Clashes Continue, Turning Central Bangkok In Virtual Warzone

[CheeseHammer]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

[redparrot]

...and they will never agree as Jdinasia has just posted:ITS ONLY EVER BEEN ABOUT THAKSIN...

Would be nice if jdinasia would post something new once in a while, he keeps repeating himself over and over.

[yoshiwara]

...and they will never agree as Jdinasia has just posted:ITS ONLY EVER BEEN ABOUT THAKSIN...

Would be nice if jdinasia would post something new once in a while, he keeps repeating himself over and over.

I think that's what parrots do.

Are you claiming intellectual property rights?

[redparrot]

...and they will never agree as Jdinasia has just posted:ITS ONLY EVER BEEN ABOUT THAKSIN...

Would be nice if jdinasia would post something new once in a while, he keeps repeating himself over and over.

I think that's what parrots do.

Are you claiming intellectual property rights?

Nope, but jdinasia is worse than a parrot. Literally every post is filled with "it's all about Thaksin". If I got a Baht for every time he said that, I'd be richer than Thaksin. Reminds me of a guy I knew that had dementia. Kept staring at a corner repeating himself. If I had handed him a keyboard, well ...

[TAWP]

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?

Yes, most young males are shown as wounded in the pictures...but you cut out part of that in your quote.

The list tells us:

15 out of 17 dead with ages written next to their names is between 18 and 35 years old. One of the other 2 is 36...and one is 48...so infact only one of given age is of higher age...

I take that as evidence that I am right in my assumption.

[bangkoklight]

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.

The BBC's independence from government tax is the core of it's existence. This means that it can run regardless of the power in power and without their interference. The BBC hasn't become the best TV broadcaster in the world because of the different UK governments in power. It's this way for a reason, a reason that many people overlook.

[Siam Simon]

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.

What on earth are you prattling on about? I'm not trying to present any pro or con argument here, I just explained to Seahorse that terrorism has many definitions and forms.

<Oxford English Dictionary:

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.>

You can carry on ranting, foam at the mouth, laugh or cry. I don't care. I'm not the one trying to politicize the meaning of terrorism here.

[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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

The video is what it is. I didn't post it as 'proof' of anything in particular - except I suppose to support the observation that when you have two politically opposing sides armed with military weapons fighting on the streets you're probably bordering on civil war.

[TAWP]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

Armed blackshirts fighting with the army.

[DagonKhan]

Any idea which weapon the this is?

Which program you made this on, Would like to download it too, bought it in panthip?? 80bath?? not too much!!

its actually from the BBC website, you expert computer graphics guy....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8684506.stm

Good quality photo-shop job by the BBC. Well done BBC.

Which part of the photo taken by an AP accredited photographer which was subsequently used by the BBC, Yahoo News and countless other news outlets is photoshopped?

Original is here:- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Photographers website is here:- http://www.manishswarup.com/about.htm

And here is another one taken by the same photographer:-

[redparrot]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

Armed blackshirts fighting with the army.

Black shirts fighting the army. Not red shirts. Why are you bashing red shirts then?

[TAWP]

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.

The BBC's independence from government tax is the core of it's existence. This means that it can run regardless of the power in power and without their interference. The BBC hasn't become the best TV broadcaster in the world because of the different UK governments in power. It's this way for a reason, a reason that many people overlook.

Only a Brit would think the BBC is anything like the best TV broadcaster in the world. Others might not agree.

[yoshiwara]

...and they will never agree as Jdinasia has just posted:ITS ONLY EVER BEEN ABOUT THAKSIN...

Would be nice if jdinasia would post something new once in a while, he keeps repeating himself over and over.

I think that's what parrots do.

Are you claiming intellectual property rights?

Nope, but jdinasia is worse than a parrot. Literally every post is filled with "it's all about Thaksin". If I got a Baht for every time he said that, I'd be richer than Thaksin. Reminds me of a guy I knew that had dementia. Kept staring at a corner repeating himself. If I had handed him a keyboard, well ...

It is.

[TAWP]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

Armed blackshirts fighting with the army.

Black shirts fighting the army. Not red shirts. Why are you bashing red shirts then?

Are you really this thick? The black shirts are part of the UDD movement, as even the UDD Facebook page proudly proclaims.

[CheeseHammer]

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.

What on earth are you prattling on about? I'm not trying to present any pro or con argument here, I just explained to Seahorse that terrorism has many definitions and forms.

<Oxford English Dictionary:

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.>

You can carry on ranting, foam at the mouth, laugh or cry. I don't care. I'm not the one trying to politicize the meaning of terrorism here.

American English Dictionary:

terrorist

• noun - a person does anything that is detrimental to the pursuit of political aims you agree with.

[redparrot]

Are you really this thick? The black shirts are part of the UDD movement, as even the UDD Facebook page proudly proclaims.

How do you know that it isn't one of the Bangkok mafia groups sending out their killers to cause more problems?

[TAWP]

Are you really this thick? The black shirts are part of the UDD movement, as even the UDD Facebook page proudly proclaims.

How do you know that it isn't one of the Bangkok mafia groups sending out their killers to cause more problems?

Since UDD proclaims it is their people. If you say that UDD lies I am very willing to listen to your sources, assuming you have any.

[CheeseHammer]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

Armed blackshirts fighting with the army.

And where were the army?

[redparrot]

Are you really this thick? The black shirts are part of the UDD movement, as even the UDD Facebook page proudly proclaims.

How do you know that it isn't one of the Bangkok mafia groups sending out their killers to cause more problems?

Since UDD proclaims it is their people. If you say that UDD lies I am very willing to listen to your sources, assuming you have any.

UDD said that this exact guy that you showed in the video belongs to them? Anyone can wear a black shirt.

[panchine]

What i would like some comment on is this - when i vote for a person to represent me in government at home in Europe i would expect them to act with honour and if challenged to go to the polls to p[rove their mandate to govern I would expect them to go - I wish only to vote for strong honest people win or loose and accept the outcome - why would any government in the world, with honour, be afraid of an election to re-enforce themselves with a mandate from the population?

If it was my vote i would advise my elected representative to go to the polls to prove their mandate to govern - do we vote globally in the expectation of strong courageous representation or do we vote for those once elected to hold on in fear of the next election.

[cdnmatt]

The BBC is the most unbiased news agency in the world.

Actually, I'd say al-Jazeera (sp) is currently the leading main-stream news outlet for unbiased reporting. And I'm actually serious about that. They seem to be an excellent news organization.

[TAWP]

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.

OK, and this video is supposedly proof of what?

Armed blackshirts fighting with the army.

And where were the army?

To the left, where everybody was looking at. I believe the poster of the video might even be on TV. He can supply you with exacter info.

[bangkoklight]

Only a Brit would think the BBC is anything like the best TV broadcaster in the world. Others might not agree.

Yeah, because the essence of my post was The Guinness Book, right? Only a Yellow Shirt would bring that up. Hmmm... I say... funny how the Red Shirt leaders are living in five star hotels while the Yellows Shirt leaders are living in slums in Dusit Zoo Palace eh? 555+ Doesn't make sense, does it?

[mommysboy]

This is a civil war.

[Fishbucket]

All this murder because a gruby little abisit clinging to illegitimate power would rather see his own people murdered than uphold democracy in an election.

[kissdani]

Please inform us how to differentiate between a person in black, possibly carrying arms, that is crawling behind cover towards the army and a person in black, possibly armed, that is hiding or crawling behind the cover after being hit by a bullet. Infact, seeing the film, I would guess he got hit by 3 rubber bullets or has minor through-and-through wounds, atleast the initial hits, due to the way he moves. But we can only speculate.

Here is a tip: get your behind down to the barricades and try to ID who is doing what at 100-200m distance. Easy, isn't it?

Fire only if you can place a clear shot at an armed terrorist and when it is clear that your shot will not hit any innocent bystander. Don't fire at random just on suspicion into an area because a wearer of a black shirt who looked like up to no good was seen nearby somewhere there.

Isn't that the international standard?

No.

Where are you born?

Remember the G8-summit in Italy when the Carabinieri killed a protester carrying a fire-extinguisher?

International standard, what is that?

"International standard"? That is one of Abhisits favorite standard phrases next to "in accordance with the law" Never heard of that phrase? Are you not following the news and government statements?

Abhisit then deemed it necessary to invoke the emergency decree over Bangkok. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has been appointed to supervise the emergency rule.

"We want to facilitate other actions to restore peace and order. The actions will be in accordance with the law and international standard," Abhisit said in a TV-pool broadcast.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...d-30126634.html

"CRES emphasised troops are following the law and international standard practice in handling with the crowd but the protest leaders used armed supporters to attack security checkpoints and during the officials' operation, Mr Sathit said.

Acting government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn added troops are largely outside the Ratchaprasong rally site and at their checkpoints but they were attacked by armed protesters, so they had no choice, but to respond to the attacks.

Mr Panitan reiterated security forces will use live ammunition only to protect their own lives and the general public, as well as to stop armed groups from attacking people."

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/56...14493a607910329

And what says the The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)?

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials:

...

9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/firearms.htm

Bold added for focus.

[473geo]

What i would like some comment on is this - when i vote for a person to represent me in government at home in Europe i would expect them to act with honour and if challenged to go to the polls to p[rove their mandate to govern I would expect them to go - I wish only to vote for strong honest people win or loose and accept the outcome - why would any government in the world, with honour, be afraid of an election to re-enforce themselves with a mandate from the population?

If it was my vote i would advise my elected representative to go to the polls to prove their mandate to govern - do we vote globally in the expectation of strong courageous representation or do we vote for those once elected to hold on in fear of the next election.

You must have missed the last 200 posts from jdinasia.....

For what it is worth I think Abhisit was gaining ground, but the reoccurence of deaths when the Army became more involved, may have cost him again, hence the decision to see out his term. Plan now can only be to take the pain of a swift climax to the situation, and spend the next year trying to win over the masses. The truth is as many have stated he probably would not win an election. But don't tell some of the people here, because this is not about Abhisit....

[redparrot]

What i would like some comment on is this - when i vote for a person to represent me in government at home in Europe i would expect them to act with honour and if challenged to go to the polls to p[rove their mandate to govern I would expect them to go - I wish only to vote for strong honest people win or loose and accept the outcome - why would any government in the world, with honour, be afraid of an election to re-enforce themselves with a mandate from the population?

If it was my vote i would advise my elected representative to go to the polls to prove their mandate to govern - do we vote globally in the expectation of strong courageous representation or do we vote for those once elected to hold on in fear of the next election.

My hat goes off to you. Finally someone that understands it. If Abhisit wants to end this and he is so sure that nobody supports the red shirts, he should dissolve parliament immediately, call fresh elections. Nothing better than prove to the red shirts that he is indeed loved by the majority of Thais. And at the same time deal an embarrassing blow to them and making them lose face. He could even get an absolute majority, and that way the Democrats could rule alone, without needing the smaller coalition parties.

Unless of course it all goes wrong and Puea Thai ends up winning an absolute majority. But that would never happen, would it?

[bangkoklight]

The Abhisit government is illegal 'panchine', that’s why he won't call an election. He'll lose if he does. I've been a Labour supporter for 18 years in the UK but notice how Gordon Brown stepped down to allow a new coalition to form (from the ballot box) a new government - a good move for the people. Actually, GB called for an early election - he could have waited but he didn't. That's a true democracy - lessons to be learned, as L42 would say. The Yellows have lost big time. Soon, their little slaves will be their bosses. Hehehe…

[panchine]

My point is simple - only politicians with true democratic intent have the courage to go to the polls - and typically such politicians have the strength to cope with the success or failure of such a process -a politician without the intestinal fortitude to deal with the process is not worthy of the voters support.