A Knife To Everyone's Back - Thailand's Political Landscape

[Siam Simon]

Next time someone comes to break into or burn your house, you will happily assist him, I guess ?

I take every care to avoid violence. But what has your remark to do with the debacle of April/May?

Just read some of our discussion again and all will be clear to you, dear chap.

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

[whybother]

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

I think what you're expecting wouldn't happen in ANY other country.

Two basic things happen in most protests:

- it is short lived, peaceful and not too disruptive - people go home after a few hours or a couple of days.

- it gets disruptive - protesters try to go out of the bounds of an agreed protest area, or try to storm an event - in this case, the police will try and contain the protesters or try and disperse them.

The protests in April got disruptive - the red shirts got disruptive. They took their protests out of the agreed protest area. They stormed parliament. They stormed Thaicom.

No other country (that I can think of) would have allowed the protests to continue. They would have been dispersed.

But in most countries their wouldn't have been an armed fight back against the police. If there was, there would have been people killed.

If you can think of a country where it would have been different, please point it out.

[Siam Simon]

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

I think what you're expecting wouldn't happen in ANY other country.

Two basic things happen in most protests:

- it is short lived, peaceful and not too disruptive - people go home after a few hours or a couple of days.

- it gets disruptive - protesters try to go out of the bounds of an agreed protest area, or try to storm an event - in this case, the police will try and contain the protesters or try and disperse them.

The protests in April got disruptive - the red shirts got disruptive. They took their protests out of the agreed protest area. They stormed parliament. They stormed Thaicom.

No other country (that I can think of) would have allowed the protests to continue. They would have been dispersed.

But in most countries their wouldn't have been an armed fight back against the police. If there was, there would have been people killed.

If you can think of a country where it would have been different, please point it out.

I can't think of a single country in the Western World where deaths got remotely adjacent to double figures in modern history during the worst episodes of civil disobedience.

Btw, your spellchecker isn't working properly. You are Thai, aren't you?

[whybother]

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

I think what you're expecting wouldn't happen in ANY other country.

Two basic things happen in most protests:

- it is short lived, peaceful and not too disruptive - people go home after a few hours or a couple of days.

- it gets disruptive - protesters try to go out of the bounds of an agreed protest area, or try to storm an event - in this case, the police will try and contain the protesters or try and disperse them.

The protests in April got disruptive - the red shirts got disruptive. They took their protests out of the agreed protest area. They stormed parliament. They stormed Thaicom.

No other country (that I can think of) would have allowed the protests to continue. They would have been dispersed.

But in most countries their wouldn't have been an armed fight back against the police. If there was, there would have been people killed.

If you can think of a country where it would have been different, please point it out.

I can't think of a single country in the Western World where deaths got remotely adjacent to double figures in modern history during the worst episodes of civil disobedience.

Btw, your spellchecker isn't working properly. You are Thai, aren't you?

Can you think of a single country in the Western world where the protesters were armed?

And, no, I'm not Thai. Would there be a problem if I was?

[Siam Simon]

Can you think of a single country in the Western world where the protesters were armed?

Whether or not the protestors were armed is quite irrelevant. The violence on April 10 was created by the Army trying to break up their protest.

And, no, I'm not Thai. Would there be a problem if I was?

It would only be a problem if you were a Thai posting here professionally, which I strongly suspect you are.

[whybother]

Can you think of a single country in the Western world where the protesters were armed?

Whether or not the protestors were armed is quite irrelevant. The violence on April 10 was created by the Army trying to break up their protest.

It is quite relevant. In many countries protesters are dispersed when they start breaking the law or continue disrupting the public going about their business. When most protests are dispersed, the protesters don't start shooting back. Therefore no usually dies.

It is completely normal for police to disperse protesters.

And, no, I'm not Thai. Would there be a problem if I was?

It would only be a problem if you were a Thai posting here professionally, which I strongly suspect you are.

I can assure you, I am neither Thai nor paid to post. But I know you will continue on believing that I am both. Up to you. Maybe you can start believing I'm an alter ego of one SRJ, and start calling me John in all of your responses too.

[rubl]

Can you think of a single country in the Western world where the protesters were armed?

Whether or not the protestors were armed is quite irrelevant. The violence on April 10 was created by the Army trying to break up their protest.

And, no, I'm not Thai. Would there be a problem if I was?

It would only be a problem if you were a Thai posting here professionally, which I strongly suspect you are.

The violence occurred when on the 10th of April the army tried to disperse the crowd of protesters. It started as a 'peaceful' operation as protests tend to go: shouting, throwing stones, agitation. Violence only erupted when unknowns started shooting. Although I cannot give you the names of these black-shirts, recent developments seem to point to a group of militant red-shirts. Anyway, this armed group seen to help the other protesters are the main if not single cause of violence that day. The killing of a army colonel with staff by lobbing grenades on them didn't help either.

