Some Attitudes Towards Red Shirts Shameful

[moresomekl]

This guy has been reading and posting on TV hasn't he. I'm sure I've seen most of those comments before.

This one was my favorite though.

The mainstream media is quick to characterise the red-shirt protesters as being violence prone, though funnily enough it said very little about the violence generated by the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin or the shutting down of the Suvarnabhumi Airport in 2008.

I don't remember ANY violence during the coup or the airport takover.

Seizure of an international airport is not only violent but terrorism, i know of farang families stuck at airport absolutely scared, not knowing what going on and how they are getting back to their families. Also none have received compensation as far as i know. Also i seem to remember seeing a thai buddhist monk wearing yellow fighting in street , this was shown on bbc so wise up my friend

I do agree with you . What have tourists to do with thai politics ?

Not that we , beeing non thais , have much to do either

[anotherpeter]

Peter. there was violence at the airport as witnessed by many people, including the international press, it is futile trying to argue that there was not violence, and it seems that by arguing there was no violence you hope to show that there was no violence at all associated with the yellow shirts. I really don't see where you are trying to go with this.

people were attacked, property was damaged hence the delay in reopening the airport, not just as a safety measure but to repair some damage. The warrants issued are not for the violence as far as I am aware, but don't make the mistake of thinking that means there was no violence, we all know full well there was violence, even if I refer you to the one incident I already mentioned, as has another poster, where the PAD supporter wanted to leave and go home and he was attacked by the PAD guards, he was pleading with the press to help him yet the assault continued, all because he wanted to go home.

trying to say the yellows were not violent is pointless considering the amount of footage showing this violence, some posters try to justify it, some try to say it never even happened, but at the end of the day the yellows were involved in numerous incidents of violence, including murder, assault, riot, trespass, criminal damage............................ i could go on but I am sure you get the point.

the reds have also been violent in the past, there you have it, both parties have been violent, no point in trying to deny that like some posters will on here.

Thankyou Tony for the information.

I don't condone what the yellow shirts did with regards to government house and the airports. Nowhere have I said that they are not violent. I am not a PAD supporter (although I would probably support them over the reds). My main aim is to get correct information out there (which is why I laugh at the Nation a lot).

My original post questioned the statement in the article that the coup and the airport seizure was violent. I questioned that because I understood that they weren't (particularly the coup).

Most arguments against that my statement were based around other events (ie government house or the shooting incident) and the arrest warrants (for transportation law violation, and issues at other locations).

Even the damage doesn't really indicate much. They were able to open an international airport to full operation within a day or 2 of the seizure ending (protest ended Dec 3, flights started Dec 4 & 5). If there was all this damage to the control tower, it would take them weeks before they could get flights going again.

PAD on PAD violence - it shows a violent group, but it doesn't show that the seizure was violent, or that there was violence aimed at others.

[anotherpeter]

Seizure of an international airport is not only violent but terrorism, i know of farang families stuck at airport absolutely scared, not knowing what going on and how they are getting back to their families. Also none have received compensation as far as i know. Also i seem to remember seeing a thai buddhist monk wearing yellow fighting in street , this was shown on bbc so wise up my friend

A Thai buddhist monk wearing yellow? A t-shirt over his orange garb? At the airport?

I can understand that a farang family would be scared not knowing what's happening etc etc (this would also happen if there was a pilots strike).

That hardly makes it violent. I'll have to look up the definition of terrorism again ... but don't think it was that.

ANYWAY ... I think this discussion has gone as far as it's going to go.

They yellows took over the airport. That was bad. End of story.

[TAWP]

edit, I just noticed you are not even in bangkok Well let me tell you, life was much more difficult here when the yellows were roaming the place compared to the peaceful red protest now, even my daughter has not had to forgo 4 weeks of her education as happened when the yellows were here because of the violence. you really are a card, this is like me discussing an incident in samui without any first hand knowledge apart from the biased ramblings of a clearly biased newspaper,

I am not sure what you are smoking, but I have lived in BKK for several years. Anything else you are planning to be wrong about, as per usual?

[TAWP]

Yes, and my post states that.

Reading 101.

Wait. What?

"The intention of an event can never be violent"

Also, a military coup must be, by it's very definition an act of violence.

Military force/the threat of military force used to overthrow a government.

How can this be described as anything other than both violent intent and act.

The intention of an coup is not violent. Just because you are planning to have a coup does not make the act of the coup violent. The event of a coup can be considered violent if 1) you plan to have violence during the coup and/or 2) there is violence during the actual coup. A coup without violence that was not planned to be violent is not in itself violent. It is a coup.

Again, read my post and do it carefully this time.

Show of force never have to equate violence. Infact, many times the police in our western world will show up with riot geared police in large masses to make sure that their show of force guarantee that there will be less or no violence, for example after hockey-games, political meetings or G8 summits. If the police show up in force and no violence take place, have there then been a violent event? No, of course not.

Separate intent, actions and effects.

[tonywebster]

edit, I just noticed you are not even in bangkok Well let me tell you, life was much more difficult here when the yellows were roaming the place compared to the peaceful red protest now, even my daughter has not had to forgo 4 weeks of her education as happened when the yellows were here because of the violence. you really are a card, this is like me discussing an incident in samui without any first hand knowledge apart from the biased ramblings of a clearly biased newspaper,

I am not sure what you are smoking, but I have lived in BKK for several years. Anything else you are planning to be wrong about, as per usual?

there seems to be some mistake, maybe I quoted wrong but since you have edited the full quote I will need to read back and see, I am sure I quoted animatic who resides on Samui, animatic was quoting you, i quoted animatic, and since editing of quotes is not allowed I didnt edit it.

strange

yes sorry, my mistake, I edited my post after reading something from animatic and I thought I was responding to him, I wondered why he didn't respond. Now to your petty little comment about always being wrong, not really needed and I am happy to discuss your abuse with you if you like, we can discuss it via pm so a to not clutter the forum with your abuse. I await your pm with baited breath.

Edited April 1, 2010 by tonywebster

[scorecard]

animatic, perhaps you should take a look at just your's and jdinasia's over the last 2 weeks or so.

Do you think it would be a reasonable assertion that one could find multiple instances of objectifying, dehumanizing, insulting, and belittling references to the red shirt protesters?

Aimed at leadership,

or the fact they rank and file don't seem to see they're been conned by team Thaksin.

Nice try, but that dog don't hunt.

The stereeotyping of the red shirt supporters is horrible and now the stereotyping of Bangkokians is as bad. Deos anyone really believe this idiotic stuff? What next all Brits or all Yanks or .........

100% agree .

Understand that every rank and file red shirt protester get 500THB a day.

Most of them are poor people and 500THB per day is 15,000THB a month .

A lot of money in the country side . They have loan to repay , kids to feed

and so on and so forth . They know that those 500THB are paid by Thaksin

otherwise they would care about him as much as they care about the first man

on the moon . As since he pays they throw their support for him

Bet that most of them are eating cheap cheap , sleeping in squalid conditions

at least those without BKK relatives , so that they can send the bulk of those 500THB

back home , thus building more support for Thaksin . Thaksin knows that PTP

wont be abble to buy votes so he kills two bird with one stone by building his support

now while putting pressure on the governement . If Abhisit caves in to very early elections

Thaksin wins politically , if he dont cave in (9 months elections), Thaksin

is building more support for later .

Truly i dont blame the reds rank and file

I am not sure if Abhisit , Suthep and the rest understands the meaning of poverty

as all them are born in golden cage . Do they understand that rurals come to Bangkok

to find a job which as they lack a trade , is very poorly paid but they have no other choice.

Does he understand that many of them of them end up not even beeing paid by

unscrupoulous employers . Without doubt Abhisit is a good person , unlike Thaksin , but if he is

smart he should do things that have immediate effects on the Isaan people . And NOT

do those ONLY in the North/NorthEast . In another thread i suggested training program

to teach ppl in the country side a trade (from car mechanics to hair dresser , whatever )

pay them an indemnity during their training period . Credits to rurals to start businesses and

economic activity in Isaan and so on and so forth . Thaksin have money but his money is nothing

as compared to the ressources of a nation state . Abhisit have the ressources of a nation state

Free education for all kids will pay one day , is very good of course but its a long long way to go

before it pays off .

Well Mr Abhisit if you want to win at next election you will have to fight for it. The chicken dont

come roasted at birth

Very few Thais would disagree that there is a need for change and to build a picture whereby all Thais have better opportunity and a better standard of living and you might like to note that PM Abhisit and Khun Korn have already developed and introduced policy to get the cahnages in place,

Personal barbs at PM Abhisit suggesting that he should not be PM because he was born rich (or whatever) are just silly:

- Thaksin was born rich.

- Thaksin did sometimes visited the rural areas but he didn't do this until he realized that they were his means of manipulation and power.

- If 'rich' means that you can't be a PM then that precluded many capable and sincere people. Not very wise. And on this logic, thaksin should have been precluded from being PM!

Edited April 1, 2010 by scorecard

[Splatter]

This guy has been reading and posting on TV hasn't he. I'm sure I've seen most of those comments before.

This one was my favorite though.

The mainstream media is quick to characterise the red-shirt protesters as being violence prone, though funnily enough it said very little about the violence generated by the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin or the shutting down of the Suvarnabhumi Airport in 2008.

I don't remember ANY violence during the coup or the airport takover.

Methinks your memory needs to be jogged then.

Please jog it. Information please.

edit: no references required. just some basic details of the violence during this time will be fine.

I suppose you could call the airport thing peaceful.

Not long before there were some right violent hooleys kicking off.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11401580@N03/...57607842648157/

7th October 2008.

Elements in the PAD engaged in violence, as did the Police.

I didn't hang about for the evening. That was pretty violent too.

But, of course, that was not at the airport.

I suppose we could call the army rolling their tanks onto the streets as peaceful, because they didn't fire them.

But I wouldn't try the "None of us fired our guns when holding up the bank, your honour, we were being peaceful" defense in any court of law.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Splatter

[jayboy]

So many utter wrong things it's hard to begin.

"keep spouting this nonsense and eventually you will actually believe it."

Well it seems you have already been convinced by the PR machine

to Thaksins spurious world view. So sad actually.

So where do we begin with you and your endless venom, ignorance and insulting behaviour? Actually Tonywebster's post was perfectly reasonable even though one might not agree with every point made.Clearly he was trying to find a way through to a position of compromise.Nevertheless you conclude with an patronising post lamely suggesting that anyone who takes a different view has been fooled by Thaksin's PR machine.

[MellowYellow]

Yes, and my post states that.

Reading 101.

Wait. What?

"The intention of an event can never be violent"

Also, a military coup must be, by it's very definition an act of violence.

Military force/the threat of military force used to overthrow a government.

How can this be described as anything other than both violent intent and act.

The intention of an coup is not violent. Just because you are planning to have a coup does not make the act of the coup violent. The event of a coup can be considered violent if 1) you plan to have violence during the coup and/or 2) there is violence during the actual coup. A coup without violence that was not planned to be violent is not in itself violent. It is a coup.

Again, read my post and do it carefully this time.

Show of force never have to equate violence. Infact, many times the police in our western world will show up with riot geared police in large masses to make sure that their show of force guarantee that there will be less or no violence, for example after hockey-games, political meetings or G8 summits. If the police show up in force and no violence take place, have there then been a violent event? No, of course not.

Separate intent, actions and effects.

Credible threats of violence almost always equal violence and said threats are recognized legally (in both international and national laws worldwide) as sufficent "just cause" for preemptive action.

If you like police examples, how about an armed hostage holder. The police (in almost any nation I can think of) are justified in lawfully using violence when the hostage taker demonstrates violent intent (either through verbal threat or action).

I don't care how you want spin the words, driving a tank somewhere as a threat of violence is violent. Army personnell seizing control of infrstructure, government, and suspending civil liberties is violent, even if no shots are fired because these acts are accepted and unnopposed because of the obvious and direct threat of violence.

Edited April 1, 2010 by MellowYellow

[anotherpeter]

Credible threats of violence almost always equal violence and said threats are recognized legally (in both international and national laws worldwide) as sufficent "just cause" for preemptive action.

If you like police examples, how about an armed hostage holder. The police (in almost any nation I can think of) are justified in lawfully using violence when the hostage taker demonstrates violent intent (either through verbal threat or action).

I don't care how you want spin the words, driving a tank somewhere as a threat of violence is violent. Army personnell seizing control of infrstructure, government, and suspending civil liberties is violent, even if no shots are fired because these acts are accepted and unnopposed because of the obvious and direct threat of violence.

So, the reds protests ARE violent afterall.

[MellowYellow]

Oh hey there, anotherpeter,

Another gem from ths forums own Daily Propaganda.

http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30089757

A plainclothes policewoman was nearly lynched by angry protesters at the Don Mueang Airport Saturday afternoon after she was identified and captured by guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Capturing, detaining, humiliating and attacking a Policewoman. Does that count as violence to you?

Edited April 1, 2010 by MellowYellow

[MellowYellow]

Credible threats of violence almost always equal violence and said threats are recognized legally (in both international and national laws worldwide) as sufficent "just cause" for preemptive action.

If you like police examples, how about an armed hostage holder. The police (in almost any nation I can think of) are justified in lawfully using violence when the hostage taker demonstrates violent intent (either through verbal threat or action).

I don't care how you want spin the words, driving a tank somewhere as a threat of violence is violent. Army personnell seizing control of infrstructure, government, and suspending civil liberties is violent, even if no shots are fired because these acts are accepted and unnopposed because of the obvious and direct threat of violence.

So, the reds protests ARE violent afterall.

They have certainly, through the retarded prononcement of some leaders, demonstrated intent. Is that intent credible? Well partially based upon history, but no as much as if say they were brandishing weapons or, perhaps, DRIVING TANKS!

[anotherpeter]

Oh hey there, anotherpeter,

Another gem from ths forums own Daily Propaganda.

http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30089757

A plainclothes policewoman was nearly lynched by angry protesters at the Don Mueang Airport Saturday afternoon after she was identified and captured by guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Capturing, detaining, humiliating and attacking a Policewoman. Does that count as violence to you?

Yes. The yellows have some violent tendencies. I never denied that.

But different airport!! So I will go back to my original statement. The seizure of Suhvarnibhumi wasn't violent.

I didn't say it was right or that I agreed with it. I just said that particular incident wasn't violent.

[anotherpeter]

Credible threats of violence almost always equal violence and said threats are recognized legally (in both international and national laws worldwide) as sufficent "just cause" for preemptive action.

If you like police examples, how about an armed hostage holder. The police (in almost any nation I can think of) are justified in lawfully using violence when the hostage taker demonstrates violent intent (either through verbal threat or action).

I don't care how you want spin the words, driving a tank somewhere as a threat of violence is violent. Army personnell seizing control of infrstructure, government, and suspending civil liberties is violent, even if no shots are fired because these acts are accepted and unnopposed because of the obvious and direct threat of violence.

So, the reds protests ARE violent afterall.

They have certainly, through the retarded prononcement of some leaders, demonstrated intent. Is that intent credible? Well partially based upon history, but no as much as if say they were brandishing weapons or, perhaps, DRIVING TANKS!

The protests (up until now) haven't been violent. Let's hope it stays that way ... but I don't really like the chances.

