Thai Government Accuses Reds Over Huge Weapons Cache

[Vindie]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Please enlighten us with some examples with where PURELY PEACEFUL mobs were able to effect change in their countries. If you can find a couple western examples... that would be great. Now try it in Asia. There were peaceful protests in Malaysia and Myanmar in recent years resulting in a rather sophisticated and largely bloodless crackdown (Malaysia), and a massacre (Myanmar). This isn't the west, so quit measuring the tactics and rationale protesters use with your own. And look back a ways into your own history and think about how change was ever effected in your government through demonstrations. Until the army came to Bangkok, there wasn't loss of life. If the government had enforced rule of law from the beginning, the protests wouldn't have happened.

[brahmburgers]

Ever notice how military campaigns often happen in pairs? Two examples:

In 1775 the Brits tried to hang on to one of their colonies by force of arms. They got their butts kicked. 37 years later, the Brits came back to the same place, itching for revenge. They got their butts kicked again.

In 1917, the Germans got caught in a big war in Europe. They got their butts kicked. 22 years later they started another war in the same place, itching for revenge. They got their butts kicked again.

In 2010, Thailand's Red shirts went to Bangkok looking for trouble. They got their butts kicked. Will we see them coming back for revenge, or is 2010 their follow-up butt kicking for them getting their butts kicked in 2009?

[dttk0009]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

Having an armed wing willing to kill innocent bystanders, medics, policemen, soldiers and journalists legitimizes the use of force. I am not sure why you don't agree with this. Do you live in Bangkok and in any of the danger zones? I could see how your perspective could be radically different if you didn't hear the sound of gunfire and grenade explosion for a month straight. The UDD at this point is no different to Hezbollah. The difference being that they pander to western liberalism instead of directly attacking it in ideology. If it were not for the military my apartment building could have been torched, I could have been randomly targeted with a grenade, I could have been robbed by red checkpoints, I could have been impaled on a bamboo spear by a crazed redshirt guard, the list goes on. In my eyes, they protected me from aggressors who were intent on killing, destroying and stealing.

You can't just look at the armed wing of the movement and dismiss it as 'fake' red shirts. I would never associate myself with a movement that carries out attacks of terrorism against innocent targets, no matter how much I agree with the ideology. It makes you a supporter of that violence.

[Secularist]

Unarmed Reds, Amnesty International decrying the treatment of the poor innocents - BS, pure BS. Armed militants who should be treated as enemy combatants, if shown to have participated in a violent way.

I am expecting AI to issue a retraction any moment now.

Perhaps the BB see will say something like "Thai authorities today unveiled a self inflicted weapons cache apparently"

From the Rivers run through here somewhere? comes "campared to afganistan, the weapons on display are small in comparsion to the army's".

[Secularist]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

Having an armed wing willing to kill innocent bystanders, medics, policemen, soldiers and journalists legitimizes the use of force. I am not sure why you don't agree with this. Do you live in Bangkok and in any of the danger zones? I could see how your perspective could be radically different if you didn't hear the sound of gunfire and grenade explosion for a month straight. The UDD at this point is no different to Hezbollah. The difference being that they pander to western liberalism instead of directly attacking it in ideology. If it were not for the military my apartment building could have been torched, I could have been randomly targeted with a grenade, I could have been robbed by red checkpoints, I could have been impaled on a bamboo spear by a crazed redshirt guard, the list goes on. In my eyes, they protected me from aggressors who were intent on killing, destroying and stealing.

You can't just look at the armed wing of the movement and dismiss it as 'fake' red shirts. I would never associate myself with a movement that carries out attacks of terrorism against innocent targets, no matter how much I agree with the ideology. It makes you a supporter of that violence.

Please!! Hezbollah??? Hezbollah launches rockets INTENTIONALLY against civilians. They use suicide bombers against school buses of children. That comparison is offensive.

[Vindie]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

How would you have suggested the army deal with protestors that included heavily armed people? When they started clearing the protestors with riot police on April 10, they were attacked with guns and grenades, so riot police wouldn't have been the answer would it?

No way to substantiate that, unfortuneately. Had the army and police come without machine guns (to 'fire' into the air), they would be able to state irrefutably that the red shirts fired first. But they did, and in subsequent clashes they were seen firing indescriminately at people with NO weapons. I'd say the burden of proof is very much on the military. If you come prepared for a violent and bloody confrontation, it's likely you'll stir one up. That's the problem with so many of you posters, you are just as naive as the reds on the street. You swallow all the information you like from one side of the equation and don't bother to question any of it. I accept that either side could have started the shooting and that we will never know. I accept that the reds may have WANTED the military to show up with guns so as to have an excuse to have a shooting war (which of course the government obliged them with). I'll also accept that teenagers with guns getting stuff thrown at them and cursed in the dark might get nervous and pull the trigger. The truth is probably never going to be known, but I'm not going to take the government line because it's convenient. The government in Thailand, whether it be Democrat OR Thaksinite has NEVER been truthful, why do you believe they'll start now? On the rest of Thaivisa you guys rail about corruption and lies throughout the system, but on this matter you take everything they say at face value. The only people sillier than the farmers fighting for Thaksin, are the farang 'elites' who are willing to believe a man like Suthep.

Thaksin being a corrupt liar, does not an honest government make. Blocking access to 500+ websites and censoring and blocking all media (most of it before the violence) shouldn't be a confidence builder, but apparently a one-sided message is all you need.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Vindie

[dttk0009]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

Having an armed wing willing to kill innocent bystanders, medics, policemen, soldiers and journalists legitimizes the use of force. I am not sure why you don't agree with this. Do you live in Bangkok and in any of the danger zones? I could see how your perspective could be radically different if you didn't hear the sound of gunfire and grenade explosion for a month straight. The UDD at this point is no different to Hezbollah. The difference being that they pander to western liberalism instead of directly attacking it in ideology. If it were not for the military my apartment building could have been torched, I could have been randomly targeted with a grenade, I could have been robbed by red checkpoints, I could have been impaled on a bamboo spear by a crazed redshirt guard, the list goes on. In my eyes, they protected me from aggressors who were intent on killing, destroying and stealing.

You can't just look at the armed wing of the movement and dismiss it as 'fake' red shirts. I would never associate myself with a movement that carries out attacks of terrorism against innocent targets, no matter how much I agree with the ideology. It makes you a supporter of that violence.

Please!! Hezbollah??? Hezbollah launches rockets INTENTIONALLY against civilians. They use suicide bombers against school buses of children. That comparison is offensive.

And launching M79 grenades at innocent civilians is ok? Setting fire to dozens of locations in a densely populated city is harmless? If it wasn't for the heroic rescue teams in this city hundreds of people would have perished in the Channel 3 building. It has become quite apparent that you support the death of innocents for your ideology to prevail. I think we're done.

Edited May 23, 2010 by dttk0009

[schuimpje]

Remember the blacks in the 50's in USA, they used a lot of violence to get their rights.

After a few years these red heroes will be seen as the USA blacks.

Think about this........

MLK was seen as terrorist in those days also now he's a hero!

This is so out of context the only kind thing I can say to you is to read and learn more about the civil rights struggle in the US. There was absolutely no heroic display by any of the "khwai daeng" leaders, quite the opposite, these leaders turned out to be the greatest cowards I have seen in a while. But their cowardice is only a result of their true conviction, this was all about the money they were paid for inciting this mayhem. No point fighting to the death when you have 100M Baht waiting for you.

Martin Luther King Jr, never once called for the burning of any town or city, he was never paid for what he did, he tirelessly worked for the civil rights of millions of Americans, not for the benefit of billionaire corrupt ex leader. His mentor for his approach was Mohatma Ghandhi who practised non-violent resistance even when the authorities were extremely violent. So please study the approach practiced by Martin Luther King Jr. and other US civil rights leaders, and if people anywhere in this country feel their civil rights are not respected by the government, use that approach. Then perhaps the leaders and participants of that protest could be considered heroes.

Very well said...goes for reply of the day for me...

[christiaan]

When I compare this 'huge' cache of weapons showed on Thai tv with the mass of weapons and the violence used by the Thai Army and their supporters when they attacked Thammasat University, they even used rocket launchers at unarmed students, this is almost a laugh.

I do not write this to advertise for violence, because I do not.

We can be sure there were some Reds active in a terrorist way sometimes, but we can also be sure the majority of reds didnot come to Bangkok out of terrorist reasons.

Looking at the cache of weapons I was thinking: This is what you can harvest when a government and all governements - including Thaksins - before, neglect the welfare of a big part of their civillians, treatening them as second class civillians. The whole of Thai society is responsible for this. They are, as Thai people, as Thai culture, like a personality. And as a personality they cannot deny what their right hand is doing when it is doing wrong. And when they do they split up their personality and at the end they will split up Thai society even more. A wise statesman and government would not do such thing because they are the head of Thai country personallity and have to take care all of it when they want to cure or prevent sickness of society.

[selftaopath]

Holy moly. looks like we have our very own Al-Quaeda. What's next, training camps? Suicide bombers? Truly scary.

Yes, but didn't I read somewhere that a BIB was caught with grenades that he intended selling to the red revolutionaries? I guess if this is the case he will be sent to an inactive post. LOL Thailand is truly amazing.

[gemini81]

Remember the blacks in the 50's in USA, they used a lot of violence to get their rights.

After a few years these red heroes will be seen as the USA blacks.

Think about this........

MLK was seen as terrorist in those days also now he's a hero!

This is so out of context the only kind thing I can say to you is to read and learn more about the civil rights struggle in the US. There was absolutely no heroic display by any of the "khwai daeng" leaders, quite the opposite, these leaders turned out to be the greatest cowards I have seen in a while. But their cowardice is only a result of their true conviction, this was all about the money they were paid for inciting this mayhem. No point fighting to the death when you have 100M Baht waiting for you.

Martin Luther King Jr, never once called for the burning of any town or city, he was never paid for what he did, he tirelessly worked for the civil rights of millions of Americans, not for the benefit of billionaire corrupt ex leader. His mentor for his approach was Mohatma Ghandhi who practised non-violent resistance even when the authorities were extremely violent. So please study the approach practiced by Martin Luther King Jr. and other US civil rights leaders, and if people anywhere in this country feel their civil rights are not respected by the government, use that approach. Then perhaps the leaders and participants of that protest could be considered heroes.

Very well said...goes for reply of the day for me...

you mean all of the race riots in the 60's? That was anything but peaceful! Other civil rights leaders...Malcomb? He was a bigot. Recall the term Black Panthers? Dude, get real.

Anyway, thats the USA, here we are talkin' Asia.

[jcbangkok]

Remember the blacks in the 50's in USA, they used a lot of violence to get their rights.

After a few years these red heroes will be seen as the USA blacks.

Think about this........

MLK was seen as terrorist in those days also now he's a hero!

No comparison to civil rights issues in US let alone LA and also you have the wrong decade. If it was going to be compared to anything it would probably be more like the 92 riots where police pulled back and people burned and looted claiming they were upset about the abuses of police toward minorities (blacks specifically) . Interesting too is that many of those looting were white.

Edited May 23, 2010 by jcbangkok

[whitfield]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Please enlighten us with some examples with where PURELY PEACEFUL mobs were able to effect change in their countries. If you can find a couple western examples... that would be great. Now try it in Asia. There were peaceful protests in Malaysia and Myanmar in recent years resulting in a rather sophisticated and largely bloodless crackdown (Malaysia), and a massacre (Myanmar). This isn't the west, so quit measuring the tactics and rationale protesters use with your own. And look back a ways into your own history and think about how change was ever effected in your government through demonstrations. Until the army came to Bangkok, there wasn't loss of life. If the government had enforced rule of law from the beginning, the protests wouldn't have happened.

The Red Shirts relatively peaceful protest won them a new election. Had they accepted they would probably have won the landslide victory they wanted. They rejected the fruits of peaceful protest because they had another agenda. Of course peaceful protest can be successful, but the cause must be perceived by the majority as being just. The recent insurrection was never supported by a majority of Thais. Ten times as many people in the UK turned out to try and overturn the ban on Foxhunting a cause they felt strongly about.

If the Red Shirts had managed to mobilise even 100,000 they might have looked like a credible force for change but...........

[whybother]

No way to substantiate that, unfortuneately. Had the army and police come without machine guns (to 'fire' into the air), they would be able to state irrefutably that the red shirts fired first. But they did, and in subsequent clashes they were seen firing indescriminately at people with NO weapons. I'd say the burden of proof is very much on the military. If you come prepared for a violent and bloody confrontation, it's likely you'll stir one up. That's the problem with so many of you posters, you are just as naive as the reds on the street. You swallow all the information you like from one side of the equation and don't bother to question any of it. I accept that either side could have started the shooting and that we will never know. I accept that the reds may have WANTED the military to show up with guns so as to have an excuse to have a shooting war (which of course the government obliged them with). I'll also accept that teenagers with guns getting stuff thrown at them and cursed in the dark might get nervous and pull the trigger. The truth is probably never going to be known, but I'm not going to take the government line because it's convenient. The government in Thailand, whether it be Democrat OR Thaksinite has NEVER been truthful, why do you believe they'll start now? On the rest of Thaivisa you guys rail about corruption and lies throughout the system, but on this matter you take everything they say at face value. The only people sillier than the farmers fighting for Thaksin, are the farang 'elites' who are willing to believe a man like Suthep.

Thaksin being a corrupt liar, does not an honest government make. Blocking access to 500+ websites and censoring and blocking all media (most of it before the violence) shouldn't be a confidence builder, but apparently a one-sided message is all you need.

We saw what happened with unarmed soldiers and police when the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom.

We also saw April 10 that when the soldiers were attacked with guns and grenades, that they withdrew and also cancelled their planned clearance of Ratchaprasong. If the army were really intent on killing protestors, they would have continued with both and many more people would have killed.

I am not taking the government line because it's convenient. I happen to be taking the same line as the government because of the evidence I have seen from independent reports, and the clear lies that have come from the red side.

The reds were saying that their protests were for the poor and for democracy, but they have never have never shown how they can help the poor, and they have never shown anything that even resembles democracy.

They reds talked about peaceful protests, but from the very start they talked about violence. The government let them have their peaceful protests, but the reds kept on pushing, trying to get a violent reaction from the government. The reds only ever wanted violence. They only ever talked about violence.

The reds are ONLY about power. The reds (including Thaksin) have exploited the poor for their own purposes.

Thaksin used cash handouts, and happened to be in power during a booming global economy. Thaksin's policies were to get short term support while he put his family and close friends at the top of all the "checks and balance" institutions. He did nothing to help the poor in the long term. His health care policy was unfunded, so while the poor could see a doctor cheaply, there were no funds to actually provide services. There was no improvement in education during his time in government. The poor just got further into debt.

The reds have shown how much they care about democracy or free speech. They threaten or attack anyone that speaks out against them, or even anyone that tries to campaign that are not pro-red. Thaksin sued anyone that wrote anything critical of him.

The government in no way has blocked all media. There has been plenty of negative stories freely available. They have blocked media that in their opinion is telling blatent lies (ie doctored audio/video suggesting Abhisit directly ordered the army to kill protestors).

In no way am I suggesting that the current government are perfect, and I am certainly not advocating anything that they yellows say.

But to suggest that the way of the reds is the way forward for Thailand, IMO, is delusional.

[BlueTerrace]

Amnesty International are a great organisation and I have a lot of respect for the work they have done over the years, but they really dropped the ball on this one.

The government went to extraordinary efforts to keep the casualites low. The world expected a blood bath when the army went to unlock the CBD, they didnt get it. Instead the Thai military acted with planning and restraint...possibly 6 weeks too much restraint...but certainly not with the brutality many western media outlets predicted ( and possibly hoped for).

The world needs a credible AI, so I hope they conduct a full, frank investigation on their statements: who drafted them, on what information and why?

[Vindie]

No way to substantiate that, unfortuneately. Had the army and police come without machine guns (to 'fire' into the air), they would be able to state irrefutably that the red shirts fired first. But they did, and in subsequent clashes they were seen firing indescriminately at people with NO weapons. I'd say the burden of proof is very much on the military. If you come prepared for a violent and bloody confrontation, it's likely you'll stir one up. That's the problem with so many of you posters, you are just as naive as the reds on the street. You swallow all the information you like from one side of the equation and don't bother to question any of it. I accept that either side could have started the shooting and that we will never know. I accept that the reds may have WANTED the military to show up with guns so as to have an excuse to have a shooting war (which of course the government obliged them with). I'll also accept that teenagers with guns getting stuff thrown at them and cursed in the dark might get nervous and pull the trigger. The truth is probably never going to be known, but I'm not going to take the government line because it's convenient. The government in Thailand, whether it be Democrat OR Thaksinite has NEVER been truthful, why do you believe they'll start now? On the rest of Thaivisa you guys rail about corruption and lies throughout the system, but on this matter you take everything they say at face value. The only people sillier than the farmers fighting for Thaksin, are the farang 'elites' who are willing to believe a man like Suthep.

Thaksin being a corrupt liar, does not an honest government make. Blocking access to 500+ websites and censoring and blocking all media (most of it before the violence) shouldn't be a confidence builder, but apparently a one-sided message is all you need.

We saw what happened with unarmed soldiers and police when the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom.

We also saw April 10 that when the soldiers were attacked with guns and grenades, that they withdrew and also cancelled their planned clearance of Ratchaprasong. If the army were really intent on killing protestors, they would have continued with both and many more people would have killed.

I am not taking the government line because it's convenient. I happen to be taking the same line as the government because of the evidence I have seen from independent reports, and the clear lies that have come from the red side.

The reds were saying that their protests were for the poor and for democracy, but they have never have never shown how they can help the poor, and they have never shown anything that even resembles democracy.

They reds talked about peaceful protests, but from the very start they talked about violence. The government let them have their peaceful protests, but the reds kept on pushing, trying to get a violent reaction from the government. The reds only ever wanted violence. They only ever talked about violence.

The reds are ONLY about power. The reds (including Thaksin) have exploited the poor for their own purposes.

Thaksin used cash handouts, and happened to be in power during a booming global economy. Thaksin's policies were to get short term support while he put his family and close friends at the top of all the "checks and balance" institutions. He did nothing to help the poor in the long term. His health care policy was unfunded, so while the poor could see a doctor cheaply, there were no funds to actually provide services. There was no improvement in education during his time in government. The poor just got further into debt.

The reds have shown how much they care about democracy or free speech. They threaten or attack anyone that speaks out against them, or even anyone that tries to campaign that are not pro-red. Thaksin sued anyone that wrote anything critical of him.

The government in no way has blocked all media. There has been plenty of negative stories freely available. They have blocked media that in their opinion is telling blatent lies (ie doctored audio/video suggesting Abhisit directly ordered the army to kill protestors).

In no way am I suggesting that the current government are perfect, and I am certainly not advocating anything that they yellows say.

But to suggest that the way of the reds is the way forward for Thailand, IMO, is delusional.

I agree, the Reds had a violent agenda. I wonder why that is? Because all political change in Thailand has been violent?

Anyway, the Red leadership lied and promoted violence. The army lied and promoted violence. The government lied and promoted violence. Who should be the higher moral authority? When the Reds wouldn't negotiate during the televised talks, they lost the moral high ground. When the government sent tens of thousands of heavily armed troops to stop a few thousand protesters, they lost theirs. I still put it to you, who needs to be truthful, and who needs to be transparent? I saw lots of video of black shirts shooting soldiers. I saw tons of videos of army snipers and ordinary troops firing openly on people with nothing in their hands. The Reds were wrong for what they did. The government is not made right by default. These events are about Thais being bad across the board. Again... governments around the world lie, especially when they're agenda is to use violence to achieve their own aims. SE Asia has a horrendous track record when it comes to transparency. They were lying before, and they are lying now. On the ground reports from un-biased reporters show that both sides were doing bad things, but the government has the burden of doing the right thing. If they were, why have they been lying? On one live report I saw a reporter watching the soldiers shooting at unarmed protesters, at which point the studio anchor questioned a Thai government official directly... : "Are you shooting at the protesters?" He repeatedly insisted that the army was only targeting people with heavy weapons (most of which weren't seen or found until after the area had been cleared of journalists and allowed back in).

By the way, you site Thaicom... and I honestly don't know... but how many soldiers were injured or killed by heavy weapons wielded by red shirt protesters at Thaicom?

There were 90,000 security personnel in Bangkok, according to the government. How is that not sufficient to quell 5,000 without bringing heavy caliber machine guns, M-16s, and snipers? And because they brought all that crap from the start, they can't claim they were shot first. hel_l, the weapons used against them were their own in the first place. And now the government wants (and apparently successfully) you to believe that all the deaths (including the journalists) were actually red militants acting on their 'terrorist' agenda. Now Bangkok remains under curfew (not unreasonable), and the evidence being brought out to show the exiled journalists is astounding. There are car bombs everywhere! And the army stopped this all 'just in time'? It must be true. It's on TV.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Vindie

[whybother]

I agree, the Reds had a violent agenda. I wonder why that is? Because all change in Thailand politically has been violent? W

The reds say they want change, but they always look to the past. They want to go back to the past.

They have (had) a lot of support in Thailand. If they didn't blatantly cheat in the previous elections, they would still be in power.

They could have had elections in November. If they had all the support that they say they do, they would have won them.

[lannarebirth]

Anyone who thinks the protesters were unarmed can easily test their conspiracy theory - go down to Rama IV and ask some of the residents if they were unarmed.

@Deeral: Allow me to propose a definition of 'terrorist' for you to ponder: Anyone who launches grenades, shoots at the residents and burns down the buildings in our neighbourhood is a terrorist. We couldn't give a rats arse about their political views.

Honestly there are some boneheads around here.

Sure, some of the red shirts were armed, but it was not an armed movement. The majority of the people there did NOT have weapons of war. However, seeing as how the government and the army spokespeople are now dictating the news (and presenting evidence after they deem areas 'safe' and let journalists in), I'm sure we can all rest assured that they are using only the truth to legitimize their own deadly use of force. The Thaivisa children know that authority figures, especially in SE Asia MUST be believed, because to do otherwise is to risk deportation or worse.

Where do you people come from that believe the likes of the government and the military? Do you hold the same esteem for these institutions back home? Even the red apologists here don't defend Thaksin as an honest source of information. You can hate the reds all you want... that's a matter of opinion, but to believe all that the establishment has to say is irresponsible and foolish. Support the government if you wish, but accept statements from the army as gospel? Shame on you!

I think where peoples opinions differ regarding amout of weapons is that some see several hundrd weapons, bombs, grenades, etc as not sufficient to overcome the might of the state sponsored Army and therefore don't see the Red Shirts as a "militant" force. In that context I would agree with those posters but I see their aims as far different than opposition to the Army, whose job it was to disperse the protesters. I see the Red Shirt militia force as a body of deadly provacateurs whose sole purpose was to create mayhem and to draw the Army into using overwhelming force in response, thereby discrediting the government on the international stage and justifying the intervention of "outside arbiters" into the Thai internal conflict. I believe the campaign was twofold, one, a militant force to create division and draw a strong response and two a well organized media spin machine. If outside intervention could occur the thinking being, then the side having no legotimacy could be seen to have legitimacy. I think this effort has failed.

[Vindie]

Amnesty International are a great organisation and I have a lot of respect for the work they have done over the years, but they really dropped the ball on this one.

The government went to extraordinary efforts to keep the casualites low. The world expected a blood bath when the army went to unlock the CBD, they didnt get it. Instead the Thai military acted with planning and restraint...possibly 6 weeks too much restraint...but certainly not with the brutality many western media outlets predicted ( and possibly hoped for).

The world needs a credible AI, so I hope they conduct a full, frank investigation on their statements: who drafted them, on what information and why?

Amnesty International has a long and distinguished track record. They didn't weigh in on Thailand until blood was in the streets. In their history how often have they had to retract their statements? Are you willing to discount Amnesty International in favor of the CRES? Why would their first horrific blunder be in Thailand? Is AI run by Thaksin?

[csolgosz]

I find it convenient that all these weapons of mass destruction were found.

Has anyone wondered why they were not used?

Smells a bit fishy.

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

[SomTumTiger]

This is so out of context the only kind thing I can say to you is to read and learn more about the civil rights struggle in the US. There was absolutely no heroic display by any of the "khwai daeng" leaders, quite the opposite, these leaders turned out to be the greatest cowards I have seen in a while. But their cowardice is only a result of their true conviction, this was all about the money they were paid for inciting this mayhem. No point fighting to the death when you have 100M Baht waiting for you.

Martin Luther King Jr, never once called for the burning of any town or city, he was never paid for what he did, he tirelessly worked for the civil rights of millions of Americans, not for the benefit of billionaire corrupt ex leader. His mentor for his approach was Mohatma Ghandhi who practised non-violent resistance even when the authorities were extremely violent. So please study the approach practiced by Martin Luther King Jr. and other US civil rights leaders, and if people anywhere in this country feel their civil rights are not respected by the government, use that approach. Then perhaps the leaders and participants of that protest could be considered heroes.

POST OF THE YEAR!

[rubl]

I find it convenient that all these weapons of mass destruction were found.

Has anyone wondered why they were not used?

Smells a bit fishy.

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

Have a look at post #71.

This being Thailand the blogger you mention probably heard it from the daughter of the sister of the cleaning lady who was present.

Edited May 23, 2010 by rubl

[whybother]

I find it convenient that all these weapons of mass destruction were found.

Has anyone wondered why they were not used?

Smells a bit fishy.

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

"a posting on a blog ... who was privy to a government meeting"

Where is the propaganda coming from?

I've seen anonymous postings on blogs saying the US have caught aliens. I believed that 100% ... it must be true because it's an anonymous posting on a blog.

Do you think it's possible that they left in a hurry, and didn't want to be seen running down Suhkumvit carry big rifles?

Edited May 23, 2010 by whybother

[JamDown]

Exactly! Merriam Webster: Violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>.

Seizing an airport falls under a very destructive act in my book. Just as violent acts in order to intimidate do.

I am certainly not a supporter of the PAD by any means, but I do like to give credit where it is due. The PAD did not seize the airport. Their original intention was to line the access roads to the airport, still allowing people to reach their flights. The Airports Authority of Thailand, fearing seizure, closed the airport themselves and when the PAD realised this, they moved into the terminal building where, presumably, it was more comfortable.

As someone else pointed out in an earlier post, before they left, the terminal had been swept clean and not one item had been taken from the display stands. Contrast that with the reds looting of Central World, many ATMs and 7-Eleven stores. The comparison between the two is startling.

Hear hear, my sentiments exactly. It was the Thai Authorities who closed the airport, and I had a friend who was departing that night who felt the closing was unnecessary. He said none of the protesters were in the Immigration areas or near the departure gates.

None of the PAD looted any duty free shops or businesses at the airport, there was no damage to any of the facilities, and they cleaned up before they left.

Just compare that level of behaviour with what the "khwai daeng" did.

[Vindie]

I find it convenient that all these weapons of mass destruction were found.

Has anyone wondered why they were not used?

Smells a bit fishy.

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

"a posting on a blog ... who was privy to a government meeting"

Where is the propaganda coming from?

I've seen anonymous postings on blogs saying the US have caught aliens. I believed that 100% ... it must be true because it's an anonymous posting on a blog.

Do you think it's possible that they left in a hurry, and didn't want to be seen running down Suhkumvit carry big rifles?

Haha... so true. Anonymous blogs are pretty useless. It's like using government sponsored/controlled media to glean all your facts.

[SomTumTiger]

I find it convenient that all these weapons of mass destruction were found.

Has anyone wondered why they were not used?

Smells a bit fishy.

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

"a posting on a blog ... who was privy to a government meeting"

Where is the propaganda coming from?

I've seen anonymous postings on blogs saying the US have caught aliens. I believed that 100% ... it must be true because it's an anonymous posting on a blog.

Do you think it's possible that they left in a hurry, and didn't want to be seen running down Suhkumvit carry big rifles?

Haha... so true. Anonymous blogs are pretty useless. It's like using government sponsored/controlled media to glean all your facts.

Keep telling yourself that over and over - if it makes you feel better!

[rubl]

"a posting on a blog ... who was privy to a government meeting"

Where is the propaganda coming from?

I've seen anonymous postings on blogs saying the US have caught aliens. I believed that 100% ... it must be true because it's an anonymous posting on a blog.

Do you think it's possible that they left in a hurry, and didn't want to be seen running down Suhkumvit carry big rifles?

Haha... so true. Anonymous blogs are pretty useless. It's like using government sponsored/controlled media to glean all your facts.

Keep telling yourself that over and over - if it makes you feel better!

Yesterday I warned people who go cleanup in BKK today not to touch strange objects, but to mark and report. Just read a tweet "People found a bag of 25 home-made bombs and other explosive devices near the BTS Ratchadamri station"

Does this mean I planted it?

[whybother]

I agree, the Reds had a violent agenda. I wonder why that is? Because all political change in Thailand has been violent?

Anyway, the Red leadership lied and promoted violence. The army lied and promoted violence. The government lied and promoted violence. Who should be the higher moral authority? When the Reds wouldn't negotiate during the televised talks, they lost the moral high ground. When the government sent tens of thousands of heavily armed troops to stop a few thousand protesters, they lost theirs. I still put it to you, who needs to be truthful, and who needs to be transparent? I saw lots of video of black shirts shooting soldiers. I saw tons of videos of army snipers and ordinary troops firing openly on people with nothing in their hands. The Reds were wrong for what they did. The government is not made right by default. These events are about Thais being bad across the board. Again... governments around the world lie, especially when they're agenda is to use violence to achieve their own aims. SE Asia has a horrendous track record when it comes to transparency. They were lying before, and they are lying now. On the ground reports from un-biased reporters show that both sides were doing bad things, but the government has the burden of doing the right thing. If they were, why have they been lying? On one live report I saw a reporter watching the soldiers shooting at unarmed protesters, at which point the studio anchor questioned a Thai government official directly... : "Are you shooting at the protesters?" He repeatedly insisted that the army was only targeting people with heavy weapons (most of which weren't seen or found until after the area had been cleared of journalists and allowed back in).

By the way, you site Thaicom... and I honestly don't know... but how many soldiers were injured or killed by heavy weapons wielded by red shirt protesters at Thaicom?

There were 90,000 security personnel in Bangkok, according to the government. How is that not sufficient to quell 5,000 without bringing heavy caliber machine guns, M-16s, and snipers? And because they brought all that crap from the start, they can't claim they were shot first. hel_l, the weapons used against them were their own in the first place. And now the government wants (and apparently successfully) you to believe that all the deaths (including the journalists) were actually red militants acting on their 'terrorist' agenda. Now Bangkok remains under curfew (not unreasonable), and the evidence being brought out to show the exiled journalists is astounding. There are car bombs everywhere! And the army stopped this all 'just in time'? It must be true. It's on TV.

The government said that there was 50,000 security personnel after the reds said there was going to be a million people protesting, and for everyone to bring bottles to fill up with petrol.

When did the government or army "lie and promote violence"? They were there to protect the general population.

I didn't say that soldiers were killed or injured at Thaicom. I pointed out that protestors pushed through soldiers/police in riot gear. Hence the need to step up proceedings on April 10.

What I don't understand is the argument that because the army had weapons, that gives the right for "peaceful protestors" to have weapons.

I don't believe that everyone that was killed were killed by the reds. It is quite clear that the army killed a lot of people. But to suggest that they were all innocent protesters is a bit niave.

I saw a video of a red lighting a bunch of fire crackers over a tyre barricade. In the smoke and noise, another red started shooting wildly with a high powered weapon over the barricade. So if the guy with fire crackers gets shot, is he just an innocent protestor?

The other morning I also saw a good example of how international police deal with similar problems. A guy armed with a knife had hijacked a bus (I don't know if people were still on it). The police shot him. They couldn't risk that he would drive the bus away and possibly kill other people.

I look at the logic of it. There is no logic in any of the red supporter arguments. There was no logical reason for the army to indiscriminately kill protestors or journalists. And with the numbers that have died, it's obvious the army were not indiscriminately killing protestors. Clearly, it's possible innocents were caught in the cross fire, or were shot accidently, but there would be no logical reason for them to be deliberately targeted. What does the government gain from any of that? The government haven't denied that some deaths and injuries of journalists have been caused by the army.

The government and army did all they could to avoid confrontation. The reds did everything that they could to cause confrontation. The reds showed what they were about when they started burning down buildings in Bangkok and the provinces. Why does a few car bombs come as a surprise?

I don't simply believe everything the government says. I definitely don't believe much that the reds have said. They have lied too much to believe anything that comes from them. I look at the independent evidence, and the evidence from each side, and form my own opinion. At the moment, the evidence from the government supports the independent evidence far more than the reds do.

[nickupton]

The True reds Started off By peaceful means, Then I think the hard line took the opportunity to cause mayhem, And some people just jumped on the Bandwagon because they like anarchy, I think the Thai government showed great restraint, There was never going to be any Winners.

No they didn't start off peacefully, there were threats of arson and murder before they began. Can't believe you still haven't seen the Arisman video.

Edited May 23, 2010 by nickupton

[whybother]

Exactly, especially when I saw a posting on a blog from a Thai who was privy to a Government meeting days before when it was decided to plant the stuff and set it all up. Anyway, if they really had these weapons, why didn't the radicals take them with them? LMFAO at the stupidity of the argument for this evidence.

Propaganda - oldest trick in the book and these wackos are using it all the time. Don't believe any official stories in this country, whoever is in control!

"a posting on a blog ... who was privy to a government meeting"

Where is the propaganda coming from?

I've seen anonymous postings on blogs saying the US have caught aliens. I believed that 100% ... it must be true because it's an anonymous posting on a blog.

Do you think it's possible that they left in a hurry, and didn't want to be seen running down Suhkumvit carry big rifles?

Haha... so true. Anonymous blogs are pretty useless. It's like using government sponsored/controlled media to glean all your facts.

And all the independent evidence? Particularly videos and photos. Do you ignore all of those?