Ferangled

The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign.

Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above...

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79 grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).^[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE.

Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE?

Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people?

That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts...

Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here...

How about addressing posts with facts?, you know, like my previous one were I disproved your non-factual opinion that nobody was arrested regarding the various bombings that occurred during the Red Shirt protests that you seem to have ignored.

Actually it was a specific time frame of events we were discussing at that time, not the entirety of the protests but give yourself a gold star anyway and a few pats on the back for effort! It started with a reply to a source quoted by another which had been selectively used to paint a particular picture... I went on to quote the same article; here's the relevant exert:

After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79 grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests

The context was the build up to the SOE and whether this was an appropriate response to the events that had happened prior to this... but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant or relevance to the actual topic.

Oh yessss, trying to overthrow the government with military weapons has nothing to do with what happened in 2010! That's an excellent spin!

Most people who post here aren't Thais either but cut the bull crap about you not having any political sympathies when all your posts here are obviously written red. All red sympathizers and apologists always claim to be 'neutral' with no political leanings. Riiiiight.

Indeed no one tried to overthrow the Government with military weapons; spin? No fact!

The twisted rhetoric just gets better and better, now the 2010 protests were actually an attempt to overthrow the Government with military weapons!!! You couldn't make this stuff up... well you it appears can and did!!!

Yes of course the usual BS, if you don't agree with me you must be a red sympathiser/ apologist...

Yes the crap you spew is all no fact. It's just the standard red propaganda that comes in here day in day out by you red sympathizers.

Another reasoned and reasonable response, thank you; it's great that we can all discuss this like adults without resorting to insults and wild generalisations!

Of course you are right, the calls for elections and the resulting victory at the ballot were all a charade... it was actually as you assert, an attempt to overthrow the Government by use of military weapons...

That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts...

Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here...

Including yours my friend for sure.

Well actually if you chose to read the posts... a novel idea I know!

That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts...

Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here...

Let's take a look at what an unbiased international news journal reported on May 5th 2010:

"At the start of the seventh week of anti-government demonstrations in the Thai capital of Bangkok, security forces were preparing to dislodge thousands of Red Shirt protesters who were barricading themselves inside the city's main commercial district. The Red Shirts, armed with grenades, assault rifles and other weapons, vowed to go down fighting"

".... And yet on Wednesday evening, Red Shirt leaders refused to send the protesters home. While they said they welcomed the road map, they demanded that Abhisit guarantee a date to dissolve the parliament, then began issuing more demands and launching furious tirades against the Prime Minister. But with their numbers down and their reputation suffering as Bangkok grew weary of the two-month disruption, the feeling around the capital was that the Red Shirts could not hold out much longer. The Thai stock market finished the day up 4.3% on expectations that the protest was drawing to peaceful conclusion. "

"...Abhisit appeared to be finished. Calls rose for him to resign and leave the country. But as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency. Two weeks later, grenades were fired at Bangkok's commuter rail line, killing one and injuring dozens."

"Just three weeks ago, Abhisit, weak and fumbling, was on the verge of seeing his premiership destroyed and his place in Thai history tarnished forever. Now, gaining strength while exercising restraint, he appears the statesman in this conflict. With his road map to move the country forward, he has given Red Shirt leaders a chance to avoid a violent showdown and an opportunity to declare some sort of victory and save face. Now if only they will take it."

http://www.time.com/...1987118,00.html

But they didn't take it. A way out was given to them and they chose to ramp up the violence. Why would Abhisit have needed to escalate the conflict? He was winning the PR war. Why would the reds need to do so? For that very same reason. All responsibility for the deaths on both sides lies firmly at the feet of the red leaders, and their ultimate controller.

Stunningly impartial selection of quotes, really "unbiased"... well done!

Reading the whole article still doesn't put your red buddies in a good light. Well done!

So it must be a fair and accurate account then eh? Of course get some sort of red comment in there... your posts just wouldn't be the same without them.

Oh yessss, trying to overthrow the government with military weapons has nothing to do with what happened in 2010! That's an excellent spin!

Most people who post here aren't Thais either but cut the bull crap about you not having any political sympathies when all your posts here are obviously written red. All red sympathizers and apologists always claim to be 'neutral' with no political leanings. Riiiiight.

Indeed no one tried to overthrow the Government with military weapons; spin? No fact!

The twisted rhetoric just gets better and better, now the 2010 protests were actually an attempt to overthrow the Government with military weapons!!! You couldn't make this stuff up... well you it appears can and did!!!

Yes of course the usual BS, if you don't agree with me you must be a red sympathiser/ apologist...

Let's take a look at what an unbiased international news journal reported on May 5th 2010:

"At the start of the seventh week of anti-government demonstrations in the Thai capital of Bangkok, security forces were preparing to dislodge thousands of Red Shirt protesters who were barricading themselves inside the city's main commercial district. The Red Shirts, armed with grenades, assault rifles and other weapons, vowed to go down fighting"

".... And yet on Wednesday evening, Red Shirt leaders refused to send the protesters home. While they said they welcomed the road map, they demanded that Abhisit guarantee a date to dissolve the parliament, then began issuing more demands and launching furious tirades against the Prime Minister. But with their numbers down and their reputation suffering as Bangkok grew weary of the two-month disruption, the feeling around the capital was that the Red Shirts could not hold out much longer. The Thai stock market finished the day up 4.3% on expectations that the protest was drawing to peaceful conclusion. "

"...Abhisit appeared to be finished. Calls rose for him to resign and leave the country. But as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency. Two weeks later, grenades were fired at Bangkok's commuter rail line, killing one and injuring dozens."

"Just three weeks ago, Abhisit, weak and fumbling, was on the verge of seeing his premiership destroyed and his place in Thai history tarnished forever. Now, gaining strength while exercising restraint, he appears the statesman in this conflict. With his road map to move the country forward, he has given Red Shirt leaders a chance to avoid a violent showdown and an opportunity to declare some sort of victory and save face. Now if only they will take it."

http://www.time.com/...1987118,00.html

But they didn't take it. A way out was given to them and they chose to ramp up the violence. Why would Abhisit have needed to escalate the conflict? He was winning the PR war. Why would the reds need to do so? For that very same reason. All responsibility for the deaths on both sides lies firmly at the feet of the red leaders, and their ultimate controller.

Stunningly impartial selection of quotes, really "unbiased"... well done!

Just wild generalisations, try sticking to the facts. The vast majority of protesters actually had no assault rifles, no grenade launchers and actually comprised many women and children. They were about as aggressive as most people's grandmothers are. There was a small minority violent element who the military apparently missed completely, choosing to shoot people that were neither armed, or in some cases even involved in the protests.

So (this will be interesting) how many of the reds did have assault rifles and grenade launchers according to your estimates?

The vast minority as all the actual evidence suggests. From yes and no answers with no discussion permitted to citing specific numbers in an incident involving 100s of 1000s of people... do you also wantt gps coordinates for these armed elements and perhaps names and addresses?

How many would you venture based on actual evidence Yoshiwara or is the onus of proof one sided much like the insults?

Just wild generalisations, try sticking to the facts. The vast majority of protesters actually had no assault rifles, no grenade launchers and actually comprised many women and children. They were about as aggressive as most people's grandmothers are. There was a small minority violent element who the military apparently missed completely, choosing to shoot people that were neither armed, or in some cases even involved in the protests.

You keep telling yourself that. You reds just want to believe that you're all innocent victims of the big bad army of Royalist elites. Riiiiiight!

I feel bad for the dead on both sides, I really do. But when you intend to overthrow the government with guns, you get the Army on your ass. And when open fire on soldiers, they're going to what they're trained to do, not ask you nice to disarm. That's a fact.

Perhaps but it bears no relation to what actually happened in Bangkok in 2010. Save your colourful branding for those that actually have an allegiance here. As much as you guys like to pigeon hole people it may surprise you to know that I'm neither Thai nor have any political sympathies in Thailand. I am an observer and I comment on what I observe.

Yet again the fingers only seem to come out to point on one side here, as do the childish irrelevancies... to the casual observer these factors start to add up and those that can debate without resorting to these tactics come across more sincere and less zealous, IMHO.

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

I kept my second post simple without explanation in the hope that it didn't confuse you. It appears I failed.

