rogerdee123 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes I agree with you ... that's the way it SHOULD work. But in Thailand it rarely (if ever) has worked that way and in the present situation we can't expect it to work that way. ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Yes someone has to make the decision .....But the point made was ... it's probably not Abisit. The point I am making is that neither the military nor the one you refer to want to mix in politics. Better to have the politicians make the decision and wait until that is the only decision they can make. Think about it. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- QUOTE (qualtrough @ 2009-04-13 11:19:11) QUOTE (jumnien @ 2009-04-13 11:08:36) Anyone who believes that Abhisit has any say in the matter of when the military strikes or doesn't strike has not been in Thailand for very long. Truer words were never spoke. Sorry, but it shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. It all boils down to waiting until a politician makes the only decision available, and authorizes the military to shoot people. Then, the fallout will be on the hands of the politicians not the military. The military were quick to protect the Palace and now can sit back and wait for political decisions to be made about the rest of us. Understanding the above has little to do with how long someone has been in Thailand. It is irrelevant, but if you want to delude yourselves into thinking it is relevant, up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSmurf Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Bloomberg are advising investors in Thailand to take the 10% profit shown in the last month on the stock market before the end of songcran..Rush to get yours the economy is going down the pan! Which should mean reality hitting home! The baht hopefully will join the rest of the worlds currencies ! naturally re-aligned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Yes someone has to make the decision .....But the point made was ... it's probably not Abisit. The point I am making is that neither the military nor the one you refer to want to mix in politics. Better to have the politicians make the decision and wait until that is the only decision they can make. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qualtrough Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Its not a terrorist attack until the REDS blow up a LPG truck. Simply driving or parking an LPG truck no matter how stupid, or dangerous it is does not make it a terrorist act. Don't get me wrong I think its foolish and they should be stopped, but until they use the trucks as an explosion its not "terrorsit"... you for real? Quick web definition of the word terrorism which I and most sensible people probably agree with: S: (n) terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear) That is one lame-ass definition for terrorism. "The calculated use of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or..." That is what governments do. More than 100 years ago Max Weber noted that one of the hallmarks of legitimate governments was that they held a monopoly on the use of violence in order to maintain power. When there is a great disparity in the weapons available to opponents the weaker opponents will often grab anything to hand. It has always been so. Under other circumstances I am sure you would be applauding the bravery of these people in standing up against tyranny. Only in this case you don't agree with the cause so you throw out the 'terror' word. Just to be clear, I do not think doing that is a good move, but I don't think that makes them 'terrorists'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo the Face Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Below, current article from The Nation.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/13...on_30100377.php Right now, military is reportedly asking Abhisit what to do. They say they can't do anymore if they are to remain lenient. Abhisit is in a tough situation. If he says end it, the military will, killing many. If he says stay lenient, the Reds will continue to take over all of Bangkok, hurting people as they go. It is decision time. Tough call for abhisit i'm sure he does not want to take any action that hurts or kill people but it seems the red shirt are giving him no choice in the matter. Why are the red shirts always so violent? IIRC they have never really been a peaceful group, right from the start of the movement they were violent attacking PAD demonstrators back when his squareness was still in power. by now with the LPG trucks in any normal country, the army would get the order to shoot at sight to prevent hundreds or thousands of deads, that's a terrorist attack. Its not a terrorist attack until the REDS blow up a LPG truck. Simply driving or parking an LPG truck no matter how stupid, or dangerous it is does not make it a terrorist act. Don't get me wrong I think its foolish and they should be stopped, but until they use the trucks as an explosion its not "terrorsit"... What planet are you living on......?? Terrorism is the act of creating fright or terror in the minds of those affected by an act. I can guarantee you that those within eyesight of that truck are feeling some fright right now. Those that put the truck there are causing terror, thus they are terrorists....... the truck does not have to blow up killing however many to cause terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xminator Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The government can still calm the situation by dissolving