Sister Of Italian Killed In Thai Protests Slams Money Offer

[jayboy]

So you are a journalist or some other actor with intimate knowledge of the events, are you? Because saying "the army generally acted very professionally" sounds an awful lot like a "blanket statement", which could quite conceivably be motivated by your " own political convictions".

You obviously are unaware of my posting record and the political affiliation it reveals.

My conclusions were based on many accounts from diverse sources.I found ANU's Professor Desmond Ball's analysis particularly useful though his close relationship with the senior officer corps needs to be factored in.

I would like to commend you on your one post honoring and blaming both sides.

There is three sides to all stories the Pro and Con along with the truth. The third option can be very elusive.

That being said you now mention factoring in outside accounts.

How about factoring in a group of armed peaceful protesters illegally seizing control of a large commercial area in Bangkok thereby depriving many honest citizens of a lively hood and refused to move or accept any thing other than there demands. Almost forgot to mention these armed peaceful protesters built defensive barricades.

While we are here perhaps some one can explain to me how a person can be presumed innocent when they knowingly as well as physically support illegal activities?

A balanced explanation would be appreciated. Please don't even try to say they didn't there is enough video evidence to show they did it. Not to mention they were paid. Until there master saw his coup wouldn't work. He then left them to there own devices. It is only now through the government that they are able to get bail.

What point are you asking me to respond to ? Some of the matters you raise seem unconnected with my post which was mainly commenting on the professionalism of the military's efforts to clear the centre.

[animatic]

While we are here perhaps some one can explain to me how a person can be presumed innocent when they knowingly as well as physically support illegal activities?

They are not convicted of it.

But that is in the legal sense.

In the moral sense they can be seen as guilty as hell, or totally innocent, depending on the situational morality of the observer. Some will say that they are doing a wrong to right a greater wrong, and others that they are doing another wrong that doesn't improve anything but does make things worse.That righting a perceived wrong with another wrong is not justifiable.

Edited December 5, 2010 by animatic

[jayjay0]

While we are here perhaps some one can explain to me how a person can be presumed innocent when they knowingly as well as physically support illegal activities?

They are not convicted of it.

But that is in the legal sense.

In the moral sense they can be seen as guilty as hell, or totally innocent, depending on the situational morality of the observer. Some will say that they are doing a wrong to right a greater wrong, and others that they are doing another wrong that doesn't improve anything but does make things worse.That righting a perceived wrong with another wrong is not justifiable.

What you say is most certainly true in North America. I have little knowledge of the different judicial systems in other areas of the world.

Is that written into Thai law or assumed to be? I am serious with that question.

jayboy respond to any one of the points I mentioned. I can fully understand your reluctance to do so. If the situation was reversed I to wuld be reluctant to reply. Maybe I made a mistake in asking for a balanced answer.

[jayboy]

jayboy respond to any one of the points I mentioned. I can fully understand your reluctance to do so. If the situation was reversed I to wuld be reluctant to reply. Maybe I made a mistake in asking for a balanced answer.

No.You can't wriggle out of the situation so easily.Just let me know which points (connected to my post, not unrelated stuff like video evidence or Thaksin's position) to which you would like a response.I am happy to do so but you need to be a lot clearer.I note however that in another thread you bizarrely call me a "Tsarist malcontent" so perhaps I don't need to bother with you.

Edited December 5, 2010 by jayboy

[Siam Simon]

Yes, they pushed and prodded, plus they trespassed in large numbers at Parliament and at Thaicom, but the important thing is that the violence was minimal so the containment operation was rather obviously working in that respect. Then the Army was sent in to disperse (while the protestors were acting peacefully).....

Anyway, one of the points I was making was that the death of Fabio Pollenghi, and so many other deaths, were due to the decision to escalate.

No. The death of Fabio Pollenghi was due to the red shirts having weapons, and therefore the need for the army to use weapons.

Can you please point me to ANY protest in the middle of a large city where the protesters got violent and were not dispersed?

The protest was disruptive, with isolated incidents of violence, so your attempt to compare it to different situations is irrelevant. Plus, if the Army had continued to contain the protests, overwhelmingly non-violent is how they would have remained, and Fabio Pollenghi and all the others wouldn't have died. But somebody ordered the army to change tactics.....

