hammered Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Just went out to have a look at the Songkhran revelry. NUmbers down a little on this time last year but same as ever. Quite surreal to then get back to TV reports of gunshots and things being torched after seeing peopleliterally enjoying Songkhran! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Yeah, and the folks who watched the World Trade Center towers collapse in flames on September 11th 2001 couldn't GUESS that those hijacked civilian airliners would be used as terrorist weapons... Since you seem an expert on the LAW, please explain: old fashioned bomb, or LPG vehicle used as a bomb, what's the difference? Better make it super-simple English for those of us who can't understand simple English... DUH! well for a start all of the quotes above that you have attributed to me are not mine, maybe you could get that simple task right before going on an attack. secondly, all I did was state the law, I never offered any opinion or condoned the action in any way thirdly, if you read where I explain the law then you will have the answer to your irrelevant question. oh and fourthly, duh!!!!!!!!! ps these are my comments below, make an effort in future to not attribute otherscomments to me 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Edited April 13, 2009 by redscouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoMeOnEnUlL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Still hearing gunshots(now I think it is) from my Apartment, near Victory Monument. The electricity went off for a couple of seconds, not so sure it was because of the gunshots. My internet also went off and now is up.. but the speed is decreased to half.. darn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Hey guiys any chance of ending the rows? Surely there is enough angst in other places today without us adding to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coconutmonkey Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I have thought before the words 'Songkraan' and 'Songkraam' must have been related somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samgrowth Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 What I am surprised is people sympathy towards Red. I hear a old women shouting(more like crying) every time we heard the firings. Everyone I talk to seems disapprove of the firing. There are just as many Red sympathy as Yello sympathy. I declare it a draw. Let the 2 groups (Red & Yellow) fight on the street. All others (police, army, etc) should just ignore both sides. The last one standing wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 13:30 large explosion heard Rajaprarop / Rangnam area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xminator Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Still hearing gunshots(now I think it is) from my Apartment, near Victory Monument. The electricity went off for a couple of seconds, not so sure it was because of the gunshots. My internet also went off and now is up.. but the speed is decreased to half.. darn it. Well, AJE reported live when a powercable fell down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 ensuing fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 2nd explosion heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprq 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 Utter nonsense. NAME YOUR SOURCE, or its a rumour and nothing more. Under an SOE the Army are responsible, not the police. The police are quoted on AJE as being "not under the control of the government with many joining the reds". No more "I talked to a friend posts" rumours. Name the source, or shut up. Why should I threathen a friends safety. If you consider it a rumour. Than fine. Treat it as one. But do not criticize me for trying to get information out to people. Let everyone judge for themselves how much worth they give to this. We are all adults and can all make up our own minds. Waerth Rules of the Forum. No rumour. All sources must be named, or do not post. That is plain silly. Even professional news organisations like the BBC will quote useful information without naming the source when necessary. This is clearly useful information, and well presented, so applying dogmatic rules about sources is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cat5 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I've just had a flick through the channels on Thai TV, and the only reporting I can find is ASTV (yellow shirts). Anyone else watching TV and able to find something useful (in Thai or English)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse 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 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Yeah, and the folks who watched the World Trade Center towers collapse in flames on September 11th 2001 couldn't GUESS that those hijacked civilian airliners would be used as terrorist weapons... Since you seem an expert on the LAW, please explain: old fashioned bomb, or LPG vehicle used as a bomb, what's the difference? Better make it super-simple English for those of us who can't understand simple English... DUH! well for a start all of the quotes above that you have attributed to me are not mine, maybe you could get that simple task right before going on an attack. secondly, all I did was state the law, I never offered any opinion or condoned the action in any way thirdly, if you read where I explain the law then you will have the answer to your irrelevant question. oh and fourthly, duh!!!!!!!!! my comments are below 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Abhisit, dissolve