The Police did NOT perform as was expected of them at the beginning of the protests but later did do so (mostly) as shown in the pics you referred to. This was only AFTER however some arse's got kicked and the Military got involved. Simple enough for you Ferangled?

If you only voice your ever changing views for my benefit you really are missing the point. No but yes but no but, crystal clear Tatsujin.

One would hope that there would be a bit more of a definitive response and overwhelming evidence presented to what was used as justification to declare an SOE and roll in the military using live fire on their own people, in their own capitol. One can only hope for AV's sake he makes a better job of defending himself than you guys are doing.

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

The RPG attack on the Emerald Buddha (30 March) may have influenced the decision to declare an SoE. Not the sort of thing normally used in a peaceful protest.

Are you suggesting that this was part of the BKK Protests? Do you have any evidence to suggest this or is this just more speculation?

I take it you realise that the SOE was declared some 8 days after this events, how do you draw the conclusion that they two were related? I thought the military grade grenades might have had more of an impact... bit more direct cause & effect can be drawn here given the time frame.

Interesting to note that the grenades used were military issue and no one was arrested, while it created the perfect excuse for AV to escalate his use of violence and bring out the army. Another remarkable coincidence I'm sure.

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

Are you going to list your actual questions or not?

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

You're very good at quoting and missing out the salient facts. What continued AFTER your quote above was:

On 22 April, grenade attacks killed one and injured 86 others. UDD members illegally entered Chulalongkorn Hospital in an unsuccessful search for the attackers, drawing widespread condemnation from the Thai press, as the protests started to become substantially more siege like, with barricades and armed guards creating a UDD fortress within the area of Ratchaprasong.

The protests initially started out peacefully, but rapidly turned into a siege of downtown BKK. The Police were unwilling/unable to do much about it in those early stages and the Military were then brought in. After the SoE was declared, the whole thing turned into illegal actions.

On 3 May, Abhisit announced a reconciliatory road map and elections on 14 November. The road map was tentatively accepted by the UDD, but after they included additional conditions allegedly at the request of Thaksin Shinawatra, who at that point was regularly phoning in by video to the protest sites, the government declined to add additional conditions and thus no compromise could be made.

Attempts to compromise were made and rejected at the behest of Thaksin who wanted to see Bangkok burn and the Govt to be discredited.

As the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army as well as a multi coloured shirt protest in Saladaeng, Ratchaprasong was surrounded with armoured vehicles and snipers.

Peaceful?

The pertinent word that you seem to have skipped over despite righting it yourself is highlighted in RED in your post.... "after", it conveys a certain meaning, a time frame to the events no?

When was the SOE declared? When did the events that you have added into the discussion occur Tatsujin?

You do understand that cause & effect works only when the cause happens previous to the effect?

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

OK Ferangled, what questions do you need answers to specifically? List them here and I'll respond to them directly as the thread's got rather large and confusing.

Wasn't it you that said "There's none so blind as those as those that will not see" ? Seems a rather fitting response to your deliberate refusal to open your eyes and respond to the actual questions posed. Well done for keeping the insults out of your response, some small step towards civil discussion...

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

So the police were loyal to Thaksin, didn't act to control the protests (or did but reticently), hence the military involvement/ SOE but the police were then targeted by red shirts? Presumably because the red shirts were so out of control in their wanton destruction of Bangkok that they were attacking everyone in sight?

I've got some things to do but will be back to discuss the Wikipedia quote if that's ok, raises some interesting points given your assertion that it's a pretty fair account of the events.

Fine. Feel free to discuss whatever you want. I quoted the article and said it covers the main things that happened "pretty well", I didn't say it was 100% accurate or 100% complete.

However, it does seem that nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong and that it was all the Govt/Army's fault. I'm assuming you were not actually at any of these places when the rioting and barricades were in place? If you were, and you had your eyes open, or you even watched the live tv footage, you'd have seen what actually was going on, not simply buying into the red/Thaksin propaganda machine.

But feel free to discuss it at length and to no purpose. There's none so blind as those as those that will not see.

I'm sorry but how do you reach these conclusions from my post? What have I said to convey that impression or have you just fallen in with the accepted TV practice of applying gross speculation as to poster's views despite clear evidence on this very thread that your comments are way off? No surprise who your post has garnered affection from... those that employ exactly the same tactics in their posts.

