Gonzo the Face Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) 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 Strange way of looking at it, but to each his own...... I would guess it would save more face to lose your job in disgrace from derilection of duty and refusing to obey a lawful order, than to over react...as I said to each his own.... Maybe they should get another job so they wouldn't be caught between a rock and a hard place. Your own Pad Thai Stall would seem safe. Edited April 13, 2009 by Gonzo the Face 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 And they have that big "tanker" there just to refuel their taxis?...sheesh I never said why they had the tanker there, I am just pointing out the law regarding what is considered a weapon, I am not condoning it, I just wish people knew what they are talking about when referring to legal issues, especially when they finish their pot with 'duh' or 'sheesh'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaimai Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 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 scouse - are you actually suggesting that the tanker driver may have been looking for a Shell garage and got lost in a residential area ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 TAN reporting reds try to ram a bus into soldiers and a bus explodes, a different one after reds set it alight?, and some shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vindie Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Some video of the armed insurrection. Look at those reds wielding their awesome weapons and going at the army. I guess the Thai channels couldn't get a camera man out in BKK. The roads are blocked after all. BBC Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huangy Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 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. It is Songkran, after all. HG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koo82 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 AT least 68 people have been injured, two of them critically, after Thai troops dispersed protesters in the capital Bangkok, emergency services said. A spokesman for the national emergency medical service denied claims on the protesters' radio station that five or six protesters were killed. A doctor speaking on condition of anonymity said two of the protesters taken to hospital were suffering from gunshot wounds after troops opened fire. An AFP photographer said Thai troops fired shots in the air this morning to disperse protesters who threw molotov cocktails and stones. The demonstrators retreated after the shots were fired at a key intersection in the capital. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...0-25837,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunderland Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Mmmmmm ... those complaining about the government's crackdown seem to be living in a dream where nobody says rude words or has conflicts. It's not as if the protesters haven't been given ample time to waddle off home and celebrate Songkran. I think the Thai government is currently showing extreme restraint given all that has happened in recent days. What would you like them to do? Nothing? Let these guys in red shirts hold the city hostage? The PAD should never have been able to get away with what they did, but that was as much down to the ineffective management of the situation by Laurel and Hardy (Somchai and Samak). Abhisit has if anything gone about the last few days in a commendable fashion and probably has a chance of a long political future, even if he has to resign in the short term due to a lack of support from certain quarters, as he will have more credibility within the international community than 'Toxin' who has clearly lost the plot. Anyone who seriously believes threatening to blow up a gas tanker in the middle of a residential area does not amount to terrorism is seriously deluded and should be out there with his/her 'red brothers'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevelHead 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo the Face Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 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 scouse - are you actually suggesting that the tanker driver may have been looking for a Shell garage and got lost in a residential area ????? Hey Chaimai...... don't attribute that moronic statement to me ! ! ! You'll hurt my feelings. Gonzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunderland Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 AT least 68 people have been injured, two of them critically, after Thai troops dispersed protesters in the capital Bangkok, emergency services said.A spokesman for the national emergency medical service denied claims on the protesters' radio station that five or six protesters were killed. A doctor speaking on condition of anonymity said two of the protesters taken to hospital were suffering from gunshot wounds after troops opened fire. An AFP photographer said Thai troops fired shots in the air this morning to disperse protesters who threw molotov cocktails and stones. The demonstrators retreated after the shots were fired at a key intersection in the capital. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...0-25837,00.html The numbers are not sensational and in fact very low considering the circumstances. Much more tragic is the number of people losing life and limbs in road accidents today across Thailand as they 'celebrate' Songkran. Not trying to excuse any of the violence, but let's not let stats cloud over a bigger picture. 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonycheston Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 seems to be hotting up, live coverage now on http://www.explore-thailand.net/media/thaitv26.html can anyone translate? I just saw maybe 100 or more armed soldiers move into position and march down some street. where? Also water canons being driven to some area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I never said why they had the tanker there, I am just pointing out the law regarding what is considered a weapon, I am not condoning it, I just wish people knew what they are talking about when referring to legal issues, especially when they finish their pot with 'duh' or 'sheesh'. Yoou are techincally correct redscouse in that the tanker is not a weapon untill the intent is there to use it as such. However in the context of this specific instance, that intent has been made clear. Protesters seized a cooking gas tank and placed it in front of the Din Daeng flats and threatened to blow it if the troops advance to disperse them. They also released some gas as warning. Some residents of the flats have moved out for fear of fire and explosion. The Nation Clearly the red insurgents have shown intent to use the LPG truck as a bomb and thus making truck a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedomDude 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!! Yeah, i'm in the neighborhood and heard that too! (soi ragnam) According to the Thais around here, it was actual gunfire. You have evidence to the contrary? Everyone went sprinting south on Ratchaprarop as the troops marched in a line south from Century Park. The troops have stopped about halfway between Century Park hotel and Soi Ragnam (where the gas truck is currently parked at King Power). That's when I heard the POP POP POPs that sounded like gunfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 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 scouse - are you actually suggesting that the tanker driver may have been looking for a Shell garage and got lost in a residential area ????? I am not suggesting anything, I am pointing out the law in relation to what is a weapon, i offered no opinion on it. i