[ballpoint]

The protest was disruptive, with isolated incidents of violence, so your attempt to compare it to different situations is irrelevant. Plus, if the Army had continued to contain the protests, overwhelmingly non-violent is how they would have remained, and Fabio Pollenghi and all the others wouldn't have died. But somebody ordered the army to change tactics.....

Firstly: "Contain the protests", where exactly? In the same spot they were already in? Continuing to disrupt the livelihoods of thousands? The protest had gone on far too long. I personally know people who were ruined by not being able to make the living that they had put their entire savings and sweat into. I challenge you, or any one else, to name me one Western democracy that would not have forcibly dispersed it long before the Thai government did.

Secondly: The first dispersal attempt, in April, was done using riot shields and batons, as is the norm globally. They came under fire from the red camp. That is why the army changed tactics. Even so, despite what the BBC would try to imply, they still never used excessive force against the main protest site. The running battles and shootings took place at barriers several streets away. Again, I challenge you to name me one Western democracy that would not have used armed force against a group of people that were shooting back.

Thirdly: The reds are a group that has repeatedly advocated the use of violence to achieve their aims. They did so in 2009 with their burning bus attacks, their LPG tanker threats, and their murder of two people trying to defend their businesses. In 2010, at least one of their main leaders is on video calling for the burning of Bangkok, and the hired thugs paid heed. As for their aims, I have yet to see any pro red poster link to any red manifesto saying how they would help the poor, how they would ensure elections were fair, and what exactly they were trying to achieve (they claimed they wanted elections, Abhisit offered them in November and they walked out with no attempt to negotiate earlier ones, no attempt to ask their grassroots supporters, no attempt to take a vote on it, just three self declared leaders of a supposedly pro-democracy group, and an SMS from a mysterious outsider, making a decision that affected 1000's of livelihoods, and 90 actual lives). But that's okay, many of us can clearly see what they wanted to achieve, and it's not democracy.

[whybother]

The protest was disruptive, with isolated incidents of violence, so your attempt to compare it to different situations is irrelevant. Plus, if the Army had continued to contain the protests, overwhelmingly non-violent is how they would have remained, and Fabio Pollenghi and all the others wouldn't have died. But somebody ordered the army to change tactics.....

Comparing to different situations is irrelevant? Do you mean comparing it to western protests where the protesters weren't armed is irrelevant?

Before the protests the red shirts threatened violence and disruption with their speeches. But the government let them protest.

They gathered at Pha Fan bridge in their tens of thousands. And the government let them protest.

The red shirts weren't happy with that. So they took it to the streets disrupting large parts of Bangkok. But the government let them protest.

Once again the protesters weren't happy with being allowed to protest, so they confronted the army that were stationed away from the protesters. The army went back to their barracks and the government let the protesters protest.

Once again the protesters escalated their protest and expanded their protest area, taking over a major business and tourist district. But the government let them protest.

The protesters weren't happy being allowed to protest, so they decided to storm parliament. But the government let them protest.

On the stages, the red shirt leaders were spouting lies and inciting violence which was being broadcast on Red TV, so the government shut it down. The red shirts didn't like it that their lies weren't being broadcast to the pawns up north, so they decided to storm Thaicom.

At every single stage the protesters raised the level of their protests. They wanted confrontation. They wanted the government and the army to react.

Even when they consolidated at Ratchaprasong, they were being confrontational. When the army surrounded the protest area, the army didn't move in, THE PROTESTERS MOVED OUT. They moved outside their barriers and attacked the army.

The protests were disruptive and were violent. They would have been dispersed in any western country.

Except in any western country, the protesters would not have been armed, and protesters and journalists would not have died.

[animatic]

While we are here perhaps some one can explain to me how a person can be presumed innocent when they knowingly as well as physically support illegal activities?

They are not convicted of it.

But that is in the legal sense.

In the moral sense they can be seen as guilty as hell, or totally innocent, depending on the situational morality of the observer. Some will say that they are doing a wrong to right a greater wrong, and others that they are doing another wrong that doesn't improve anything but does make things worse.That righting a perceived wrong with another wrong is not justifiable.