the house. Instead it seems they chose 1992 reloaded. Congratulations Thailand, you now have a potential black april. The two situations are sooo different. Please try and examine your history a bit before posting, it is rather embarrassing actually. Explain. I see thousands of (relatively) unarmed protesters on one side, and hundreds of heavily armed soldiers on the other. The only diffrence might be reluctance from soldiers to actually carry out order, but their leaders dont seem to share that reluctance. You have all the potential for hundreds killed right there. There is an incredible bloodlust by some posters on this forum. You all blabber on about how this would be cracked down in a western country. Guess what, protesters shot in this manner would see the press go ballistic against the responsible for shootings. And thats whoever holding the gun, and orders that gun to be fired and in extent the government in power. Its disproportional use of force, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerdee123 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Your point is well taken and I agree with you. We're in agreement and we've nothing to argue about. However this thread was about Abisit making a decision to fire (or not) upon demonstrators ... and this was the point in the various responses in regard to who makes such decisions in the reality that is Thailand. ------------------- ------------------- Yes someone has to make the decision .....But the point made was ... it's probably not Abisit. The point I am making is that neither the military nor the one you refer to want to mix in politics. Better to have the politicians make the decision and wait until that is the only decision they can make. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 11.40: PM holds another national televised address to call for public to help cooperate with authorities to restore order and for protesters not to destroy public property with gas explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAERTH Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel. He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 10.20: Red-shirts have once again occupied the Victory Monument Reds have never left Victory monumnet, as far as I understand. They've been pushed back from Ding Daeng intersection in early morning attack. The LPG tank came from the other side of the intersection, from behind the soldiers. You can clearly see how a group of them tried to advance from the intersection towar4ds the flats but stopped when reds releases some LPG in the air. For anyone who missed it - it's not an lpg fueled car, those babies only burn one fuel station when exploded. This is a 10-20 ton monster that refills LPG stations themselves, if that thing blows, it would flatten a whole block. Some say it's not a terrorist act until they actually blow it up. Duh. >>> Nation reports that reds are appearing in various places in Bangkok, like blocking Lad Prao road infront of Big C (actually it's Imperial Lad Prao that is owned by big TRT shot, btw). How does that advance thier agenda is beyond me. Small attacks like this do nothing but piss off the general population. I bet people stuck with only one lane open on one of the busiest roads in town love reds with all their hearts now. What next? Go disrupt Songkran celebrations in Chok Chai 4? I bet reds don't have guts for that. Won't be surprised if some people militia teaches them a lesson once everybody gets sufficiently drunk and reds do something stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 by now with the LPG trucks in any normal country, the army would get the order to shoot at sight to prevent hundreds or thousands of deads, that's a terrorist attack.Its not a terrorist attack until the REDS blow up a LPG truck. Simply driving or parking an LPG truck no matter how stupid, or dangerous it is does not make it a terrorist act. Don't get me wrong I think its foolish and they should be stopped, but until they use the trucks as an explosion its not "terrorsit"... You can not possibly be serious!!! Using your "logic" I guess it's ok to take bombs on aircraft, because it's not a terrorist act until the bombs goes off... DUH! there is a massive difference between the two, a bomb is designed and built for one purpose only (to cause explosions), a tanker is not. with the tanker it all comes down to intention to use it as a weapon, same as a kitchen knife is not an illegal weapon, unless you intend to use it as such and the intention needs to be proven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerdee123 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 This is "Amazing Thailand" =============== I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prakhonchai nick Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Explain. I see thousands of (relatively) unarmed protesters on one side, and hundreds of heavily armed soldiers on the other. The only diffrence might be reluctance from soldiers to actually carry out order, but their leaders dont seem to share that reluctance. You have all the potential for hundreds killed right there. There is an incredible bloodlust by some posters on this forum. You all blabber on about how this would be cracked down in a western country. Guess what, protesters shot in this manner would see the press go ballistic against the responsible for shootings. And thats whoever holding the gun, and orders that gun to be fired and in extent the government in power. Its disproportional use of force, no less. Agreed it would be disproportional use of force. So what Mr xminator would be