Thai Forces Fire Warning Shots In Standoff With Red Shirts

[Jingthing]

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

Altered "wording" and not words. That means don't EDIT the post at all. Deleting any words would be altered wording.

You are completely wrong. Sorry but you should learn.

How can I be completely wrong when I copied and pasted the rule and put it in bold without editing (altering) any wording of this particular rule????

Your interpretation of the rule is wrong. I don't know why you can't see that. Talk to a mod.

[elcent]

to all

you better not wish for martial law. It would be extreme. You wouldn't even be able to go online. Here they usually impose marital law with curfew starting about 8pm(-10pm) - 6am. Guess what happens in between. Justice?

errr, why would we not be able to go online?

mobiles and internet will be switched off or only limited time available.

[sbk]

Editing is also deleting. You can snip appropriate portions but to do so in such a way as to alter the meaning will result in a warn. Is that clear enough?

[viking75]

Spring News TV is now blocked from viewers in Thailand as the government bans any media that is not YELLOW and pumping out pure pro-government propaganda.

The Democrats and their Coalition partners are now no better than the Burmese Junta.

must post this information better to proper news sites like bbc and cnn. my friend sent this to bbc already and i copy and past from his email to news desk at bbc before

Please, you have to raise your game on bangkok. whilst you are soft handling the PM, their CRES has shut down every indepndent media source.

this is the latest. http://www.springnewstv.com

Google CRES members, particulary Thaugsabun. He is banned and brought down his own government once.

They sold land off in phuket and Thaksins fall from grace started when he send a team down to investigate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suthep_Thaugsuban This man is in charge of the Junta appointed to clean up the mess.

BBC ask him for more information already so they serious i think

[jdinasia]

Medical sources told Al Jazeera that the soldier's death was caused by a live round.

Bangkok's emergency medical sources put the number of wounded at 18.

The clashes broke out after a large crowd of red shirts charged at a razor-wire barricade set up across the highway and backed up by hundreds of security personnel.

An initial volley of warning shots had appeared to convince the protesters to retreat, but they then regrouped before charging at the barricade once again.

Witnesses said dozens of red shirt protesters - some of them apparently also armed and returning fire - moved ahead of the main convoy, clashing with troops and riot police who used batons and shields to push them back.

Some reports said red shirt leaders had urged the protesters to pull back and return to central Bangkok.

Vowing to test the government's will, thousands of singing and chanting red shirt supporters had earlier joined a convoy of pickup trucks and motorbikes headed to a rally at an outdoor market in Rangsit, north of Bangkok, aiming to drum up support for their protests.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pac...3912998815.html

[sbk]

to all

you better not wish for martial law. It would be extreme. You wouldn't even be able to go online. Here they usually impose marital law with curfew starting about 8pm(-10pm) - 6am. Guess what happens in between. Justice?

errr, why would we not be able to go online?

mobiles and internet will be switched off or only limited time available.

Unless you have some kind of printed facts to back this up please do not post inflammatory hearsay.

[TheOldWolf]

TODAYS PICK: Kwanchai's escape to McDonalds: http://twitpic.com/1j2pkd (Photo by photo_journ)

Kwanchai may have been inspired to make up some new red slogans

We want democracy, and we want fries with that

Mcjobs for everyone

The revolution will be supersized

Well, I laughed.

On the run? Enjoy a Big Mac

[jdinasia]

Editing is also deleting. You can snip appropriate portions but to do so in such a way as to alter the meaning will result in a warn. Is that clear enough?

Thank you for clarifying this.

I was being pedantic about the claim of not modifying the post and did not try and determine anything regarding it being against the rules or not

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at Heart - reckon Hard Talk, like so many things over the past seven weeks, will just reinforce peoples weighted opinions rather than try and balance them. I thought he did fine (albeit saying what we've heard on here day after day) but the delay didn't do him any favours.

Well that is as maybe.

I just was hoping he would be a lot more strident in his beliefs. He is just far too nice, and he knows better than any of us the hands that the army played to get him in. Some believe that the army didn't interfere, but there is far too much public information to suggest that there was a lot of back room dealing to get the dems in.

I am not saying that he isn't capable in many ways. That he hasn't had a great education, that he could not be a wonderful PM if he had received the PM ship in another way. He has been groomed since day one, and he has been dealt a completely bum hand. I don't argue with the legality of the way that he received the PMship on the basis that it fits with Thai law.

Whilst we have heard that he isn't legally the PM I don't agree at all. That is the system. However, he will always have a credibility problem about how it was done and he cannot get away from this. This is politics and he has chosen not to give into the reds (and it will probably kill him politically) for the sake of setting the precedent that the country should not give into mob rule after the mess that the PAD created. A lot of people underestimated the level of distrust that would be generated after the current coalition was put together. I think they believed they could put a lid on any civil protest and get Abhisit through the remainder of the parliament without any significant problem.

As I have said before, I bet he regrets getting that phone call from Anupong which probably started with "I have an idea".

It is his responsibility to continue as long as he can, find a way to end the red's protest, and I hate to say it, but if it means he must resign to stop the country spiralling out of control that is a decision he should take.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[jcbangkok]

Deleted ... argumentative and pointless :-)

Edited April 28, 2010 by jcbangkok

[BKMITCH]

More blood on the Red's hands.

Your sumit else mate

the military guy shot in the head was by friendly fire let me spell that out for you

that means he was shot by his own men not red shirts

Where did you get your information from? Tell us how you know this.

[animatic]

Editing is also deleting. You can snip appropriate portions but to do so in such a way as to alter the meaning will result in a warn. Is that clear enough?

Which I have always interpreted as :

Do not change the context of what you quote.

You can, judicially, use ellipses to remove parts of a post on another subject

or subjects not related to what you quote within ellipes,

but NOT if that removal substantially changes

the contextual meaning of what you are responding too.

Example:

The post has two paragraphs on cooking,

one on a train wreck

and one more on balloon animals

You can remove the cooking and add ellipses before

... train wreck ...

add elipeses after

and remove the balloon animals.

Train wreck remains in full context, but other stuff is gone.

But it it were

how to cook balloon animals in a train wreck, it all has to stay.

Clear?

Edited April 28, 2010 by animatic

[hextac]

... snip ... The media should report unbiased facts, not one sided opinions. And both BBC and CNN have, not just in case of Bangkok, but many if not most of their stories, gone to celebrity journalism, where the celebrity host takes a view point, and as he/she is celebrity, the host is always right, desputing anything that the host doesn't agree with, and make the guest look stupid and wrong.

The host is basically allowed to humiliate their opponents to whatever level they can, to show their upper hand.

Which is why I consider both CNN and BBC rubbish.

... snip ...

<&lt;deleted&gt; />

OK, please direct me to a source of information that you would consider unbiased and credible.

Cheers.

[jcbangkok]

Editing is also deleting. You can snip appropriate portions but to do so in such a way as to alter the meaning will result in a warn. Is that clear enough?

Warnings are cool as we learn from them without having to go through what amounts to crack withdrawals of a suspension from TV.

[FarangCravings]

Ok, finally got to hear all of this BBC interview. I am from the US and no doubt we have some idiot reporters but this women takes the cake. At points I wondered if the program should be called Ignorant Talk as opposed to Hard Talk.

At points she asked some tough questions but she really just came off as a nasty person who doesn't listen, talks over her guests as well as twisting their words. Beyond watching some non-news shows on BBC, this is the first time I can remember listening to anything so odd in terms of an interview. Even when the opposition President goes onto Fox, this kind of nasty and hostile treatment of a leader of a country would be embarrassing. What was even more sad is she is not believable at all. It is clearly some image she is trying to keep and couldn't believe the PM would answer a question very clearly and she would turn around and then say he said something else. Very bizarre.

I do think the PM did very well and again thought some of her questions were tough and good but she seemed to go way off track with the BS she was injecting and then getting upset when the PM felt he needed longer explinations to counter what were simply ignorance (dishonest) in terms of her recapping what he said. There must have been at least 3 or 4 times where the PM said, "No, that is not what I said"

Edit: Also it was clear she really didn't do much background work on the history of what is going on here and seemed to get irritated when the PM made clear she was wrong on certain matters.

Thats the whole idea is HARDTALK tough questions that they will push you on and ask tough questions unlike most other interviews and when you get the normal diversion answers they will interupt and try to get abck on the question.

She is ok but Stepehen Sakur is better but still its Hardtalk

[whiterussian]

Ok, finally got to hear all of this BBC interview. I am from the US and no doubt we have some idiot reporters but this women takes the cake. At points I wondered if the program should be called Ignorant Talk as opposed to Hard Talk. Even when the opposition President goes onto Fox, this kind of nasty and hostile treatment of a leader of a country would be embarrassing.

We have a mature parliamentary system in the UK, and as such a healthy distrust of all career politicians. We dont even have balloons and party hats like the USA at election rallies... In some parts of the UK, a town called Lewes, on Guy Fawkes Night (celebration of the death of Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up parliament in 1605) we burn huge effigies of politicians. every year for over 400 years now.Here is an example. We must have burnt Bush for years!, and on the right, some politicians that spent too much on expenses...

Edited April 28, 2010 by whiterussian

[Insight]

Thai at Heart - reckon Hard Talk, like so many things over the past seven weeks, will just reinforce peoples weighted opinions rather than try and balance them. I thought he did fine (albeit saying what we've heard on here day after day) but the delay didn't do him any favours.

Well that is as maybe.

I just was hoping he would be a lot more strident in his beliefs. He is just far too nice, and he knows better than any of us the hands that the army played to get him in. Some believe that the army didn't interfere, but there is far too much public information to suggest that there was a lot of back room dealing to get the dems in.

I am not saying that he isn't capable in many ways. That he hasn't had a great education, that he could not be a wonderful PM if he had received the PM ship in another way. He has been groomed since day one, and he has been dealt a completely bum hand. I don't argue with the legality of the way that he received the PMship on the basis that it fits with Thai law.

Whilst we have heard that he isn't legally the PM I don't agree at all. That is the system. However, he will always have a credibility problem about how it was done and he cannot get away from this. This is politics and he has chosen not to give into the reds (and it will probably kill him politically) for the sake of setting the precedent that the country should not give into mob rule after the mess that the PAD created. A lot of people underestimated the level of distrust that would be generated after the current coalition was put together. I think they believed they could put a lid on any civil protest and get Abhisit through the remainder of the parliament without any significant problem.

As I have said before, I bet he regrets getting that phone call from Anupong which probably started with "I have an idea".

It is his responsibility to continue as long as he can, find a way to end the red's protest, and I hate to say it, but if it means he must resign to stop the country spiralling out of control that is a decision he should take.

I understand how is niceness could be viewed as a weakness, especially at times like this, but I'm starting to believe there's real method behind the lethargy. I don't think he regrets any of it - it's unlikely he'll sway red shirts but I believe he's making an impact on the more moderate.

If he achieves what I think he's using this opportunity to achieve (and I appreciate it's a big "if") he will be remembered very positively without much doubt. Of course, that is a big if. But the decision to appear on a show like Hard Talk (lets face it - Thaksin or any of the red leaders would never do it in a million years) shows the determination is there.

/edit - but of course it could all go very south tomorrow with a single wrong move...

Edited April 28, 2010 by Insight

[keepsamuiclean]

And then???

[keepsamuiclean]

meant ths sentence:" hate to say it, but if it means he must resign to stop the country spiralling out of control that is a decision he should take."

[jcbangkok]

Editing is also deleting. You can snip appropriate portions but to do so in such a way as to alter the meaning will result in a warn. Is that clear enough?

Which I have always interpreted as :

Do not change the context of what you quote.

You can, judicially, use ellipses to remove parts of a post on another subject

or subjects not related to what you quote within ellipes,

but NOT if that removal substantially changes

the contextual meaning of what you are responding too.

Example:

The post has two paragraphs on cooking,

one on a train wreck

and one more on balloon animals

You can remove the cooking and add ellipses before

... train wreck ...

add elipeses after

and remove the balloon animals.

Train wreck remains in full context, but other stuff is gone.

But it it were

how to cook balloon animals in a train wreck, it all has to stay.

Clear?

Here is my past take (which I will continue to use). I take the rules at face value as i have learned from experience not to try to read into the spirit of the rules as you never know how a particular mod or Admin might view the rule. No different than trying to interpret the spirit of a law. Why risk it, just obey it and you won't have to worry about going to court if a policeman sees the law differently than me.