was responding to a stupid post about taking a bomb on a plane and pointed out the law. pretty simple for people who read posts rather than looking for a squabble 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redscouse Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I never said why they had the tanker there, I am just pointing out the law regarding what is considered a weapon, I am not condoning it, I just wish people knew what they are talking about when referring to legal issues, especially when they finish their pot with 'duh' or 'sheesh'. Yoou are techincally correct redscouse in that the tanker is not a weapon untill the intent is there to use it as such. However in the context of this specific instance, that intent has been made clear. Protesters seized a cooking gas tank and placed it in front of the Din Daeng flats and threatened to blow it if the troops advance to disperse them. They also released some gas as warning. Some residents of the flats have moved out for fear of fire and explosion. The Nation Clearly the red insurgents have shown intent to use the LPG truck as a bomb and thus making truck a weapon. I never said they hadnt shown their intention, again I will point out that I was responding to a post asking why bombs can't be taken on planes if its only considered a weapon when it explodes. How many times do I have to explain my post before it sinks in (not aimed at you, aimed at the people who read it and misunderstood it, at least you understood it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevelHead 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafval Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Chairman of Siam Gas - whose tanker was "hijacked"(or not) is Chaiyasit Shinawatra (Thaksin's brother). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vindie 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 Waerth, I'll back you up. I have a lot of police friends. They are often on the losing end when it comes to confrontations. However, I disagree that they don't have sympathies. During the yellow protests many police were beaten. No arrests were made... Thai police... like police would elsewhere in the world... do not like to be trounced and the perpetrators let off. Police were openly joining the demonstration last night... it's a wonder they didn't join sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaimai Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 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 scouse - are you actually suggesting that the tanker driver may have been looking for a Shell garage and got lost in a residential area ????? Hey Chaimai...... don't attribute that moronic statement to me ! ! ! You'll hurt my feelings. Gonzo Oops ! Sorry Gonzo. I was trying to cut down the amount of quotes but I can see that it now looks like your statement. Sorry, again - the moronic statement was definately from 'redscouse'. In fairness he has since clarified his comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoMeOnEnUlL 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo the Face Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) 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 scouse - are you actually suggesting that the tanker driver may have been looking for a Shell garage and got lost in a residential area ????? I am not suggesting anything, I am pointing out the law in relation to what is a weapon, i offered no opinion on it. i was responding to a stupid post about taking a bomb on a plane and pointed out the law. pretty simple for people who read posts rather than looking for a squabble Maybe thats what you were thinking, but thats not what you wrote..... The tanker was obviously put there for a reason....... 1 to refil gas bottles or 2 to cause fright and/or mayhem. Now really what do you think 90% of the people seeing the truck were thinking..... come on , when you post a misunderstanding, just drop it don't make it worse.......and maybe you would be better served letting others more qualified point out the laws here,,,,,,, over to you... lunch time for me Edited April 13, 2009 by Gonzo the Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaimai Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Rules of the Forum.No rumour. All sources must be named, or do not post. So, hothead, are you going to have a pop at Koo82's post in which reference was made to an 'anonymous doctor' ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slip 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. Can you point out exactly where that is in the rules please? I had another look but couldn't find it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldar1 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Waerth, I'll back you up. I have a lot of police friends. They are often on the losing end when it comes to confrontations. However, I disagree that they don't have sympathies. During the yellow protests many police were beaten. No arrests were made... Thai police... like police would elsewhere in the world... do not like to be trounced and the perpetrators let off. Police were openly joining the demonstration last night... it's a wonder they didn't join sooner. Can they still be called police if they join in with an insurrection? I always thought that treason by a government official was the worst possible crime that can be committed in a country. So if you commit treason you are automatically stripped of your governmental function, it's not like you really want it anyway since you are against the government. 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 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 Waerth, I'll back you up. I have a lot of police friends. They are often on the losing end when it comes to confrontations. However, I disagree that they don't have sympathies. During the yellow protests many police were beaten. No arrests were made... Thai police... like police would elsewhere in the world... do not like to be trounced and the perpetrators let off. Police were openly joining the demonstration last night... it's a wonder they didn't join sooner. I can only talk for my friend and 3 other officers I know. They would not join any protesters. But they would not move against anyone either because of the law. Off course these are officers. The man of other rank and file might think differently. But let us please stay civil. If anyone else has rumours to tell please tell them in my opinion. We are all adults. We all have brains and we can all decide for ourselves what we believe or what we do not believe! And just politely disagree with eachother. but please stay civil. Waerth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LevelHead 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. As I have been saying. Thai's will not accept the use of guns against civilians. If the Army kill any reds then a whole load more Thai's will be out on the streets. They will incite the "civil war" by the use of weapons against civilians. Stop being farang, this is Thailand and works the Thai way. Abhisit, dissolve the House and put an end to this with new elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xminator 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. The power with the biggest guns will win the battle. There is no doubt in my mind that if the government want to they will clear the thousands at Government House. It will however not be pretty. And to what end? Is there any reports from other parts of the country regarding reactions to the crackdown? Most of the redshirt mass is not in the fighting right now. Abhisit might be able to make the problem go out of sight, but its going to pop its head again. I dont think he, or his masters are willing to do what it takes to suppress 50 or even 30% of the countrys population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts