NACC clears Abhisit, Suthep and Anupong

[sweatalot]

These ridiculous charges were brought by Thaksin (via his cronies) to blackmail Abhisit and Suthep to accept an amnesty bill.

Charging them with murder in those circumstances was simply ridiculous.

We've all seen the videos and the Army were clearing out armed terrorists from the streets of Bangkok. The riot police should have done it earlier but they wouldn't. The protesters should have accepted the offer of an election but they wouldn't. The line that they were peaceful protesters is a lie only hypocrites will stand behind because it suits them.

I've stood in the Dusit Thani hotel while someone pointed out to me all the rooftops where the mercenary snipers were positioned. And I saw a .50 cal hole in the roof which came from that direction.

Thaksin set up a bloodbath using his own supporters hoping to incite a peoples uprising so he could come back home as the saviour of his people. That's how much he loves you red-shirts. Just like he threw you under a bus with the amnesty bill. How many more lessons do you need before you start to cotton on ?.

ha ha ha it's old one eye again....

All evidence show that "protest" was not peaceful like you want to believe.

Existence of armed element in rank of red shirt has been proved.

They even had a general commanding the peaceful protesters

[rubl]

These ridiculous charges were brought by Thaksin (via his cronies) to blackmail Abhisit and Suthep to accept an amnesty bill.

Charging them with murder in those circumstances was simply ridiculous.

We've all seen the videos and the Army were clearing out armed terrorists from the streets of Bangkok. The riot police should have done it earlier but they wouldn't. The protesters should have accepted the offer of an election but they wouldn't. The line that they were peaceful protesters is a lie only hypocrites will stand behind because it suits them.

I've stood in the Dusit Thani hotel while someone pointed out to me all the rooftops where the mercenary snipers were positioned. And I saw a .50 cal hole in the roof which came from that direction.

Thaksin set up a bloodbath using his own supporters hoping to incite a peoples uprising so he could come back home as the saviour of his people. That's how much he loves you red-shirts. Just like he threw you under a bus with the amnesty bill. How many more lessons do you need before you start to cotton on ?.

ha ha ha it's old one eye again....

All evidence show that "protest" was not peaceful like you want to believe.

Existence of armed element in rank of red shirt has been proved.

Too right it was an armed resistance against an armed oppressor.

Very, very brave souls taking to the streets to protest against the theft of their nation by an extremely well armed opponent.

1973 - Student uprising = 77 dead

1976 - Thammasat massacre = 46 dead

1992 - Black May = 52 dead

2010 - Red shirt massacre = 98 dead

Over the years brave Thais have and will continue to pay with their blood in their struggle for freedom and democracy.

If I may ...

1976 Thammasat massacre 1 dead, a former Thai PM said so

2010 March to May riots - 93 dead including 16 non-red-shirts

The '2010' struggle was for a.o. Thaksin's confiscated billions while he was shopping with his daughters in Paris. In January 2010 UDD leaders already talked about 'bring bottles to Bangkok', the weeks before a court decided on the billions confiscated from the Shinawatra family 'unknowns' started lobbing grenades at non-red-shirt targets. After the end of february court decision the UDD with de facto leader Thaksin got bolder in their shoutcasts, heavily armed militants started to lob a few more grenades. Renegade general "no one saw me" Seh Daeng and his merry band of cowardly night attackers also got bolder and more violent. Etc., etc.

Since Thaksin started trying to return lots of innocents have lost their lives for freedom of de facto leader, for the ill gotten billions, for a power and money hungry criminal fugitive. Poor Thailand.

Anyway, still the same nonsense being dished out by the same posters, even if under new names.

BTW one would almost wish the 'blanket amnesty bill' would have been accepted and made effective. None of thse discussions would be necessary. Mind you, with even red-shirts protesting against it the Pheu Thai MP UDD leaders were quick to suggest that the 'blanket' amnesty was of course only for the right people.

Edited December 30, 2015 by rubl

[JAG]

These ridiculous charges were brought by Thaksin (via his cronies) to blackmail Abhisit and Suthep to accept an amnesty bill.

Charging them with murder in those circumstances was simply ridiculous.

We've all seen the videos and the Army were clearing out armed terrorists from the streets of Bangkok. The riot police should have done it earlier but they wouldn't. The protesters should have accepted the offer of an election but they wouldn't. The line that they were peaceful protesters is a lie only hypocrites will stand behind because it suits them.

I've stood in the Dusit Thani hotel while someone pointed out to me all the rooftops where the mercenary snipers were positioned. And I saw a .50 cal hole in the roof which came from that direction.

Thaksin set up a bloodbath using his own supporters hoping to incite a peoples uprising so he could come back home as the saviour of his people. That's how much he loves you red-shirts. Just like he threw you under a bus with the amnesty bill. How many more lessons do you need before you start to cotton on ?.

Standing in the Dusit Thani Hotel whilst somebody points out to you what he claims were the firing points used by what he claims were " mercenary snipers", and seeing a hole that may or not have been made by a .50 round( and how did you tell where the round was fired from?), is hardly empirical proof that the Army was simply returning fire from the protestors. I understand that you claim you were a British Soldier. If so then I would imagine that you have some experience of Urban Internal Security ops, certainly enough to understand that what the world witnessed in 2010 was not a measured response to a snipe - does the phrase "yellow card" ring any bells? Edited December 30, 2015 by JAG

[kaorop]

Where did I say I saw anything firsthand on the spot in real time?

Some of you people need to read more carefully.

if you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

[casualbiker]

Where did I say I saw anything firsthand on the spot in real time?

Some of you people need to read more carefully.

if you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

good. That would be most refreshing. If at all possible.

[hbullinger]

Senior member, what would you cake a "civil government"? Maybe a government controlled by the Shinawatra clan?

Let's hope the Junta will keep those criminals out forever.

[mrrizzla]

Senior member, what would you cake a "civil government"? Maybe a government controlled by the Shinawatra clan?

Let's hope the Junta will keep those criminals out forever.

Ah yes. Because the junta are doing such a good job with corruption aren't they?

Have you been living under rock for even just this last week to see events in Thailand? Things are as bad if not WORSE than they were under the Shin-clain.

Khakis in for suits. That is all that has really happened.

[halloween]

Where did I say I saw anything firsthand on the spot in real time?

Some of you people need to read more carefully.

if you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

[jayboy]

Where did I say I saw anything firsthand on the spot in real time?

Some of you people need to read more carefully.

if you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

[rubl]

If you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

[jayboy]

If you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

[casualbiker]

If you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

or it was clear from the outset that the charges couldn't possibly stick due them being implemented wrongly. Suthep deserves some measure of punishment for his antics in the latter part of the PDRC rallies as does B issara.

[rubl]

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

Cynics like you always fall back on their own assumptions to 'prove' they're right.

[jayboy]

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

Cynics like you always fall back on their own assumptions to 'prove' they're right.

Recent events have confirmed the cynics were completely correct.Your talk about falling back on assumptions makes no sense at all.Incidentally you don't need to respond to a post if you have nothing to contribute.

[jayboy]

If you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

or it was clear from the outset that the charges couldn't possibly stick due them being implemented wrongly. Suthep deserves some measure of punishment for his antics in the latter part of the PDRC rallies as does B issara.

I am relatively relaxed about the PDRC rallies however misguided these were.At the outset in specifically in regard to the umbrella amnesty there were many very decent people involved.

The charges against Abhisit and Suthep regarding the murder of unarmed civilians are much more serious.

I do not know what you mean by the charges being "implemented wrongly." However it was always clear these politicians would never face real justice.

[casualbiker]

If you didn't see it are you in a position to say it didn't happen?

lol I'm not the one putting forth opinions in the first place, just asking others how they drew theirs.

I really dont think your comprehension is up to par.

Thats twice now, a third time will only draw a "no reply"

Really? So why write "You personally saw who shot first? or just regurgitating the media, I think we all know which one."

Why raise the irrelevance of who shot first, when protesters had no right to be armed, and security forces had every right to arrest armed "protesters" whether they were shooting or not?

One can either accept the incoherent but hateful views of a few right wing nut jobs or the more considered view of the respected Human Rights Watch.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/07/thailand-new-whitewash-2010-political-violence

I doubt whether Abhisit or Suthep have really put this bloodshed behind them.

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

or it was clear from the outset that the charges couldn't possibly stick due them being implemented wrongly. Suthep deserves some measure of punishment for his antics in the latter part of the PDRC rallies as does B issara.

I am relatively relaxed about the PDRC rallies however misguided these were.At the outset in specifically in regard to the umbrella amnesty there were many very decent people involved.

The charges against Abhisit and Suthep regarding the murder of unarmed civilians are much more serious.

I do not know what you mean by the charges being "implemented wrongly." However it was always clear these politicians would never face real justice.

applying murder charges is an inappropriate charge. So therefore implemented wrongly. How many civilians were unarmed is also something that needs clarification. As is who exactly the shooters were in each instance.. Unfortunately a thorough examination will NEVER happen. No matter WHO is in charge.. Thaksin's outfit HAD ample opportunity!

[rubl]

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

Cynics like you always fall back on their own assumptions to 'prove' they're right.

Recent events have confirmed the cynics were completely correct.Your talk about falling back on assumptions makes no sense at all.Incidentally you don't need to respond to a post if you have nothing to contribute.

Your logic is somewhat faulty, my dear chap. The cynics are only correct under the assumption they put up. That would be 'case dismissed for improper reasons'. Now we only have case dismissed for proper reasons.

[rubl]

[

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

or it was clear from the outset that the charges couldn't possibly stick due them being implemented wrongly. Suthep deserves some measure of punishment for his antics in the latter part of the PDRC rallies as does B issara.

I am relatively relaxed about the PDRC rallies however misguided these were.At the outset in specifically in regard to the umbrella amnesty there were many very decent people involved.

The charges against Abhisit and Suthep regarding the murder of unarmed civilians are much more serious.

I do not know what you mean by the charges being "implemented wrongly." However it was always clear these politicians would never face real justice.

My dear chap, there are no charges of murder open on Abhisit and Suthep. The frivolous charge the previous government had Tarit force through was thrown out. That was the charge of 'premeditated murder as private citizens'.

The court suggested to follow the proper procedure and involve the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders. The charge is of 'abuse of power'. That is still in court I think.

Here we had a separate investigation for 'malfeasance' and the NACC concluding not to have a case.

[jayboy]

Interesting is that the previous government almost succeeded in that whitewash with their 'blanket amnesty bill', although there were persistent remarks that 'of course' the bill was only for the 'right' people.

I do recall that the likes of Abhisit and Suthep were very clear in their refusal to accept exoneration for their alleged crimes through an amnesty.Cynics including myself pointed out at the time that since the directed court system would never convict them and they would never serve a sentence, this bravado did not involve any courage at all.Recent events confirm the cynics were right.

Cynics like you always fall back on their own assumptions to 'prove' they're right.

Recent events have confirmed the cynics were completely correct.Your talk about falling back on assumptions makes no sense at all.Incidentally you don't need to respond to a post if you have nothing to contribute.

Your logic is somewhat faulty, my dear chap. The cynics are only correct under the assumption they put up. That would be 'case dismissed for improper reasons'. Now we only have case dismissed for proper reasons.

You seem confused and that is not meant to be a criticism of your fractured English.The cynics noted at the time that Abhisit and Suthep would never be properly investigated and certainly would never be punished for their alleged crimes.They weren't.The cynics were right.

[rubl]

Your logic is somewhat faulty, my dear chap. The cynics are only correct under the assumption they put up. That would be 'case dismissed for improper reasons'. Now we only have case dismissed for proper reasons.

You seem confused and that is not meant to be a criticism of your fractured English.The cynics noted at the time that Abhisit and Suthep would never be properly investigated and certainly would never be punished for their alleged crimes.They weren't.The cynics were right.

The cynics 'noted' as in 'stated' as in assumed as 'fact'. Of course their reason was the believe there would be no proper investigation, whereas others simple believed there was no case.

So, alleged crimes thrown out as no crimes, but a government trying to crack down on terrorists, cowards mingling with real peaceful protesters who somehow didn't see or hear anything. Same like the UDD leadership and their de facto leader who know nothing and even have a problem acknowledging there were 'some' 'possibly somewhat armed' 'misguided' not-really red-shirts helping.

PS try not to mangle the quotes. Better to just takes out a few of the older posts and replies

Edited January 7, 2016 by rubl

[djjamie]

If anything Ahbisit should be charged with showing too much tolerance towards the terrorists.

He waited until after the terrorists raided ASEAN summit, threatened to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacked at Thai banks, attached Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attached NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station (where gas and rubber bullets were used), bomb attacks on electricity pylons, 2 police taken hostage, destroy CCTV cameras, dumped tyres on sky train tracks before the military fired a single bullet.

He allowed the terrorists to think they had free rain to cause death and havoc in the capital of Thailand installing in them a s sense invincibility. Any other country the terrorist would be shut down after the grenade attacks at the banks with the remainder knowing the govt mean business about ensuring peace and stability in the city.

Shame on you Abhisit for not coming in strong and hard at the beginning. You could have saved a lot more lives than you did had you come in sooner.