Thai PM Abhisit Sued For Attempted Murder

[whybother]

Who from the list of the killed people fired a handgun and who from the list of the killed people launched grenades? do you have their names?

can you point out the other crimes those from the list of the dead people had committed?

details please. thank you.

As I said in an earlier post that started off this discussion, the army were shooting at people behind fuel soaked tyre barricades, with sling shots, firecrackers (to sound like guns) and often guns.

There was a video showing a red shirt with a gun going around a corner firing off a few shots and then running back behind the protection of the buildings. Basically, they were doing hit and run type raids, and then the unarmed red shirts were getting hit with the consequences.

That doesn't make the unarmed red shirts innocent, as they were part of an armed gang. There were 80+ red shirts killed but only pictures of a dozen or so. There were also 1400+ injured. Probably some of these were armed. Ofcourse they aren't going to take their guns to the hospital, are they?

There WERE red shirts with guns shooting at the army. Just because there were no pictures of dead red shirts with guns doesn't make them innocent by-standers.

Now that you've started posting regularly again, d'you reckon you'll get to 2000 posts by the end of August?

That depends how often I get into discussions like this one with Mazeltov. And how often I respond to irrelevant posts about my posting habits.

Edited July 25, 2010 by whybother

[mazeltov]

1 We are also on a English speaking forum You make wild assumptions in English and back them up with Thai literature

2You people is red shirts

3Yes Abhisit said that he is a polatition no surprise there. He does not want to alienate more people than he has to. Besides I never did like him but I will admit he is the best Thailand has.

4 I have no proof that the killed civilians were armed. I have no proof that the government admit that they killed armed terrorists or armed civilians . You made the claims that they were unarmed can you post your proof in English. I for one would like to see it. That being said I believe that they were not all unarmed. Just stupid hanging around with people who are in a gun fight is not the smartest thing to do.

That is why I never made those claims. Now who is lying

5 No proof that they were paid money but when my friend who lives in a village says trucks come through in the morning with loud speakers proclaiming they need 500 people for ten days to make 10,000 baht I tend to believe him. Maybe if I had your friends I would disbelieve him but my friends have no axe to grind. Besides I had heard that before no proof of it though but I did hear they had a video of them lining up to collect money.

1. I posted the names of 3 brave Thai soldiers with their full rank in Thai. They are Thai, they have Thai names, they were killed. please show respect and not mock about it.

Posting their names in Thai gives the interested reader also the possibility to use the search engine and find out more about them. There isn't much written about them in the english press. they are nameless there.

That one of them got killed by other soldier at a security check point is not a wild assumption. If you could read Thai news you would know it.

2. I am just reiterate the government version of the incidents. you calling me a red shirt for it. funny.

3. What? and What and huh? 55555

4. yup, no prove. as i said. people posting unfounded fantasies.

5. you are getting crazy about a link to a thai newspaper article but the only thing you can offer is some rumour, hearsay and what you claim to had happen somewhere in the past in an unnamed village with no given date and time? its BS, my friend.

"They were paid 5,000 baht a day to cause truble." = "loud speakers proclaiming they need 500 people for ten days to make 10,000 baht" ???? did you use a calculator on this?

sorry, i don't understand what you are up to. If english is not your first language. you can send me a PM in Russian.

[jayjay0]

1. I posted the names of 3 brave Thai soldiers with their full rank in Thai. They are Thai, they have Thai names, they were killed. please show respect and not mock about it.

Posting their names in Thai gives the interested reader also the possibility to use the search engine and find out more about them. There isn't much written about them in the english press. they are nameless there.

That one of them got killed by other soldier at a security check point is not a wild assumption. If you could read Thai news you would know it.

2. I am just reiterate the government version of the incidents. you calling me a red shirt for it. funny.

3. What? and What and huh? 55555

4. yup, no prove. as i said. people posting unfounded fantasies.

5. you are getting crazy about a link to a thai newspaper article but the only thing you can offer is some rumour, hearsay and what you claim to had happen somewhere in the past in an unnamed village with no given date and time? its BS, my friend.

"They were paid 5,000 baht a day to cause truble." = "loud speakers proclaiming they need 500 people for ten days to make 10,000 baht" ???? did you use a calculator on this?

1 It is a English speaking forum and perhaps you did post there names in Thai I would not know what was in the article as I do not read or write Thai. But *I do know that a whole page of Thai is more than Three names. And it proves nothing

2 I called you a red shirt because you are one. Show me one just one of your posts where you say they were wrong. You have defended every thing they did. If it was undefendedabl you did the red shirt thing and ignored it.

3 Got me I have often wondered that myself

4 You are write I have no proof that is why I did not make those posts. You however made accusations and refused to give proof.

5 You are rite should have used my calculator. I was wrong it should have been 500 baht a day. As I said I had no reason to disbelieve him also it was not just one day. If I had bothered to ask the date and name of the village and given it to you beeing the red shirt you are you would have demanded to know what time in the morning. Besides it fell into line with what I had heard and was apparently on video. Good enough for me.

