Some Attitudes Towards Red Shirts Shameful

[TAWP]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

[anotherpeter]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

According to some of the red leaders, the *intent* of these protests was to be violent.

They haven't been violent. But the intent was there. Do you consider these protests to be violent?

[MellowYellow]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

both violent intent and violent acts can exist.

Logic 101

[clockworkorange]

Hmmmm - could this 'mainstream' 'group of academics' that purportedly represents all of us just be PAD supporters without their yellow shirts on?

The Nation is a nothing more than a yellow propaganda mouthpiece, and bears little resemblance to a newspaper these days. It reads more like a UK tabloid than the insightful and balanced publication that it once was in its glory days. Presenting any of its bellicose rhetoric as fact is laughable. A more accurate name for this subforum would be " Thailand Propaganda Clippings"

Agree with another poster here that the SBS documentary did quite a good job of presenting the facts on both sides. What a mess.

Edited April 1, 2010 by clockworkorange

[ovaltina]

I'm not going to get drawn into a historical revision debate.

It's ludicrous.

Anyone actually care to address the thrust of the article? The dehumanizing and labeling of the poor because they disagree and dare to make noise?

I am very poor, on minimum wage, and one of your pro-red allies mazeltov here has just spent the last 3 days flaming me relentlessly including calling me a liar ; that I have imaginary friends ; I am xenophobic even though I am an immigrant from split-race etc. All this very personal, insulting and factually inaccurate abuse from a forum-thaksinite, for me just "daring to make a noise" as you put it .

The fact that I am poor and from an inner city, and I strongly dislike Thaksin, means you assume me & others like me are anti-poor? I cannot be anti poor. I am poor. I am not anti-rural. I am a humanist, I hope for happy equal global society for all people, one day, through non-violent means.

And yet I am against Thaksin for the same reason I am against all other violent criminals who use people's lives like pawns in a chess game.

The pro red stuff on this forum seems to be very neat and tidy, 'with us or against us', and yet it has a huge glaring omission at the core.It seems to miss the point that a lot of poor people live in city centres, a lot of poor people don't like Thaksin at all. A lot of poor people don't approve of violence or confrontation. Does this make them 'bad' poor people? For such people to say what they think, you can not reply with "oh you are dehumanizing the poor". It is absurd.

[tonywebster]

Cue the bias-edited video of one truck defending itself from an attack by Red Taxi drivers,

but only showing the PAD guards shooting and holding one guy and stomping on bikes,

but NOT showing the part where the group attacks them...

And not putting in context the nightly attacks by grenades, leading to deaths,

for the several days prior to that, where they would be made to feel

any reds advancing on them in a group intent extreme violence.

Coup week, flowers handed to soldiers, no violence shown anywhere.

PAD violence mostly instigated by Red agitators.

Or by the inevitable siege mentality regular Red Attacks on PAD caused.

PAD were not acting thoughtful or properly taking the airport, it was wityhout doubt wrong,

but after a week of deaths in their camp, caused by outside forces, that they acted,

moved and didn't slink home is understandable, if not forgivable.

Regardless it must be viewed in context and not as individual incidents.

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

The truck 'defending' themselves was a group of yellow shirts that had just attacked a taxi radio station, the taxi drivers fought back and were shot at, whatever were those peace loving yellows doing wandering the streets with fire arms? This came after the storming of TV stations, the trespass of a government building, the takeover of the cities international airports and the holding of a city to hostage.

The nightly attacks by grenades? well that will account for all the unexploded ordnance found at GH when the trespassers finally left. Amazing that all those bombs were thrown into GH and never exploded and managed to land in a nice hiding place, or hey, here is an idea, maybe all those explosives were the property of the PAD themselves. Maybe they were attacked, maybe they attacked themselves, The jury is still out on this one in the absence of any evidence or convictions to prove either party was responsible. Answer me this though, just how did someone get close enough to GH to throw these supposed bombs when the PAD ARMED security was everywhere dishing out arbitrary beatings for minor things, yet they managed to let someone sneak through and throw bombs). I am beginning to think you should write a comedy series because you have me laughing my head of at the vitriol and twisting of the facts.

The PAD violence was instigated by red agitators, wait, let me find the right smiley for that one, here it is

such utter nonsense, from the start the PAD were a violent group, employing armed guards that dished out regular beatings, even to one poor soul in front of the press at the airport who was only trying to leave the protest and head home, not to mention the body found at don meaung I believe it was, not to mention the guy given a beating behind the blue tarpaulin who made the mistake of walking through, or the guy shot to death near the police headquarters, or the police man run over, or the policeman stabbed at parliament, i could go on as there were many more instances of violence instigated by the PAD.

The PAD did more damage to this country with their fiasco at the airport, that was an absolute disgrace, firstly because they did it, and secondly because they were not moved, by force if necessary. There was small insistences of violence at the airport as I have already mentioned, there was no mass instances simply because there was no attempt to remove them, if anyone doubts this I will highlight to them the violence at parliament when the police tried to move them, the policeman stabbed, the policeman run over by the pick up (available on youtube), the policeman drawing his pistol as a pickup drove at high speed towards him etc etc etc.

some of you guys would get more respect by just being honest rather than trying to say things that the majority of us already know is absolute <deleted>.

Both sides have been as bad as each other, it is not a competition to find out which side was most violent, BOTH sides have been guilty of random acts of violence, BOTH sides have damaged the country, but to try and make out the yellows did not instigate violence is just pathetic.

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

Let's leave it at THIS INCIDENT WAS ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT, not after.

Nor was there an attack on the Taxi station before this...

Historical revision written more than a little lamely, give it up.

"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.

I have not read you post, no doubt it is full of the inane drivel that you have become known for, I can gauge by the length of the post however that you have failed to address all the points I made, and I never even pointed out all the violence, I omitted to mention the car bomb on Sukhothai road in Bangkok that exploded, killing the yellow shirted ex policeman that had driven the car there despite his families pleas to not do so.

Give it up sunshine, your yellow propoganda is a fallacy as has been proven many times on here. face facts that the yellows were just as bad as the reds, if not worse.

[tonywebster]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

The threat or the fear of violence is enough to make an event an act of terrorism, even without the action. Also what is an illegit government? A military coup and the introduction of the army including firearms and tanks onto the streets is a show of strength and is intended to show that violence can happen if people do not tow the line during this illegal coup. Yes, coups are illegal hence the military government altering the constitution to ensure they were not charged with their illegal act.

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,

Edited April 1, 2010 by tonywebster

[TAWP]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

both violent intent and violent acts can exist.

Logic 101

Yes, and my post states that.

Reading 101.

[Insight]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

The threat or the fear of violence is enough to make an event an act of terrorism, even without the action. Also what is an illegit government? A military coup and the introduction of the army including firearms and tanks onto the streets is a show of strength and is intended to show that violence can happen if people do not tow the line during this illegal coup. Yes, coups are illegal hence the military government altering the constitution to ensure they were not charged with their illegal act.

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,

Yawn.

Coup was 4 years ago.

Elections (that the opposition agreed to, participated in, formed a coalition in which subsequently defected) have occurred since.

The tactics that put PTP in power have now put the Dems in power. Get over it.

[MellowYellow]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

both violent intent and violent acts can exist.

Logic 101

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.

[tonywebster]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

The threat or the fear of violence is enough to make an event an act of terrorism, even without the action. Also what is an illegit government? A military coup and the introduction of the army including firearms and tanks onto the streets is a show of strength and is intended to show that violence can happen if people do not tow the line during this illegal coup. Yes, coups are illegal hence the military government altering the constitution to ensure they were not charged with their illegal act.

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,

Yawn.

Coup was 4 years ago.

Elections (that the opposition agreed to, participated in, formed a coalition in which subsequently defected) have occurred since.

The tactics that put PTP in power have now put the Dems in power. Get over it.

is this the election that Thaksin called for but the PAD pressured other parties to not stand against them? I also disagree, the PPP were put into power because they won more seats than the dems, this allowed them to easily form the government. The dems on the other hand had to BUY coalition partners after the disbandment of the democratically elected government, they were not given the mandate by the people, if the people wanted them then they would have voted for them, which they have failed to do in that last 3 or 4 elections. Get over it.

[Siripon]

When the intention behind the event is violent, i consider it to be violent

The intention of an event can never be violent. The intent is the purpose if the event. The action can be violent and we can only judge an event from what actually happened.

If the intent is to *create* violence, and such is done, then the event is a violent one. But a coup is per definition not an intent to create violence, it is an intent to overthrow a [sometimes a illegit] government.

Philosophy 101.

The threat or the fear of violence is enough to make an event an act of terrorism, even without the action. Also what is an illegit government? A military coup and the introduction of the army including firearms and tanks onto the streets is a show of strength and is intended to show that violence can happen if people do not tow the line during this illegal coup. Yes, coups are illegal hence the military government altering the constitution to ensure they were not charged with their illegal act.

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,

The coups of 1991 and 2006 were both bloodless affairs because the middle class Bangkokians accepted them as necessary. Soldiers were welcomed in 2006 with flowers.

It was only in 1992 when Sujinda reneged on his promise not to be PM that protests began. I don't remember anyone getting paid to demonstrate at that time either.

Every coup's leaders have to tear up the constitution to insert a clause absolving them, it's standard practice.

Regarding inconvenience, I have to disagree there, anyone living within a kilometre or 2 of Pan Fah bridge has had a troublesome 3 weeks now with bus routes changed, parking problems and incessant jams around Lan Luang. Not to mention the all night din from the stage.

Back to the topic, urbanites, both working and middle class, look down on rural folk which is absolutely silly, my brother in Ban Pai can grow rice, plough fields, repair tractors and motorbikes, build houses, catch fish, snakes and birds.

Most Bangkokians would be at a loss upcountry if they were out of sight of a 7-11

[MellowYellow]

anotherpeter, I'm a little confused. 5 days ago you wrote:

"Yes ... there were violent protests involving the PAD....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Draw...t&p=3446611

Today you wrote:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please jog it. Information please.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... But the thing is, THEY WERE PEACEFUL. There was no violence (that I remember) during these two events. No one died. No one was injured. There was no fighting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And WHEN was there violence during the airport takeover?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY ...

Was there violence during the coup?

Was there violence during the airport 'takeover'?

If Yes, can you please provide some details.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given how much you're avoiding such simple questions, I take it your answer is NO - There was no violence during these two events.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that you answered my question earlier with something irrelevant (yellow violence elsewhere), you showed that you DID want to debate it, but you just can't directly answer the question.

Because the only answer is that there was NO violence in the coup or the airport takeover.

In 5 days did you change your mind about what happened 18 months ago?

Edited April 1, 2010 by MellowYellow

[blumenkraft]

Bangkokians considering themselves sophisticated is amusing. Looking down isn't sophisticated. It is naive. Trying to lift your self-esteem by pushing others down is childish and insecure. And the media, wow, with their unaudited print circulations, unverified demographics or audience counts, illiterate English, and a need to comply with philosophies of the state...this is sophisticated? Well, well...I guess you could say that, if you have never been anywhere but Bangkok. But, speaking from experience, if you travel abroad with so-called elite, in fact, very elite people from Bangkok, you are likely to see them resemble a deer caught in headlights when in the real world.

Heh - good post.

[hammered]

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 .........

Edited April 1, 2010 by hammered

[anotherpeter]

anotherpeter, I'm a little confused. 5 days ago you wrote:

"Yes ... there were violent protests involving the PAD....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Draw...t&p=3446611

Today you wrote:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please jog it. Information please.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... But the thing is, THEY WERE PEACEFUL. There was no violence (that I remember) during these two events. No one died. No one was injured. There was no fighting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And WHEN was there violence during the airport takeover?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY ...

Was there violence during the coup?

Was there violence during the airport 'takeover'?

If Yes, can you please provide some details.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given how much you're avoiding such simple questions, I take it your answer is NO - There was no violence during these two events.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that you answered my question earlier with something irrelevant (yellow violence elsewhere), you showed that you DID want to debate it, but you just can't directly answer the question.

Because the only answer is that there was NO violence in the coup or the airport takeover.

In 5 days did you change your mind about what happened 18 months ago?

Nice try, but actually, I haven't.

In the discussion on this thread, I haven't said that the yellows were not involved in ANY violent protests.

The article talks about violence during the coup (which was army, and not yellow anyway), and violence during the airport seizure. 2 specific incidents.

Was there violence during these 2 specific incidents? I don't believe there was.

[moresomekl]

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

[tonywebster]

anotherpeter, I'm a little confused. 5 days ago you wrote:

"Yes ... there were violent protests involving the PAD....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Draw...t&p=3446611

Today you wrote:

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please jog it. Information please.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... But the thing is, THEY WERE PEACEFUL. There was no violence (that I remember) during these two events. No one died. No one was injured. There was no fighting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And WHEN was there violence during the airport takeover?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MY ...

Was there violence during the coup?

Was there violence during the airport 'takeover'?

If Yes, can you please provide some details.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given how much you're avoiding such simple questions, I take it your answer is NO - There was no violence during these two events.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that you answered my question earlier with something irrelevant (yellow violence elsewhere), you showed that you DID want to debate it, but you just can't directly answer the question.

Because the only answer is that there was NO violence in the coup or the airport takeover.

In 5 days did you change your mind about what happened 18 months ago?

Nice try, but actually, I haven't.

In the discussion on this thread, I haven't said that the yellows were not involved in ANY violent protests.

The article talks about violence during the coup (which was army, and not yellow anyway), and violence during the airport seizure. 2 specific incidents.

Was there violence during these 2 specific incidents? I don't believe there was.

There was violence at the airport as already highlighted and the threat of violence is always there during a coup hence the tanks etc.

[anotherpeter]

There was violence at the airport as already highlighted and the threat of violence is always there during a coup hence the tanks etc.

Yes, it was highlighted that the yellows stormed the control tower a day after their seizure of the airport. Questionable about the violence involved there, but point taken.

There was a threat of violence prior to the reds protest, so now I can say that the reds protests are violent ?????????

[geriatrickid]

The question was asked in feigned innocence as to what violence occurred during the PAD seizure of the airport.

The answer given that one should refer to the 21 warrants issued by PM Abhisit's government when the charges were laid.

The response now? Profound silence.

What about the cost of the refurbishment of the tower equipment? Did the equipment become damaged on its own? Perhaps Mr. PC and Mrs. Tracking Screen squabbled?

[yoshiwara]

I'm not going to get drawn into a historical revision debate.

It's ludicrous.

Anyone actually care to address the thrust of the article? The dehumanizing and labeling of the poor because they disagree and dare to make noise?

I am very poor, on minimum wage, and one of your pro-red allies mazeltov here has just spent the last 3 days flaming me relentlessly including calling me a liar ; that I have imaginary friends ; I am xenophobic even though I am an immigrant from split-race etc. All this very personal, insulting and factually inaccurate abuse from a forum-thaksinite, for me just "daring to make a noise" as you put it .

The fact that I am poor and from an inner city, and I strongly dislike Thaksin, means you assume me & others like me are anti-poor? I cannot be anti poor. I am poor. I am not anti-rural. I am a humanist, I hope for happy equal global society for all people, one day, through non-violent means.

And yet I am against Thaksin for the same reason I am against all other violent criminals who use people's lives like pawns in a chess game.

The pro red stuff on this forum seems to be very neat and tidy, 'with us or against us', and yet it has a huge glaring omission at the core.It seems to miss the point that a lot of poor people live in city centres, a lot of poor people don't like Thaksin at all. A lot of poor people don't approve of violence or confrontation. Does this make them 'bad' poor people? For such people to say what they think, you can not reply with "oh you are dehumanizing the poor". It is absurd.

When the Thaksin cheerleaders talk about 'the poor', of course what they really mean is the poor who support Thaksin.

They do not mean the urban working class.

Nor do they have any economic policies which might cut across the economic and political interests of Thaksin.

Actually they have no economic policies at all.

Their crocodile tears for 'the poor' are so much bluster.

The red class war rhetoric mostly fools the forum Thaksin apologists, but few others.

Forget the labelling of the poor.

Follow Thaksin's money and fight for regaining power.

That's where the Thaksin apologists are positioned.

They spend so much time in righteous indignation denying they are in Thaksin's pocket.

But they climb in quite easily.

[tonywebster]

There was violence at the airport as already highlighted and the threat of violence is always there during a coup hence the tanks etc.

Yes, it was highlighted that the yellows stormed the control tower a day after their seizure of the airport. Questionable about the violence involved there, but point taken.

There was a threat of violence prior to the reds protest, so now I can say that the reds protests are violent ?????????

You keep asking this question, no you can't say the reds protest has been violent, but you can say there was a threat of violence. As an example, in UK law, for robbery, there does not need to be violence, only a threat of violence, this will take the offence from simple theft to robbery. The coup there was no violence, only a threat of violence.

so to clarify, yes there was violence at the airport, and no there was not violence during the coup, however there was the threat of violence.

And not to mention tha taxi driver that rammed the tank in his taxi as a protest against the coup, he survived but managed to kill himself a few weeks later but I don't recall whether that was doing the same thing or in another way. (I am not saying this makes the coup violent, but there were random acts of violence but not as part of the coup, more a by-product of the coup).

[anotherpeter]

The question was asked in feigned innocence as to what violence occurred during the PAD seizure of the airport.

The answer given that one should refer to the 21 warrants issued by PM Abhisit's government when the charges were laid.

The response now? Profound silence.

What about the cost of the refurbishment of the tower equipment? Did the equipment become damaged on its own? Perhaps Mr. PC and Mrs. Tracking Screen squabbled?

Are the arrest warrants for violence during the seizure of the airport? Some of the warrants are related to transportation law. Some of the warrant are related to government house.

So just because there are warrants issued, doesn't mean there was violence.

Also, the airport opened a couple of days after the seizure ended. There can't have been too much damage to control tower, could there?

[Ricardo]

There was violence at the airport as already highlighted and the threat of violence is always there during a coup hence the tanks etc.

But in fact the September-2006 coup wasn't violent, agreed ? I saw people taking flowers, and bags of snacks, to visit the troops, in a very un-threatening way. I recall a general feeling of relief, that the problem was over, and people could get on with their normal lives again.

[moresomekl]

Talking bout violence do they have water cannon and tear gas in thailand ?

Or only tanks , live ammunition and RPG ?

Just curious

[zirc]

And not to mention tha taxi driver that rammed the tank in his taxi as a protest against the coup, he survived but managed to kill himself a few weeks later but I don't recall whether that was doing the same thing or in another way. (I am not saying this makes the coup violent, but there were random acts of violence but not as part of the coup, more a by-product of the coup).

The poor, misguided suicidal attempts of the mentally ill do not constitute a "violent" coup. This sadly delusional person that hung himself is not some sort of martyr for a so-called democracy movement. Unfortunately for him, he was just a mentally ill person who offed himself.

[tonywebster]

The question was asked in feigned innocence as to what violence occurred during the PAD seizure of the airport.

The answer given that one should refer to the 21 warrants issued by PM Abhisit's government when the charges were laid.

The response now? Profound silence.

What about the cost of the refurbishment of the tower equipment? Did the equipment become damaged on its own? Perhaps Mr. PC and Mrs. Tracking Screen squabbled?

Are the arrest warrants for violence during the seizure of the airport? Some of the warrants are related to transportation law. Some of the warrant are related to government house.

So just because there are warrants issued, doesn't mean there was violence.

Also, the airport opened a couple of days after the seizure ended. There can't have been too much damage to control tower, could there?

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.

[tonywebster]

And not to mention tha taxi driver that rammed the tank in his taxi as a protest against the coup, he survived but managed to kill himself a few weeks later but I don't recall whether that was doing the same thing or in another way. (I am not saying this makes the coup violent, but there were random acts of violence but not as part of the coup, more a by-product of the coup).

The poor, misguided suicidal attempts of the mentally ill do not constitute a "violent" coup. This sadly delusional person that hung himself is not some sort of martyr for a so-called democracy movement. Unfortunately for him, he was just a mentally ill person who offed himself.

read what I wrote, it is quite clear that I say the coup was not violent, but there was a by-product of violence that occurred because of the coup. I thought what I wrote was clear but obviously now.

[britadders28]

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

[MengWan]

To go back to the very subject of this, I remember some "saying" -which even does not need to be chinese to be wise- which says that, in order not to be taken for "a dumb buffalo", one has just to refrain from acting like one !

Thaksin is NOT a "leader of the poor", he does NOT care about "the poor", he cares (and cared) for his wallet and his numerous bank accounts here and there !

So, as long as "the reds" will be carrying pictures of Thaksin, listening to the crap he sends from some "gangsta paradise", they will be acting like dumb buffaloes and consequently will be despised ...