Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage

[Rucharee]

Didn't I warn you before?

Farang media, especially CNN & BBC are bad.

Best to follow Thai meadia, especially NBT & ASTV.

Don't say I never warn you again.

[philw]

I don't know who definitively did any specific shootings. I'm waiting for the investigation. I just saw a bold statement on your part that something had definitively occurred and had asked for evidence of that. After some further obfuscation, you've subsequently retracted your statement, and thus the issue concludes in that regard.

Looks like wit, wisdom and even sarcasm are wasted here........

They are tricky them Gremlins.........shooting all those people while the area was surrounded by about 30,000 armed troops........Wonder how did they ( Gremlins and Arisman ) even got away ?

Enjoy the last word.

ph

[Siam Simon]

<snip>

..............But, can I ask,LJester<snip>

It's also worth asking Sriracha John. He'll have some interesting opinions and plenty of entertaining photos accompanied by witty one-liners. Oh, I forgot! Sriracha John is a banned member.

[termad]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Same old Mark Twain of the swamps. There is a BBC complaint procedure and if you think that their reporting was biased you can follow that procedure and you will get a reply.

But on the other hand when the PM stands up in Parliament and not only states that there were no troops on the railway overlooking the the Temple but produces diagrams of bullet entry wounds to prove his statement is that also bias and if it is who does one complain to without risking being tossed into gaol under the emergency decree. The Sunday Post printed pictures showing those Special Forces troops on the railway line with rifles pointing staight down into the Temple.

Pardon me.

Who would you rather believe?

The creditable PM Mark or the entertaining Sunday Post.

PM Mark is responsible for what he said. While your Sunday Post will just print a a small apology in the hay stack if the complaints gather enough momentum.

Yeah Yeah and the photos shown in the Post were fake and statements/comments from military personnel agreeing that there were Special Forces on the railway line were a pack of lies.

[rabo]

..........Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

Sorry for the long answer, quick one liners are often less that helpful.

This is what I think based on the entirety of all I have seen, read, and understand of the violence.

1. The 60 to 80 bombings recorded throughout the country during this time. Definitely the red side but probably range from intended bombings by organized militant elements to irresponsible people or even juveniles setting off homemade bombs.

2. April 10th. The assassination of the military field commanders and initial targeting of soldiers as well as some protestors was preplanned and done by undercover red militant factions. Subsequent shooting of protestors by the army most likely occurred as the commander-less troops tried to respond to a surprise attack. This event was pre-planned by a red faction. Just before it began, 7 plastic explosive bombs were detonated on the main power lines feeding Bangkok. A major clue into the nature of the conflict.

3. Japanese photographer killed April 10, the government later admitted he was shot by the army by accident.

4. Attempted destruction of Bangkok's power supply and RPG attack on jet fuel storage depot, definitely organized red militants. This is clear terrorism.

5. April 28, (my birthday), the shooting of an army officer was initially reported as friendly fire and later attributed to black shirted militants. Most likely not friendly fire as he was shot in the head, side to side.

6. M79 grenade attacks on yellow shirts at Silom, most likely red elements, thought I don't see it is proven.

7. RPG attack on the Dusit Hotel upper floors - clearly the reds.

8. May 19. All M-79 and other grenade attacks by the reds/blacks. Clearly the military had orders to use rubber bullets (2 thirds of all soldiers photographed had rubber bullet guns), shoot for the legs, or shoot in defense. The lopsided number of deaths and injuries suggests the military did not intend to take a large number of casualties as they had on April 10. Protesters were shot by the army. Some of those killed were clearly part of a threat, others may well have been collateral causalities.

9. May 19. The obvious targeting of reporters, rescue workers wearing clearly visible uniforms, and innocent

people in the temple. - Clearly not the work of the army according to their orders. Surely done by an organized group intend on discrediting the government to cause its collapse. Possibly by the same organized group that started things on April 10th. Just maybe some other mysterious group that wanted the government to collapse.

10. Successful arson of 36 buildings - mostly the reds, probably planned, setting major fires is not that easy.

I don't know how to answer the question "who did the shooting" with less bias.

[philw]

..........Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

Sorry for the long answer, quick one liners are often less that helpful.

This is what I think based on the entirety of all I have seen, read, and understand of the violence.