Edited July 25, 2010 by jayjay0

[Siam Simon]

Who from the list of the killed people fired a handgun and who from the list of the killed people launched grenades? do you have their names?

can you point out the other crimes those from the list of the dead people had committed?

details please. thank you.

As I said in an earlier post that started off this discussion, the army were shooting at people behind fuel soaked tyre barricades, with sling shots, firecrackers (to sound like guns) and often guns.

There was a video showing a red shirt with a gun going around a corner firing off a few shots and then running back behind the protection of the buildings. Basically, they were doing hit and run type raids, and then the unarmed red shirts were getting hit with the consequences.

That doesn't make the unarmed red shirts innocent, as they were part of an armed gang. There were 80+ red shirts killed but only pictures of a dozen or so. There were also 1400+ injured. Probably some of these were armed. Ofcourse they aren't going to take their guns to the hospital, are they?

There WERE red shirts with guns shooting at the army. Just because there were no pictures of dead red shirts with guns doesn't make them innocent by-standers.

Now that you've started posting regularly again, d'you reckon you'll get to 2000 posts by the end of August?

That depends how often I get into discussions like this one with Mazeltov. And how often I respond to irrelevant posts about my posting habits.

Ah, but your posting habits are very relevant. You only joined TV at the height of the recent Red Shirt troubles and ran up a thousand posts in your first month of membership, every single one of them in the political discussion threads. And every single one of them in Democrat apologist/anti-Red Shirt mode. You and your posts shout 'paid propagandist' to any independant-minded poster on TV.

[whybother]

Now that you've started posting regularly again, d'you reckon you'll get to 2000 posts by the end of August?

That depends how often I get into discussions like this one with Mazeltov. And how often I respond to irrelevant posts about my posting habits.

Ah, but your posting habits are very relevant. You only joined TV at the height of the recent Red Shirt troubles and ran up a thousand posts in your first month of membership, every single one of them in the political discussion threads. And every single one of them in Democrat apologist/anti-Red Shirt mode. You and your posts shout 'paid propagandist' to any independant-minded poster on TV.

An independent-minded poster wouldn't shout "paid propagandist". You on the other hand see what you want to see.

Edited July 25, 2010 by whybother

[mazeltov]

As I said in an earlier post that started off this discussion, the army were shooting at people behind fuel soaked tyre barricades, with sling shots, firecrackers (to sound like guns) and often guns.

There was a video showing a red shirt with a gun going around a corner firing off a few shots and then running back behind the protection of the buildings. Basically, they were doing hit and run type raids, and then the unarmed red shirts were getting hit with the consequences.

That doesn't make the unarmed red shirts innocent, as they were part of an armed gang. There were 80+ red shirts killed but only pictures of a dozen or so. There were also 1400+ injured. Probably some of these were armed. Ofcourse they aren't going to take their guns to the hospital, are they?

There WERE red shirts with guns shooting at the army. Just because there were no pictures of dead red shirts with guns doesn't make them innocent by-standers.

Killed for being near a firecracker?

You are repeating your silly fantasies. can you provide a link to a source to back up your claims or not? That is the question here. i guess you can't. i don't need photos or video, newspaper articles (can you read?) would be enough. i would like to know where you get your theory from.

The govt or CRES declaring that the security forces/soldiers didn't shot and killed these people. the govt said it were the terrorist who killed these people. believe me, i read all the reports.

Are you now saying that 'the terrorist', did actually a good job, acted on behalf of the good people, restoring the peace and taking out the firecracker armed criminals behind the barricades?

There are rules and laws for the use of firearms in law enforcement. a situation like you describe it would be a clear violation of these rules.

So please if you have evidence for it, please come forward and post it. or stop posting lies.

You continue to ignore the point and twist words to suit your fantasy.

There WERE armed red shirts. They were shooting at the army. The army were shooting back. The protesters (with sling shots and firecrackers) that were with the armed red shirts were being shot. They were not innocent by-standers.

The government haven't said that these people were not killed by the army. The government have said that there were armed "terrorists" amongst the protesters.

I didn't say anything about the terrorists doing a good job. That's just another example of you twisting words to suit your fantasy.

If the soldiers/govt forces didn't kill the people (as the govt says) but the terrorists (that is what the govt says) why should these terrorists kill exactly these people you argue deserved to be shot or have have at least to blame themselves.

According to your theory the 'kills' where justified, but FYI. the killers were the 'terrorists'.

THE POINT:

You know it or you just assume it? How you come to that conclusion?

can you provide a link to a source to back up your claims or not? If you have any sources were the government admit that they killed armed terrorists or armed civilians, or that newspaper articles saying exactly this, please come forward with it? i don't need photos or video, newspaper articles (can you read?) would be enough. i would like to know where you get your theory from.

If not you cannot back up your claims, please stop posting lies.

[whybother]

If the soldiers/govt forces didn't kill the people (as the govt says) but the terrorists (that is what the govt says) why should these terrorists kill exactly these people you argue deserved to be shot or have have at least to blame themselves.

According to your theory the 'kills' where justified, but FYI. the killers were the 'terrorists'.

THE POINT:

You know it or you just assume it? How you come to that conclusion?

can you provide a link to a source to back up your claims or not? If you have any sources were the government admit that they killed armed terrorists or armed civilians, or that newspaper articles saying exactly this, please come forward with it? i don't need photos or video, newspaper articles (can you read?) would be enough. i would like to know where you get your theory from.

If not you cannot back up your claims, please stop posting lies.

I don't remember seeing anywhere that the government said that "the army did not kill any protesters". It would be a ridiculous claim to make. In my opinion, I am sure that the army killed most of the protesters that died.

THE POINT: There were videos of armed protesters. The BBC even showed one during their reporting of May 19. Are you denying that some of the protesters were armed?

edit: I've done a search trying to find a government denial that the army killed any protesters (except Sae Daeng). Can you please point me to one?

Edited July 25, 2010 by whybother

[rubl]

That depends how often I get into discussions like this one with Mazeltov. And how often I respond to irrelevant posts about my posting habits.

Ah, but your posting habits are very relevant. You only joined TV at the height of the recent Red Shirt troubles and ran up a thousand posts in your first month of membership, every single one of them in the political discussion threads. And every single one of them in Democrat apologist/anti-Red Shirt mode. You and your posts shout 'paid propagandist' to any independant-minded poster on TV.

An independent-minded poster wouldn't shout "paid propagandist". You on the other hand see what you want to see.

The "paid propagandist" part is a bit overdone, the rest maybe true IMHO. For some-one with a name like 'whybother' the discussion between you and 'mazeltov' seems just short of a shouting/shooting war.

[mazeltov]

I don't remember seeing anywhere that the government said that "the army did not kill any protesters". It would be a ridiculous claim to make. In my opinion, I am sure that the army killed most of the protesters that died.

THE POINT: There were videos of armed protesters. The BBC even showed one during their reporting of May 19. Are you denying that some of the protesters were armed?

edit: I've done a search trying to find a government denial that the army killed any protesters (except Sae Daeng). Can you please point me to one?

BBC news? Is that suddenly a reliable source you would trust?

THE POINT: Have you any sources to back up your claim that the killed were armed and dangerous criminals. Can you back up your claim? Can you? you cannot!

You know the difference between to spot some armed person somewhere and nearly 90 dead people.

because there are some videos that shows assumed red shirts with guns, the security forces/soldiers don't have the right to shot at anybody near a barricade. and that is also something what the government never said that they did. the nearly 90 dead people left a lot of question open, the governtments theory of choice is to declare them to victims of the terrorists. smart move. otherwise they would have to come forward with really hard evidence why the soldiers killed certain persons. as i said there are rules and laws of the use of firearms in law enforcement and the government said that say followed exactly that international rules.

anyway, i thought it is widely known that the governments claims and explains that most of the civilians where killed by terrorists.

and so i argued that the dead civilians were indeed unarmed innocents.

totally unknown to me are any detailed reports and proofs for the claims the killed civilians were armed.

and please keep in mind that the question if the red shirts or their black shirts were armed or not is a different issue and not point of the argument here. this is about the dead civilians, were they armed or unarmed and how they died.

okay, for a recap i bring a few quotes from declaration and explanation by government and CRES officials.

"Who Really Killed the Red Shirts ?"

The True Facts Regarding the 10 April 2010 Incident

On Saturday, 10 April 2010, the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES), resolved to reclaim areas occupied by red shirt demonstrators. The incident resulted in violent clashes between the military and armed demonstrators ending with 842 injuries and 24 fatalities on both sides. Video footage gathered from numerous news agencies (domestic and international) covering the incident clearly shows that

a group of armed terrorist militia from within the Red Shirt protesters instigated and provoked violence against the unarmed military. This group was heavily armed with high powered rifles and firearms, along with powerful explosives intent on targeting and firing on both the military and the demonstrators. The injuries and fatalities that resulted from the groups whose intention and actions can only be described as being premeditated terrorism with no regard for human life,

public, or private property.

www.capothai.org: "Who Really Killed the Red Shirts ?"

Press Briefing by Royal Thai Army Deputy Staff Command and Director General of the Department of Special Investigation (15/5/10):

At the latest count, there are 16 deaths and around 140 injured. He noted that these

deaths and injuries to civilians can occur from the following reasons.

First, it is possible

that Red Shirt guards could assault each other

due to internal conflicts. Secondly, due to the assault weapons in possession of the Red Shirt guards, who are known to have M79 grenade launders, assault rifles, hand grenades, and giant firecrackers. Third, the

general public affected by the protests may have taken matters into their own hands and assaulted the Red Shirt demonstrators

; there are eyewitness reports confirming this possibility. Fourth and finally, the firing of bullets are done under strict rules and instructions, to prevent further loss of life, or to target those who are clearly armed with weapons.

Soldiers are instructed to fire at knee level in order to minimize injuries and deaths.