the House and put an end to this with new elections. What about the ultimatum about the Privy Counselors resigning? Have you completely forgotten what this is all about? Guess they have to compromise on this small detail. Aren't the Privy Counselors appointed by the King and as such demanding their resignation would go direct against what we cannot discuss.? Absolutely, but given Penkair's comments yesterday to the foreign press, stating a dissolution is the answer to all of Thailand's problems is naive. Martial law needs to be put in place with a strict curfew adhered to. Then, if any group of terrorists wish to put on a red shirt and steal a gas tanker and threaten to blow people up, nobody can blame those enforcing the curfew. What happens politically is down the road. Now, it is all about rounding up roving bands of terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I have a feeling that the Songkran Revolt, or Revolution, or Massacre. Is going to come out as a part of history everyone regrets no matter what the outcome. There are just too many unstable properties in the mix. - Centuries of feudal oppression - Long held racist and classist attitudes - A perceived power vacuum in government - A perceived power struggle between various military and police departments - Two opposing tycoons with polarized opinions, major hubris, large war chests and little to lose, much to gain. - Economic downturn - An angry working class - Media restrictions, free speech restrictions - Geographical ethnic divisions - Can't be said - Peak of hot season - Everyone is off work and free to cause trouble Gasoline and a match I'm afraid Definitely time for Jai yen yen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdearohdearohdear Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Yeah, and the folks who watched the World Trade Center towers collapse in flames on September 11th 2001 couldn't GUESS that those hijacked civilian airliners would be used as terrorist weapons... Since you seem an expert on the LAW, please explain: old fashioned bomb, or LPG vehicle used as a bomb, what's the difference? Better make it super-simple English for those of us who can't understand simple English... DUH! well for a start all of the quotes above that you have attributed to me are not mine, maybe you could get that simple task right before going on an attack. secondly, all I did was state the law, I never offered any opinion or condoned the action in any way thirdly, if you read where I explain the law then you will have the answer to your irrelevant question. oh and fourthly, duh!!!!!!!!! my comments are below 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English What style explosions are happening NOW are the terrorist bombs or non terrorist bombs? Edited April 13, 2009 by ohdearohdearohdear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Colour-coded challenge to Thai elites By Tim Johnston in Bangkok Published: April 12 2009 18:22 Thailand's recurrent spasms of political upheaval in recent years, with their attendant mobs of colour-coded protesters, are the physical manifestation of a deep and seemingly intractable divide that is threatening to tear the country apart. Today, the four-month-old administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva, prime minister, is fighting for its life. The ease with which opposition protesters gate-crashed the region's most prestigious meeting, forcing some powerful Asian leaders to escape in helicopters from the hotel roof, has humiliated him internationally and made him look weak domestically. He has declared a state of emergency, setting the stage for what could become a clash with thousands of protesters camped around the prime minister's office in central Bangkok. Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, says he has nightmares about what might happen. "This feels precarious and expectant," says Mr Thitinan. "I feel that this is definitely a pivotal moment." The state of emergency limits freedoms of association and speech and partially suspends habeas corpus. But Mr Abhisit's room for manoeuvre is limited and the opposition has seized the initiative. "Thailand is at the crossroads of being an exceptional country and a country which is as mundane as some other countries," says Jakrapob Penkair, one of the most prominent leaders of the forces now aligned against Mr Abhisit. "The transition is that people are starting to wake up to their rights. Equality appears to be new to Thailand." On one side of the political chasm are the so-called "red shirts", who traditionally draw their support from the poorer, more rural areas of Thailand. Their flag-bearer, Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire telecommunications tycoon, endeared himself to a class who had for years been shouldered out of Thailand's political equation by providing cheap healthcare and improved education and persuading them to ignore his authoritarianism and the allegations of corruption. However, those shortcomings enraged the middle class and the traditional power centres – the barracks, boardrooms and palaces of Bangkok – that had sustained the country's elite and who removed Mr Thaksin in a coup in 2006. Mr Abhisit won power in a controversial parliamentary vote last December in which he persuaded many of Mr Thaksin's supporters to cross over to his side. The opposition say the army brokered the deal, making the government illegitimate in their eyes. The opposition's greatest political feat has been to redefine the terms of the debate. The government talks in terms of the Thaksin administration's corruption and populism versus their