your solution. Continue to do nothing, send the troops back to barracks and watch the reds overrun the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Your point is well taken and I agree with you. We're in agreement and we've nothing to argue about.However this thread was about Abisit making a decision to fire (or not) upon demonstrators ... and this was the point in the various responses in regard to who makes such decisions in the reality that is Thailand. I understand, we have no disagreement. As a general comment, right now the decision belongs to Abhisit as that is the way the ultimate decision makers prefer it. It is obvious that Abhisit is delaying taking this responsibility, but ultimately it will be his no matter what happens. If he waits until a gas truck blows up and people are killed, history will show he was at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netfan Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Was just at King Power- not much going on, but there IS an LPG truck parked in the lot, off the street, but it would do a lot of damage- this is a residential area. And, we have idiots in the neighborhood actually lighting firecrackers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Thank you WAERTH, that was a very informative post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W maybe time to change to martial law? That would fix all the legal problems, or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonycheston Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Understandable, but why so violent? what's wrong with water canon or tear gas? You don't have to kill people to break up demonstrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angiud Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Despite the many TV people bashing The Nation for the political connontations, for the bad english, etc., I find The Nation Breaking News the most fast and reliable font of informations in these days. PS: tell me if I can find a better one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
way2muchcoffee Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Explain. I see thousands of (relatively) unarmed protesters on one side, and hundreds of heavily armed soldiers on the other. The only diffrence might be reluctance from soldiers to actually carry out order, but their leaders dont seem to share that reluctance. You have all the potential for hundreds killed right there. There is an incredible bloodlust by some posters on this forum. You all blabber on about how this would be cracked down in a western country. Guess what, protesters shot in this manner would see the press go ballistic against the responsible for shootings. And thats whoever holding the gun, and orders that gun to be fired and in extent the government in power. Its disproportional use of force, no less. I'm not so sure disproportionate force is being used at all. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...y-protesters-PM 4 soldiers shot by protesters: PM Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva addresses on TV, denying death report in the morning. He added that 23 soldiers and 47 protesters were injured. Four soldiers suffered bullet wounds. The Nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humfurry Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 by now with the LPG trucks in any normal country, the army would get the order to shoot at sight to prevent hundreds or thousands of deads, that's a terrorist attack.Its not a terrorist attack until the REDS blow up a LPG truck. Simply driving or parking an LPG truck no matter how stupid, or dangerous it is does not make it a terrorist act. Don't get me wrong I think its foolish and they should be stopped, but until they use the trucks as an explosion its not "terrorsit"... You can not possibly be serious!!! Using your "logic" I guess it's ok to take bombs on aircraft, because it's not a terrorist act until the bombs goes off... DUH! there is a massive difference between the two, a bomb is designed and built for one purpose only (to cause explosions), a tanker is not. with the tanker it all comes down to intention to use it as a weapon, same as a kitchen knife is not an illegal weapon, unless you intend to use it as such and the intention needs to be proven And they have that big "tanker" there just to refuel their taxis?...sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Despite the many TV people bashing The Nation for the political connontations, for the bad english, etc., I find The Nation Breaking News the most fast and reliable font of informations in these days.PS: tell me if I can find a better one! I agree on The Nation. Also try: http://www.tannetwork.tv/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Was just at King Power- not much going on, but there IS an LPG truck parked in the lot, off the street, but it would do a lot of damage- this is a residential area. And, we have idiots in the neighborhood actually lighting firecrackers!! Well if there is no leak the firecrackers are no problem. Even when there is gas there are only certain mixes with air that can explode and it is more difficult than shown in the movie. but having a good chance might not be enough for most people, specially for these who are not get born again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAERTH Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W maybe time to change to martial law? That would fix all the legal problems, or? According to him that doesn't change anything. His wife is a judge btw so I think that they know the