Take this in good spirit from your local Dutch uncle

[Siam Simon]

cut/Maybe you can start believing I'm an alter ego of one SRJ, and start calling me John in all of your responses too.

Nah! No sneering, so you can't be a John alias. My money's on the return of Plus.

Btw, on the subject of John, I was re-reading a long-standing thread and noticed that no less than three of his aliases had contributed to it . Almost invites jokes about arguing with oneself, but two of the aliases are now banned.

[Siam Simon]

cut/It is completely normal for police to disperse protesters./cut

Except that it was the Army that dispersed these protestors.

Fact is, the containment was working fine in-as-far-as keeping the protest largely peaceful. But somebody decided to escalate the situation by sending in the Army to disperse. Long after we've finished debating this, History will be just as severe on that somebody as it will be on Thaksin and his cronies for all their various contributions to the debacle of April/May. But that won't repair all the shattered families that such extreme violence creates. And the 'necessary dispersal' spin is no help to the bereaved, either.

Like I stated earlier, the disruption pre-April 10 was bad, but the carnage caused by the decision to disperse is a whole different ball park. I'll take the pre-April 10 scenario every time because I value life exponentially more than other considerations.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

There's no chance of him going directly for the Military on this: He tried it a while ago over the fake bomb detectors and was severely slapped down by Gen Anupong.

I'm sorry. What? I was under the impression Abhisit risked his career (and more) but coming out strongly (albeit brilliantly, in his tactically genius way) against the fake bomb detectors? And won an unparalleled and unexpected victory and the Army no longer are risking their soldiers' lives purely to save face? How did General Anupong severely slap him down?

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

And there would be no terrorist bombings in Israel if they would simply give the Palestinians and Iranians and the Syrians what they want. There would be no loss of life then. There would also be no Israel. But by your logic, you clearly say they just pack up and leave - is that correct? To prevent the loss of life, of course...

And there would be no Islamic fundamentalists if we all agreed to their demands and made our women wear head-to-toe burqas and we all stopped eating pork and listening to music and shaving and adopted Sharia law and accepted that Allah is the One True God and that his paedophile spokesman Muhammed was The Prophet. So we should all go do that then, I take it? To prevent the loss of life, of course...

You need to be rational and pragmatic. Humans who show zero respect for law and order or due process, humans who hijack cities and turn CBDs into warzones and place their children on barricades to function as human shields protecting them from return fire...these are not humans you cow to. These are not humans you refuse to disperse / arrest for fears that human lives will be lost. Their lives SHOULD be lost, if they are ruining the lives of huge numbers of innocents who are unrelated to their little beef. If you give them what they want, what do you think you're really admitting / encouraging? You'd be saying "our refusal to hurt you means you can basically break every law, do whatever you want, demand whatever you want, and we'll simply let you do so because we are unwilling to respond with appropriate and JUST force against your inappropriate and UNJUST force. That's ridiculous. And everyone would start hijacking buildings demanding all sorts of equally irrational ultimatums.

And the death toll would almost certainly have been NILL had the Army refrained from moving in to disperse that huge protest.

And the red shirts would have continued to invade parliament, continued to invade Thaicom, continued to confront troops whereever they were stationed, and continued to disrupt people going about their business.

At what point should 100,000 people stop disrupting the business and lives of a few million?

Exactly. Except, in the final weeks, it was 5000 people disrupting the business and lives of 10 million Bangkok residents, and damaging the economy and tourism which disrupts the lives of 70,000,000 Thailand residents. Where do you draw the line on what is 'acceptable' amount of people breaking the law in brutal fashion, before it becomes unacceptable? 1000? 100? 1? The answer is: "it's never acceptable to hurt innocents with your dissent". No matter if the number was 10,000 or 100,000 or even 40,000,000 oppressing 30,000,000 illegally.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Well, I'm the type who holds the view that disruption is always infinitely preferable to loss of life, so we will just have to differ on this.

No. You're intelligent enough to recognise the truth. $3 billion in damages to Thailand's infrastructure and economy. Untold, immeasurable billions more in lost tourism, decreased standing in the global community, fearful investors pulling out or not proceeding with plans to invest...you cannot possibly be so naive as to fail to understand the macro-economic results of this kind of 'disruption'. I mean, of course, the number of lives which will be lost as a result of such huge impact on the economy and future economic prospects. We're talking a number in the tens of thousands that will die as a result of the economic damage inflicted by the the Red Shirts' actions. So unless you're going to claim indirect but undeniably linked loss of life isn't a justification for restoring law and order....you must admit that it was the terrorists' lives v innocent lives at stake. The government sacrificed the lives of a paltry number of violent protesters (you're still violent if you're part of a crowd from which your buddies are shooting, and you refuse to immediately disassociate yourself from their vicinity) to save the lives of tens of thousands (mostly children). The government were quite clearly heroes, and I shed no tears for those who fell who were violent, and only minimal sympathies for those who fell who were merely enabling the violence by providing cover for the violent types in their midst.

Next time someone comes to break into or burn your house, you will happily assist him, I guess ?

I take every care to avoid violence. But what has your remark to do with the debacle of April/May?

Oh my. His remark has to do with the protesters breaking into and burning innocents' houses and offices and malls. You're saying they should be allowed to do so, because we wouldn't want to risk any loss of life on the day. You're happy to sacrifice the huge death count which will occur AFTER a specific day of their arson and hijacking, as a direct result of their arson and hijacking.

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

No. That's blatantly incorrect, and even untrue. Did you not see what YOUR DESIRED REACTION resulted in, on April 9? There was serious violence, soldiers who refused to fire were seriously beaten to pulps by blood-thirsty mobs, who - though largely unarmed, were rapidly becoming armed by virtue of taking the rifles off the soldiers refusing to use them. Most of the 500 rifles were never returned. You should look at the pictures from April 9 and wake up to the realities that the government tried it YOUR way. It was a colossal fail, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about the protesting. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/unrest_in_thailand.html

Don't ignore this question as is the general style of response to fair and rational questions posed to Red Shirt sympathisers:

If you were this soldier the next day (in a hypothetical where he was lining up the next day instead of fighting for his life in ICU), or if you were a close friend of this soldier the next day, and the guys who did this to him purely because he REFUSED to fire his weapon were coming in again to attack you....would you fire your weapon or allow them to do to you what they did to him?

Every one of those pics was taken on April 9, when soldiers were ordered NOT to fire, not even in self-defence. You cannot conveniently ignore the fact that your prescribed 'strategy' for avoiding loss of life was already attempted (with spectacular and colossal Fail being the result of that ill-advised attempt to do what you claim should have been allowed to continue....INDEFINITELY.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

No other country (that I can think of) would have allowed the protests to continue. They would have been dispersed.

But in most countries their wouldn't have been an armed fight back against the police. If there was, there would have been people killed.

If you can think of a country where it would have been different, please point it out.

I can't think of a single country in the Western World where deaths got remotely adjacent to double figures in modern history during the worst episodes of civil disobedience.

Firstly, what in the heavens? Are you serious? You ignore the fact that whybother asked you to name a country where armed protesters would be allowed to attack and take over Parliament, TV stations, mega-malls and so forth.

Then you respond with one of the most incorrect claims I've ever seen? Can you name some countries? It will save me time listing the 3 figure amount where the death toll got a LOT higher in equivalent circumstances. There was no 'civil disobedience'. Enough with this hogwash, please. Refresh yourself on the definition "civil disobedience" and then reconcile your new understanding of the definition with the above images of April 9 and then correct your false claim.

Fact is, the containment was working fine in-as-far-as keeping the protest largely peaceful. But somebody decided to escalate the situation by sending in the Army to disperse. Long after we've finished debating this, History will be just as severe on that somebody as it will be on Thaksin and his cronies for all their various contributions to the debacle of April/May. But that won't repair all the shattered families that such extreme violence creates. And the 'necessary dispersal' spin is no help to the bereaved, either.

Like I stated earlier, the disruption pre-April 10 was bad, but the carnage caused by the decision to disperse is a whole different ball park. I'll take the pre-April 10 scenario every time because I value life exponentially more than other considerations.

I have categorically and irrefutably proved that you do not. If you think anyone rational believes that violent dissenters must be given UNLIMITED free reign to break the law and hijack buildings and government offices and cause incalculable damage to the economy...INDEFINITELY...for fears of "loss of life", when the "loss of life" will be exponentially greater unless the violent INSTIGATORS were dispersed with lawful violence following endless warnings and ultimatums and pleading to just CEASE & DESIST or else law and order would be restored....if you think anyone is going to be able to spin such a ridiculous position into a history book, I fear you have been drinking far too much of the Amsterdam Kool-Aid. And you have taken leave of your (clearly otherwise present) senses and you have sent your (evident, otherwise) intelligence on holiday.

[jdinasia]

deleted ----

If people can't see the need to remove armed insurrectionists from the heart of a country's capital city .....

well, then there is no hope (please note -- the arrests and confessions of people ((reds)) that have admitted to the grenade attacks etc.

Edited December 6, 2010 by jdinasia

[TheyCallmeScooter]

If people can't see the need to remove armed insurrectionists from the heart of a country's capital city .....

well, then there is no hope

Every one of my less-than-admirable number of IQ points is screaming at me that there is no hope now, and that means I must start turning my posts into "redacted" lines if that is even possible...ugh, even though there is no point in doing otherwise, to simply just tap the table and concede the fact they are racing towards the inevitable? sigh

If I was brighter than I am, I know what I would do. Unfortunately for me, I'm not. So I know I won't do what should be done. Hopefully, I don't get invoiced for my redundant stubbornness...

