Why would the yellows need to fight? Which party is happier with the current situation given the voting demographics?

43 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Abhisit did offer new elections but after a mysterious phone call (by Mr T.?) to the Red leadership that offer was rejected.

Before the army made an end to the protests in 2010 already quite a number of soldiers and innocent bystanders had died at the hands of the Reds. The situation with the yellow protesters was indeed different (no grenade attacks by them on military or bystanders).

He made an offer of election date (but not a dissolution date) that was allowing him to appoint the new army chief (you know whom). And the red shirts were right not to accept it, as recent history has shown. He never answered the red shirt questions about.

Had he done like Yingluck did, the red shirts would have gone home.

You claimed mass murder and extreme political repression. 

If the assassination of scores of demonstrators isn't mass murder, then I'm not sure what is. There was absolutely zero justification for the extensive use of snipers against unarmed individuals, many of whom weren't even in the act of demonstrating (see for example the shootings at Wat Pathumwanaram) and if there's no justification, it's murder. And clearly, these murders were undertaken to teach uppity peasants a lesson, as the army has done repeatedly in the past. A child of 5 could see that this was a political, and not a policing, operation and its goals couldn't have been clearer if the soldiers had worn them on their arms (which, in a sense, they did).  

You conveniently omit the Reds we’re heavily armed. In a battle between them and the army there are going to be casualties, but it is not mass murder. You also make no reference to the killing of Col. Romklao and several of his men, nor to a deadly grenade attack which killed a woman at the BTS platform etcetera.
If there was such a situation in New York or London how would the government there have reacted? Or if this happened in Russia or China?
If army snipers indeed targeted unarmed individuals, then yes, that would be unacceptable. Unfortunately, there was chaos and I am not entirely convinced that is what really happened. I am afraid only the ones who pulled the trigger will know for sure.



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, Sid Celery said:

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Just because they ignore the instructions of the government (of the day), doesn't mean they decide anything for themselves.  They get marching orders.  Just not always from the government of the day.

 And I'm quite sure everyone here knows precisely who is the villain of that piece, whatever hue they own to.

 

Sure they do.  Every one of them.  They just don't agree with each other on who, precisely, that is.

 

Personally, I suspect there's enough blame to go around. 

 

And all I've learned about Asian politics in 17 years is that whenever I figure out who the good guys and the bad guys are, it just means the spin doctors earned their money that day.

 

Inflammatory posts have been removed and a suspension has been issued. 

1976

 

How dare you think for yourself!

 

Have some of this!