What you say is most certainly true in North America. I have little knowledge of the different judicial systems in other areas of the world.

Is that written into Thai law or assumed to be? I am serious with that question.

jayboy respond to any one of the points I mentioned. I can fully understand your reluctance to do so. If the situation was reversed I to wuld be reluctant to reply. Maybe I made a mistake in asking for a balanced answer.

I think the only place with 'guilty until proven innocent' in any fashion

is oddly enough France. But only under certain criteria.

If you are not officially charged by an 'Investigative Magistrate', you are innocent.

All people are innocent until charged. But you can be investigated on suspicion.

Investigative Magistrates are sort of a mix of prosecutor and judge in one.

Once you are charged you ARE presumed guilty by sufficient evidence,

that you then must prove your innocence in a larger tribunal.

Sounds daft doesn't it?

I live there for 10 years, and that is how it was explained to me.

Edited December 5, 2010 by animatic

[Piengrudee]

It is so obvious that she is after more money from our government. Can this be classified as holding Thailand ransom? I think so.

[jayjay0]

The protest was disruptive, with isolated incidents of violence, so your attempt to compare it to different situations is irrelevant. Plus, if the Army had continued to contain the protests, overwhelmingly non-violent is how they would have remained, and Fabio Pollenghi and all the others wouldn't have died. But somebody ordered the army to change tactics.....

Comparing to different situations is irrelevant? Do you mean comparing it to western protests where the protesters weren't armed is irrelevant?

Before the protests the red shirts threatened violence and disruption with their speeches. But the government let them protest.

They gathered at Pha Fan bridge in their tens of thousands. And the government let them protest.

The red shirts weren't happy with that. So they took it to the streets disrupting large parts of Bangkok. But the government let them protest.

Once again the protesters weren't happy with being allowed to protest, so they confronted the army that were stationed away from the protesters. The army went back to their barracks and the government let the protesters protest.

Once again the protesters escalated their protest and expanded their protest area, taking over a major business and tourist district. But the government let them protest.

The protesters weren't happy being allowed to protest, so they decided to storm parliament. But the government let them protest.

On the stages, the red shirt leaders were spouting lies and inciting violence which was being broadcast on Red TV, so the government shut it down. The red shirts didn't like it that their lies weren't being broadcast to the pawns up north, so they decided to storm Thaicom.

At every single stage the protesters raised the level of their protests. They wanted confrontation. They wanted the government and the army to react.

Even when they consolidated at Ratchaprasong, they were being confrontational. When the army surrounded the protest area, the army didn't move in, THE PROTESTERS MOVED OUT. They moved outside their barriers and attacked the army.

The protests were disruptive and were violent. They would have been dispersed in any western country.

Except in any western country, the protesters would not have been armed, and protesters and journalists would not have died.

In a way it was the governments fault.

They should have never allowed it to grow. It soon became obvious that the red shirts just wanted to cause trouble. That is one of the rasons there 100,000 dwindled down to 5,000.

[Piengrudee]

There are law in this country. Murder of this Italian, the jap, and seh daeng etc is not necessary. Unless our army think they are both the judge and executioner. If that is the case, 91 casualty is too light; 911 will be a better number.

[Thaddeus]

It is so obvious that she is after more money from our government. Can this be classified as holding Thailand ransom? I think so.

Nope, all she wants is answers, and if there are no answers she wants some Thai official with a set of balls to stand up and say 'we don't know'

Not too much to ask for is it.

Ah but TIT, getting a uniform here to admit to not knowing something..... they all evade the situation.

[Thaddeus]

Unless our army think they are both the judge and executioner.

Bingo

[rubl]

The day I stop being sensitive to the carnage and deaths caused by the orders to disperse on April 10 and subsequently, and start justifying them as a necessary political act, is the day I will stop thinking of myself as a member of the human race.

When you say 'caused by the orders to disperse', you might also say 'caused by the UDD leaders and their paymaster who started a peaceful protest in March which got more and more violent as those didn't result in what they had set as goals'. Very conveniently you also seem to forget those 60+ grenade attacks on police, army, non-red-shirt protesters and innocent bystanders.

Is there anyone on this forum who remembers the name of the Thai lady who was killed in the grenade attack on BTS Saladaeng station? Downstairs multi-color-shirt were protesting the reds blocking Bangkok and grenades lobbed on them caused 'collateral damage' ('only' one dead, 80 wounded). Anyone out here feeling compassion? No disrespect to Fabio P., but he choose to be in the warzone when fire was exchanged, the lady only wanted to get home.

I haven't "conveniently forgotten" the violence by either side caused by the huge escalation on April 10. And I would no more try to place responsibility for Fabio Pollenghi's death on his own incompetence with nothing more than speculation (as has been the case by several posters on this thread) than I would for Col Romklao or Ms Taebthong and the other two people murdered at the Saladaeng BTS (at least one poster on another recent thread tried to argue that civilians being shot at shouldn't have been in their own neighbourhoods and should have been living rough!)

To my shame I have to admit I had to look up the name of Ms. Taebthong before questioning others and still wonder about the names of the two others who died.

Both sides wrong, both sides have done things they shouldn't. Which side is more to blame? Some is and should be an academic question only. Both sides should work together to push forward.

[Siam Simon]

Firstly: "Contain the protests", where exactly? In the same spot they were already in? Continuing to disrupt the livelihoods of thousands?

Yes, containment, as in making sure the protests didn't flare up into large-scale violence.

The protest had gone on far too long. I personally know people who were ruined by not being able to make the living that they had put their entire savings and sweat into. I challenge you, or any one else, to name me one Western democracy that would not have forcibly dispersed it long before the Thai government did.

The 'money before life' argument rears it's ugly head again.

I'm struggling to think of one single Western democracy that would have forcibly dispersed the protests in the way that The Thai Army did in April/May, even if some of the protestors were armed. Maybe Israel, and only against it's indigenous Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But that's a whole different discussion, not for here.

There was an incident in my home country (the UK) thirty-odd years ago in Northern Ireland which became known as Bloody Sunday. Basically, the British Army (which some years previously had been given the duty of policing the armed struggles between Protestants and Catholics in the region) panicked and opened fire indiscriminately on a Catholic protest that was quickly turning ugly. The body count was shocking. Our country has agonized and metaphorically tortured itself over that fateful day ever since. The USA had a somewhat similar incident in the same era at Kent State University which produced similar soul-searching. Lessons were learned by the security forces (particularly in Northern Ireland, where the Army were being shot at and bombed on a weekly, sometimes daily basis). For decades now, security forces' responses to protest/riot/insurrection/terrorism have been organic and very specific-targeted, based on highest quality intelligence and surveillance (at least when their own populations are involved ).

Creating live firing zones and often shooting at anything that moves, with all it's resultant death and carnage would simply not happen in a Western democracy in the modern era.

Secondly: The first dispersal attempt, in April, was done using riot shields and batons, as is the norm globally. They came under fire from the red camp. That is why the army changed tactics. Even so, despite what the BBC would try to imply, they still never used excessive force against the main protest site. The running battles and shootings took place at barriers several streets away. Again, I challenge you to name me one Western democracy that would not have used armed force against a group of people that were shooting back.

This version of the initial dispersal is all pure speculation. However, in view of the fact that after they dispersed the 2009 Sonkran protests, the Army repeatedly lied about not using live rounds to shoot above the heads of the protestors, I would personally be very dubious about any version of events that they put out. Your areas of engagement point depends on whether-or-not you are trying to be tricky about definition of the main protest site. Seemed to me that, at the end, they were simply trying to terrorise the protestors out of the area, as seemed to be the case with the temple deaths. Please refer to my earlier reply wrt comparisons with the West.

Thirdly: The reds are a group that has repeatedly advocated the use of violence to achieve their aims. They did so in 2009 with their burning bus attacks, their LPG tanker threats, and their murder of two people trying to defend their businesses. In 2010, at least one of their main leaders is on video calling for the burning of Bangkok, and the hired thugs paid heed. As for their aims, I have yet to see any pro red poster link to any red manifesto saying how they would help the poor, how they would ensure elections were fair, and what exactly they were trying to achieve (they claimed they wanted elections, Abhisit offered them in November and they walked out with no attempt to negotiate earlier ones, no attempt to ask their grassroots supporters, no attempt to take a vote on it, just three self declared leaders of a supposedly pro-democracy group, and an SMS from a mysterious outsider, making a decision that affected 1000's of livelihoods, and 90 actual lives). But that's okay, many of us can clearly see what they wanted to achieve, and it's not democracy.

