Bbc Documentary: Red Rage

[virtualtraveller]

Haven't seen the documentary but there are three critical points that no reporter has mentioned here;

1. Thailand averted a situation where the govt was forced out by a mob

2. The king didn't get involved

3. There was no coup

All three of those means Thailand democracy survived a pretty important test, for which we will be thankful for in the future.

[montrii]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might have established this himself. . . .

Thanks, good list. The international coverage of this is infuriatingly shallow. I guess it's just too much trouble to dig for the truth when you have such a "sexy" story about democratic yearnings waiting for you on the surface.

[Thai at Heart]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might have established this himself. . . .

Thanks, good list. The international coverage of this is infuriatingly shallow. I guess it's just too much trouble to dig for the truth when you have such a "sexy" story about democratic yearnings waiting for you on the surface.

Considering how smugly and with such self satisfaction, the country allows coups and any other myriad of political wrongdoing with a universal statement of "you don't understand, Thailand is different", the "authorities" can hardly thrown their hands in the air when they complain that the international media doesn't explain the situation.

Maybe if the government,realised that sometimes adhering to international standards all the time, would ingratiate itself to the international media a little better so that they might be able to understand the issues of Thailand a little better.

This story starts with "Once upon a time, in a place far far away, a court decided that a billionaire giving shares to his driver didn't constitute a conflict of interest". To which the world can simply shrug its shoulders and say. "You what?"

If people want the international press to really tell the WHOLE story, I don't think the people of Thailand would like it one bit.

[kissdani]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might of established this himself.

The footage shown of the protester being shot in the foot - the army did warn people they'd be using live rounds, and the shot wasn't fatal, in accordance with the tactics they said they would be using.

Could've been much worse, but still more than a few glaring omissions.

Just a minor remark here. No tanks this time, only APC's.

only APC's?

A couple of new reports spoke of tanks in the streets of Bangkok. 'heavily armed vehicle on tracks' a lot of civilians would call tanks and not APC.

Honestly, the friendly and smooth 4-letter word 'tank' is an euphemism for APC, 'tank' is a word civilians easy understand and prefer to use. APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers. Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

[bartlaz]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

I agree that Al Jazeera was the best reporting during the crisis. For some reason the BBC and CNN had and still have rose colored glasses on. The Red Rage show was just a rehash of their reports with little background information, especially Thaksin's role in the whole thing. It made some short reference to people being paid, then cut to some red shirt "spokesman" denying it. It was another, oh the poor red shirts just want "democracy" piece. With a bit of the government's point of view thrown in to make it appear slightly balanced. Hum, they call that journalism? Or a sensationalistic show for ratings?

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

lucky u all born rich

lucky u don't need to know what millions of people in this country have to face every single day for a poor meal

lucky u

next life, maybe u will try how it taste

[wayfarer108]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

I agree that Al Jazeera was the best reporting during the crisis. For some reason the BBC and CNN had and still have rose colored glasses on. The Red Rage show was just a rehash of their reports with little background information, especially Thaksin's role in the whole thing. It made some short reference to people being paid, then cut to some red shirt "spokesman" denying it. It was another, oh the poor red shirts just want "democracy" piece. With a bit of the government's point of view thrown in to make it appear slightly balanced. Hum, they call that journalism? Or a sensationalistic show for ratings?

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

lucky u all born rich

lucky u don't need to know what millions of people in this country have to face every single day for a poor meal

lucky u

next life, maybe u will try how it taste

Maybe the so-called "poor" could try something called elections instead of violence, ballots instead of bullets.

Of course anyone who understands the UDD knows it has absolutely nothing to do with poverty or inequality. Just ask yourself whether if the UDD had been able to overthrow the government without elections, as was their stated intention, would anything have changed in this country vis a vis poverty, justice and inequality? Of course not. The UDD leaders themselves are the oppressors of the poor in Isan, not the incumbent administration. The UDD and their puppetmaster want a US-Thailand FTA passed. If they are successful, that will only widen the wealth gap and make farmers and local agricultural traders poorer.

[Suradit]

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

It would be equally interesting to have some of the posters on TV define "DEMOCRACY."