With others protesting against the red protests (away from the actual protests) and the reds talking about confronting them, there is bound to be some problems.

[yoshiwara]

Credible threats of violence almost always equal violence and said threats are recognized legally (in both international and national laws worldwide) as sufficent "just cause" for preemptive action.

If you like police examples, how about an armed hostage holder. The police (in almost any nation I can think of) are justified in lawfully using violence when the hostage taker demonstrates violent intent (either through verbal threat or action).

I don't care how you want spin the words, driving a tank somewhere as a threat of violence is violent. Army personnell seizing control of infrstructure, government, and suspending civil liberties is violent, even if no shots are fired because these acts are accepted and unnopposed because of the obvious and direct threat of violence.

So, the reds protests ARE violent afterall.

They have certainly, through the retarded prononcement of some leaders, demonstrated intent. Is that intent credible? Well partially based upon history, but no as much as if say they were brandishing weapons or, perhaps, DRIVING TANKS!

Looks like some Thaksin apologists are making a determined effort to shake off the red well-earned reputation for red violence last Songkran.

This particular Thaksin apologist never responds to evidence about Songkran 2009.

He is only interested in preparing the way for the return of Thaksin.

Though he denies it.

But he follows the line.

Except too embarrassed to parrot Thaksin's denial of red Songkran violence.

Always talks about something else.

Again.

[MellowYellow]

Some more peaceful protesting by the PAD

[anotherpeter]

Some more peaceful protesting by the PAD

Get over it. I never said the yellows weren't violent.

Edited April 1, 2010 by anotherpeter

[MellowYellow]

This guy has been reading and posting on TV hasn't he. I'm sure I've seen most of those comments before.

This one was my favorite though.

The mainstream media is quick to characterise the red-shirt protesters as being violence prone, though funnily enough it said very little about the violence generated by the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin or the shutting down of the Suvarnabhumi Airport in 2008.

I don't remember ANY violence during the coup or the airport takover.

I still hear"Airport takeover by Yellow shirts",

Lies,the airports were entrance blocked!

No yellow shirt entered the airports,the press especially the"Bangkok Pest"pun intended,are distroring always the facts,as they take 99 % of theis news from API etc.copycats and not shameful professionals.

"No yellow shirt entered the airports,the press especially the"Bangkok Pest"pun intended,are distroring always the facts..."

Interesting. That looks like it is INSIDE the airport to me.

Edited April 1, 2010 by MellowYellow

[MellowYellow]

Some more peaceful protesting by the PAD

Get over it. I never said the yellows weren't violent.

Actually not quite true. You stated multiple times the PAD were not violent at the airports. I think I've already linked to prove that false.

Now we can move along to dispeling the historical revision of animatic and his crew who sate the PAD were violent in an isolated incident explained away as being provoked.

ANother poster actually claimed the PAD never even entered the airports.

[anotherpeter]

This guy has been reading and posting on TV hasn't he. I'm sure I've seen most of those comments before.

This one was my favorite though.

The mainstream media is quick to characterise the red-shirt protesters as being violence prone, though funnily enough it said very little about the violence generated by the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin or the shutting down of the Suvarnabhumi Airport in 2008.

I don't remember ANY violence during the coup or the airport takover.

I still hear"Airport takeover by Yellow shirts",

Lies,the airports were entrance blocked!

No yellow shirt entered the airports,the press especially the"Bangkok Pest"pun intended,are distroring always the facts,as they take 99 % of theis news from API etc.copycats and not shameful professionals.

"No yellow shirt entered the airports,the press especially the"Bangkok Pest"pun intended,are distroring always the facts..."

Interesting. That looks like it is INSIDE the airport to me.

Aren't all those pics outside the airport?

[MellowYellow]

Oh hey there, anotherpeter,

Another gem from ths forums own Daily Propaganda.

http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30089757

A plainclothes policewoman was nearly lynched by angry protesters at the Don Mueang Airport Saturday afternoon after she was identified and captured by guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Capturing, detaining, humiliating and attacking a Policewoman. Does that count as violence to you?

More NONviolent PAD action at the airport.

[anotherpeter]

Oh hey there, anotherpeter,

Another gem from ths forums own Daily Propaganda.

http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/r...newsid=30089757

A plainclothes policewoman was nearly lynched by angry protesters at the Don Mueang Airport Saturday afternoon after she was identified and captured by guards of the People's Alliance for Democracy.

Capturing, detaining, humiliating and attacking a Policewoman. Does that count as violence to you?

More NONviolent PAD action at the airport.

You don't actually read my posts do you? We covered this already. Why are you still bringing it up again?

Edited April 1, 2010 by anotherpeter

[MellowYellow]

More NON violent PAD results.

Edited April 1, 2010 by MellowYellow

[MellowYellow]

You don't actually read my posts do you? We covered this already. Why are you still bringing it up again?

It's not about you. I'm waiting for the other PAD apologists and deniers of history to admit to the LIES and myths of PAD nonviolence.

ANd in the meantime, the next time one of them revises history, it's a simple link to this thread to end the fallacies.

[traderjm]

It's not about you. I'm waiting for the other PAD apologists and deniers of history to admit to the LIES and myths of PAD nonviolence.

ANd in the meantime, the next time one of them revises history, it's a simple link to this thread to end the fallacies.

So curious how about Songkran last year, any RED violence there? I lived and worked and traveled through it daily... but funny how I keep reading from RED leaders and supporters and apologists that I must have simply had some bad acid or something... funny that...

[anotherpeter]

You don't actually read my posts do you? We covered this already. Why are you still bringing it up again?

It's not about you. I'm waiting for the other PAD apologists and deniers of history to admit to the LIES and myths of PAD nonviolence.

ANd in the meantime, the next time one of them revises history, it's a simple link to this thread to end the fallacies.

And do you want all the pics/videos of the red violence up here too?

They both have violent segments.

You don't have any pics of the reds with the gas tanker in the residential area do you? That one takes the cake.

edit: and I reckon in a couple of weeks there will be a new bunch of violent pics.

Edited April 1, 2010 by anotherpeter

[MellowYellow]

You don't actually read my posts do you? We covered this already. Why are you still bringing it up again?

It's not about you. I'm waiting for the other PAD apologists and deniers of history to admit to the LIES and myths of PAD nonviolence.

ANd in the meantime, the next time one of them revises history, it's a simple link to this thread to end the fallacies.

And do you want all the pics/videos of the red violence up here too?

They both have violent segments.

You don't have any pics of the reds with the gas tanker in the residential area do you? That one takes the cake.

edit: and I reckon in a couple of weeks there will be a new bunch of violent pics.

Look carefully through my posts. You won't find me denying reds have used violence. Now Look throughout the forum, including multiple posts of your's in this thread rewriting the history of PAD actions as non violent.

If they can't even admit to this lie.......

[MellowYellow]

It's not about you. I'm waiting for the other PAD apologists and deniers of history to admit to the LIES and myths of PAD nonviolence.

ANd in the meantime, the next time one of them revises history, it's a simple link to this thread to end the fallacies.

So curious how about Songkran last year, any RED violence there? I lived and worked and traveled through it daily... but funny how I keep reading from RED leaders and supporters and apologists that I must have simply had some bad acid or something... funny that...

Look carefully through my posts. You won't find me denying reds have used violence. Now Look throughout the forum, including multiple posts in this thread rewriting the history of PAD actions as non violent.

If they can't even admit to this lie.......

[MellowYellow]

Yes. The yellows have some violent tendencies. I never denied that.

But different airport!! So I will go back to my original statement. The seizure of Suhvarnibhumi wasn't violent.

I didn't say it was right or that I agreed with it. I just said that particular incident wasn't violent.

OOPS. Sorry missed your retraction.

Here, does this help?