The ranting is setting in now. But I would still tend to agree with your basic tenets about Thaksin and his cronies, though that's not my angle here: My point is that, for some reason, The Army handled the dispersal attempts in a brutal and (by Western standards) amateurish way. My own suspicion is that whoever ordered the dispersal didn't care, and wanted to teach the Red Shirts a lesson they wouldn't forget. And I'm also of the opinion that some people won't forget, and that (as is almost always the case) violence will eventually beget more violence. But I hope I'm wrong on that last point.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

The protest was disruptive, with isolated incidents of violence, so your attempt to compare it to different situations is irrelevant. Plus, if the Army had continued to contain the protests, overwhelmingly non-violent is how they would have remained, and Fabio Pollenghi and all the others wouldn't have died. But somebody ordered the army to change tactics.....

Comparing to different situations is irrelevant? Do you mean comparing it to western protests where the protesters weren't armed is irrelevant?

Before the protests the red shirts threatened violence and disruption with their speeches. But the government let them protest.

They gathered at Pha Fan bridge in their tens of thousands. And the government let them protest.

The red shirts weren't happy with that. So they took it to the streets disrupting large parts of Bangkok. But the government let them protest.

Once again the protesters weren't happy with being allowed to protest, so they confronted the army that were stationed away from the protesters. The army went back to their barracks and the government let the protesters protest.

Once again the protesters escalated their protest and expanded their protest area, taking over a major business and tourist district. But the government let them protest.

The protesters weren't happy being allowed to protest, so they decided to storm parliament. But the government let them protest.

On the stages, the red shirt leaders were spouting lies and inciting violence which was being broadcast on Red TV, so the government shut it down. The red shirts didn't like it that their lies weren't being broadcast to the pawns up north, so they decided to storm Thaicom.

At every single stage the protesters raised the level of their protests. They wanted confrontation. They wanted the government and the army to react.

Even when they consolidated at Ratchaprasong, they were being confrontational. When the army surrounded the protest area, the army didn't move in, THE PROTESTERS MOVED OUT. They moved outside their barriers and attacked the army.

The protests were disruptive and were violent. They would have been dispersed in any western country.

Except in any western country, the protesters would not have been armed, and protesters and journalists would not have died.

Ahhh.....where to begin. Maybe it's better that you just read my reply to Ballpoint's post. Plus, try to get your head around the increasingly popular view on Thai Visa forum that History is unlikely to be kind to any of the major players in the events being discussed.

[whybother]

Well Simon, if you've never seen police in riot gear dispersing a western protest, then there is no point discussing this any further.

[Piengrudee]

"Both sides wrong, both sides have done things they shouldn't."? I don't think so Ask Mark or CRES, or DSI, or Suthep. The answer is "Red sides wrong, Red sides have done things they shouldn't. Govt is always right, and can do no wrong. . . . . . On the subject of the little mafia woman; if Mark were to double his offer, I am sure she will shut up and smile all the way to the bank. She already knew that her brother should not have worn black, which cause his accidental death; plus, his camera look like a gun.

[AleG]

The ranting is setting in now. But I would still tend to agree with your basic tenets about Thaksin and his cronies, though that's not my angle here: My point is that, for some reason, The Army handled the dispersal attempts in a brutal and (by Western standards) amateurish way. My own suspicion is that whoever ordered the dispersal didn't care, and wanted to teach the Red Shirts a lesson they wouldn't forget. And I'm also of the opinion that some people won't forget, and that (as is almost always the case) violence will eventually beget more violence. But I hope I'm wrong on that last point.