Judging from the messages posted here over the past few months more than a few people are quite confident it doesn't exist in Thailand, but that its practice approaches perfection in __________ [fill in the blank ... USA, UK, Canada, etc], where all politicians are selfless, free of corruption, serve the electorate, and so forth.

Most people, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, define "DEMOCRACY" (or anything else for that matter) in terms of what they get out of it or what they believe they are getting out of it.

If you have money, property & power and feel comfortable, then democracy means keeping things as they are. Change is viewed with suspicion. If you are poor, uneducated and see little hope that you or your children will ever enjoy a better life, then democracy means changing the status quo. You have nothing to lose by fighting for change

In most countries, including UK or USA, you have very little choice over who is elected to office. Generally by the time you are allowed to put your X on a ballot, you are asked to pick between one of two or three people who were chosen for you by other politicians, by big business and by others with self-serving motivation. That selection process for candidates is seldom even remotely democratic.

Then, so you won't feel totally ignored, they make a big deal out of allowing you to choose which of the two or three candidates looks less capable of destroying your country through pointless wars, fraud, corruption and outright theft of public funds.

Then these people who you chose to represent you get busy defending those who contributed the most to their campaigns, they vote on legislation in compliance with their party's dictates and their main activity is doing whatever is needed to get re-elected. They are discovered to be padding their expense account allowances to finance second homes, remodel & refurnish their primary residences and take fact-finding trips to Bali or Cannes. The louder they preach "family values," the more certain you can be that they are having sexual relations with men, women, children, animals and/or inanimate objects unrelated to them. In other words, they tend to fit the profile of your average prison inmate.

Complaints about government & politicians in Thailand have some validity, but when those who are doing the complaining suggest that Thailand compares poorly to the US, UK, other European countries, Australia, etc, that's unsophisticated chauvinistic naiveté. You really need to take a closer look at what's happening in your own countries before suggesting that Thailand needs to be more like the stellar examples back in The People's Democratic Republic of Farang Utopia.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Suradit

[TAWP]

Just a minor remark here. No tanks this time, only APC's.

only APC's?

A couple of new reports spoke of tanks in the streets of Bangkok. 'heavily armed vehicle on tracks' a lot of civilians would call tanks and not APC.

Honestly, the friendly and smooth 4-letter word 'tank' is an euphemism for APC, 'tank' is a word civilians easy understand and prefer to use. APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers. Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

No actual reports from people in the field, and I am not talking about people posting rumours on the forum, reported any tanks and showed pictures of any. The tanks would have no use in the operation, only APCs was used.

And your defense that APCs can be called tank or that APC is hard for people to understand is clear back-tracking and pure nonsense.

Let's take the first definition here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Atank&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

"an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar treads"

An APC does not full-fill this definition. And the goal is to use the correct terms, not to falsely use the incorrect ones. So I would appreciate if you would stop saying that tanks was used.

[evanson]

Why is the BBC so biased toward Taksin. TWICE (Jonathan <deleted>)?

Surely no one's suggesring the beeb are receiving backhanders for this?

I do remember Taksin being interviewed by someone, along the lines of 'Hard Talk', and being very much shown up for the crook he is. This was when the Tammaset debacle was going on, just before they booted the bugger out.

So, why have they been sucking up to him ever since?

[kevc]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

It's on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

[Jimi007]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

I agree that Al Jazeera was the best reporting during the crisis. For some reason the BBC and CNN had and still have rose colored glasses on. The Red Rage show was just a rehash of their reports with little background information, especially Thaksin's role in the whole thing. It made some short reference to people being paid, then cut to some red shirt "spokesman" denying it. It was another, oh the poor red shirts just want "democracy" piece. With a bit of the government's point of view thrown in to make it appear slightly balanced. Hum, they call that journalism? Or a sensationalistic show for ratings?

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

lucky u all born rich

lucky u don't need to know what millions of people in this country have to face every single day for a poor meal

lucky u

next life, maybe u will try how it taste

Now, what does this load of tripe have to do with the topic?

[rabo]

only APC's?

A couple of new reports spoke of tanks in the streets of Bangkok. 'heavily armed vehicle on tracks' a lot of civilians would call tanks and not APC.