But yes, it's gotten to the stage where I cannot kid myself anymore. Too many people are in the unfathomable camp now. Which suggests anyone remaining in the other camp is foolish to the point of...something even more sharperer than foolish. Is me.

[Siam Simon]

No other country (that I can think of) would have allowed the protests to continue. They would have been dispersed.

But in most countries their wouldn't have been an armed fight back against the police. If there was, there would have been people killed.

If you can think of a country where it would have been different, please point it out.

I can't think of a single country in the Western World where deaths got remotely adjacent to double figures in modern history during the worst episodes of civil disobedience.

Firstly, what in the heavens? Are you serious? You ignore the fact that whybother asked you to name a country where armed protesters would be allowed to attack and take over Parliament, TV stations, mega-malls and so forth.

Then you respond with one of the most incorrect claims I've ever seen? Can you name some countries? It will save me time listing the 3 figure amount where the death toll got a LOT higher in equivalent circumstances. There was no 'civil disobedience'. Enough with this hogwash, please. Refresh yourself on the definition "civil disobedience" and then reconcile your new understanding of the definition with the above images of April 9 and then correct your false claim.

Fact is, the containment was working fine in-as-far-as keeping the protest largely peaceful. But somebody decided to escalate the situation by sending in the Army to disperse. Long after we've finished debating this, History will be just as severe on that somebody as it will be on Thaksin and his cronies for all their various contributions to the debacle of April/May. But that won't repair all the shattered families that such extreme violence creates. And the 'necessary dispersal' spin is no help to the bereaved, either.

Like I stated earlier, the disruption pre-April 10 was bad, but the carnage caused by the decision to disperse is a whole different ball park. I'll take the pre-April 10 scenario every time because I value life exponentially more than other considerations.

I have categorically and irrefutably proved that you do not. If you think anyone rational believes that violent dissenters must be given UNLIMITED free reign to break the law and hijack buildings and government offices and cause incalculable damage to the economy...INDEFINITELY...for fears of "loss of life", when the "loss of life" will be exponentially greater unless the violent INSTIGATORS were dispersed with lawful violence following endless warnings and ultimatums and pleading to just CEASE & DESIST or else law and order would be restored....if you think anyone is going to be able to spin such a ridiculous position into a history book, I fear you have been drinking far too much of the Amsterdam Kool-Aid. And you have taken leave of your (clearly otherwise present) senses and you have sent your (evident, otherwise) intelligence on holiday.

He's baaack!!!

[SomTumTiger]

I have categorically and irrefutably proved that you do not. If you think anyone rational believes that violent dissenters must be given UNLIMITED free reign to break the law and hijack buildings and government offices and cause incalculable damage to the economy...INDEFINITELY...for fears of "loss of life", when the "loss of life" will be exponentially greater unless the violent INSTIGATORS were dispersed with lawful violence following endless warnings and ultimatums and pleading to just CEASE & DESIST or else law and order would be restored....if you think anyone is going to be able to spin such a ridiculous position into a history book, I fear you have been drinking far too much of the Amsterdam Kool-Aid. And you have taken leave of your (clearly otherwise present) senses and you have sent your (evident, otherwise) intelligence on holiday.

He's baaack!!!

His photo montage just blew away your "peaceful protester" argument. Anything else coming? Great job Scooter!

[Siam Simon]

I have categorically and irrefutably proved that you do not. If you think anyone rational believes that violent dissenters must be given UNLIMITED free reign to break the law and hijack buildings and government offices and cause incalculable damage to the economy...INDEFINITELY...for fears of "loss of life", when the "loss of life" will be exponentially greater unless the violent INSTIGATORS were dispersed with lawful violence following endless warnings and ultimatums and pleading to just CEASE & DESIST or else law and order would be restored....if you think anyone is going to be able to spin such a ridiculous position into a history book, I fear you have been drinking far too much of the Amsterdam Kool-Aid. And you have taken leave of your (clearly otherwise present) senses and you have sent your (evident, otherwise) intelligence on holiday.

He's baaack!!!

His photo montage just blew away your "peaceful protester" argument. Anything else coming? Great job Scooter!

Why did it blow my argument away? Were the photos taken before, during or after the April 10 operation to disperse? Or a mixture of all three? If so, where exactly was each photo taken? During which incident?

[jdinasia]

Exactly how do you spell "disingenuous"? ...... before during or after? yah, let's not look at the reds being armed, Sae Daeng's Ronin mixing freely with the rest of the insurgents, arrests being made of people who have confessed to using m79 grenades etc ......