"nothing is going to change your myopic narrow-minded view that it was a peaceful protest and that the reds did nothing wrong"

Really, because my earlier posts on this thread would actually contradict that false assertion...

"Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents"

"Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period? Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok? It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier."

By raising questions as to the role of the army in 2010 I am simply trying to ratify the conflicting views raised that state A. The police were loyal to Thaksin, some even maintaining they were actually paid off and B. That the police were violently targeted by the red shirts. These two assertions don't sit well together and seem rather contrary.

It appears that you are also saying that your quote source is only valid to support the points you wish to pick and choose from it. If that isn't selective reasoning I don't know what is.

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

If not why were they targeted and by who? What do you mean? Thaksin has a lot of support within the Police hence their failure to do as asked initially in quelling the protests.

If they were then why the SOE and military intervention? Because the Police weren't doing their job.

-----Snipped huge quote from Wikipedia.-------

So the police were loyal to Thaksin, didn't act to control the protests (or did but reticently), hence the military involvement/ SOE but the police were then targeted by red shirts? Presumably because the red shirts were so out of control in their wanton destruction of Bangkok that they were attacking everyone in sight?

I've got some things to do but will be back to discuss the Wikipedia quote if that's ok, raises some interesting points given your assertion that it's a pretty fair account of the events.

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Worth a laugh at least. Is this a why did the police do a walkabout thread? Oh were they missing we hear the cry? Surely not!

Paid off by Thaksin. As for the army Thaksin's only objection is/was that the army isn't controlled by him.

If the riots to bring down the government had succeeded then there was a chance for Thaksin to stick his fingers into the autumn army leadership appointments round. He failed on that one. So now a little bit of revenge on Abhisit. All we need to remember with these Thaksin apologists is that everything is predicated to his interests. The democracy flag is thoroughly dirty when waved by these guys. So now we are beginning to make a little list:

The Arisman tape doesn't exist.

The police weren't paid off by Thaksin.

The armed MIB nothing to do with the reds.

......keep 'em coming guys.

Why is it that you guys can't actually respond to the points raised in a post! Is it so hard?

I raise a legitimate point and after countless replies no one has actually even tried to answer it. You maintain the police were paid of by Thaksin and refused to act against the protesters in 2010. If that is the case, why are the red shirts being accused of targeting the police? Reference back to the start of this conversation, Nickmasters list of events - you must have seen it by now, he seems to post in on every single thread on TV.

Here are the questions I raised in my post, yet again. If you would like to try and answer them and enlighten us all, please do. If not, please stop replying to my posts with this irrelevant speculative bile. Thanks.

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

We have not seen what would happen if Thaksin was defeated at the polls, because it has never happened to a party he was leading. I'm sure if he was dealt a savage beating like AV was last time, he would admit defeat.

Of course NOT

He is not the kind to admit anything that is not in his favor.

I think that's kind of the point though - while the people favour him, and in his experience they always have, why would he admit defeat?

If there was a clear indication that the people rejected him I'm sure he'd have no choice. Having the people of Thailand elect his sister as PM was hardly a definitive sign of his waning popularity was it?

Did I ever deny that the military budget doubled from 2006 to 2010?

Are you maintaining that Abhisit doubled the military budget?

I take it that you've retracted that statement then.

Sorry, matters to attend to outside of TV... can't maintain a 24/7 vigil I'm afraid!

The military budget doubled under Abhisit from the level it had been pre-2006 military coup. Rather than mincing words let's all look at the graph here...

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/thailand/military-expenditure

...and we can form our own ideas on the trend of Thai military budgets under what some would deem to be military installed/ influenced Governments...

Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.

It is also disingenuous to blame Abhisit for doubling the military budget when, clearly, he didn't.

Yes, let's blame Thaksin instead, he was clearly pulling the strings from afar, it had nothing to do with Abhisit or his party...

You can blame Thaksin for doubling the military budget if you want, or you can continue to blame Abhisit.

Or maybe you could just stick to facts.

I'd love to but difficult when you choose to ignore them. Are you maintaining that the military budget didn't double from the 2006 coup to the end of Abhisit's turn at the trough?