centrala

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

2.500 "drug dealer" murders, Tak Bai and Krue Se all happened on Thaksins watch and surprise surprise he remained in office too.

Can you please explain where the difference is apart from the numbers of murdered men and women?

Fab4 is also failing to include the other part of the post he replied to. Namely, that in addition to his listed slingshots and whatnot, there were repeated instances where grenade launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, and wanton use of general explosives were used again and again by the red shirts.

For frick's sake, they were blowing up apartment complexes in nonthaburi with their ineptitude and killing innocent neighbors along with themselves.

Also included in their arsenal were fully automatic, high-velocity automatic weapons of various descriptions.

When the omitted heavy war weaponry is included in the context, it obliterates jags' points as most other countries if faced with such a heavily-armed insurrection would have responsded with an all-out assault resulting in red shirt casualties numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands.

.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

Why is a safe house a different matter? Amounts to exactly the same thing. A place of safety is a place of safety, and you choose the one that offers you most, if you are at all intelligent. And as i say, i think any leader in Abhisit's situation would have done something similar, at least during the period when things were most out of control.

As a side note, when you get into all this sort of immature, playground, tabloid-like language when referring to Abhisit, such as, "what a scaredy cat", "what a frightened schoolgirl", "what a nipple nuzzler" (forgive my paraphrasing), i'm sure it wins you some smirks and chuckles from your red shirted Thaksin supporting audience, and i'm sure you enjoy the thought of that, but i do believe there is a cost to your credibility. Just my opinion...

It's just a meaningless and inaccurate keyboard warrior effort. The attack on Abhisit's vehicle in Pattaya, for example, would have resulted in the utter annihilation of the attackers by security personnel for leaders in other countries.

Faced with anywhere near a similar occurrence, the tough guy writer would have permanently vacated the country on the first available flight.

Indeed, I hear that Al Qaeda flags can be picked up just about anywhere these days. No need to attend a meeting, or get hold of one from someone maybe affiliated with it. I mean it happens all the time. People waving flags around they know nothing about. Man U fans, waving Liverpool flags happens extremely commonly.

I am sure Red Shirts, have their collection of "We love Sondhi" flags stashed at home just waiting to be picked up by accident.

Yeah, true... All this is a misunderstanding.

I don't want to sound like a yellow apologist, but I think I read somewhere that nowadays nearly e.v.e.r.y.b.o.d.y has an Al Qaeda flag at home somewhere in a drawer. It's very very common, believe it or not.

These gentle protesters might share a few ideas with Al Qaeda, go along with the way Al Qaeda spreads the good parole around the world, maybe enjoy the same (sometimes explosive) lifestyle, ... but... I am also pretty sure that they may not have gotten their flag after attending an Al Qaeda meeting. Or... Do you think that...? Uhm ..., Naaaaa! Impossible. These little angels only want the best for the country.

They just took the wrong flag. Everybody can make a mistake.

Even me, as terrifying as it can sound, I one day found a yellow t-shirt in my cupboard. I never wear it, of course

Sent from my iPhone...

I am not quite sure where you are going with this? Do you thing they accidentally waved an Al Qaeda flag or not? You think everyone in that protest is so politically naive, that it's likely they would accidentally do such a thing? Can you really reconcile this? I mean we have people on here trying to defend the reds that when someone stands up on stage and says "bring a load of petrol, and make Bangkok burn", that he meant it metaphorically.

So glad that apparently Al Qaeda flags are everywhere??? Bizarre.

I would say, that the possiblity that Al Qaeda may have got into the Southern problem so deeply, that they are willing to go along to essentially peaceful anti-government protests in Bangkok to be an extremely serious problem. It's one thing to have farmers protesting against rubber prices, it is entirely another thing to think that some nut job looking to kill a few infidels by causing a mess in Bangkok, might be sitting in the same group. So you better hope that this turns out to be provably a joke, because if this gets out into the world press, there will have to be a bunch of travel warnings put up.

"Proven Al Qaeda cell found in Bangkok and South of Thailand". Anyone for Bangkok or Phuket for New Year?

2. It was home-made, hand-written banner.

3. There's not been any mention of Al Qaeda in any of the speeches at the rally.

4. There's never been any previous indication Al Qaeda has any presence whatsoever in Thailand.

5. Even the article openly states, The context of the banner is unclear

6. Perhaps prudent to await any additional information before embarking on wildly alarmist rhetoric.