Let's not forget 2009 ... 2008 ...

oh yeah .... it is disingenuous

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Did you not see what YOUR DESIRED REACTION resulted in, on April 9? There was serious violence, soldiers who refused to fire were seriously beaten to pulps by blood-thirsty mobs, who - though largely unarmed, were rapidly becoming armed by virtue of taking the rifles off the soldiers refusing to use them. Most of the 500 rifles were never returned. You should look at the pictures from April 9 and wake up to the realities that the government tried it YOUR way. It was a colossal fail, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about the protesting.

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

Why did it blow my argument away? Were the photos taken before, during or after the April 10 operation to disperse? Or a mixture of all three? If so, where exactly was each photo taken? During which incident?

I provided all of this information already. The Boston Globe has annotated each of the 34 images with full descriptions of where, when and what is occurring for each image. For example (Image 14):

14 A Thai army soldier lies on the ground after he was pulled from a vehicle mounted with a water cannon during a fight with anti-government "red shirt" protesters at Thaicom Teleport and DTH Center on the outskirts of Bangkok in Pathum Thani province April 9, 2010. (REUTERS/Sukree Sukplang)

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

April 9, 2010

Unrest in Thailand

After nearly a month of protests by Thailand's Red Shirt anti-government movement, the situation in Bangkok has escalated in the last week. Though most of the past month's protests have been peaceful, earlier this week, Red Shirt protesters briefly stormed and held the parliament building. In response, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva declared a state of emergency on Wednesday, giving broader powers to security forces to quell the protests. When the government shut down an opposition TV channel, protesters today seized control of a transmission station in the first violent clash of the recent conflict. The Red Shirts are calling for new elections, and are largely supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a military coup in September 2006. (34 photos total)

As the images were published by The Boston Globe on 9 April, 2010 - it would be pretty hard for them to have been photographs from the future. But then, I suppose you knew all of this already.

[phiphidon]

As the images were published by The Boston Globe on 9 April, 2010 - it would be pretty hard for them to have been photographs from the future. But then, I suppose you knew all of this already.

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

I stongly urge viewing the quoted site where you can read the annotated images for yourselves, along with the date.

Didn't find anything about soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters because they refused to fire on the protesters. Nothing about most of the 500 rifles supposedly seized by the red shirts not being returned (though there is a picture of approx 9 rifles being brandished in the air by red shirts outside of the satellite station prior to handing the weapons back,and a couple of photos showing the guns handed back by the redshirts ).

The annotations and photos make mention of soldiers, police and redshirts being involved in scuffles, soldiers being pelted with rocks after using water cannon and tear gas on the protesters, a picture of a fire bomb thrown at the soldiers, a picture of a soldier aiming his weapon at the redshirts, a redshirt helping with first aid on a soldier, soldiers being greeted by the redshirts as they retreated from the satellite station and a few others.

But that's just what I read on the site, I'm not including the comments left by third parties who obviously have their own viewpoint and quite rightly so.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I stongly urge viewing the quoted site where you can read the annotated images for yourselves, along with the date.

Didn't find anything about soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters because they refused to fire on the protesters.

Of course you didn't. But you should disclose that you have eyesight limitations if you're going to make false assertions. Because if you fail to disclose that you cannot see, you are effectively lying when you pretend that you are blind - aren't you?

14 A Thai army soldier lies on the ground after he was pulled from a vehicle mounted with a water cannon during a fight with anti-government "red shirt" protesters at Thaicom Teleport and DTH Center on the outskirts of Bangkok in Pathum Thani province April 9, 2010. (REUTERS/Sukree Sukplang)

Nothing about most of the 500 rifles supposedly seized by the red shirts not being returned (though there is a picture of approx 9 rifles being brandished in the air by red shirts outside of the satellite station prior to handing the weapons back,and a couple of photos showing the guns handed back by the redshirts ).

Nine rifles? That's a blatant lie and it's outrageous that such behaviour is protected from sanction. You're insulting decency and truth.

33 Weapons seized from Thai riot policemen by Red Shirt protesters are returned after clashes at Thaicom station in Pathum Thani on the outskirts of Bangkok on April 9, 2010. Thai security forces used tear gas and water cannon against anti-government protesters who stormed a television station on the outskirts of Bangkok, an AFP reporter witnessed. (ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

http://www.theatlant...ivil-war/56839/

Broadly speaking, the Red Shirts are a loose assemblage encompassing the disgruntled laboring classes, new-money Thais with an anti-establishment grudge and, as many in the Thai media allege, poor Thais paid about $13 a day to rally.

The guiding leadership -- parliamentarians, aging activists and celebrities -- often invoke the language of non-violent, civil disobedience. But the movement has also tolerated a militant streak, personified by a renegade army major general -- Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawisdipol -- who flouted superiors and ordered his personal militia to protect protesters with force.

Khattiya's disciples' sense of invincibility was also fostered by the military itself, which for weeks allowed protesters to push the government around before responding with extreme force.

Since rallies began in mid-March, protesters have mobbed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's offices and private residence, splattering his gates with their own blood in a ritual curse. They have climbed parliament's gates and yanked guns from security forces.

Even troops themselves fled a bloody raid last month after mysterious black-clad men with rifles -- linked to Seh Daeng by government spokesmen -- emerged and fired back. A throng of protesters later took troops hostage, seized dozens of assault rifles and dismantled six armed personnel carriers.

I can provide you with hundreds of sources showing violent protesters took hundreds of assault rifles off soldiers with violence (which is, unsurprisingly, the ONLY way to take an assault rifle off of an Army soldier).

It's outrageous and criminal that lies are protected from sanction. How about YOU provide evidence showing they gave them back. The Army says they were not returned. The violent Red Shirts who took them say they were returned and that the protesters were "unarmed". Of course, we all know that was a lie now.

We all know your caper. I've irrefutably proven that you've just lied (for the umpteenth time). Time for you to provide some evidence to support your assertions.

But that's just what I read on the site, I'm not including the comments left by third parties who obviously have their own viewpoint and quite rightly so.

Quite right. Viewpoints should be allowed to be expressed, free speech is important. Do you think we're speaking freely here?

Free speech has two ingredients: Assertions, backed up with EVIDENCE.

You love making assertions. You HATE having to provide evidence to support them. You don't love free speech. You love free slander. You want the right to spread propaganda, not information. Time for you to provide some evidence to support your assertions.

NINE RIFLES?

EXPLAIN HOW YOU TAKE A RIFLE FROM A SOLDIER PEACEFULLY?

{cue silence / insulting lies}

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Didn't find anything about soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters because they refused to fire on the protesters. Nothing about most of the 500 rifles supposedly seized by the red shirts not being returned (though there is a picture of approx 9 rifles being brandished in the air by red shirts outside of the satellite station prior to handing the weapons back,and a couple of photos showing the guns handed back by the redshirts ).

You may wish to read ThaiVisa Forum Rules because you're in breach of a number of them.

4) Not to flame fellow members.

Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as libel.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate

Please be informed that ThaiVisa is an apolitical discussion forum, meaning that we take an unbiased position in regard to political matters in Thailand. As such, ThaiVisa will not permit itself to become a sounding platform for members to lobby other members to effect changes to or suggestions on political issues or Thai government decrees. This does not mean that members cannot voice a political opinion as ThaiVisa is first and foremost a discussion forum, but lobbying for any kind of action is forbidden.

[phiphidon]

I stongly urge viewing the quoted site where you can read the annotated images for yourselves, along with the date.

Didn't find anything about soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters because they refused to fire on the protesters.

Of course you didn't. But you should disclose that you have eyesight limitations if you're going to make false assertions. Because if you fail to disclose that you cannot see, you are effectively lying when you pretend that you are blind - aren't you?

{cue silence / insulting lies}

I replied to your post using the link you provided from the Boston Globe online site dated the 9th April which you originally posted. Any further comments you have since made quoting a source dated May 17th from The Atlantic I shall ignore as I wasn't replying to your use of that source.

You start off of by accusing me of being blind or lying that I am blind because I stated that I could not see any reference to "soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters" as referred to in your original post and then quoting the Boston Globe article as a source - is there any reference to "soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters" in that source? If not am I stiill blind or lying?

WRT Photo 14 - is this what you were referring to? Has the soldier been beaten to a bloody pulp, is he about to be, or are the redshirts making room around him - other photos from the same source show redshirts helping the injured soldiers (Photo 16)?

The nine rifles? I don't know how many you can see in the photo you referred to in the link but it looks like nine to me, sorry, ten, on closer inspection I've just seen another barrel of a gun. There are more pictures of more guns being handed in from that same source but no mention of 500 guns being grabbed and the Army saying they were not returned.

So judging from the source you quoted and to which I replied you suggest that I am blind, or a liar, have lied for the umpteenth time, do not love free speech and only want to spread propaganda. Next time I suggest that if you make statements that you wish to discuss, please provide the correct or even relevant links. My reply to your post was based on the link you provided.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I replied to your post using the link you provided from the Boston Globe online site dated the 9th April which you originally posted. Any further comments you have since made quoting a source dated May 17th from The Atlantic I shall ignore as I wasn't replying to your use of that source.

I replied to your post quoting your false assertions about what evidence was on that Boston Globe website which you were attempting to misrepresent blatantly deceitfully. After this post, any further false propaganda you post I shall ignore unless you provide either evidence proving there was no violence when soldiers were trying to keep the peace without using their rifles; or responses to my direct questions asked of you.

is there any reference to "soldiers being beaten to a bloody pulp by blood thirsty protesters" in that source? If not am I stiill blind or lying?