probity and fiscal conservatism. The opposition have redefined it as democracy versus elitism. It is a line that has won the support of many Thais who do not necessarily support Mr Thaksin but have united with his more traditional supporters in opposition to the powerful unelected and unaccountable centres of power that back Mr Abhisit. "We are fighting for democracy," says Somchit Likhittaworn, a university lecturer who was at Sunday's demonstration. She says she was not particularly enamoured of Mr Thaksin but believes he deserves his chance at the ballot box. "Thailand is a modern state economically, but politically and socially it is a feudal state so it will take some time to come back from the 18th century," says Mr Jakrapob. As Mr Jakrapob hinted, underlying the debate is a country that has undergone rapid economic development over the past 20 years, empowering whole new classes of people who are now starting to agitate for their share of power. "This is about sharing not just the power but the money and the prestige as well," says Mr Thitinan. "The elites are facing a choice: lose some now and keep a lot or keep it all now and risk losing the lot." The Financial Times Limited 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidercat Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 What I am surprised is people sympathy towards Red. I hear a old women shouting(more like crying) every time we heard the firings. Everyone I talk to seems disapprove of the firing. There are just as many Red sympathy as Yello sympathy. I declare it a draw. Let the 2 groups (Red & Yellow) fight on the street. All others (police, army, etc) should just ignore both sides. The last one standing wins. Yeah samgrowth, that's a great idea, and thoroughly democratic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainman Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 "This is about sharing not just the power but the money and the prestige as well," says Mr Thitinan. "The elites are facing a choice: lose some now and keep a lot or keep it all now and risk losing the lot." That sums up everything. And it seems like they've placed their bets on keeping it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonycheston Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I've just had a flick through the channels on Thai TV, and the only reporting I can find is ASTV (yellow shirts). Anyone else watching TV and able to find something useful (in Thai or English)? try http://www.explore-thailand.net/media/thaitv26.html many live coverage but unfortunately only in Thai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsux Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) Taken shortly after 1st explosion 13:45 yet another explosion Edited April 13, 2009 by lordsux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse 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 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Yeah, and the folks who watched the World Trade Center towers collapse in flames on September 11th 2001 couldn't GUESS that those hijacked civilian airliners would be used as terrorist weapons... Since you seem an expert on the LAW, please explain: old fashioned bomb, or LPG vehicle used as a bomb, what's the difference? Better make it super-simple English for those of us who can't understand simple English... DUH! well for a start all of the quotes above that you have attributed to me are not mine, maybe you could get that simple task right before going on an attack. secondly, all I did was state the law, I never offered any opinion or condoned the action in any way thirdly, if you read where I explain the law then you will have the answer to your irrelevant question. oh and fourthly, duh!!!!!!!!! my comments are below 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English What style explosions are happening NOW are the terrorist bombs or non terrorist bombs? feel free to ask the poster who mentioned the terrorism, again I have to reiterate for the clueless that at no point have I discussed the rights or wrongs of explosions or offered any opinion on them, I pointed out what constitutes a weapon in the law. sadly a clueless poster has added others quotes to my name above, go back to the original posts and read them, save making yourself look silly by attacking a poster who doesnt deserve it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I've just had a flick through the channels on Thai TV, and the only reporting I can find is ASTV (yellow shirts). Anyone else watching TV and able to find something useful (in Thai or English)? www.tannetwork.tv has just reported that the military has taken a more firm control of the area around the Pullman hotel, although unconfirmed reports it that the Reds have broken into a nearby Siam Commercial Bank. In Chiang Mai, roads in and out have been closed by the Reds as well as the train station. TAN Network will report again at around 2PM, give or take a few minutes while they get updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven100 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Logic response ... ( you cannot argue with common sense ) ..... The Red shirts have shown complete disrespect for the law and therefore should be held accountable. You can have a peacefull protest to get your point accross... but they had no intention of a peacefull protest .... I was watching Aljazara TV this morning and the head huncho was just making excuse after excuse when asked why the government car was attacked ... why was the government building siezed .... he said the protesters were enraged ... Well if they are so enraged