Honestly, the friendly and smooth 4-letter word 'tank' is an euphemism for APC, 'tank' is a word civilians easy understand and prefer to use. APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers. Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

Your last point is fair enough. To remain unforgiving though, perhaps the reds mistook the Ducit Hotel for a tank, since they were shooting anti-tank RPGs at it.

[kuifje]

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

It would be equally interesting to have some of the posters on TV define "DEMOCRACY."

Judging from the messages posted here over the past few months more than a few people are quite confident it doesn't exist in Thailand, but that its practice approaches perfection in __________ [fill in the blank ... USA, UK, Canada, etc], where all politicians are selfless, free of corruption, serve the electorate, and so forth.

Most people, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, define "DEMOCRACY" (or anything else for that matter) in terms of what they get out of it or what they believe they are getting out of it.

If you have money, property & power and feel comfortable, then democracy means keeping things as they are. Change is viewed with suspicion. If you are poor, uneducated and see little hope that you or your children will ever enjoy a better life, then democracy means changing the status quo. You have nothing to lose by fighting for change

In most countries, including UK or USA, you have very little choice over who is elected to office. Generally by the time you are allowed to put your X on a ballot, you are asked to pick between one of two or three people who were chosen for you by other politicians, by big business and by others with self-serving motivation. That selection process for candidates is seldom even remotely democratic.

Then, so you won't feel totally ignored, they make a big deal out of allowing you to choose which of the two or three candidates looks less capable of destroying your country through pointless wars, fraud, corruption and outright theft of public funds.

Then these people who you chose to represent you get busy defending those who contributed the most to their campaigns, they vote on legislation in compliance with their party's dictates and their main activity is doing whatever is needed to get re-elected. They are discovered to be padding their expense account allowances to finance second homes, remodel & refurnish their primary residences and take fact-finding trips to Bali or Cannes. The louder they preach "family values," the more certain you can be that they are having sexual relations with men, women, children, animals and/or inanimate objects unrelated to them. In other words, they tend to fit the profile of your average prison inmate.

Complaints about government & politicians in Thailand have some validity, but when those who are doing the complaining suggest that Thailand compares poorly to the US, UK, other European countries, Australia, etc, that's unsophisticated chauvinistic naiveté. You really need to take a closer look at what's happening in your own countries before suggesting that Thailand needs to be more like the stellar examples back in The People's Democratic Republic of Farang Utopia.

Thank you, Suradit, very good formulated and to the point.

To many foreigners living here, see things way out of their context.

[kuifje]

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

It would be equally interesting to have some of the posters on TV define "DEMOCRACY."

Judging from the messages posted here over the past few months more than a few people are quite confident it doesn't exist in Thailand, but that its practice approaches perfection in __________ [fill in the blank ... USA, UK, Canada, etc], where all politicians are selfless, free of corruption, serve the electorate, and so forth.

Most people, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, define "DEMOCRACY" (or anything else for that matter) in terms of what they get out of it or what they believe they are getting out of it.

If you have money, property & power and feel comfortable, then democracy means keeping things as they are. Change is viewed with suspicion. If you are poor, uneducated and see little hope that you or your children will ever enjoy a better life, then democracy means changing the status quo. You have nothing to lose by fighting for change

In most countries, including UK or USA, you have very little choice over who is elected to office. Generally by the time you are allowed to put your X on a ballot, you are asked to pick between one of two or three people who were chosen for you by other politicians, by big business and by others with self-serving motivation. That selection process for candidates is seldom even remotely democratic.

Then, so you won't feel totally ignored, they make a big deal out of allowing you to choose which of the two or three candidates looks less capable of destroying your country through pointless wars, fraud, corruption and outright theft of public funds.

Then these people who you chose to represent you get busy defending those who contributed the most to their campaigns, they vote on legislation in compliance with their party's dictates and their main activity is doing whatever is needed to get re-elected. They are discovered to be padding their expense account allowances to finance second homes, remodel & refurnish their primary residences and take fact-finding trips to Bali or Cannes. The louder they preach "family values," the more certain you can be that they are having sexual relations with men, women, children, animals and/or inanimate objects unrelated to them. In other words, they tend to fit the profile of your average prison inmate.

Complaints about government & politicians in Thailand have some validity, but when those who are doing the complaining suggest that Thailand compares poorly to the US, UK, other European countries, Australia, etc, that's unsophisticated chauvinistic naiveté. You really need to take a closer look at what's happening in your own countries before suggesting that Thailand needs to be more like the stellar examples back in The People's Democratic Republic of Farang Utopia.

Thank you, Suradit, very good formulated and to the point.

To many foreigners living here, see things way out of their context.

[phutoie2]

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

It would be equally interesting to have some of the posters on TV define "DEMOCRACY."

Judging from the messages posted here over the past few months more than a few people are quite confident it doesn't exist in Thailand, but that its practice approaches perfection in __________ [fill in the blank ... USA, UK, Canada, etc], where all politicians are selfless, free of corruption, serve the electorate, and so forth.

Most people, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, define "DEMOCRACY" (or anything else for that matter) in terms of what they get out of it or what they believe they are getting out of it.

If you have money, property & power and feel comfortable, then democracy means keeping things as they are. Change is viewed with suspicion. If you are poor, uneducated and see little hope that you or your children will ever enjoy a better life, then democracy means changing the status quo. You have nothing to lose by fighting for change

In most countries, including UK or USA, you have very little choice over who is elected to office. Generally by the time you are allowed to put your X on a ballot, you are asked to pick between one of two or three people who were chosen for you by other politicians, by big business and by others with self-serving motivation. That selection process for candidates is seldom even remotely democratic.

Then, so you won't feel totally ignored, they make a big deal out of allowing you to choose which of the two or three candidates looks less capable of destroying your country through pointless wars, fraud, corruption and outright theft of public funds.

Then these people who you chose to represent you get busy defending those who contributed the most to their campaigns, they vote on legislation in compliance with their party's dictates and their main activity is doing whatever is needed to get re-elected. They are discovered to be padding their expense account allowances to finance second homes, remodel & refurnish their primary residences and take fact-finding trips to Bali or Cannes. The louder they preach "family values," the more certain you can be that they are having sexual relations with men, women, children, animals and/or inanimate objects unrelated to them. In other words, they tend to fit the profile of your average prison inmate.

Complaints about government & politicians in Thailand have some validity, but when those who are doing the complaining suggest that Thailand compares poorly to the US, UK, other European countries, Australia, etc, that's unsophisticated chauvinistic naiveté. You really need to take a closer look at what's happening in your own countries before suggesting that Thailand needs to be more like the stellar examples back in The People's Democratic Republic of Farang Utopia.

1. Sacking an outspoken maverick General (OB)

2. Leadership ballot to replace a gutless leader (Rudd)

3, Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday (CMD)

Just three recent examples from mature democracies!

Sod all to do with this topic! I know!.

More power to the Beeb, those feisty women journo's they employ (World service) are worth the licence fee alone ha ha.

PS: CMD is the UK's HM Forces topical nickname for the old Etonian new PM - have fun working it out.

[way2muchcoffee]

1. Sacking an outspoken maverick General (OB)

2. Leadership ballot to replace a gutless leader (Rudd)

3, Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday (CMD)

Just three recent examples from mature democracies!

Sod all to do with this topic! I know!.

More power to the Beeb, those feisty women journo's they employ (World service) are worth the licence fee alone ha ha.

PS: CMD is the UK's HM Forces topical nickname for the old Etonian new PM - have fun working it out.

Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday? After 38 years the UK Government gives a half-arsed apology and this is evidence of a mature democracy? Hmm...

It only took Japan about 65 years to apologize for the rape of Korea. More evidence of a mature democracy I guess.

Edited June 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[alant]

looked to me as made for the tv viewing figs rather than anything about the future. but anything about the future is just so much guess work.

[bunya]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might of established this himself.

The footage shown of the protester being shot in the foot - the army did warn people they'd be using live rounds, and the shot wasn't fatal, in accordance with the tactics they said they would be using.

Could've been much worse, but still more than a few glaring omissions.

Yeah. All predictably incredibly soft (nay deliberately forgetful) on numeorus aspects of the Thaksin factor - the key critical factor in the whole affair, ab initio (the 46Billion confiscation trigger) ad infinitum!

No exploration of very important aspects that, as well as the glaring omissions already mentioned by various posters, included things such as ....

No footage of Thacky urging on his sheeple via video connection to rally site(s).

No mention of Thacky's 'clan' exiting the country in double-quick time well before any vviolence 'kicked off'.

No mention of impending critical events such as the army reshuffle and new budget that made the protest so insanely 'urgent' and acceptance of any Govt. compromise that differed from Red demands, impossible. (Another perhaps even more critical scenario - which pertains to a certain esteemed personage - was briefly referred to ... but, in fariness, understandably could not be gone into in any detail in the programme.)

No mention of the Govt's electoral-timing concession being initially accepted by so-called Red 'leaders' .. but then suddenly a few days later being rejected out of hand at the obvious insistance of some external personage (who the hel_l that could be, I have no idea!)

No mention of the Reds' "dry run" Songkran 2009 violence and .... deaths and devastation to the country.

No specifics gone into in relation to money paid to the mercenary protesters (i.e. how such a sum might compare to the daily wage - if any - the average protestor might otherwise be earning if at home.)

No mention of Thacky's injury and death allowance paid to the sheeple - a small fortune in terms of the protestors' average income)

No mention of the so-called Red 'leaders' staying in high class hotels while the mob slept on the piss strewn streets.

No mention of the cops being 'influenced' (can't imagine how exactly said 'influence' might manifest itself!) by Thacky and, not alone being unable to do anything approaching their proper job, but in fact in many cases assisting the terrorists.

No mention of the Red Shirt 'attacks' on civilians in various media outlets, Electoral Commission Office etc. etc. and the resultant kidnappings.

No mention of the bomb attacks happening almost nightly in numerous locations across the city.

No mention of the numerous smaller bands of Red Shirts, in the early weeks, traversing throughout BKK and terrorising citizens.

No mention of the dumping of human excrement on Parliament and onthe PM's private home.

No mention of the ongoing harrassment by so-called 'Red Shirt guards" of civilians in BKK and many other places.

No mention of Red Shirt leaders on countless occassions pledging Bangkok would become a 'sea of fire'.

No mention why exactly Central World was burned to the ground (or how it was rigged woth incendiary devices age in advance) .. when numerous other similar so-called 'Elite' entities located nearby were untouched.

No mention why countless Bangkok Band branches were bombed/ burned / attacked over a 2-month period ... and the reason why.

No mention of the attacks on a number of media outlets and threats on many more (including, for some strange reason, the BBC itself!)

No mention of the devastating financial effect the 'protest' had on nearby businesses, during the protest (and on some business destroyed afterwards) and on thousands of folk of the same 'class' that the mob puroprted to represent.

No detail on the masive cache of weapons taken by the Govt from Red Shirts.

Man, this list is getting way, way too long ... and I'm not remotely finished yet!

Therefore, I have to say this biased Beeb BS was a crock!! (not on the 'Red Rivers' level, but a crock nonetheless!)

Had its moment(s) though ... Yap, such as the priceless one where Leithy in one of his 'Hollywood' reports(May 19th), in the 'dangerzone', spouting something like ... "the protesters are moving out of here really fast .. and so must we!" ... and then the scary/hilarious sight of the rotund creature 'sprinting' in front of the camera for about 10 metres as if running for his life!! .. Man, the guy must have needed respiratory treatment when the cameraman cut, having run all of 10 metres at one time!!

If it had mentioned all that you suggest,,,Wouldnt it then be biased?

It is a very long and one sided list.

[Jimi007]

1. Sacking an outspoken maverick General (OB)

2. Leadership ballot to replace a gutless leader (Rudd)

3, Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday (CMD)

Just three recent examples from mature democracies!

Sod all to do with this topic! I know!.

More power to the Beeb, those feisty women journo's they employ (World service) are worth the licence fee alone ha ha.

PS: CMD is the UK's HM Forces topical nickname for the old Etonian new PM - have fun working it out.

Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday? After 38 years the UK Government gives a half-arsed apology and this is evidence of a mature democracy? Hmm...

It only took Japan about 65 years to apologize for the rape of Korea. More evidence of a mature democracy I guess.

I didn't know Japan was a democracy in 1945. I thought they were a monarchy, until they lost the war. Then a US general was in charge of rebuilding Japan... But this is not the topic.

Did you watch Red Rage? Did you think it reported the turmoil we all saw and read about accurately?

[hkt83100]

The only reference on the BBC website I could find is here, but I didn't see any link to a video. http://tinyurl.com/25x5su6

Just did a quick lookup on youtube (thailand bbc red rage) and go the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1pwU5lXbDI

This is not rocket science.

[kissdani]

Just a minor remark here. No tanks this time, only APC's.

only APC's?

A couple of new reports spoke of tanks in the streets of Bangkok. 'heavily armed vehicle on tracks' a lot of civilians would call tanks and not APC.

Honestly, the friendly and smooth 4-letter word 'tank' is an euphemism for APC, 'tank' is a word civilians easy understand and prefer to use. APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers. Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

No actual reports from people in the field, and I am not talking about people posting rumours on the forum, reported any tanks and showed pictures of any. The tanks would have no use in the operation, only APCs was used.

And your defense that APCs can be called tank or that APC is hard for people to understand is clear back-tracking and pure nonsense.

Let's take the first definition here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Atank&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

"an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar treads"

An APC does not full-fill this definition. And the goal is to use the correct terms, not to falsely use the incorrect ones. So I would appreciate if you would stop saying that tanks was used.

:violin:

Then tell that to 'insight', he spokes of tanks.

Many normal, non-military people make that mistake. And so did reporters, from Al Jazeera, The Time magazine, The Nation and The Sun and many others.

Just for example:

• Al Jazeera: ""The military has pulled well away, with the red shirts having won control of their vehicles, tanks and armoured personnel carriers."
  
• Time: "With army tanks, troops and police moving into their rally site, Thailand's antigovernment Red Shirt leaders called an end to their two-month-long occupation of Bangkok's main commercial district on Wednesday afternoon "
  
• Al Jazeera: "The Army flushed out opposition protesters from their base with the help of tanks and armored vehicles."
  
• The Nation: "Government troops, police tanks, armored vehicles are gathering at Silom, Saladaeng to prepare for possible crackdown to disperse protesters at Rajprasong intersection early Wednesday."
  
• THE SUN: with the headline " Thai tanks roll in for blitz on rebels"(I am surprised that nobody from the true believers had attacked The Sun yet)

It is not only CNN and BBC, if you follow The Nation, Al Jazeera and THE SUN you get it wrong. 'Insight' probably made that mistake.

You can put them on your list of - "i don't watch and listen to them anymore because they don't report the world as i wanted to see them."

Your problem is that you don't speak Thai and don't understand Thai and also don't follow the News.

In a similar discussion you started to argue that the soldiers in a video clip are not snipers. You and a couple of other Farangs didn't understand a single word what was said by the soldiers in the video and started the attempt to ridicule the video or those who said that where snipers.

Meanwhile CRES spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd used the same video on a press conference to explain the why the Thai army use snipers and what these snipers are doing.

Many news reporters, even the one who are not accused of pro-red bias yet got it wrong same as the govt got it wrong, only Farang at TVF know it better.

Last month I wrote my personal account how is it to stay near the 'live fire zone' on Praram 4, that got immediately dismissed by the fanatic anti-red Farangs at TVF. And you come up with stories by your 'red shirt gf'. That a new variation, other farangs try to gain credibility with quoting their 'Thai wife from good family' or their 'Thai maid'.

So I would appreciate if Farangs, who don't even speak Thai and make a lot of mistakes themselves would stop lecturing others.

Thank you :jap: .

[kissdani]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

It's on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

Starting a 6:25 -FAKE!!! There is clearly lot of image manipulation going on.

An old technique, pioneered by Dr. Arnold Fanck, the man who brought Leni Riefenstahl to the film and was most influential on her work. No surprise to see old nazi propaganda style to be copied in a BBC documentary on the red shirts.

[animatic]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

It's on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

Starting a 6:25 -FAKE!!! There is clearly lot of image manipulation going on.

An old technique, pioneered by Dr. Arnold Fanck, the man who brought Leni Riefenstahl to the film and was most influential on her work. No surprise to see old nazi propaganda style to be copied in a BBC documentary on the red shirts.

No that's not fake, that is real Bangkok weather, just shot in slow motionor played back regualr speed.

Or shot at regularl speed and frames dropped so it plays faster.