There is a picture of a soldier beaten to a bloody pulp by blood-thirsty protesters. Among other pictures of soldiers being violently attacked when they refused to use their weapons.

My truthful description of the images was not plagerised from the website. You're posting libel and trolling, attempting to drown out the evidence with noise. This is a blatant breach of ThaiVisa Forum Rules. Were I to speculate further, I would be in breach of ThaiVisa Forum Rules.

Has the soldier been beaten to a bloody pulp, is he about to be, or are the redshirts making room around him?

Both.

The actions of some Red Shirts are not the actions of all Red Shirts. But a Red Shirt who refuses to denounce the violence of their brothers-in-arms is effectively endorsing it. You're endorsing the violence when you deny the evidence. There are anti-Semitics who do what you are doing. They deny the Holocaust ever existed, but they refuse to provide evidence to support their assertions whilst they ignore all the evidence proving it did. You deny the Red Shirts were violent when the soldiers refused to use force, and refuse to provide evidence to support your assertions whilst you ignore all the evidence proving they were.

The nine rifles? I don't know how many you can see in the photo you referred to in the link but it looks like nine to me, sorry, ten, on closer inspection I've just seen another barrel of a gun.

Don't be sorry that you're blind. Be sorry that you're lying.

The first step to admitting you have a problem with the truth is to admit it. Only you can help you. Well, in the absence of sanction.

There are many other sources from many other incidents supporting the Army's claim of "500 rifles" violently seized from soldiers who refused to fire in self-defence. This is only one of the many sources.

Any further comments you have since made quoting a source dated May 17th from The Atlantic I shall ignore as I wasn't replying to your use of that source.

This is called ignoring evidence posted in support of a claim. It's what people do when they are spreading propaganda and lies when they're lobbying for political action. It's a breach of ThaiVisa Forum Rules.

Next time I suggest that if you make statements that you wish to discuss, please provide the correct or even relevant links.

I have, I did, I would...you ignore them:

Any further comments you have since made quoting a source dated May 17th from The Atlantic I shall ignore.

----------------------

Now answer my questions, if you please.

Free speech has two ingredients: Assertions, backed up with EVIDENCE.

You love making assertions. You HATE having to provide evidence to support them. You don't love free speech. You love free slander. You want the right to spread propaganda, not information. Time for you to provide some evidence to support your assertions.

NINE RIFLES?

EXPLAIN HOW YOU TAKE A RIFLE FROM A SOLDIER PEACEFULLY?

{cue silence / insulting lies}

------------------

You may wish to read ThaiVisa Forum Rules because you're in breach of a number of them.

4) Not to flame fellow members.

Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments

6) Not to post comments that could be reasonably construed as libel.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate

Please be informed that ThaiVisa is an apolitical discussion forum, meaning that we take an unbiased position in regard to political matters in Thailand. As such, ThaiVisa will not permit itself to become a sounding platform for members to lobby other members to effect changes to or suggestions on political issues or Thai government decrees. This does not mean that members cannot voice a political opinion as ThaiVisa is first and foremost a discussion forum, but lobbying for any kind of action is forbidden.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

You, and every Red Shirt apologist on this forum, are using this strategy below. I - personally - find such behaviour reprehensible, objectionable and grotesquely offensive. I believe it should be subject to sanction, but then I only care for Truth. Would it be redundant to appeal to your inner dignity to self-censor?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

If you wish to continue to squabble over trivialities rather than address the real issue, I'll tell you what I'm willing to do - I will rephrase my truthful statement without the details you wish to squabble over. That way, just like in every other time I win the argument (all the times I don't get furious at the trolling and respond with truthful descriptions of the characters of those who are posting libellous information, that is), you can just go silent. And our time is thus saved. Deal?

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

No. That's blatantly incorrect, and even untrue. Did you not see what YOUR DESIRED REACTION resulted in, on April 9? There was serious violence, soldiers who refused to fire were seriously beaten by mobs, who - though largely unarmed, were rapidly becoming armed by virtue of taking the rifles off the soldiers refusing to use them. Most of the rifles were never returned. You should look at the pictures from April 9 and wake up to the realities that the government tried it YOUR way. It was a colossal fail, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about the protesting.

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

There we go. Now there can be no retarded squabbling over the amount of rifles violently seized from peaceful soldiers attempting to keep the peace without using weapons. Which means you'll go silent, just like Siam Simon; who didn't have the decency to even respond to my question after I posted the evidence destroying his (false) assertions.

[rubl]

If you wish to continue to squabble over trivialities rather than address the real issue, I'll tell you what I'm willing to do - I will rephrase my truthful statement without the details you wish to squabble over. That way, just like in every other time I win the argument (all the times I don't get furious at the trolling and respond with truthful descriptions of the characters of those who are posting libellous information, that is), you can just go silent. And our time is thus saved. Deal?

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

No. That's blatantly incorrect, and even untrue. Did you not see what YOUR DESIRED REACTION resulted in, on April 9? There was serious violence, soldiers who refused to fire were seriously beaten by mobs, who - though largely unarmed, were rapidly becoming armed by virtue of taking the rifles off the soldiers refusing to use them. Most of the rifles were never returned. You should look at the pictures from April 9 and wake up to the realities that the government tried it YOUR way. It was a colossal fail, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about the protesting.

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

There we go. Now there can be no retarded squabbling over the amount of rifles violently seized from peaceful soldiers attempting to keep the peace without using weapons. Which means you'll go silent, just like Siam Simon; who didn't have the decency to even respond to my question after I posted the evidence destroying his (false) assertions.

Scoots, you're the cyber-equivalent of an acid trip wielding a chainsaw. I'm surprised Ph Phi Don got drawn in. Nobody else does. Please get some help for yourself, you'll feel better eventually.

Dear SS, although Scooter tends to be a bit abrasive, and annoys all those who rather annoy others than being annoyed, I think he makes a few good points. Now note I say 'I think' as I'm aware that's my personal opinion. This compared to some who state as if it's written in stone and maybe Moses carried it down from the mountain.

I may be surprised PPD got involved, but surely not that others suggest help is needed. I already had one myself who suggested I ignore his posts rather than reply on it. Go figure

[TheyCallmeScooter]

What is clear to me is that there is a lot of speculation and prevarication on this forum about the events of April 10. But one aspect stands out rather glaringly: The protest was overwhelmingly peaceful (albeit very disruptive) until the Army moved in to disperse. No dispersal = no serious violence = lives saved = Result.

No. That's blatantly incorrect, and even untrue. Did you not see what YOUR DESIRED REACTION resulted in, on April 9? There was serious violence, soldiers who refused to fire were seriously beaten by mobs, who - though largely unarmed, were rapidly becoming armed by virtue of taking the rifles off the soldiers refusing to use them. Most of the rifles were never returned. You should look at the pictures from April 9 and wake up to the realities that the government tried it YOUR way. It was a colossal fail, and there was nothing 'peaceful' about the protesting.

http://www.boston.co...n_thailand.html

...you'll go silent, just like Siam Simon; who didn't have the decency to even respond to my question after I posted the evidence destroying his (false) assertions.

Scoots, you're the cyber-equivalent of an acid trip wielding a chainsaw. I'm surprised Ph Phi Don got drawn in. Nobody else does. Please get some help for yourself, you'll feel better eventually.

Let's recap:

You are alleging that the military slaughtered peaceful innocents when there was no need. You provide no evidence of this. Instead you assert the protesters were peaceful and they should have been left to do what they wanted.

I destroy your assertion with irrefutable evidence showing what happened when the military refused to use violence; what happened when they didn't fire their weapons to restore law and order. I ask a soft question which isn't offensive in the slightest, asking what you would do in the place of the soldier who was beaten by the mob when he refused to fire in self-defence.

You ignore my question. You ignore my evidence. You ignore the thread.

I point that fact out.

You respond with insults directed at me and continue to ignore the fact that your claims were proven false.

You're surprised anyone got "drawn in" after I destroyed your false assertions? I should get help? For what, exactly?*

*Question 233 ignored by Red Shirt sympathisers on ThaiVisa Forum.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Dear SS, although Scooter tends to be a bit abrasive, and annoys all those who rather annoy others than being annoyed, I think he makes a few good points.

I realise you're posting in support, but I take mild offence to the suggestion I am abrasive.

I am the voice of diplomacy and pragmatism. Only when it is obvious that my diplomatic tone with carefully chosen phrasing is not reflected in the responses (or lack thereof, when a response conceding the facts I proved and correcting the record from the false lies I very diplomatically corrected, is pretty much obligatory); only - then - will my language get abrasive.

And...quite rightly so.

[rubl]

Dear SS, although Scooter tends to be a bit abrasive, and annoys all those who rather annoy others than being annoyed, I think he makes a few good points.

I realise you're posting in support, but I take mild offence to the suggestion I am abrasive.

I am the voice of diplomacy and pragmatism. Only when it is obvious that my diplomatic tone with carefully chosen phrasing is not reflected in the responses (or lack thereof, when a response conceding the facts I proved and correcting the record from the false lies I very diplomatically corrected, is pretty much obligatory); only - then - will my language get abrasive.

And...quite rightly so.

Terribly sorry, old chap, no offence and all that. Mind you, as you may have noticed, some personal opinions tend to annoy or be taken in less good spirit. Let's just say we have a different style

From your local Dutch uncle