why not go home and tip a cold bucket of water over there heads to cool down.... These guys are breaking the law .. they deserve the punishment...good on the army for taking action against these protesters. Also, I blame Taksin as part of the problem as he is enticing them to cause mayhem and revolt... he should be extradited and charged accordingly... Thats what happens in a democratic society... IMO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbhh Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 "This is about sharing not just the power but the money and the prestige as well," says Mr Thitinan. "The elites are facing a choice: lose some now and keep a lot or keep it all now and risk losing the lot." That sums up everything. And it seems like they've placed their bets on keeping it all. And it seems like they've placed their bets on taking it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohdearohdearohdear Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 What style explosions are happening NOW are the terrorist bombs or non terrorist bombs? feel free to ask the poster who mentioned the terrorism, again I have to reiterate for the clueless that at no point have I discussed the rights or wrongs of explosions or offered any opinion on them, I pointed out what constitutes a weapon in the law. sadly a clueless poster has added others quotes to my name above, go back to the original posts and read them, save making yourself look silly by attacking a poster who doesnt deserve it Sorry mate no attack intended but I agree with you about the law but sometimes the law can be mistaken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 12.10: Red-shirt protesters set fire to an empty public bus near Din Daeng intersection. Military responded by shooting into the air to force protesters to retreat. Another group of red-shirts attempted run down military officers with another public bus 12.30: Govt spokesperson held national televised address to reveal security measures are in place at various ports, airports and infrastructures to ensure security of public 12.40: Protesters set fire to tires in front of Ramathibodi Hospital, causing poor visibility. Authorities attempted to put our fire while Ramathibodi Hospital distributed masks to prevent patients from inhaling toxic fumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koo82 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Saw on NBT that soldiers shoot up the sky and walked ahead. The reds went away. Saw about 10 military trucks coming in near Pratunam. Conclusion: the yellows can stay in Government House 3 months and stayed in 2 airports 8 days when State of Emergency was announced. The reds cannot protest on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Logic response ... ( you cannot argue with common sense ) ..... The Red shirts have shown complete disrespect for the law and therefore should be held accountable. You can have a peacefull protest to get your point accross... but they had no intention of a peacefull protest .... I was watching Aljazara TV this morning and the head huncho was just making excuse after excuse when asked why the government car was attacked ... why was the government building siezed .... he said the protesters were enraged ... Well if they are so enraged why not go home and tip a cold bucket of water over there heads to cool down.... These guys are breaking the law .. they deserve the punishment...good on the army for taking action against these protesters. Also, I blame Taksin as part of the problem as he is enticing them to cause mayhem and revolt... he should be extradited and charged accordingly... Thats what happens in a democratic society... IMO.. Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyphuketLife 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 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English Yeah, and the folks who watched the World Trade Center towers collapse in flames on September 11th 2001 couldn't GUESS that those hijacked civilian airliners would be used as terrorist weapons... Since you seem an expert on the LAW, please explain: old fashioned bomb, or LPG vehicle used as a bomb, what's the difference? Better make it super-simple English for those of us who can't understand simple English... DUH! well for a start all of the quotes above that you have attributed to me are not mine, maybe you could get that simple task right before going on an attack. secondly, all I did was state the law, I never offered any opinion or condoned the action in any way thirdly, if you read where I explain the law then you will have the answer to your irrelevant question. oh and fourthly, duh!!!!!!!!! my comments are below 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 oh dear, for someone talking about mind reading you really did manage to do a bad job reading my mind, it seems you read my post and then decided to guess what I was thinking. At no point to I say or even speculate that it is ok. If you want to criticise my post then stick to what I have written rather than what you think I have written. again I will reiterate. I have no idea why the tanker is there, none of us do, we can guess of course. I pointed out to another posters ridiculous comment the difference in LAW between a bomb and a fuel tanker, I never offered any opinion on it. I hope you understand now, saves time me having to respond to people who can't understand simple English What style explosions are happening NOW are the terrorist bombs or non terrorist bombs? Yeh the explosions would be those of terrorists.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts