Clashes Continue, Turning Central Bangkok In Virtual Warzone

[datum]

I'm sorry for you, but you're wrong. CNN is considered by all in the US to be very left. What little BBC I have watched seemed to me to be in the same vein. Nobody here in the US is anti-demonstration; everyone here is against violent demonstrations. Especially when they promote anarchy e.g. looting. Remember what the govt. did against the Branch Davidians. It was because they had war weapons. Women and children are not enough to shield violent anti-govt. radicals from justice. If you want to live in a peaceful society, you must follow some rules. After the 2000 presidential election, when the Supreme Court of the US gave the election to George Bush, the Democrats did not try to bring down the government. Now the Democrats are back in power and nobody had to die to achieve that. Most people, who some on this forum claim to be anti-red, are only against the Red's methods of advancing their cause.

Well, if CNN is left then I am the incarnation of Karl Marx in the 21st century; but of course I understand that since you are from Dallas you think that everything that it is not far-right is left. The parallelism with the 2000 USA presidential is completely irrelevant and of course I am not going to spend my time by arguing with you on this.

[Jingthing]

CNN is center/left by American standards and center/right by international standards. The US is a very right wing country. Any country where a leader pushing universal health care access mostly through private providers is called a socialist/communist by a large segment of the population has serious reality issues.

[senti]

Among all of the retarded nonsense being posted on this forum, I think you are about to win a medal.

You don't even understand how BBC is funded, but you know everything else about them?

That is sweet.

Seriously, amount of childish stuff on this forum is beyond belief.

Yeah. I don't know anything. Tell me, why is the licence fee for the BBC kept separate from any other tax - income tax, VAT, local council tax? It's for a reason. To remain "independent", whoever is in power at Number 10. So if anyone harps on about the BBC being biased, especially in this world of sponsored TV news, they need a reality check. God dam_n you Republicans!

Do you think it is BBC that does the reporting, or it is journalists/reporters who do reporting?

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

[seahorse]

However you can't go around slandering the other side with all kinds of names, and then not expect to get some of those back on occasion. 'Terrorist' is another one of those words you may expect to get back. (Not by me of course, but don't start crying when you hear the word back to describe the actions of the military.)

How can government forces possibly be terrorists? It's a contradiction in terms.

Not at all. If the security forces of a state are terrorizing a section of that state's civilian population, they are by definition terrorists. Think Zimbabwe a couple of years ago for a clear-cut and particularly extreme example of this.

How do you call a bunch of civilians terrorizing a section of that state's civilian population, if you call the army "terrorists"?

Are you seriously comparing Thai army now to Zimbabwe?

I am not sure if you people are for real, or just endlessly trolling...

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Issan Army occupying central Bangkok are terrorists.

[senti]

CNN probably looks very left wing to anybody who considers Fox news to be "Fair and Balanced". To the rest of the world it looks pretty mainstream American, i.e. centre-right at best.

Sorry, I like and I trust CNN a lot. Fox News is for children who want to learn about news debating methods - using children's stories as examples. Fox has actually been taught in the UK in A Level Mass Com as an example of creating a story from nothing through lies and deception.

You are debating like a child. Why don't you like Fox News, then?

Why would you trust CNN? You know someone there?

[rametindallas]

I'm sorry for you, but you're wrong. CNN is considered by all in the US to be very left. What little BBC I have watched seemed to me to be in the same vein. Nobody here in the US is anti-demonstration; everyone here is against violent demonstrations. Especially when they promote anarchy e.g. looting. Remember what the govt. did against the Branch Davidians. It was because they had war weapons. Women and children are not enough to shield violent anti-govt. radicals from justice. If you want to live in a peaceful society, you must follow some rules. After the 2000 presidential election, when the Supreme Court of the US gave the election to George Bush, the Democrats did not try to bring down the government. Now the Democrats are back in power and nobody had to die to achieve that. Most people, who some on this forum claim to be anti-red, are only against the Red's methods of advancing their cause.

CNN probably looks very left wing to anybody who considers Fox news to be "Fair and Balanced". To the rest of the world it looks pretty mainstream American, i.e. centre-right at best.

Fox News is as far right as CNN is far left and I watch neither. I get my news on the internet from news aggregators who draw from all sides of a debate. I am always open to having my mind changed but don't beat me over the head with misleading half-truths and leading questions e.g. "Mr. Abhisit, sir, do you still beat your wife?"

[seahorse]

I don't know anything.

I'm glad to see you admitting it.

[iciparis]

Just shows you how much else of what he posts is worth reading when he is arguing a point that can be easily verified as untrue.

And sad that cyberspace is filled by this shit, and he and Viking are switching between posts to other parts on this forum to trow filth there

Also verifiable fact, look at posting time here and the times on'Thai court jails 27........he makes remarks about nothing here, then goes there to try to upset people there and then comes back here

[CheeseHammer]

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Issan Army occupying central Bangkok are terrorists.

One of the most concise and accurate definitions I've seen.

[Siam Simon]

However you can't go around slandering the other side with all kinds of names, and then not expect to get some of those back on occasion. 'Terrorist' is another one of those words you may expect to get back. (Not by me of course, but don't start crying when you hear the word back to describe the actions of the military.)

How can government forces possibly be terrorists? It's a contradiction in terms.

Not at all. If the security forces of a state are terrorizing a section of that state's civilian population, they are by definition terrorists. Think Zimbabwe a couple of years ago for a clear-cut and particularly extreme example of this.

How do you call a bunch of civilians terrorizing a section of that state's civilian population, if you call the army "terrorists"?

Are you seriously comparing Thai army now to Zimbabwe?

I am not sure if you people are for real, or just endlessly trolling...

Calm down. I'm not comparing any state to any other. Seahorse didn't understand a wider definition of terrorism so I explained it to him. Up to you if you want to learn or just want to rant.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Siam Simon

[bangkoklight]

There are different prices for colour and black and white tv licences...and yes if you own a TV you need a TV licencse...the clues are in the wording "TV License" not "Can Watch BBC License"....Numpty. Are you even from the UK?! You can argue with the BBC as long as you want "I dont watch anything from the BBC" you still have to pay!!

And if you don't watch TV, do you still have to pay? No! You have the CHOICE. The very fact that the TV license is independent from any other tax just goes to show what the BBC is all about. But you don't and you will never understand this. Maybe you will when the political party you vote for loses the election and the victor starts to brainwash you. Then you will know and you will be the Numptiest - but you already are.

Edited May 15, 2010 by bangkoklight

[senti]

Calm down. I'm not comparing any state to any other. Seahorse didn't understand a wider definition of terrorism so I explained it to him. Up to you if you want to learn or just want to rant.

"Wider" definition?

I see. It is the definition you use when you're running out of arguments?

I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.

[iciparis]

There are different prices for colour and black and white tv licences...and yes if you own a TV you need a TV licencse...the clues are in the wording "TV License" not "Can Watch BBC License"....Numpty. Are you even from the UK?! You can argue with the BBC as long as you want "I dont watch anything from the BBC" you still have to pay!!

And if you don't watch TV, do you still have to pay? No! You have the CHOICE. The very fact that the TV license is independent from any other tax just goes to show what the BBC is all about. But you don't and you will never understand this. Maybe you will when the political party you vote for loses the election and the victor starts to brainwash you. Then you will know and you will be the Numptiest - but you already are.

So you are a really red supporter!!

lost the parlementary vote and got brainwashed, how can a brit like you have fallen so deep, time gordon brown came to rescue you.

[CheeseHammer]

Off topic?

[senti]

There are different prices for colour and black and white tv licences...and yes if you own a TV you need a TV licencse...the clues are in the wording "TV License" not "Can Watch BBC License"....Numpty. Are you even from the UK?! You can argue with the BBC as long as you want "I dont watch anything from the BBC" you still have to pay!!

And if you don't watch TV, do you still have to pay? No! You have the CHOICE. The very fact that the TV license is independent from any other tax just goes to show what the BBC is all about. But you don't and you will never understand this. Maybe you will when the political party you vote for loses the election and the victor starts to brainwash you. Then you will know and you will be the Numptiest - but you already are.

You don't even understand the most basic thing, yet you keep arguing.

It doesn't matter whether you watch or don't watch TV. What matters is whether you own a TV.

[Neilly]

The BBC is the most unbiased news agency in the world. It is funded independently, not by taxpayers, but by individuals who want to use their service. And they do. And they have done for more than 50 years. If you slate the BBC, you slate all common sense. The BBC are not owned by the British government or the British military. If you want to be "disappointed" with a news agency, be "disappointed" with The Nation. Your name "dobadoy" says it all.

i would tend to agree with you. I respect the BBC, trust it, and rely on it for much of my world news..however, i remember during the coup in 2006, standing right next to Jonathan Head as he interviewed dozens and dozens of Bangkok residents about how "wasn't this coup such a setback for democracy in a country that had such a history of military control?" And everyone he talked to pretty much said that yes, it was unfortunate, but that it had gotten rid of someone who had abused power so badly, had been bloodless, and thus a good thing. Given what I already knew about Thaksin I had to agree with them completely.

So did the BBC report the truth or spin it?

I won't go as far as spin, but they are been fairly selective on what they report/show

[bangkoklight]

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Isaan Army occupying central Bangkok are terrorists.

Do UN definitions apply in a civil war? And who is the UN? Are they the ones helping out on the streets now to make sure that the RTA are abiding by their (the UN's) rules? Makes you wonder why someone would post such a thing.

[offissa]

I'm not sure how much TV anyone who thinks Fox is "fair and balanced" is allowed to watch per day. I'm sure the doctors restict it.

One would certainly hope so!

[senti]

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Isaan Army occupying central Bangkok are terrorists.

Do UN definitions apply in a civil war? And who is the UN? Are they the ones helping out on the streets now to make sure that the RTA are abiding by their (the UN's) rules? Makes you wonder why someone would post such a thing.

Is this a civil war?

If it is, what do you think who started it?

Thank you for your valuable input.

[CheeseHammer]

From UN definition of terrorism

"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". "

By this definition the Isaan Army occupying central Bangkok are terrorists.

Do UN definitions apply in a civil war? And who is the UN? Are they the ones helping out on the streets now to make sure that the RTA are abiding by their (the UN's) rules? Makes you wonder why someone would post such a thing.

Is this a civil war?

[offissa]

CNN is center/left by American standards and center/right by international standards. The US is a very right wing country. Any country where a leader pushing universal health care access mostly through private providers is called a socialist/communist by a large segment of the population has serious reality issues.

Oh goodie! The first post from you that I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I love finding common ground with people...

[kissdani]

The shots are NOT aimed at women and kids.

Infact, there are mostly young males being wounded by anything these last 24 hours. As they are attacking the army lines.

The army has no will to try to break through - only way to reach the old women and kids - the red lines to start firing at a few hundred sitting down eating.

So, please, do tell us, where is the army firing at women and kids at will?

Good - finally someone who has the FACTS and not post just mere speculation.

Can you please name the source for this- "mostly young males being wounded"? What is their total number? They attacked the army lines with what kind of weapons?

And what about the dead ones? 22 was the last number i heard, all civilians. mostly young males as well?

And the others, outside this 'mostly' group, what kind of people, what age group?

And also good to hear that the army will not fire at women and children. That will set some minds at rest. A couple of posters were really worried about them. All-clear now.

Please keep us updated.

Dear Comrade, look here: http://www.ems.bangkok.go.th/report/listdead%2022.00.pdf

Also, in most videos and photos from the last days we have seen mostly young males being wounded or killed (aswell as arrested).

Okay, 8 people out of 24 in the death list are under 30 years old.

You spoke of "mostly young males being wounded ... As they are attacking the army lines."

Have you any sources to back up this? Is being young and male enough evidence for being a terrorist? They were armed with what kind of weapon? Black t-shirt, sunglasses and looking up to no good?

Terrorists or just some yobs, rowdy young boys, misguided teenagers?

[MAJIC]

No. As has been pointed out to you and your comrades hundreds of times; that didn't happen. The yellows didn't overthrow the government. The minority parties switched sides- all perfectly legitimate. Please stop with your propaganda. You ain't fooling anyone.

The yellows did put pressure on the court to condemn the Somchai governement , that was the whole idea of invading the airport, else why do it ? .

Stop the BS

Pardon me?

Another lisleading (lie) comment.

The yellows were putting pressure on the government led by Somchai. Unlike your friends the reds they )the PAD) never invaded the EC. They (the PAD) never bombed the house of a ember of the EC. They (the PAD) never threatened the courts. Reds did that ... why? Because the PAD while having many faults, understood much more about democracy than the reds ever will. A free and independant judiciary is vital to democracy. The PAD left the courts alone. The reds didn't. Government agencies that are the checks and balances required for a democracy to function are vital. The PAD left the EC alone. The reds didn't. The PAD left the Counter corruption agency alone. The reds threatened to burn it down.

The initial idea of going to the airport was to catch Somchai that day and put pressure on him to resign. The secondary reason for going there was to keep Sae Daeng from continuing to grenade them nightly since the government was not ensuring their safety at government house. They rerouted Somchai's plane.

So pornsasi continues with the red lies ......

Red lie #1 The rally isn't about Thaksin --- called within days of Thaksin losing his $$$. Talked about directly by Sae Daeng before he was shot. The rally is ONLY about Thaksin.

Red lie #2 The protestors are peaceful. Then Pornsasi and others have to admit that the leaders have preached hate and direct violence from the stage every day. They try and separate out Sae Daeng and Arisaman but the rest are just as guilty but not as stupid. The m79 grenades are being launched from the red lines. ALL of the international and national press have stated there were gunbattles with shooting coming from BOTH sides.

Red lie #3 It is about "double standards" .... The term "double standards" was first used in Thailand in modern history regarding the 2001 assetts concealment case against Thaksin.

Red lie #4 The coup removed a democratically elected leader. Thaksin at the time of the coup in 2006 was a caretaker PM that was extra-constitutional in 2 ways. Way 1 .. he had publicly resigned; and Way 2 the time period for a caretaker government had expired due to Thaksin's failed snap-elections. There was no legal government at the time of the coup. There was only an accepted extra-constitutional caretaker government.

Hopefully this will clear up some of the red lies ------ but it IS fantastic that the reds on this forum ALWAYS go back to the Airport.... That happened under a RED government.

Again your yellow propaganda ?

Have you been paid by them today

I and many others have seen hundreds of posts on TV explaining the history of the present conflict and the perfectly legal installation of the present Government,but the Red Apologists will never see the truth,mainly because it does not suit with their views of how they need to perceive it to be,with their Liberal,misguided point of view,and they will never agree as Jdinasia has just posted:ITS ONLY EVER BEEN ABOUT THAKSIN.

Their stock in trade answer to everything is to keep always harping on about what the Yellow shirt did,so that makes whatever the Red shirts do justifiable in their eyes,although I dont recall the massive scale of bloody violence and deaths at swampy that we have now in Bangkok.

Two separate issues and no comparison in the scale of Terrorism in my honest opinion.

Should they ever achieve power in the very distant future,I hope im not around to witness what their form of Democracy will be,more Fascism I would think.

[bangkoklight]

You don't even understand the most basic thing, yet you keep arguing.

It doesn't matter whether you watch or don't watch TV. What matters is whether you own a TV.

Yeah, I don't live in the UK, yeah. Makes you wonder, eh? Maybe I live somewhere else or something. Yeah. let's bet on it. Do you wanna bet where I live? Yeah... yeah... let's bet. Hmmm... I live on Mars, yeah. Oh no! I don't know anything! You Yellows have caught me out with your wit again! I'm not even living on this planet! Oh no! Let's grow up "live-at-home students"...

Yeah, I own a TV. I also have a job. I can't avoid paying tax on my income - the government take it from my pay-packet without my asking.

[retdson]

Civil war? When one side is the army and the other side is carrying assault rifles and they're locked in street fighting in the country's capital city - then yep - I suppose it could be called that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmj4EOngkl0 You need to slow it down to catch the hardware clearly.

[bangkoklight]

Is this a civil war?

Hmmm, yes. I just opened the window to my house in Rama 6. Sounds like a war to me. It's been going on for about 2 months now; it's not a Yellow flag waving ceremony. No one has sent their grannies to the confrontation scene.

[cdnmatt]

I'm sorry for you, but you're wrong. CNN is considered by all in the US to be very left.

Yes, and Obama is considered a left-wing radical by a good portion of the US population, whereas in the rest of the world, Obama is viewed as center-right.

[CheeseHammer]

You are debating like a child. Why don't you like Fox News, then?

Why would you trust CNN? You know someone there?

No comment.

[TAWP]

The BBC is the most unbiased news agency in the world. It is funded independently, not by taxpayers, but by individuals who want to use their service. And they do. And they have done for more than 50 years. If you slate the BBC, you slate all common sense. The BBC are not owned by the British government or the British military. If you want to be "disappointed" with a news agency, be "disappointed" with The Nation. Your name "dobadoy" says it all.

Incorrect on all points. To deny that BBC is founded by taxpayers (via the license fee) or that they have a slant (even if not extreme) is a good sign you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Slip]

You don't even understand the most basic thing, yet you keep arguing.

It doesn't matter whether you watch or don't watch TV. What matters is whether you own a TV.

Yeah, I don't live in the UK, yeah. Makes you wonder, eh? Maybe I live somewhere else or something. Yeah. let's bet on it. Do you wanna bet where I live? Yeah... yeah... let's bet. Hmmm... I live on Mars, yeah. Oh no! I don't know anything! You Yellows have caught me out with your wit again! I'm not even living on this planet! Oh no! Let's grow up "live-at-home students"...

Yeah, I own a TV. I also have a job. I can't avoid paying tax on my income - the government take it from my pay-packet without my asking.

Just about everyone owns a TV. Flushing toilets are a different matter. They do that to my pay packet too! Bloody amarts!