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

The only question remaining then would be whether we could identify Thaksin as the equivalent of George Washington and Arisman 'er...... It really is a hoot when our resident Ladybird Historians throw up a variety of nonsense examples to essentially justify the burning down of regional Thai town halls....... all in the cause of freedom you understand.

[SheungWan]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

I can no longer find authorities arguing that the nature of the government affects whether a deed is terrorism or not. This is odd, because I remember an old security question where the difference lay in whether the government was democratic.

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

You know, when someone is suggesting that we are 'half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism', they are wheedling their way to a full whitewash. Just half a step at a time.

[thelonius]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

The only question remaining then would be whether we could identify Thaksin as the equivalent of George Washington and Arisman 'er...... It really is a hoot when our resident Ladybird Historians throw up a variety of nonsense examples to essentially justify the burning down of regional Thai town halls....... all in the cause of freedom you understand.

There was/is no justification, but it was a manifestation of peoples frustration and anger built up over the years. Perhaps if you looked at the reasoning behind the "ladybird historians" comments you might understand a bit more.

[rubl]

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

True. That's why a new case was dropped with the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders. The charge was 'abuse of power'. Still in progress. Case was raised by NACC or OAG, forgot which one.

[rubl]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

The only question remaining then would be whether we could identify Thaksin as the equivalent of George Washington and Arisman 'er...... It really is a hoot when our resident Ladybird Historians throw up a variety of nonsense examples to essentially justify the burning down of regional Thai town halls....... all in the cause of freedom you understand.

There was/is no justification, but it was a manifestation of peoples frustration and anger built up over the years. Perhaps if you looked at the reasoning behind the "ladybird historians" comments you might understand a bit more.

Yes, there was no justification for all the grenade lobbing and cowardly night attacks. That also means that that 'manifestation' is not understandable in the sense you seem to suggest.

So, a 'misguided' red-shirt leader sentenced.

Anyway

[halloween]

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

I can no longer find authorities arguing that the nature of the government affects whether a deed is terrorism or not. This is odd, because I remember an old security question where the difference lay in whether the government was democratic.

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

Your claim that "friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin" is naive at best. MPs are elected to represent the people, claiming to know the intent of their supporters is ridiculous. Once elected, their decisions are their own, and the voters have no say in those decisions.

BTW those I have spoken to decry the destruction of public property, especially the fire engine, which belong to the community, not the government.

[tbthailand]

blah blah blah,

a rebellion against an authoritarian government maintaining its control by force, and which is not a government of the people, is not terrorism...

it's called a revolution.

The founders of the USA might have been rebels, but they were not terrorists.

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

I can no longer find authorities arguing that the nature of the government affects whether a deed is terrorism or not. This is odd, because I remember an old security question where the difference lay in whether the government was democratic.

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism.

yeah, it wasn't. Don't try to go overboard with stupid hyperbole. It was just arson and should be treated as such.

[rubl]

I have to agree the red shirts were revolting. Other than that, I see no relevance to the events of 2010.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

I can no longer find authorities arguing that the nature of the government affects whether a deed is terrorism or not. This is odd, because I remember an old security question where the difference lay in whether the government was democratic.

Both the case against Abhisit and Suthep and the case against UDD leaders is still in court progressing at a glacial space. Luckily Ms. Yingluck's blanket amnesty bill got thrown out otherwise there would be no case.

Actually, according to the BBC, the case against Abhisit and Suthep was thrown out. Apparently, the criminal court was not legally competent to try the case; instead it should have been started in the supreme court! PTP etc. do seem to have a lot of problems with working in accord with the law.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism.

yeah, it wasn't. Don't try to go overboard with stupid hyperbole. It was just arson and should be treated as such.

'just arson'. Nothing special, just arson. Like children who don't get what that want just destroy what they don't get?

Anyway, just simple arson for the fun of it, Absolutely no relation with UDD leaders having shoutcasted about 'sea of fire'. Just simple arson.

At least as some try to make us believe.

[Artisi]

Did the rich guy, the Red Bull Heir who killed the policeman whilst high on Cocaine and booze ever see the inside of a prison ?

These sentences are ridiculous and are aimed at putting the poor in their place, you have Army Generals who are USD Multi Millionaires which is impossible on their Salary, Police Chiefs who are also USD Multi Millionaires, again impossible on their salary given free reign to do anything they please, as long as they keep the super rich that run Thailand safe from the poor, and safe from any questions as to how they came by their vast wealth.

Hence the defamation laws, there purely to protect the corrupt from criticism.

If you're poor in Thailand you'd better do what the rich men tell you to do, they have thousands of armed thugs in uniforms and the Judiciary at their disposal.

a very leftist view.

setting fire to the city hall was:

1- intentional

2- organized

3- potential manslaughter, consciously taking the risk that someone dies

4- politically motivated

5- terrorism

causing an accident killing a cop is:

1- negligent and careless

2- stupid

3- unintentional

4- an accident !

I really don't see how you can relate the two.

Of no problem to the reds, they can twist, concoct, stretch, and even lie when it suits their cause, but don't ever try and bamboozle them with the truth, especially if it is not in their favour.

[Richard W]

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism. If one accepts that Abhisit's government was not a government by the people because the friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin, by the above argument one is half-way to ruling that the action is not terrorism.

Your claim that "friends of Newin were elected to support Thaksin" is naive at best. MPs are elected to represent the people, claiming to know the intent of their supporters is ridiculous. Once elected, their decisions are their own, and the voters have no say in those decisions.

The Redshirts do not accept the principle of representative democracy; they appear to regard MPs rather as delegates. As to what the voters (or their controllers) intended, note that the friends of Newin were severely reduced in number in the subsequent election in 2011.

The relevance is whether this arson was terrorism.

yeah, it wasn't. Don't try to go overboard with stupid hyperbole. It was just arson and should be treated as such.

Next you'll be claiming it's acceptable to stamp on a Thai banknote! (I trust everyone here knows that one should never, ever do that - one is liable to be arrested if one survives.)

It wasn't mere arson; it was done to promote a political cause and was an attack on a symbol of the state, as well as causing serious damage to property.