So, whenever I want to address a specific part of a quote I will cut and paste as oppose to using the reply function. An example below if I was to reply to something specific in your post...

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

But if it were how to cook balloon animals in a train wreck, it all has to stay.

Why would you want to cook balloon animals? They give off a horrible smell!

Edit: actually edited a typo of yours (you had "it it" instead of "if it". And according to the rules this should be okay because I am not using the reply button or attributing this quote to you. I would just be throwing it out there. Anyway, maybe I am paranoid but just want to avoid running afoul again ... again being the key word.

Edited April 28, 2010 by jcbangkok

[animatic]

Thai at Heart - reckon Hard Talk, like so many things over the past seven weeks, will just reinforce peoples weighted opinions rather than try and balance them. I thought he did fine (albeit saying what we've heard on here day after day) but the delay didn't do him any favours.

Well that is as maybe.

I just was hoping he would be a lot more strident in his beliefs. He is just far too nice, and he knows better than any of us the hands that the army played to get him in. Some believe that the army didn't interfere, but there is far too much public information to suggest that there was a lot of back room dealing to get the dems in.

I am not saying that he isn't capable in many ways. That he hasn't had a great education, that he could not be a wonderful PM if he had received the PM ship in another way. He has been groomed since day one, and he has been dealt a completely bum hand. I don't argue with the legality of the way that he received the PMship on the basis that it fits with Thai law.

Whilst we have heard that he isn't legally the PM I don't agree at all. That is the system. However, he will always have a credibility problem about how it was done and he cannot get away from this. This is politics and he has chosen not to give into the reds (and it will probably kill him politically) for the sake of setting the precedent that the country should not give into mob rule after the mess that the PAD created. A lot of people underestimated the level of distrust that would be generated after the current coalition was put together. I think they believed they could put a lid on any civil protest and get Abhisit through the remainder of the parliament without any significant problem.

As I have said before, I bet he regrets getting that phone call from Anupong which probably started with "I have an idea".

It is his responsibility to continue as long as he can, find a way to end the red's protest, and I hate to say it, but if it means he must resign to stop the country spiralling out of control that is a decision he should take.

I understand how is niceness could be viewed as a weakness, especially at times like this, but I'm starting to believe there's real method behind the lethargy. I don't think he regrets any of it - it's unlikely he'll sway red shirts but I believe he's making an impact on the more moderate.

If he achieves what I think he's using this opportunity to achieve (and I appreciate it's a big "if") he will be remembered very positively without much doubt. Of course, that is a big if. But the decision to appear on a show like Hard Talk (lets face it - Thaksin or any of the red leaders would never do it in a million years) shows the determination is there.

/edit - but of course it could all go very south tomorrow with a single wrong move...

Thais like a soft spoken consensus builder even more than the tough guy.

Nam jai, but do your duty also,

after making it obvious to all where that duty must be.

A potent combination in Thai social terms. And the majority of Thais

will still think that way in their living rooms and local market places.

Edited April 28, 2010 by animatic

[elcent]

to all

you better not wish for martial law. It would be extreme. You wouldn't even be able to go online. Here they usually impose marital law with curfew starting about 8pm(-10pm) - 6am. Guess what happens in between. Justice?

errr, why would we not be able to go online?

mobiles and internet will be switched off or only limited time available.

Unless you have some kind of printed facts to back this up please do not post inflammatory hearsay.

During the 1992 Marshall law, all communication was cut, or limited and/or extremely censored, like TV. BBC, CNN and all the others had to smuggle their tapes to secret satellite connections in order to get it out. Those, like from CNN when the palace hotel was raided got their tapes confiscated, even when they showed a letter from the gov to work for them. I was standing next to them when they negotiated and confiscated parts. They agreed to take part out and gave the harmless rest back to them. From others they took all of it. Some TV reporters had their stuff hidden on the ceilings during the raids, still some got caught and confiscated.

Every road intersection was manned with soldiers. Army and police teams were around in teams on bikes to clear(and often kill) people during curfew hours. Most of the videos you see online about that time were made by the army themselves, showing the more harmless side of the brutality. Phone lines were jammed or cut off during the operation. Just a few lines worked. The German head of a TV station didn't even know while on the plane to Bangkok that a massive crackdown is taking place. Not even when he arrived at the airport.

Does anybody think they want witnesses when the full crackdown starts?

[way2muchcoffee]

Was watching Thai tv 3. Shwoing reds throwing rocks and sticks at the police and them doing nothing. They should just go in and end it

in lees than an hour Annapour's interview with Abhisit on CNN

Lets see if he chokes on the questions again

wont be tough like Hardtalk though it is CNN

there was satellite time delay that made him look hesitant but he did not choke even under the rude and brusque questioning by Zeinab Badawai, who is obviously still pissed off that he made her look like an amatuer the last time they met across the Hardtalk table

she equates tough with rude and poses questions in such an arrogant way that would be insulting to any normal person

its clear she is weak in this environment and tries so hard to be unnaturally tough, it becomes an arduous journey for the interviewee and the audience

i have seen her interview other major figures and she comes over as demanding and at times downright rude

Stephen Sackur is much more effective, he asks probing questions without being bombastic and gets to the answers from the interviewee without having to resort to being disrespectful

Agree completely. All I could think of was "what a bi^ch". I guess this is what our home countries have devolved to. FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Hard Talk. Whatever happened to shows like 60 Minutes? It is still on these days but is a mere shadow of its former self. Deep investigative journalism. Probing questions. Incisive analysis. There is no need to be blatantly rude.

[viking75]

Thai at Heart - reckon Hard Talk, like so many things over the past seven weeks, will just reinforce peoples weighted opinions rather than try and balance them. I thought he did fine (albeit saying what we've heard on here day after day) but the delay didn't do him any favours.

Well that is as maybe.

I just was hoping he would be a lot more strident in his beliefs. He is just far too nice, and he knows better than any of us the hands that the army played to get him in. Some believe that the army didn't interfere, but there is far too much public information to suggest that there was a lot of back room dealing to get the dems in.

I am not saying that he isn't capable in many ways. That he hasn't had a great education, that he could not be a wonderful PM if he had received the PM ship in another way. He has been groomed since day one, and he has been dealt a completely bum hand. I don't argue with the legality of the way that he received the PMship on the basis that it fits with Thai law.

Whilst we have heard that he isn't legally the PM I don't agree at all. That is the system. However, he will always have a credibility problem about how it was done and he cannot get away from this. This is politics and he has chosen not to give into the reds (and it will probably kill him politically) for the sake of setting the precedent that the country should not give into mob rule after the mess that the PAD created. A lot of people underestimated the level of distrust that would be generated after the current coalition was put together. I think they believed they could put a lid on any civil protest and get Abhisit through the remainder of the parliament without any significant problem.

As I have said before, I bet he regrets getting that phone call from Anupong which probably started with "I have an idea".

It is his responsibility to continue as long as he can, find a way to end the red's protest, and I hate to say it, but if it means he must resign to stop the country spiralling out of control that is a decision he should take.

good post and true. why is everybody now talk of moderation problems. please guys can we talk about the serious of army and protesters today and not about cut and paste.

[Thai at Heart]

Ok, finally got to hear all of this BBC interview. I am from the US and no doubt we have some idiot reporters but this women takes the cake. At points I wondered if the program should be called Ignorant Talk as opposed to Hard Talk.

At points she asked some tough questions but she really just came off as a nasty person who doesn't listen, talks over her guests as well as twisting their words. Beyond watching some non-news shows on BBC, this is the first time I can remember listening to anything so odd in terms of an interview. Even when the opposition President goes onto Fox, this kind of nasty and hostile treatment of a leader of a country would be embarrassing. What was even more sad is she is not believable at all. It is clearly some image she is trying to keep and couldn't believe the PM would answer a question very clearly and she would turn around and then say he said something else. Very bizarre.

I do think the PM did very well and again thought some of her questions were tough and good but she seemed to go way off track with the BS she was injecting and then getting upset when the PM felt he needed longer explinations to counter what were simply ignorance (dishonest) in terms of her recapping what he said. There must have been at least 3 or 4 times where the PM said, "No, that is not what I said"

Edit: Also it was clear she really didn't do much background work on the history of what is going on here and seemed to get irritated when the PM made clear she was wrong on certain matters.

Thats the whole idea is HARDTALK tough questions that they will push you on and ask tough questions unlike most other interviews and when you get the normal diversion answers they will interupt and try to get abck on the question.

She is ok but Stepehen Sakur is better but still its Hardtalk

And if Abhisit the Dems wins the next election by a landslide I am sure he will be invited on much less tasking interviews by the BBC. In reality he shouldn't have done "Hard Talk", but then the last time I looked, the previous Thai correspondent has had to leave after being accused of Lese Majeste, so don't expect any Thai PM to get an easy time from the BBC. As wrong or as right as we may believe the BBC to be, it still has a global reach.

That is politics. I mean after handling the pussy cat media in Thailand, I am surprised that he can remember how to answer a challenging question. The world wants to know why the centre of the Thai capital is apparently completely lawless, but unfortunately no one in Thailand can tell the WHOLE truth about the situation. And when it comes to explaining the mess that Thai politics is to the outside world, nothing is easy.

At least Gordon Brown and his "bigot" comment has come to save the day and pushed Thailand to number 2/3 on the BBC headline news. Oh the delicious irony.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[way2muchcoffee]

No matter what spin anyone wants to put on this or who they try to blame, the Govt , the army, navy, air force, police, yellows, fish in the sea or whatever there is one inescapable undeniable fact.

If the reds had not made a conscious decision to go there and impede and intimidate people going about their normal business none of it would have happened, no one would be in hospital arrested or dead.

So there you have it the root of the trouble was the decision by the reds to be there everything that came after was a consequence of that decision.

Did you notice that the brave commander of the reds shot through to hide behind the granny shield at the first sign of trouble. Indeed a leader worth following.

The problem is: most people don't want to be inconvenienced and that is what you are saying. "I understand you plight but please don't inconvenience me." Yes, people wanting a better life make problems for other people but inevitably improve the quality of life for all.

Inconvenience? This is about Grenades and AK47s, molotov cocktails, and shutting down the city center for weeks. Is this what you consider an inconvenience? I consider an inconvenience having to sit in traffic for an extra 30 minutes because some yahoo was speeding up ahead and caused an accident.

[whiterussian]

Does anybody think they want witnesses when the full crackdown starts?

And you are Pro yellow? Lets hope it doesnt get to that stage.

The scenario you describe could be avoided.

Guess how?!

clue: begins with the letter "e"

Edited April 28, 2010 by whiterussian

[way2muchcoffee]

No matter what spin anyone wants to put on this or who they try to blame, the Govt , the army, navy, air force, police, yellows, fish in the sea or whatever there is one inescapable undeniable fact.

If the reds had not made a conscious decision to go there and impede and intimidate people going about their normal business none of it would have happened, no one would be in hospital arrested or dead.

So there you have it the root of the trouble was the decision by the reds to be there everything that came after was a consequence of that decision.

Did you notice that the brave commander of the reds shot through to hide behind the granny shield at the first sign of trouble. Indeed a leader worth following.

The problem is: most people don't want to be inconvenienced and that is what you are saying. "I understand you plight but please don't inconvenience me." Yes, people wanting a better life make problems for other people but inevitably improve the quality of life for all.

Inconvenience? This is about Grenades and AK47s, molotov cocktails, and shutting down the city center for weeks. This is about death threats to government leaders, murder, and terrorism. This is about actions that could propel this country into a civil war.

Is this what you consider an inconvenience?

I consider an inconvenience having to sit in traffic for an extra 30 minutes because some yahoo was speeding up ahead and caused an accident, or when it starts raining just as I'm stepping out of a taxi without an umbrella.

Edited April 28, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[ThisIsMadness]

it is obvious that we are witnessing a similar uprising to that in Tsarist Russia

No. The uprising here has no relation to what happened in Russia. You are so very very wrong.

Go back and read a little more about history.

Gotta say,dont dont remember reading in the history books the Bolsheviks being paid to close down Moscow.

[Jingthing]

The winners write the history books. If Thailand becomes the red shirt republic, imagine who will be their heroes.