Col Sansern also summarized the events of the past days, including an incident where

a local resident fired a weapon at the demonstrators

because he was angry that the tires being burnt would make the buildings in the area catch fire.

Lt Gen Daopong concluded the briefing session by expressing the hope that the public now has a better understanding of what the Army is doing, and what the armed group inside the Red Shirt camp is doing. He stressed that

all soldiers have no intention of killing or harming anyone,

but are only performing their duty, while always aware that the people involved are their fellow countrymen. The call by the Red Shirt leaders for the Army "to stop killing the people" is therefore a deliberate attempt to mislead the public that the Army views the people as its enemy.

www.capothai.org: Press Briefing by Royal Thai Army Deputy Staff Command and Director General of the Department of Special Investigation (15/5/10)

Press Briefing by CRES Spokesperson (2030 hrs 16/5/10):"

CRES wishes to state that the terrorists who are inside the demonstrations in Rajprasong area are creating incidents in order to confuse and mislead the public.

This has been picked up by the media including the internet.

The CRES needs to clarify and explain some of these incidents.

First of all,

the terrorists are causing incidents to create suspicion and misunderstand, by attacking the soldiers, the police, the public, and the press. All are targeted by the terrorists.

I have to urge the public to stay away from Rajprasong, because it is very dangerous. If you need to enter this area because you live or work there, please tell the authorities so they can provide security to you.

Our friends in the media also have to be careful. You should stay behind security lines. We can ensure your safety. ...

The second one is a video clip. This clearly shows a red shirt protester firing an M79, which can cause death and injury to the public or security personnel. In this one instance, the camera captured an M79 being fired. Yesterday M79 grenades were fired at police quarters causing several injuries, including children.

It is evident that the security forces have to take great precaution in dangerous areas.

The third one is also a video clip. This shows a terrorist attempting to light the fuel tank of a truck. He’s then shot in the foot, and then runs away to his friends for help.

This is also evidence that the security forces try to control their fire and shoot below the knee,

and that they try to avoid causing serious injury to any unarmed protester."

www.capothai.org: Press Briefing by CRES Spokesperson (2030 hrs 16/5/10)

CRES Press conference 17 May 2010 at 2030 hrs

CRES expresses its concerns on

the terrorists infiltrating inside the protesting area, trying to endanger lives of innocent protesters, innocent people, EMS teams and the press.

Reliable information received by CRES confirmed that today, there were 5-10 gunmen hiding inside the Chiva-Thai building , near Century Park Hotel, between floors 24-27.

Those

unidentified snipers will put both the military and innocent people’s lives in harm’s way, such as in the case of the singer, Kampan Basu, who was injured, possibly shot from the Chiva-Thai building.

Therefore, the CRES would like the public to avoid entering or passing through the area for their own safely, especially during the night time.

Apart from that, protesters were also attempting to destroy or damage public buildings and properties. We have also seen robberies of private businesses located in the Red Zone, which is the Ratchaprasong Intersection and its nearby roads.

It is indeed difficult for the terrorists to deny responsibility in these incidents, which occurred in their protesting areas, since none of the state security personnel is allowed in the area.

...

Slide 2.

This is a picture of a

gunman dressed in black with an M16 in his hand. This is to prove that

there is a group of gunmen using lethal weapons with the aim of harming innocent people, EMS teams, the press and security officers.

Slide 3.

The photo, taken 2-3 days ago, shows a military officer accompanied with a pistol who was trying to take back a military truck previously seized by the protesters.

While being surrounded by protesters, he carried a gun, but he decided not to use it against the people and let himself be beaten and injured by the protesters. This is to show that all military personnel always strictly follow the rules of engagement as instructed by CRES.

...

Some people are using the words

“the military is killing the people”, to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

www.capothai.org: CRES Press conference 17 May 2010 at 2030 hrs

Deputy Staff Command press briefing 18 May 2010 at 2045 hrs

The security forces stationed around the protesting area have been , on daily basis, putting their lives in harm’s way. There are terrorists who are trying to do harm to those officers by using various types of weapons or dangerous materials against them, especially in areas like Bon Kai, Pratunam and Din Daeng which are the areas that attacks were mainly concentrated.

Since 13 May, there were a total of 58 of M79 grenades which were launched onto security forces.

The violent incidents occurred during the past 2-3 days around Ratchaprasong area, such as burning of rubber tires, arson, looting on government’s properties and private businesses , have proved the intention of UDD’s leaders to use armed terrorists against the protesters.

Relief operations have been conducted, with food delivered to the local residents affected by the situation in various areas. Since the presence of military officers in the relief zone was deemed dangerous, and might complicate the situation at any time, authorities concerned will instead try using negotiation as a way to facilitate the relief operation and to deliver all basic necessities to the people in affected areas.

Learning from the tragic incident on April 10, right now all security forces will always keep distance from the protesters, of at least 200 – 300 meters, which is considered a safe distance from the reach of M79 grenade launchers and some other weapons. Therefore, the security forces’ death toll and injuries are minimal.

The civilians’ casualties and injuries during the past few days could have been caused by unidentified gunmen hiding behind self-made bunkers and on high buildings.

There were also eyewitnesses, both protesters and press, on such incidents. Besides, among those who lost their lives or were injured, they should not always be seen as innocent victims, since

some of them could also be terrorists who get shot by security forces---just that no weapons were found making them look like ordinary civilians.

...

www.capothai.org: Deputy Staff Command press briefing 18 May 2010 at 2045 hrs

^note: here is a semi-confession that the security forces used deadly force, but they also admit that there is a lack of the smoking gun. the dead were unarmed.

Press Briefing for Diplomatic Corps 22 May

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep:

Dear fellow Thai people, members of the diplomatic corps and the media. I would like to inform you that, during the Red Shirt protest, there were incidents that involved

terrorists using weapons to attack officials, rescue units, members of the press and innocent people. These incidents, which had led to many casualties and injuries,

had been closely reported by international media. During this period, Red Shirt leaders had tried to launch a propaganda campaign to mislead that there were no terrorists and heavy weapons. However, the truth revealed itself in the end.

www.capothai.org: Press Briefing for Diplomatic Corps 22 May at 1500 hrs

PM TV program 23 May 2010:

Some 46 people lost their lives during this period. These losses, which included journalists and innocent people, the Prime Minister stressed,

were unrelated to the protest area at Ratchaprasong but resulted from clashes with those who attacked the officers’ check points. The officers had to respond to protect the check points and defend themselves in accordance with the clearly stipulated rules of engagement. During that period, more than 100 M 79 grenades were fired at the check points but losses among the officers were minimised as they had dug away from the M 79 firing range.

This notwithstanding,

the armed groups continued to attack innocent people and other target groups such as foreign journalists, and emergency medical and health volunteers, to inflict losses as a way to pressure the Government.

As images revealed, they also put a child on their bunkers made of tires as if to tell the officers that had any clashes occurred, the casualties would include children.

www.capothai.org: PM TV program 23 May 2010

MFA responds to media enquiries about Amsterdam & Peroff’s statement June 4, 2010

Regarding operations by security forces, the Royal Thai Government had given strict orders that all operations regarding the protests by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) be undertaken in accordance with the seven-step rules of engagement in line with the principle of proportionality and international standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

They were also subject to strict instruction on the use of live ammunition, namely: as warning shots, in self-defence and to prevent harm on the lives of members of the public.

Based on evidence and video footage taken by the media during the clashes between the protesters and the security forces, it is clear that there were

armed elements infiltrating

among the demonstrators. These individuals – not bound by similar rules –

had used lethal weapons, including automatic assault rifles and grenade launchers, with indiscriminate effect and utter disregard for human lives, leading to loss of lives and injuries among demonstrators, bystanders and security officers.

¡ÃзÃǧ¡ÒõèÒ§»ÃÐà·È

Okay that is what the government claims.

I hope the quotes are enough for a recap and memory refresh. it isn't the complete time line and don't include everything. just a few sound bites for the memory and get the idea what i am talking about.

[whybother]

@Mazeltov

First, can you please point me to my "claim that the killed were armed and dangerous criminals"?

My claims have been that there were armed red shirts shooting at the army, and that most of those shot and killed by the army were NOT innocent by-standers. Do you deny either of those points?

None of the links you provided back your claim that the government deny killing ANY protesters.

[TAWP]

Even according to Abhisit the red shirts were ordinary citizens, innocent people demanding democracy.

Uh, ofcourse the Red Shirts was ordinary citizens...what did you expect the PM to call them, aliens?

That however does not mean that many of them was involved in illegal activities, be in illegal occupation, shooting fireworks, setting tires on fire, throwing rocks, shooting glas-beads with slingshots, firing handguns, throwing or launching grenades etc.

Who from the list of the killed people fired a handgun and who from the list of the killed people launched grenades? do you have their names?

can you point out the other crimes those from the list of the dead people had committed?

details please. thank you.

You claim they where unarmed, where is your proof?

The general concensus, not amongst red fans, is that many of the wounded and killed was armed in some fashion. And *none* of them was 'innocent' as their occupation was illegal.

There can be no riot of thousands if the violent minority do not get the silent backing of the majority that pushes on behind them.

Please provide us with any videos that show the red guards stopping the violent thugs from their actions.

Don't have any? But surely the red guards had control of their people within the barricades? No?

[mazeltov]

@Mazeltov

First, can you please point me to my "claim that the killed were armed and dangerous criminals"?

My claims have been that there were armed red shirts shooting at the army, and that most of those shot and killed by the army were NOT innocent by-standers. Do you deny either of those points?

None of the links you provided back your claim that the government deny killing ANY protesters.

did i rephrase you wrong? didn't you said that those who were killed deserved it?

Yes they were breaking the law but do think they deserved to be executed?

The ones shooting at the army probably did. I don't think any protesters sitting at the stage were killed. Just the ones standing behind fuel soaked tyre barricades with firecrackers, slingshots, and often, guns.

Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?

So how many got killed by the government forces? What kind of weapon they had? what are their names? Can you link to any sources where the government claims to have successfully taken out one of the terrorists by killing him?

If you can please do it, i am asking that all the time.

[mazeltov]

You claim they where unarmed, where is your proof?

The general concensus, not amongst red fans, is that many of the wounded and killed was armed in some fashion. And *none* of them was 'innocent' as their occupation was illegal.

There can be no riot of thousands if the violent minority do not get the silent backing of the majority that pushes on behind them.

Please provide us with any videos that show the red guards stopping the violent thugs from their actions.

Don't have any? But surely the red guards had control of their people within the barricades? No?

Where is your general concensus? based on what? Can you link to some online sources that taken exactly that stance, that the killed were armed and died from bullets by the government security forces? Please post them. Or stop making claims you cannot substantiate and back up with harder facts then declaring them to a fictional general concensus.

[jayboy]

You claim they where unarmed, where is your proof?

The general concensus, not amongst red fans, is that many of the wounded and killed was armed in some fashion. And *none* of them was 'innocent' as their occupation was illegal.

There can be no riot of thousands if the violent minority do not get the silent backing of the majority that pushes on behind them.

Please provide us with any videos that show the red guards stopping the violent thugs from their actions.

Don't have any? But surely the red guards had control of their people within the barricades? No?

Where is your general concensus? based on what? Can you link to some online sources that taken exactly that stance, that the killed were armed and died from bullets by the government security forces? Please post them. Or stop making claims you cannot substantiate and back up with harder facts then declaring them to a fictional general concensus.

The consensus if there is one is that many unarmed civilians were murdered by the army.There's also a consensus that within the red camp there were violent men who came to the fore in the latter stages of the episode.

The silent (and not so silent) backing of many urban middle class of these murderous tactics is a matter of record.Even now the red dead remain unmourned and uninvestigated (the government calls them all "terrorists") while the yapping middle class bewail the loss of Central Department Store.Do these myopic fools really believe there will not be a reckoning to come?

[TAWP]

[mazeltov]

You claim they where unarmed, where is your proof?

The general concensus, not amongst red fans, is that many of the wounded and killed was armed in some fashion. And *none* of them was 'innocent' as their occupation was illegal.

There can be no riot of thousands if the violent minority do not get the silent backing of the majority that pushes on behind them.

Please provide us with any videos that show the red guards stopping the violent thugs from their actions.

Don't have any? But surely the red guards had control of their people within the barricades? No?

Where is your general concensus? based on what? Can you link to some online sources that taken exactly that stance, that the killed were armed and died from bullets by the government security forces? Please post them. Or stop making claims you cannot substantiate and back up with harder facts then declaring them to a fictional general concensus.

The consensus if there is one is that many unarmed civilians were murdered by the army.There's also a consensus that within the red camp there were violent men who came to the fore in the latter stages of the episode.

The silent (and not so silent) backing of many urban middle class of these murderous tactics is a matter of record.Even now the red dead remain unmourned and uninvestigated (the government calls them all "terrorists") while the yapping middle class bewail the loss of Central Department Store.Do these myopic fools really believe there will not be a reckoning to come?

1. Fact is there are a lot of dead people.

2. Fact is that the govt claims the terrorists shot these people (see my signature and previous entries)

3. what is now the possible conclusion?

The terrorists shot these people because they were hiding behind barricades and making gunfire noise with firecrackers? Yes, it is the dead peoples fault that they are dead. All the dead were guilty. proven by a BBC video that shows a red shirt with a gun.

Proven is also the fact that the dead people burned Central World down. The dead people did it evidently. general concensus.

q.e.d.

case closed.

[whybother]

It's clearly obvious that you rephrased me wrong:

"I don't think any protesters sitting at the stage were killed. Just the ones standing behind fuel soaked tyre barricades with firecrackers, slingshots, and often, guns." does not say "the killed were armed and dangerous killers".

And you're twisting words again:

"Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?" Your claim is that the government denied killing any protesters. The links you provided did not show one instance where they claimed that they did not kill any protesters.

And you didn't answer my question:

Do you deny that there were any armed protesters? Do you believe that all the protesters that were killed were innocent by-standers?

Edited July 25, 2010 by whybother

[jayjay0]

You claim they where unarmed, where is your proof?

The general concensus, not amongst red fans, is that many of the wounded and killed was armed in some fashion. And *none* of them was 'innocent' as their occupation was illegal.

There can be no riot of thousands if the violent minority do not get the silent backing of the majority that pushes on behind them.

Please provide us with any videos that show the red guards stopping the violent thugs from their actions.

Don't have any? But surely the red guards had control of their people within the barricades? No?

Where is your general concensus? based on what? Can you link to some online sources that taken exactly that stance, that the killed were armed and died from bullets by the government security forces? Please post them. Or stop making claims you cannot substantiate and back up with harder facts then declaring them to a fictional general concensus.

The consensus if there is one is that many unarmed civilians were murdered by the army.There's also a consensus that within the red camp there were violent men who came to the fore in the latter stages of the episode.

The silent (and not so silent) backing of many urban middle class of these murderous tactics is a matter of record.Even now the red dead remain unmourned and uninvestigated (the government calls them all "terrorists") while the yapping middle class bewail the loss of Central Department Store.Do these myopic fools really believe there will not be a reckoning to come?

1. Fact is there are a lot of dead people.

2. Fact is that the govt claims the terrorists shot these people (see my signature and previous entries)

3. what is now the possible conclusion?

The terrorists shot these people because they were hiding behind barricades and making gunfire noise with firecrackers? Yes, it is the dead peoples fault that they are dead. All the dead were guilty. proven by a BBC video that shows a red shirt with a gun.

Proven is also the fact that the dead people burned Central World down. The dead people did it evidently. general concensus.

q.e.d.

case closed.

As usual, it is not the case that is closed it is your mind. Did those innocent protesters [and I use the word tongue in cheek] put bullets into the dead soldiers with there fire crackers? notice I did not say they were all killed by red shirts.

Why don't you stop- making idiotic allegations stick to the ones that are plausible and get your head out of your----It is a waste of time to discuss with you. So I surrender the red shirts were all saints and I will do every thing in my power to get the Catholic Church to recognized them as so. Now if you think that is a silly thing to say go back and read your previous posts. I noticed you stopped calling every one a liar as soon as it was shown you are a liar. I would be glad to continue a discussion with you on the subject but you must first show signs of honesty and just a little remorse for what you did to the reputation of Thailand and the physical damage you did to Bangkok and last but most important is some remorse for what you did to the thousands of innocent people you deprived of a lively hood. Step up to the plate be the first red shirt to admit he did wrong.

Edited July 25, 2010 by jayjay0

[jayjay0]

You really got to laugh at the feeble attempts of these red shirts to rewrite history. They ask you to show proof of your consensuses and in the same post put forth there consensuses with out any proof. And they wonder why we don't take them serious. More like comic relief.

They can't even get along with themselves.

Edited July 25, 2010 by jayjay0

[mazeltov]

You really got to laugh at the feeble attempts of these red shirts to rewrite history. They ask you to show proof of your consensuses and in the same post put forth there consensuses with out any proof. And they wonder why we don't take them serious. More like comic relief.

They can't even get along with themselves.

So who killed these people and why they were killed? Can you answer that?

[mazeltov]

And you're twisting words again:

"Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?" Your claim is that the government denied killing any protesters. The links you provided did not show one instance where they claimed that they did not kill any protesters.

not even one? did you read it?

Some people are using the words “the military is killing the people”, to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

http://www.capothai.org/capothai/cres-press-conference-17-may-2010-at-2030-hrs

Pheu Thai MP Arunee Arunya accused the prime minister of "ordering the massacre of people" and called on him to apologise. Suthep said he did not think the prime minister would apologise because "it was the terrorists who killed people". The Nation June 1, 2010.

can you come forward with some links that prove the opposite, the claim that these dead people were indeed killed by the military, government security forces? I really would like to see and to read that.

[whybother]

And you're twisting words again:

"Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?" Your claim is that the government denied killing any protesters. The links you provided did not show one instance where they claimed that they did not kill any protesters.

not even one? did you read it?

Some people are using the words "the military is killing the people", to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

http://www.capothai....010-at-2030-hrs

Pheu Thai MP Arunee Arunya accused the prime minister of "ordering the massacre of people" and called on him to apologise. Suthep said he did not think the prime minister would apologise because "it was the terrorists who killed people". The Nation June 1, 2010.

can you come forward with some links that prove the opposite, the claim that these dead people were indeed killed by the military, government security forces? I really would like to see and to read that.

From what I remember about the discussion with the first article, it was in response to the red shirt propaganda that the army were deliberately targeting everyone - protesters and non-protesters. And the second is part of a quote - what is the full context of the quote?

But look, I'm am not trying to say that the army did everything perfectly. What I would like is red shirt supporters to admit that that the protesters were not all just innocent people cheering and clapping around a stage.

So can you answer the questions (which you conveniently omitted from my quote):

Do you deny that there were any armed protesters? Do you believe that all the protesters that were killed were innocent by-standers?

[jayjay0]

And you're twisting words again:

"Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?" Your claim is that the government denied killing any protesters. The links you provided did not show one instance where they claimed that they did not kill any protesters.

not even one? did you read it?

Some people are using the words "the military is killing the people", to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

http://www.capothai....010-at-2030-hrs

Pheu Thai MP Arunee Arunya accused the prime minister of "ordering the massacre of people" and called on him to apologise. Suthep said he did not think the prime minister would apologise because "it was the terrorists who killed people". The Nation June 1, 2010.

can you come forward with some links that prove the opposite, the claim that these dead people were indeed killed by the military, government security forces? I really would like to see and to read that.

From what I remember about the discussion with the first article, it was in response to the red shirt propaganda that the army were deliberately targeting everyone - protesters and non-protesters. And the second is part of a quote - what is the full context of the quote?

But look, I'm am not trying to say that the army did everything perfectly. What I would like is red shirt supporters to admit that that the protesters were not all just innocent people cheering and clapping around a stage.

So can you answer the questions (which you conveniently omitted from my quote):

Do you deny that there were any armed protesters? Do you believe that all the protesters that were killed were innocent by-standers?

Ever sienc he got cought lying he has stopped accusing every one with a brain of being a liar. He just ignores the questions he would have to lie about to respond. Honesty is no longer a issue to him. Or for that matter any red shirt.

[mazeltov]

And you're twisting words again:

"Is you rabulistic argument now that the govt don't deny killing ANY protesters?" Your claim is that the government denied killing any protesters. The links you provided did not show one instance where they claimed that they did not kill any protesters.

not even one? did you read it?

Some people are using the words "the military is killing the people", to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

http://www.capothai....010-at-2030-hrs

Pheu Thai MP Arunee Arunya accused the prime minister of "ordering the massacre of people" and called on him to apologise. Suthep said he did not think the prime minister would apologise because "it was the terrorists who killed people". The Nation June 1, 2010.

can you come forward with some links that prove the opposite, the claim that these dead people were indeed killed by the military, government security forces? I really would like to see and to read that.

From what I remember about the discussion with the first article, it was in response to the red shirt propaganda that the army were deliberately targeting everyone - protesters and non-protesters. And the second is part of a quote - what is the full context of the quote?

But look, I'm am not trying to say that the army did everything perfectly. What I would like is red shirt supporters to admit that that the protesters were not all just innocent people cheering and clapping around a stage.

So can you answer the questions (which you conveniently omitted from my quote):

Do you deny that there were any armed protesters? Do you believe that all the protesters that were killed were innocent by-standers?

you mean what is my answer to monkfish' question?: "Yes they were breaking the law but do think they deserved to be executed?"

which you answered with: "Just the ones standing behind fuel soaked tyre barricades with firecrackers, slingshots, and often, guns."?

My answer is within the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

There you can read when law enforcement officials should be allowed to shot at people to kill them.

standing behind a barricade, possession of firecracker or a youtube video clip that shows an unidentified someone with a gun are not reason to justify deadly force

Can you can come forward with sources, links that state these people were shot by the army exactly under this condition, according to that law?

There must be plenty of such sources if it is the general consensus as some people here claim.

Let me remind you that the government declares these people were killed by terrorists. So why the terrorists killed these people? because of firecrackers or what?

armed civilian? did i ever denied this? of course they were there. one more spoiler for you:

[/url]

[whybother]

Now you're mis-quoting me!!! And still not answering the questions!!!

My answer to Monkfish was:

Yes they were breaking the law but do think they deserved to be executed?

The ones shooting at the army probably did. I don't think any protesters sitting at the stage were killed. Just the ones standing behind fuel soaked tyre barricades with firecrackers, slingshots, and often, guns.

And I didn't ask if there were "armed civilians". I asked if there were "armed protesters".

Do you deny that there were any armed protesters? Do you believe that all the protesters that were killed were innocent by-standers?

[mazeltov]

^^

Question:

Can you can come forward with sources, links that state these people were shot by the army exactly under this condition, according to that law?

There must be plenty of such sources if it is the general consensus as some people here claim.

Answer:

No, you cannot.

[whybother]

^^

Question:

Can you can come forward with sources, links that state these people were shot by the army exactly under this condition, according to that law?

There must be plenty of such sources if it is the general consensus as some people here claim.

Answer:

No, you cannot.

I have never said all of those shot were armed.

I have asked 2 questions. You have continued to avoid answering them.

You continue to put forward that those shot by the army were innocent civilians. I put it to you that those that were shot were not just innocent civilians. That there were armed people amongst the protesters, being supported by the protesters. DO YOU DENY THAT? It's a simple question.

[mazeltov]

^^

Question:

Can you can come forward with sources, links that state these people were shot by the army exactly under this condition, according to that law?

There must be plenty of such sources if it is the general consensus as some people here claim.

Answer:

No, you cannot.

I have never said all of those shot were armed.

Question: how many of those were killed were armed and armed with what kind of weapon? Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer:???

ps. Under what circumstances law enforcement officer can shot at people you can read here: Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

That is something i am not argue against.

pps. and i deny nothing.

Edited July 25, 2010 by mazeltov

[whybother]

Question: how many of those were killed were armed and armed with what kind of weapon? Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer:???

ps. Under what circumstances law enforcement officer can shot at people you can read here: Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

That is something i am not argue against.

pps. and i deny nothing.

I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.

And the fact that you continue to avoid my questions points to the fact that you know that there were armed protesters but it doesn't suit your pro-red shirt stance, so you can't accept it.

[mazeltov]

Question: how many of those were killed were armed and armed with what kind of weapon? Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer:???

ps. Under what circumstances law enforcement officer can shot at people you can read here: Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

That is something i am not argue against.

pps. and i deny nothing.

I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.

Thank you, finally you admit that you cannot prove your claims. it is just your fantasy.