1. The 60 to 80 bombings recorded throughout the country during this time. Definitely the red side but probably range from intended bombings by organized militant elements to irresponsible people or even juveniles setting off homemade bombs.

2. April 10th. The assassination of the military field commanders and initial targeting of soldiers as well as some protestors was preplanned and done by undercover red militant factions. Subsequent shooting of protestors by the army most likely occurred as the commander-less troops tried to respond to a surprise attack. This event was pre-planned by a red faction. Just before it began, 7 plastic explosive bombs were detonated on the main power lines feeding Bangkok. A major clue into the nature of the conflict.

3. Japanese photographer killed April 10, the government later admitted he was shot by the army by accident.

4. Attempted destruction of Bangkok's power supply and RPG attack on jet fuel storage depot, definitely organized red militants. This is clear terrorism.

5. April 28, (my birthday), the shooting of an army officer was initially reported as friendly fire and later attributed to black shirted militants. Most likely not friendly fire as he was shot in the head, side to side.

6. M79 grenade attacks on yellow shirts at Silom, most likely red elements, thought I don't see it is proven.

7. RPG attack on the Dusit Hotel upper floors - clearly the reds.

8. May 19. All M-79 and other grenade attacks by the reds/blacks. Clearly the military had orders to use rubber bullets (2 thirds of all soldiers photographed had rubber bullet guns), shoot for the legs, or shoot in defense. The lopsided number of deaths and injuries suggests the military did not intend to take a large number of casualties as they had on April 10. Protesters were shot by the army. Some of those killed were clearly part of a threat, others may well have been collateral causalities.

9. May 19. The obvious targeting of reporters, rescue workers wearing clearly visible uniforms, and innocent

people in the temple. - Clearly not the work of the army according to their orders. Surely done by an organized group intend on discrediting the government to cause its collapse. Possibly by the same organized group that started things on April 10th. Just maybe some other mysterious group that wanted the government to collapse.

10. Successful arson of 36 buildings - mostly the reds, probably planned, setting major fires is not that easy.

I don't know how to answer the question "who did the shooting" with less bias.

The demonstrators were total baddies, the 88 dead and 1,800 or so injured civilians merely collateral damage and the RTA are blameless.

Wow, So that's all right then, it was all a big accident and they should go home and resume life as it was.

I fear not.

I Think this problem is going to get a lot worse.

ph

[Rucharee]

..........Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

Sorry for the long answer, quick one liners are often less that helpful.

This is what I think based on the entirety of all I have seen, read, and understand of the violence.

1. The 60 to 80 bombings recorded throughout the country during this time. Definitely the red side but probably range from intended bombings by organized militant elements to irresponsible people or even juveniles setting off homemade bombs.

2. April 10th. The assassination of the military field commanders and initial targeting of soldiers as well as some protestors was preplanned and done by undercover red militant factions. Subsequent shooting of protestors by the army most likely occurred as the commander-less troops tried to respond to a surprise attack. This event was pre-planned by a red faction. Just before it began, 7 plastic explosive bombs were detonated on the main power lines feeding Bangkok. A major clue into the nature of the conflict.

3. Japanese photographer killed April 10, the government later admitted he was shot by the army by accident.

4. Attempted destruction of Bangkok's power supply and RPG attack on jet fuel storage depot, definitely organized red militants. This is clear terrorism.

5. April 28, (my birthday), the shooting of an army officer was initially reported as friendly fire and later attributed to black shirted militants. Most likely not friendly fire as he was shot in the head, side to side.

6. M79 grenade attacks on yellow shirts at Silom, most likely red elements, thought I don't see it is proven.

7. RPG attack on the Dusit Hotel upper floors - clearly the reds.

8. May 19. All M-79 and other grenade attacks by the reds/blacks. Clearly the military had orders to use rubber bullets (2 thirds of all soldiers photographed had rubber bullet guns), shoot for the legs, or shoot in defense. The lopsided number of deaths and injuries suggests the military did not intend to take a large number of casualties as they had on April 10. Protesters were shot by the army. Some of those killed were clearly part of a threat, others may well have been collateral causalities.

9. May 19. The obvious targeting of reporters, rescue workers wearing clearly visible uniforms, and innocent

people in the temple. - Clearly not the work of the army according to their orders. Surely done by an organized group intend on discrediting the government to cause its collapse. Possibly by the same organized group that started things on April 10th. Just maybe some other mysterious group that wanted the government to collapse.

10. Successful arson of 36 buildings - mostly the reds, probably planned, setting major fires is not that easy.

I don't know how to answer the question "who did the shooting" with less bias.

The demonstrators were total baddies, the 88 dead and 1,800 or so injured civilians merely collateral damage and the RTA are blameless.

Wow, So that's all right then, it was all a big accident and they should go home and resume life as it was.

I fear not.

I Think this problem is going to get a lot worse.

ph

Why not.

The truth is always the truth.

The army did not kill anyone (I didn't say that, Mark did), why would you force it on them.

[scorecard]

..........Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

Sorry for the long answer, quick one liners are often less that helpful.

This is what I think based on the entirety of all I have seen, read, and understand of the violence.

1. The 60 to 80 bombings recorded throughout the country during this time. Definitely the red side but probably range from intended bombings by organized militant elements to irresponsible people or even juveniles setting off homemade bombs.

2. April 10th. The assassination of the military field commanders and initial targeting of soldiers as well as some protestors was preplanned and done by undercover red militant factions. Subsequent shooting of protestors by the army most likely occurred as the commander-less troops tried to respond to a surprise attack. This event was pre-planned by a red faction. Just before it began, 7 plastic explosive bombs were detonated on the main power lines feeding Bangkok. A major clue into the nature of the conflict.

3. Japanese photographer killed April 10, the government later admitted he was shot by the army by accident.

4. Attempted destruction of Bangkok's power supply and RPG attack on jet fuel storage depot, definitely organized red militants. This is clear terrorism.

5. April 28, (my birthday), the shooting of an army officer was initially reported as friendly fire and later attributed to black shirted militants. Most likely not friendly fire as he was shot in the head, side to side.

6. M79 grenade attacks on yellow shirts at Silom, most likely red elements, thought I don't see it is proven.

7. RPG attack on the Dusit Hotel upper floors - clearly the reds.

8. May 19. All M-79 and other grenade attacks by the reds/blacks. Clearly the military had orders to use rubber bullets (2 thirds of all soldiers photographed had rubber bullet guns), shoot for the legs, or shoot in defense. The lopsided number of deaths and injuries suggests the military did not intend to take a large number of casualties as they had on April 10. Protesters were shot by the army. Some of those killed were clearly part of a threat, others may well have been collateral causalities.

9. May 19. The obvious targeting of reporters, rescue workers wearing clearly visible uniforms, and innocent

people in the temple. - Clearly not the work of the army according to their orders. Surely done by an organized group intend on discrediting the government to cause its collapse. Possibly by the same organized group that started things on April 10th. Just maybe some other mysterious group that wanted the government to collapse.

10. Successful arson of 36 buildings - mostly the reds, probably planned, setting major fires is not that easy.

I don't know how to answer the question "who did the shooting" with less bias.

The demonstrators were total baddies, the 88 dead and 1,800 or so injured civilians merely collateral damage and the RTA are blameless.

Wow, So that's all right then, it was all a big accident and they should go home and resume life as it was.

I fear not.

I Think this problem is going to get a lot worse.

ph

Silly comment. Nobody is suggesting that mistakes were not made all round.

[jayboy]

This should give some of the more rabid critics of the foreign media pause for thought - but it probably won't.

http://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2010/06/12/thaksin_and_me/

[scorecard]

Quote from hansum, on 2010-06-13 00:48, said:

"What i dont get is how with these people have the nerve to criticise CNN when the lack of free speech in Thailand created by their beloved present govt."

This is the most ridiculous comment i've ever seen on TV. Suggest the OP dry out.

[rabo]

This should give some of the more rabid critics of the foreign media pause for thought - but it probably won't.

http://blogs.reuters...thaksin_and_me/

It is a good article and an enjoyable read. Reuters usually is. Time is better, I trust Time before I read what they say.

It does not change my opinion of CNN and the BBC's modern sound-bite commercialism though admittedly, the BBC was once upon a time the definition of world class news.

[TAWP]

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

[rabo]

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.

[andyww]

From speaking to people who have no Thai connections and relied on the BBC coverage to gain their impressions of what went on, the impression they conveyed was of pro-democracy campaigners rising up against a dictatorial oppressive government.

As I explained to them, the reality was more akin to a bunch of football hooligans. Most of them were egged-on by inflammatory speeches to support "their side" when they had little understanding of exactly what they were reporting.

Also the BBC completely failed to report the fact that the reds were completely split, between a small number of genuine campaigners, led by long-time democracy campaigner Veera Musikapong, and a group of total thugs, who in the end destroyed the whole red movement, including the moderates.

[jayboy]

From speaking to people who have no Thai connections and relied on the BBC coverage to gain their impressions of what went on, the impression they conveyed was of pro-democracy campaigners rising up against a dictatorial oppressive government.

As I explained to them, the reality was more akin to a bunch of football hooligans. Most of them were egged-on by inflammatory speeches to support "their side" when they had little understanding of exactly what they were reporting.

Also the BBC completely failed to report the fact that the reds were completely split, between a small number of genuine campaigners, led by long-time democracy campaigner Veera Musikapong, and a group of total thugs, who in the end destroyed the whole red movement, including the moderates.

So, even hypothetically accepting the BBC coverage was misleading (in my view it wasn't particularly) why did you present such a moronic, half baked and unperceptive alternative interpretation.Frankly given the choice between the BBC and this kind of half educated bar talk, I know who I would give more credence to.

[jayboy]

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.

Yes some soldiers were injured and killed and that's a tragedy.They did their duty and prevented bloodshed on a greater scale.But the vast majority of the dead were unarmed civilians.

[Slip]

From speaking to people who have no Thai connections and relied on the BBC coverage to gain their impressions of what went on, the impression they conveyed was of pro-democracy campaigners rising up against a dictatorial oppressive government.

As I explained to them, the reality was more akin to a bunch of football hooligans. Most of them were egged-on by inflammatory speeches to support "their side" when they had little understanding of exactly what they were reporting.

Also the BBC completely failed to report the fact that the reds were completely split, between a small number of genuine campaigners, led by long-time democracy campaigner Veera Musikapong, and a group of total thugs, who in the end destroyed the whole red movement, including the moderates.

So, even hypothetically accepting the BBC coverage was misleading (in my view it wasn't particularly) why did you present such a moronic, half baked and unperceptive alternative interpretation.Frankly given the choice between the BBC and this kind of half educated bar talk, I know who I would give more credence to.

^^Well luckily for him, Andy is not an international news agency with its head up its arse. So his credibility isn't really much of an issue. You don't consult him for your news, and surely you don't imagine whatever he says must be factually correct? He gives his opinion. The Beeb are supposed to provide news reporting.

Then you flame him. Nice.

[philw]

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Sorry if I am wrong, appreciate it if you can post the correct figure.

On your reckoning how many dead and injured during the period of demonstration ???

I am especially interested in your breakdown of soldiers killed, injured and demonstrators killed , injured.

And your sources please.

Phil

[Slip]

OK- this shouldn't be so hard for an educated guy like you. Here is the flame:

and this kind of half educated bar talk

Meanwhile, the BBC were clearly distorting the position. That's why there was a sudden groundswell of complaint against them. Are you saying the Reds didn't behave like football hooligans? Fair enough- they behaved much worse. Are you saying they didn't make inflammatory speeches? Are you suggesting that the average Red protestor (as opposed to the well paid military wing) understood the hideous nature of the plans to burn down parts of their city? His reply wasn't so fatuous.

Then you flamed him

[philw]

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.

Hiya Ribo and sorry if the figure I quoted is not correct, perhaps you can post the correct figure ?

On your reckoning how many dead and injured during the period of demonstrations ???

I am especially interested in your breakdown of soldiers killed, injured and demonstrators killed , injured.

And your sources please.

Phil

Read more: Replying To Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage - Thailand Forum http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/add-reply-f18-to374111.html&qpid=3690524#ixzz0r20YRSYV

[rabo]

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves<br />

<br /><br />Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.<br />

<br />Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.<br />

<br /><br />Hiya Ribo and sorry if the figure I quoted is not correct, perhaps you can post the correct figure ?<br /><br />On your reckoning how many dead and injured during the period of demonstrations ???<br /><br />I am especially interested in your breakdown of soldiers killed, injured and demonstrators killed , injured.<br /><br />And your sources please.<br /><br />Phil<br /><br />Read more: Replying To Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage - Thailand Forum <a href='http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/add-reply-f18-to374111.html&qpid=3690524#ixzz0r20YRSYV' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.thaivisa....4#ixzz0r20YRSYV</a><br />

<br /><br /><br />

I think it was your figures that were being challanged so perhaps you can do the research.

I only pointed out that many people seem to slide right past the fact that many soldiers were killed and injured as well. Point being, how on EARTH have so many soldiers been wounded and killed if as many claim, they were just out shooting innocent civilians. Just like I said, doesn't click, some are talking about half of a story.

And I think that was the point about the international media, their reporting left a big hole.

[way2muchcoffee]

The last figures I took down from the BP are as follows:

Security Forces Injured: 411

Protesters/Civilians Injured: 991

Total Injured: 1402

Security Forces Killed: 11

Protesters/Civilians Killed: 74

Total Killed: 85

Security Forces Casualties: 422

Protester/Civilian Casualties: 1065

Total Causualties: 1487

These numbers were later revised upwards but I don't have the exact figures.

Nearly 1/3 of the injured were security forces, while between 10 and 15% of those killed were from the security forces.

Alternately, a little over 2/3 of the injured were demonstrators, while between 85 and 90% of those killed were from the demonstrators.

(It should also be noted that the demonstrator numbers include civilians who were neither demonstrators nor security forces.)

Other Interesting Tidbits

Burned Buildings

Siam Theater

Municipal Electricity Khlong Toei

Centara Hotel

Grand Diamond Hotel

SET

SEER Rangsit

7-11 Din Daeng

Central Chid Lom

Central World and Zen

Paragon

BTS Chid Lom

MRT Khlong Toei

MRT Queen Sirikit

Center One Department Store

MK Restaurant Siam

Ministry of Narcotics

Channel 3 Thailand

Din Daeng Flats

TESCO Rama IV

Mahachon Building

Big C Rajdamri

Many Bank Branches in BKK

Burned Government Buildings

City Hall Ubon Ratchathani

City Hall Udon Thani

City Hall Mukdahan

City Hall Khon Kaen

City Hall Nonthaburi

City Hall Nakhon Ratchasima

Bombing

TESCO On Nut

BKK Bank Phrahkhanong

Additionally there were nearly 100 other bombs at various locations

Looting

Looting reported at many 7-11 Stores

Looting at Central World

Looting at Siam Square

Note: These were taken from from reports at TNN, BP, Nation, TAN, etc. There was some erroneous reporting during the hysteria that followed the surrender of redshirt leaders, so the lists above may have a few errors.

Edited June 16, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[BNZ]

 

I daresay there were those back in Derry in 1972 who were ranting in the same vicious or ignorant way about the Bogside marchers.

Whether Abhisit has the courage and decency of Cameron one somehow doubts to own up.

Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead.

Broadly speaking the BBC got it right.The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth.

" Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead."

80 Unarmed civilians ?

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

Fatuous statements such as this have probably gained traction amongst your duped or 'paid' ilk but detract from the armed Red Shirts who naively believed they were fighting for a just cause..

 ..ie; in death you have shamefully diminished even them !

But I'll leave you with a quote ....

"The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth." 'jayboy'

 

[philw]

 

I daresay there were those back in Derry in 1972 who were ranting in the same vicious or ignorant way about the Bogside marchers.

Whether Abhisit has the courage and decency of Cameron one somehow doubts to own up.

Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead.

Broadly speaking the BBC got it right.The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth.

" Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead."

80 Unarmed civilians ?

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

Fatuous statements such as this have probably gained traction amongst your duped or 'paid' ilk but detract from the armed Red Shirts who naively believed they were fighting for a just cause..

 ..ie; in death you have shamefully diminished even them !

But I'll leave you with a quote ....

"The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth." 'jayboy'

 

Amazing.

Am I correct, you believe that the over 80 dead were in fact all armed, with guns I presume ???

Is this what you are suggesting ??

What about the injured civilians, they were also all armed with guns ???

ph

[bacchanal]

Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead.

80 Unarmed civilians ?

But I'll leave you with a quote ....

"The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth." 'jayboy'

Amazing.

Am I correct, you believe that the over 80 dead were in fact all armed, with guns I presume ???

Is this what you are suggesting ??

No reason to presume he is suggesting all were armed. He neither said that nor did I presume that was what he meant, but simply that he was suggesting that not all were unarmed... or in other words, some were, some weren't.

Everything doesn't require a complete pendulum swing from one extreme statement to another.

Edited June 17, 2010 by bacchanal

[philw]

I think it was your figures that were being challanged so perhaps you can do the research.

I only pointed out that many people seem to slide right past the fact that many soldiers were killed and injured as well. Point being, how on EARTH have so many soldiers been wounded and killed if as many claim, they were just out shooting innocent civilians. Just like I said, doesn't click, some are talking about half of a story.

And I think that was the point about the international media, their reporting left a big hole.

There is no disputing ,or "sliding around" the fact that soldiers were killed and injured and the inference contained in your post is incorrect.

How about...

Thitinan Pongsudhirak

13 Jun 2010

Pongsudhirak

After its deadliest and costliest political crisis that claimed 89 lives, more than 1,800 injuries and the torching of Bangkok’s gleaming shopping malls and run-down shop houses, Thailand appears no closer to peace and stability than when the protesting red shirts took to the streets two months ago. The relative calm in Bangkok is a needed reprieve but it belies more turbulence and tumult unless reconciliation and reform efforts are undertaken to address the grievances of both sides of the deepening divide.

Thailand's Democratic Dead-End | Opinion Asia

ph

[Rucharee]

Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead.

80 Unarmed civilians ?

But I'll leave you with a quote ....

"The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth." 'jayboy'

Amazing.

Am I correct, you believe that the over 80 dead were in fact all armed, with guns I presume ???

Is this what you are suggesting ??

No reason to presume he is suggesting all were armed. He neither said that nor did I presume that was what he meant, but simply that he was suggesting that not all were unarmed... or in other words, some were, some weren't.

Everything doesn't require a complete pendulum swing from one extreme statement to another.

Seh Deang WAS armed, and I have photo proof.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Rucharee

[BNZ]

 

I daresay there were those back in Derry in 1972 who were ranting in the same vicious or ignorant way about the Bogside marchers.

Whether Abhisit has the courage and decency of Cameron one somehow doubts to own up.

Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead.

Broadly speaking the BBC got it right.The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth.

" Nearly 80 unarmed civilians are dead."

80 Unarmed civilians ?

Please post your 'proof' here so that the world media and especially the Thai Govt and the Red Shirts can 

access it as it will be necessary for their investigations.

Fatuous statements such as this have probably gained traction amongst your duped or 'paid' ilk but detract from the armed Red Shirts who naively believed they were fighting for a just cause..

 ..ie; in death you have shamefully diminished even them !

But I'll leave you with a quote ....

"The ignorant and prejudiced hate the truth." 'jayboy'

 

Amazing.

Am I correct, you believe that the over 80 dead were in fact all armed, with guns I presume ???

Is this what you are suggesting ??

What about the injured civilians, they were also all armed with guns ???

ph

As I and most of us have seen video to the contrary I am certainly not suggesting this but I would like to see the poster present 'proof' of this reckless statement.

As it ensures credibility to the poster and the forum I'm sure you would have no problem with that  ..

Would you ? 

[TAWP]

Protesters/Civilians Injured: 991

And this is while phil tries to infer that it is around 1800 - as I said, the red shirt history revisionism has already started. Twice the numbers today, 5 times the number by the end of the summer.

Just look back some week ago when one of them claimed the airport was seized for almost 1 year...mind-boggling.

[Rucharee]

Protesters/Civilians Injured: 991

And this is while phil tries to infer that it is around 1800 - as I said, the red shirt history revisionism has already started. Twice the numbers today, 5 times the number by the end of the summer.

Just look back some week ago when one of them claimed the airport was seized for almost 1 year...mind-boggling.

The airport was seized for almost TWO years ago.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Rucharee