law. Waerth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The government is the only entity with the permission to use force, everybody else is either a terrorist or a revolutionary, depending on perspective. In the case of LPG tanks, the "terrorist revolutionaries" effectively hold hundreds civilan residents hostages and threaten either to kill them or destroy their houses. Flats, in this case. Luckly most of them are out for Songkran. Yeah, some revolutionaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidercat Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W That's a very interesting statement WAERTH, thanks for that. Those poor cops then, there's nothing worse than being stuck between a rock and a hard place! You don't know any army generals you can contact do you? It would be nice to know what their strategy is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo the Face Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 by now with the LPG trucks in any normal country, the army would get the order to shoot at sight to prevent hundreds or thousands of deads, that's a terrorist attack.Its not a terrorist attack until the REDS blow up a LPG truck. Simply driving or parking an LPG truck no matter how stupid, or dangerous it is does not make it a terrorist act. Don't get me wrong I think its foolish and they should be stopped, but until they use the trucks as an explosion its not "terrorsit"... You can not possibly be serious!!! Using your "logic" I guess it's ok to take bombs on aircraft, because it's not a terrorist act until the bombs goes off... DUH! there is a massive difference between the two, a bomb is designed and built for one purpose only (to cause explosions), a tanker is not. with the tanker it all comes down to intention to use it as a weapon, same as a kitchen knife is not an illegal weapon, unless you intend to use it as such and the intention needs to be proven Maybe for you its ok.......because it seems you are able to read peoples minds and their individual intent.,,,,,, jeezzeee but how many people, unable to read minds, but are reading this thread do you think are now thinking that that truck is there to refill Kn Samak's gas bottle at Samak's Pad Thai stall ?????? Get real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoMeOnEnUlL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I see a lot of soldiers running in front of Century Park Hotel heading to Prathunum/BigC. And, I am hearing a lot of shots, hopefully not gun shot, and the chanting are going further and further. I guess the soldiers are taking over here. I see the water cannon has been used to the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAERTH Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I just came of the phone with a police friend of mine as I was getting pissed of with the police doing nothing. He is a very nice guy and he speaks perfect English and he is a Colonel.He explained that it was very simple. Even if a government, any government would order them to go in, they wouldn't do it. Not because they like the protesters. But because of the law. He said the last few times the police did anything towards any protesters the commanding officers found themselves in front of criminal court and were disgracefully dismissed from service. He said no sane police officer would have themselves disgraced anymore for following orders from any government being red, yellow, blue. As they would always betray them afterwards by letting the police officers take the fall for the failure of the government. He said he is personally itching to put down the riots. Willing to be wounded in the process. But he isn't willing to be disgraced for doing his duty and following orders. He said that the majority of the police officers is feeling that way. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Understandable, but why so violent? what's wrong with water canon or tear gas? You don't have to kill people to break up demonstrations. I asked him the same thing. He said no matter how people get injured during a demonstration. The police will be the ones who get to go to court for it and loose their job, dishonorable discharge. That is why in the end under Somchai they refused duty and now under Abhisit they refuse again. He said he and his fellow officers and most man do not sympathize with any protesters, yellow, red, blue as they endanger the nation. But they will not do anything as they will always have to take the fall no matter what happens. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerdee123 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 ................. The problem is with the law according to him. There are laws protecting protesters rights. There are no laws that protect a police officer from acting against protesters even when under orders from the government. The police officers are by law responsible for any wounded from their actions. Even when ordered. and that is why they will not do anything. W Understandable, but why so violent? what's wrong with water canon or tear gas? You don't have to kill people to break up demonstrations. ====================== While I can sympathize with the police in this situation .... those laws are there for a reason. The Thai police themselves don't have a very shining reputation. And I tend to hold them responsible for inaction. I mean if they aren't going to uphold the peace for whatever reason .... then they should resign and do something else and not pretend to be policemen. This is just one more of the many things that needs fixing in this "democracy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts