Thai Protesters Remain Defiant In Bloodstained Bangkok

[jdinasia]

i've just finished watching the video titled "Thai Army Opens Fire On Protesters, Protesters Hurl Grenades," and i have to say that the title is a little misleading. Nowhere in the video can you see the armying OPENING fire, you see and heard them respond, by firing into the air, which as the commentator says 'if they ae firinging into the crowd there would be alot more dead people hear'. This vidoe speaks volumes about the restraint of the army and how they tried to play by the rules. The actions of the reds - well watch the video, listen to the commentary and work out for yourself if the army really does open fire on the protesters.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclus...-thailand-crack

one example of the thai army firing into the crowd can be seen at 1.25 in this video aired on French tv

in fact there are two examples, one just before 1.25 and one just after it

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

[tomyummer]

So, let's say, in the end, the Reds get what they want. What next? If anyone can paint a picture of what is to happen for the next year, pray tell.

Who is fit to become PM? The Constitution? Thaksin coming back? Share your thoughts?

[lannarebirth]

Brahmaburgers posted

Abhisit is not a puppet. He's also not an iron fisted tough guy,

So he needs all his backers to help him, remind him of the rewards he'll reap if he just hangs tough and keeps his chin up - leaving the armies daycare facility for scared little kiddies would be a good first step.

It should be clear to any impartial observer that Abhisit is not a puppet leader. He is currently faced with an insurgency which not only wishes to overthrow Thailand's currently elected government but also seeks to change Thailand's system of government through violent means. He must turn to a divided and self interested military, whose job it is to defend the country from foreign based enemies of the state and they have shown no willingness to do anything but protect their own positions. He is surrounded by crocodiles on all sides yet still he tries his best to save the country.

It is important to understand the difference between an enemy of a presiding government and an enemy of the state. It is the latter group that this government is facing now.

Agreed this is an insurrection that just got it's marching orders, and some martyrs to drum up support.

It doesn't make it any less a insurrection and beginings of civial war that SOME of the insurrectionists

believe they have reason for grievances. All citizens of all countries have grievances,

but most don't start civil wars. That isn't a march towards democracy, but from it.

Correct. When a much beloved figure gives the occasional speech you will often hear the words "or the country will fall/fail". Here we are.

[jdinasia]

Brahmaburgers posted

Abhisit is not a puppet. He's also not an iron fisted tough guy,

So he needs all his backers to help him, remind him of the rewards he'll reap if he just hangs tough and keeps his chin up - leaving the armies daycare facility for scared little kiddies would be a good first step.

It should be clear to any impartial observer that Abhisit is not a puppet leader. He is currently faced with an insurgency which not only wishes to overthrow Thailand's currently elected government but also seeks to change Thailand's system of government through violent means. He must turn to a divided and self interested military, whose job it is to defend the country from foreign based enemies of the state and they have shown no willingness to do anything but protect their own positions. He is surrounded by crocodiles on all sides yet still he tries his best to save the country.

It is important to understand the difference between an enemy of a presiding government and an enemy of the state. It is the latter group that this government is facing now.

"Enemy of the state"

What purpose does further inflaming the rhetoric and hyperbole serve?

The hotter and more exaggerated people make it, the harder it is to reach any sort of compromise or cooldown.

Next time you condemn the insane threats/rambles of the red leaders, why not stop and think if you help any cause (at least in the context of this discussion) by doing the exact same thing on the other side?

Red leaders have called it "WAR" and red leaders have called for a New Thai State. Pretty obviously they fall into the "Enemy of the State" category.

[tonywebster]

i've just finished watching the video titled "Thai Army Opens Fire On Protesters, Protesters Hurl Grenades," and i have to say that the title is a little misleading. Nowhere in the video can you see the armying OPENING fire, you see and heard them respond, by firing into the air, which as the commentator says 'if they ae firinging into the crowd there would be alot more dead people hear'. This vidoe speaks volumes about the restraint of the army and how they tried to play by the rules. The actions of the reds - well watch the video, listen to the commentary and work out for yourself if the army really does open fire on the protesters.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclus...-thailand-crack

one example of the thai army firing into the crowd can be seen at 1.25 in this video aired on French tv

in fact there are two examples, one just before 1.25 and one just after it

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

yes of course, people just shoot at nothing while wearing military uniforms, not a random i might add, but obviously amongst other soldiers

One standing and one crouching, firing directly ahead and from the reporter that was there firing directly at the protesters but hey i guess you had a better view from chaing mai than the person that actually filmed at and reported it.

is there no end to the nonsense that you can spout in defence of the murderous abhisit?

oh, and do show me a link to the admittance of sae deang that he threw this particular grenade, using your twisted logic it is just as possible that it was dropped by one of the soldiers,just as possible in fact considering how useless they are. and having watched the video again it shows what they are indeed firing at, it is also clear that this is not directly after the grenade.

Edited April 12, 2010 by tonywebster

[grandpops]

i've just finished watching the video titled "Thai Army Opens Fire On Protesters, Protesters Hurl Grenades," and i have to say that the title is a little misleading. Nowhere in the video can you see the armying OPENING fire, you see and heard them respond, by firing into the air, which as the commentator says 'if they ae firinging into the crowd there would be alot more dead people hear'. This vidoe speaks volumes about the restraint of the army and how they tried to play by the rules. The actions of the reds - well watch the video, listen to the commentary and work out for yourself if the army really does open fire on the protesters.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclus...-thailand-crack

one example of the thai army firing into the crowd can be seen at 1.25 in this video aired on French tv

in fact there are two examples, one just before 1.25 and one just after it

Oooh you are making friends today. I am having a loko at the BBC footage as one of them showing on Saturday night and most of sunday had a clip at 18 seconds. Sorry I don't have time at the moment but its there if you look again.

It clearly shows a group of soldiers who were ahead of the lines and over the reds area on an ariel walkway. They are pointing downwards and firing! They cant even say they were firing level, they were firing downwards.

Obviously those bullets found a human target as it would have been impossible to miss from that range into a crowd that compacted.

What the Government are proposing now is another reason the Reds should not deal with them.

The eveidence will be gathered by impatrial agencies with no involvement on Saturday, ie. the Army and the Police. It will be reviewed an pontificated upon by other agences and branches of the Judiciary. Perhaps some of the same unelected people that ruled agains Thaksin, PPP, Samark etc.

Keep your reports.

[saintofsilence]

i've just finished watching the video titled "Thai Army Opens Fire On Protesters, Protesters Hurl Grenades," and i have to say that the title is a little misleading. Nowhere in the video can you see the armying OPENING fire, you see and heard them respond, by firing into the air, which as the commentator says 'if they ae firinging into the crowd there would be alot more dead people hear'. This vidoe speaks volumes about the restraint of the army and how they tried to play by the rules. The actions of the reds - well watch the video, listen to the commentary and work out for yourself if the army really does open fire on the protesters.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclus...-thailand-crack

one example of the thai army firing into the crowd can be seen at 1.25 in this video aired on French tv

in fact there are two examples, one just before 1.25 and one just after it

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

yes of course, people just shoot at nothing while wearing military uniforms, not a random i might add, but obviously amongst other soldiers

One standing and one crouching, firing directly ahead and from the reporter that was there firing directly at the protesters but hey i guess you had a better view from chaing mai than the person that actually filmed at and reported it.

is there no end to the nonsense that you can spout in defence of the murderous abhisit?

Wait and see if there is video evidence of what they were shooting at first ,as we all know there were people shooting and throwing grenades from within the red shirts crowd.

[elcent]

So, let's say, in the end, the Reds get what they want. What next? If anyone can paint a picture of what is to happen for the next year, pray tell.

Who is fit to become PM? The Constitution? Thaksin coming back? Share your thoughts?

Amend the constitution back to 1997 > make adjustments > then new and binding elections <> bring all trouble instigators to justice in a speedy manner <> <both red and yellow and things can get normal. Otherwise I fear there will be no more peace in Thailand.

(((((PEACE!!! BUT A REAL ONE))))))

[jdinasia]

i've just finished watching the video titled "Thai Army Opens Fire On Protesters, Protesters Hurl Grenades," and i have to say that the title is a little misleading. Nowhere in the video can you see the armying OPENING fire, you see and heard them respond, by firing into the air, which as the commentator says 'if they ae firinging into the crowd there would be alot more dead people hear'. This vidoe speaks volumes about the restraint of the army and how they tried to play by the rules. The actions of the reds - well watch the video, listen to the commentary and work out for yourself if the army really does open fire on the protesters.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclus...-thailand-crack

one example of the thai army firing into the crowd can be seen at 1.25 in this video aired on French tv

in fact there are two examples, one just before 1.25 and one just after it

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

yes of course, people just shoot at nothing while wearing military uniforms, not a random i might add, but obviously amongst other soldiers

One standing and one crouching, firing directly ahead and from the reporter that was there firing directly at the protesters but hey i guess you had a better view from chaing mai than the person that actually filmed at and reported it.

is there no end to the nonsense that you can spout in defence of the murderous abhisit?

oh, and do show me a link to the admittance of sae deang that he threw this particular grenade, using your twisted logic it is just as possible that it was dropped by one of the soldiers,just as possible in fact considering how useless they are.

He siad his "Ronin" did it. It wasn't a hand grenade.

Feel free to find the article yourself

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Ronin...y-30127000.html

There are mentions in other press sources from sae Daeng claiming the same thing.

After a grenade attack the use of suppressing fire would be a standard thing to keep the enemy from regrouping and attacking yet again. Your hyperbole is showing

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...tely-unprepared

Edited April 12, 2010 by jdinasia

[chadintheusa]

I know the reds don't really care about destroying the economy of the country but it is the tourism sector and the Bangkok businesses that fund things like the 30 baht Health care scheme. In the end the rural Thais will lose out. The people from Bangkok will lose out. The only winners will be those get into the next government and skim whatever they can out of the public purse. That is what it's all about. We've seen reds intimidating journalists. We've seen reds threatening politicians. They are thugs pure and simple. They don't care about democracy they know they can buy the outcome they want anyway.

[animatic]

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

yes of course, people just shoot at nothing while wearing military uniforms, not a random i might add, but obviously amongst other soldiers

One standing and one crouching, firing directly ahead and from the reporter that was there firing directly at the protesters but hey i guess you had a better view from chaing mai than the person that actually filmed at and reported it.

is there no end to the nonsense that you can spout in defence of the murderous abhisit?

oh, and do show me a link to the admittance of sae deang that he threw this particular grenade, using your twisted logic it is just as possible that it was dropped by one of the soldiers,just as possible in fact considering how useless they are.

What is the sense of firing rubber bullets away from the crowd?

The point is to make them back off. But not to kill them.

The army was under armed compared to the reds prepared to kill for their cause.

[whiterussian]

[siampolee]

www.theglobeandmail.com

Thai democracy on its sickbed.

Updated April 4th. if you haven't already read it do so, interesting comments and a very good foresight angle.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Not accurate --- what you see is someone that is probably army discharging a weapon. what you do NOT see is who or what he is shooting at. The french channel seems to say that this occurs just after the grenade attack. Sae Daeng, a red leader, has claimed responsibility for the grenade attack.

yes of course, people just shoot at nothing while wearing military uniforms, not a random i might add, but obviously amongst other soldiers

One standing and one crouching, firing directly ahead and from the reporter that was there firing directly at the protesters but hey i guess you had a better view from chaing mai than the person that actually filmed at and reported it.

is there no end to the nonsense that you can spout in defence of the murderous abhisit?

oh, and do show me a link to the admittance of sae deang that he threw this particular grenade, using your twisted logic it is just as possible that it was dropped by one of the soldiers,just as possible in fact considering how useless they are.

What is the sense of firing rubber bullets away from the crowd?

The point is to make them back off. But not to kill them.

The army was under armed compared to the reds prepared to kill for their cause.

please do not exagerate even Anupong is not accusing the Red shirts of killings, on contrary.

May I remember you that if there were there a proper Anti-Riot Police Force, the situation will be quite different today.

Army is a mosaic with dissidents taking some revenge about some internal decisions, this is a thesis wich get more and more probability. In any case, it should not be the role of conscript soldiers. Army should focus on External threats. This is an Internal affair. Today, change your rhetoric and help to build Peace, Abhisit is now an obstacle for building the Peace between Thais. He has to be removed this being said independantly of any opinion we may have on the man. Because the sake of the Country is more important than one man. He should understand ....

The Red Shirts are now struggling for themselves. I understand them, I will not negotiate with the man who has created the situation in which my colleagues have died. On a pure technical political point of view, Abhisit is now an obstacle to normalcy, he must be sidelined.

[clockworkorange]

At least Thaksin had a few years in poverty when his dad squandered away the family fortune when he was young so they at least feel he has some sympathies with them, a fact he played on particularly effectively when he was participating in politics. He also regurgitates the mantra that he was a 'self made man', while not necessarily true, it is lapped up by the masses.

The Thai rural majority don't see Thaksin as poor and underprivileged one bit. On the contrary they all know how phenomenally rich he is, and what a privileged life he leads. The reasons why they like him are a lot more basic than that: Thaksin is seen as the one who stood up for the rural population in tangible ways, like bringing in healthcare - everyone has the righ to seee a doctor for 30 Baht - and other schemes that directly improved the lot of the average Somchai.

Abhisit, on the other hand, is seen as just another ineffectual puppet, installed at Prem's / the army's behest rather than democratically elected. The rural majority despise him because he talks all the time and doesn't get anything done. Even more so now, as Abhisit cowers in his hole hiding from his people, he is seen by the rural majority as no more than a craven-hearted brat who has nothing at all in common with his people. He is now seen as spitefully lashing out by killing his own people to keep the seat that he stole in the first place, and they hate him all the more for it.

It's ironic how Abhisit's political career has been spaded under by the very people that he dismissed as irrelevant - he the other Dems wasted their chances to impress the rural majority over the years. See how Abhisit now realises his mistake by making a clumsy u-turn, only just last week announcing a new scheme for helping the rural masses via debt relief.

Too little, too late, and good riddance.

Edited April 12, 2010 by clockworkorange

[thepodest]

clockworkorange,

Do you know how the 30 baht program worked out????? It was underfunded and failed miserably. This along with other programs such as 1 million bath per village is there just to increase his popularity, but damaging the country/people in the long run.

[ItsMeMike]

Could someone please explain to me how it's possible that Arisman runs from one place to another causing disturbances, day in day out, even though there must be not one, but multiple arrest warrants out by now. It's not like they didn't know where he is.

I honestly don't get it. I don't understand that no arrest has been made at all, afaik.

[lannarebirth]

www.theglobeandmail.com

Thai democracy on its sickbed.

Updated April 4th. if you haven't already read it do so, interesting comments and a very good foresight angle.

One of the few foreign journalists I've seen that isn't swayed by globalist and corporate newspeak. He seems to "get it".

[Oberkommando]

The Thai rural majority don't see Thaksin as poor and underprivileged one bit. On the contrary they all know how phenomenally rich he is, and what a privileged life he leads.

I said they believe he can sympathise with the poor because he himself spent some of his formative years in poverty.

No idea where you got that they see Thaksin as poor and underprivileged from my post, although many are woefully unaware that the Shinawatra clan were already rich, powerful and influencial a generation before Thaksin was born, and he did and probably still does over-exaggerate those few desperate years of poverty in order to curry favour with the rural masses.

[clockworkorange]

Remember, even at their strongest, the Reds were only able to bring 100,000 to any rallies. That's 1 out of 650 Thais.

I'm glad you brought democracy back into the discussion. Now if the reds, being 100,000 strong, and representing a tiny ratio of 1 out of 650 Thais, then the solution is simple:

1) Abhisit calls a snap election

2) He gets voted in by a majority, thereby confounding what the reds say about his rule being illegitimate

3) In the eyes of Thailand, and the world, he now truly represents the opinion of the general public. He would have ample justification to deal very decisively with the reds, given that they represent the minority. The vigour that a mandate would confer on him would be a world apart from the wavering we now see, in fact

Why is Abhisit so frightened of an election? Is he afraid that he would lose?

You then say that you, yourself, would not like whomever a (perhaps red leaning) majority might choose to rule over them, and you argue that we should therefore keep Abhisit in place, when he so desperately needs a popular mandate to win decisively. This is in contradiction to your earlier statement that the majority 549 out of 550 should prevail.

You really aren't making a lot of sense.

[chadintheusa]

The reds have kidnapped the CEO of CAT telecom. Maybe there are more terrorists in the red camp after all.

[clockworkorange]

clockworkorange,

Do you know how the 30 baht program worked out????? It was underfunded and failed miserably. This along with other programs such as 1 million bath per village is there just to increase his popularity, but damaging the country/people in the long run.

Not at all. I know people who benefited from it.

Funnily enough, there was even a foreigner who said he benefited - a family member got free medicine that, if he had had to pay for it himself, would have run into several hundred thousand baht by now.

Ask around and you will find people whose lives were saved by a basic system of healthcare.

[hextac]

despite 15 dead (no, they did not commit suicide or were killed by it's own side) and some 800 wounded, many of them critically and seriously, protesters do stay, because they are not payed to protest mob, but are motivated politically and are ready to die in defence of their deep convictions.

I did see one video where a red got his head blown off by someone at close range. It wasn't clear exactly where the shot came from but video leading up to and also after the shot offers some possible suggestion. It certainly didn't come from the military that they were fighting in the distance.

Maybe ballistics is not your strong point, but that kind of damage can be done at distance depending on the ordnance used, there is no evidence whatsoever from the video that this shot was from close range so stop trying to distort issues, it is just as likely to be from distance as it is to be from close range, there was a number of gunshots before the fatal one, all the shots sound the same, could be from distance, could be military, could be red shirt, could be 3rd hand, could be close by, could be 100 metres away.

Are you sure you're both talking about the same video? I haven't seen that one on TVF yet.

[steffi]

"Abhisit must leave Thailand," Reds leader Veera Musikapong told supporters on Sunday. "We ask all government officials to stop serving this ]government."

If Abhisit does not leave I sure hope the leaders of the Reds do. It is the height of arrogance to insist they somebody leave Thailand like this.

Where are the Shinawatras held up whilst all this is going on?

[Jimjim]

These are really sad times for Thailand. For the government, for the political process and for the Thai people. I cannot defend the army or the red shirts. Both are at fault. It's really all so pointless. Since it's hard to know what really happened, I cannot comment. Wish the red shirts had never started this, but it's crazy times in Thailand now, crazy times. But this many dead is really bad. Very bad for the army to be killing the protesters, even if some violent red shirts were trying to kill them and apparently succeeded 4 times. It's truly amazing what this has become. Just a bad time for all involved, and it never had to happen.

[TAWP]

Increasing claims and TV pictures showing black-clothed men heavily armed and apparently shooting at both army and protesters. Why? Who would gain from this?

The side that would NOT benefit from this going down quietly like a dead balloon.

[Pakboong]

It's easy to see why his people detest him so much, to the extent where even the army don't frighten them. Abhisit is seen as just another spoiled brat who holds the rural majority in contempt.

He couldn't be more distant from the rural masses; a son of privilege born in the UK to a well off family, educated at the best schools and universities until in his twenties, then back to Thailand to enjoy a life of privilege and opulence.

At least Thaksin had a few years in poverty when his dad squandered away the family fortune when he was young so they at least feel he has some sympathies with them, a fact he played on particularly effectively when he was participating in politics. He also regurgitates the mantra that he was a 'self made man', while not necessarily true, it is lapped up by the masses.

I find it odd that you failed to mention that both of these guys are ethnic Chinese and were raised in cultures not really at peace with the Thai way of doing things. Apparently you think this does not matter as is the case with the majority of posters here. I won't bother with the all dogs came from wolves story as it is no more relevant than these two guys having lived parts of their lives in Thailand. They are not Thais. I may become a Thai citizen at some point but I will always be a Farang. These two guys will always be Chinese.

[JoeCard]

Well said, I agree wih this sober statement. Big picture first.

The rest is farang wishfull thinking, or life seen through the bottle bottom.

It won't be over "until it's over" and I don't see that happening any time soon.

The red shirts are just a crazed group egged on by the former head waiter. He in fact is the prime guilty party.

And as so many have already said Abhisit demonstrated remarkable calm and restraint from 'day # 1'

Well, you got that totally wrong, didn't you?

These people are not "just a crazed group egged on by the former head waiter" as you state.

They are people who are fighting for human and civil rights within their country of birth.

I assume that you are not a Thai national and therefore know little or nothing of the structure of Thai society.

Before you start adding "wise guy" comments as above, you should learn a little, live with the people a little, research a little - and then give a balanced view of the situation.

Abhisit is a puppet; the army are pulling the strings. And who are the army controlled by?

There are several tiers in the higher echelons of Thai society.

They do not want to lose the power, nor the opportunity to carry out their corrupt practices.

Power and money - these are the main concerns for "your" people - assuming that you are 'yellow', of course.

[traderjm]

Why is Abhisit so frightened of an election? Is he afraid that he would lose?

You then say that you, yourself, would not like whomever a (perhaps red leaning) majority might choose to rule over them, and you argue that we should therefore keep Abhisit in place, when he so desperately needs a popular mandate to win decisively. This is in contradiction to your earlier statement that the majority 549 out of 550 should prevail.

You really aren't making a lot of sense.

Actually YOU are not making ANY sense.. so give in to the armed thugs now and if he gets elected again it will be corrupt and the protests start all over again or better yet the REDS win then the yellows decided it's corrupt and they start spilling blood in the streets, the only way this can end well for Thailand in the long run is for the REDS to go home and hopefully have their sane leaders (if they have any) talk with the gov't to come to a rational solution.... giving in to the mob now will just set Thailand down the road to total civil war for years to come with one mob after another protesting each new gov't they don't like

[ferd54]

.... giving in to the mob now will just set Thailand down the road to total civil war for years to come with one mob after another protesting each new gov't they don't like

Perhaps those who nullified elections by army coupe and trumped up court cases will have learned their lesson -- there is a cause and effect in this.

I agree that backing off will lead to similar confrontations. Better to settle it now.