It is clearly an effect and looked good, but couldn't be, well shouldn't have been, assumed to be

actual winds blowing at that speed. It's real, just cutting frames to make it play back faster.

Leni Riefenstahl and Fanck didn't devlope this at all, D.W. Griffith did it 20 years earlier.

Edited June 27, 2010 by animatic

[Jingthing]

The doc is OK. There is nothing new at all in it though for people who followed the events closely. You may refer people who don't have a clue about it for some basic, superficial background.

[rubl]

Just a minor remark here. No tanks this time, only APC's.

only APC's?

A couple of new reports spoke of tanks in the streets of Bangkok. 'heavily armed vehicle on tracks' a lot of civilians would call tanks and not APC.

Honestly, the friendly and smooth 4-letter word 'tank' is an euphemism for APC, 'tank' is a word civilians easy understand and prefer to use. APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers. Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

No actual reports from people in the field, and I am not talking about people posting rumours on the forum, reported any tanks and showed pictures of any. The tanks would have no use in the operation, only APCs was used.

And your defense that APCs can be called tank or that APC is hard for people to understand is clear back-tracking and pure nonsense.

Let's take the first definition here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Atank&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

"an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar treads"

An APC does not full-fill this definition. And the goal is to use the correct terms, not to falsely use the incorrect ones. So I would appreciate if you would stop saying that tanks was used.

:violin:

Then tell that to 'insight', he spokes of tanks.

Many normal, non-military people make that mistake. And so did reporters, from Al Jazeera, The Time magazine, The Nation and The Sun and many others.

Just for example:

• Al Jazeera: ""The military has pulled well away, with the red shirts having won control of their vehicles, tanks and armoured personnel carriers."
  
• Time: "With army tanks, troops and police moving into their rally site, Thailand's antigovernment Red Shirt leaders called an end to their two-month-long occupation of Bangkok's main commercial district on Wednesday afternoon "
  
• Al Jazeera: "The Army flushed out opposition protesters from their base with the help of tanks and armored vehicles."
  
• The Nation: "Government troops, police tanks, armored vehicles are gathering at Silom, Saladaeng to prepare for possible crackdown to disperse protesters at Rajprasong intersection early Wednesday."
  
• THE SUN: with the headline " Thai tanks roll in for blitz on rebels"(I am surprised that nobody from the true believers had attacked The Sun yet)

It is not only CNN and BBC, if you follow The Nation, Al Jazeera and THE SUN you get it wrong. 'Insight' probably made that mistake.

You can put them on your list of - "i don't watch and listen to them anymore because they don't report the world as i wanted to see them."

Your problem is that you don't speak Thai and don't understand Thai and also don't follow the News.

In a similar discussion you started to argue that the soldiers in a video clip are not snipers. You and a couple of other Farangs didn't understand a single word what was said by the soldiers in the video and started the attempt to ridicule the video or those who said that where snipers.

Meanwhile CRES spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd used the same video on a press conference to explain the why the Thai army use snipers and what these snipers are doing.

Many news reporters, even the one who are not accused of pro-red bias yet got it wrong same as the govt got it wrong, only Farang at TVF know it better.

Last month I wrote my personal account how is it to stay near the 'live fire zone' on Praram 4, that got immediately dismissed by the fanatic anti-red Farangs at TVF. And you come up with stories by your 'red shirt gf'. That a new variation, other farangs try to gain credibility with quoting their 'Thai wife from good family' or their 'Thai maid'.

So I would appreciate if Farangs, who don't even speak Thai and make a lot of mistakes themselves would stop lecturing others.

Thank you :jap: .

Just wondering, how good is your understanding of the Thai language? Your profile doesn't give any indication of who or where you are.

[Insight]

Well "kissdani", for bonus points why not tell us how the armoured military vehicles were used? Were the turrets on them fired even once?

There was only one way those bamboo barricades were going to be removed with minimum harm to the people responsible for removing them - a task too great even for the local Fortuner "drivers".

[kissdani]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

It's on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

Starting a 6:25 -FAKE!!! There is clearly lot of image manipulation going on.

An old technique, pioneered by Dr. Arnold Fanck, the man who brought Leni Riefenstahl to the film and was most influential on her work. No surprise to see old nazi propaganda style to be copied in a BBC documentary on the red shirts.

No that's not fake, that is real Bangkok weather, just shot in slow motionor played back regualr speed.

Or shot at regularl speed and frames dropped so it plays faster.

It is clearly an effect and looked good, but couldn't be, well shouldn't have been, assumed to be

actual winds blowing at that speed. It's real, just cutting frames to make it play back faster.

Leni Riefenstahl and Fanck didn't devlope this at all, D.W. Griffith did it 20 years earlier.

Of course it is not fake, i was kidding.

The technique is called time-lapse.

D.W. Griffith may was promoting white supremacy what brings him close to the Nazis and Griffith did some movies, boring to watch nowadays. The grammar of the modern cinema was developed by Russians and Germans.

And time lapse photography of clouds in the sky was first featured by Arnold Fanck and became his director trademark. He did great films in the 20's, his Bergfilm (mountain film) had nothing to do with the Nazis, Leni was first only an actress and directed her own most famous ones a decade later. Politics beside, the way the cameras captured the images is still great to watch and influential and often copied until today.

[rubl]

Of course it is not fake, i was kidding.

The technique is called time-lapse.

D.W. Griffith may was promoting white supremacy what brings him close to the Nazis and Griffith did some movies, boring to watch nowadays. The grammar of the modern cinema was developed by Russians and Germans.

And time lapse photography of clouds in the sky was first featured by Arnold Fanck and became his director trademark. He did great films in the 20's, his Bergfilm (mountain film) had nothing to do with the Nazis, Leni was first only an actress and directed her own most famous ones a decade later. Politics beside, the way the cameras captured the images is still great to watch and influential and often copied until today.

Discussing 'time-lapse' you may stick to the topic rather than suggesting that D.W. Griffith 'may was promoting white supremacy'.

From Wikipedia:

"Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation made pioneering use of advanced camera and narrative techniques, and its immense popularity set the stage for the dominance of the feature-length film. However, it also proved extremely controversial at the time and ever since for its negative depiction of Black Americans and their supporters, and its positive portrayal of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith responded to his critics with his next film, Intolerance, intended to show the dangers of prejudiced thought and behavior"

His files may be boring nowadays, but it's much more like 'dated'. Sometimes you wouldn't say so, but we've progressed at least a bit

Edited June 27, 2010 by rubl

[scorecard]

just watched it, anyone expecting a purely a red propaganda piece needs to know that the government were also interviewed and shown numerous time during the report, in my opinion a good honest report.

Should have carried a caption "Brought to you by the Taksin Shinawatra propaganda machine"

Totally agree with the comment "Brought to you by the taksin propaganda machine", well said.

Can't agree at all that is was balanced. Examples:

- "There was some gossip that red attendees were paid". Very inaccurate given that there is well publicized video of numerous people getting their 'pay' after their name card copies had been checked, and given that numerous red shirt rank and file members have admitted that they got paid, and given that the food vendors in my Bangkok Soi have been bragging for months about attending daily for the salary.

- Can't agree that the gov't were interviewed several times in the piece, there were simple sound bites, but it did not in any way even begin to present a full overview of the gov't stand.

- Failed to mention the rallies by the 'anti-dissolution' pink shirts / multi coloured shirts which attracted I believe well over 100,000 people in one rally and failed to mention the 'anti-dissolution' twitter site which attracted from memory well over 200,000 sign ups.

- Mentioned that thaksin won two elections but failed to mention anything about well proven vote buying, etc.

- Mentioned that the reds consider that Abhisit is illegimimate, but failed to explain at all that Abhisit is in the PMs chair thought proper process as provided for in Thai election law, and failed to mention that samak and somchai took up the PMs chair through the same circumstances and application of the Thai electoral laws.

BBC now off my watching list along with CNN.

Agree that aljazeera probably the most balanced.

[kissdani]

Well "kissdani", for bonus points why not tell us how the armoured military vehicles were used? Were the turrets on them fired even once?

There was only one way those bamboo barricades were going to be removed with minimum harm to the people responsible for removing them - a task too great even for the local Fortuner "drivers".

You can feel free to continue to calling the "APC's" tanks. I have no problem with that.