Simon, I think you are skipping several important parts of the narrative, you seem to be jumping from protesters, well, protesting, to the Army comes shooting. There were many, lengthy and conciliatory negotiations attempted by the government, which the red shirt leaders finally abandoned. When it came to disperse the Red mob, after talking proved to be useless, non-lethal methods were tried. On the tenth, the army went in with batons and shields and got fired upon from the Red Shirt side, have you seen the videos of grenades exploding among soldiers? Is that a common occurrence during protest in Europe and the US?

On Ratchaprasong, since the Red Shirts had built (in a display of their peaceful intentions no doubt) fuel soaked, gas tank rigged, spiked barricades to keep government forces out a normal police dispersal was just not possible.

They tried using water cannons, the trucks were tore down to pieces. What would you do next, keep sending water cannons until they tire of destroying them and go home?

You also take no notice that during the protest there were daily grenade and shootings throughout Bangkok, the place was spiraling into anarchy with an unchecked mob that did as it pleased.

You must concede that there was/is an armed wing of the Red Shirts, their leaders more than once called upon them to "protect" the protesters, on the 10th April clusterf*ck I've seen videos of protesters, looking at the "Black Shirts" shooting praising and cheering for them.

Red leaders had spun the followers into a frenzy, "fight to the last drop of blood" they were saying, does that sound like it would lead to a peaceful dispersal of the protest?

[jayjay0]

"Both sides wrong, both sides have done things they shouldn't."? I don't think so Ask Mark or CRES, or DSI, or Suthep. The answer is "Red sides wrong, Red sides have done things they shouldn't. Govt is always right, and can do no wrong. . . . . . On the subject of the little mafia woman; if Mark were to double his offer, I am sure she will shut up and smile all the way to the bank. She already knew that her brother should not have worn black, which cause his accidental death; plus, his camera look like a gun.

The only thing the army did wrong was letting them stay so long.

[AleG]

"Both sides wrong, both sides have done things they shouldn't."? I don't think so Ask Mark or CRES, or DSI, or Suthep. The answer is "Red sides wrong, Red sides have done things they shouldn't. Govt is always right, and can do no wrong. . . . . . On the subject of the little mafia woman; if Mark were to double his offer, I am sure she will shut up and smile all the way to the bank. She already knew that her brother should not have worn black, which cause his accidental death; plus, his camera look like a gun.

The only thing the army did wrong was letting them stay so long.

Hmmm, not really. The police is at fault there. Normal police operations should had been used to end the protest in a civil manner before the Red Shirts entrenched themselves in. After that the police was useless (assuming they'd be useful to begin with) to end the occupation of Rachaprasong. You don't send police with batons, shields and tear gas against bullets and grenades.

[babsy65]

"Both sides wrong, both sides have done things they shouldn't."? I don't think so Ask Mark or CRES, or DSI, or Suthep. The answer is "Red sides wrong, Red sides have done things they shouldn't. Govt is always right, and can do no wrong. . . . . . On the subject of the little mafia woman; if Mark were to double his offer, I am sure she will shut up and smile all the way to the bank. She already knew that her brother should not have worn black, which cause his accidental death; plus, his camera look like a gun.

Dear P.

just a courtesy post to inform you that I shall send your three posts- together with your picture- on this subject to a few Italian newspapers, the Thai minister of foreign affairs in Rome and to a few news blogs.

What you wrote is despicable and defamotory. I shall seek legal advise also to start legal proceedings against your claims implying that this woman is associated with an organized crime: The Mafia.

Am I doing this for money???? No way.

It is personal, and when issues become personal, they are priceless

[ballpoint]

The ranting is setting in now. But I would still tend to agree with your basic tenets about Thaksin and his cronies, though that's not my angle here: My point is that, for some reason, The Army handled the dispersal attempts in a brutal and (by Western standards) amateurish way. My own suspicion is that whoever ordered the dispersal didn't care, and wanted to teach the Red Shirts a lesson they wouldn't forget. And I'm also of the opinion that some people won't forget, and that (as is almost always the case) violence will eventually beget more violence. But I hope I'm wrong on that last point.

The reds try and break every argument down into black and white "you're either for the poor, and for the reds, or you're for the elites and against the poor" being one of them, as is "The 'money before life' argument rears it's ugly head again". The argument is more the rights of people, many of whom come from that same poor background that the reds claim to be "fighting" for, to earn a living, to better their lives, to do something for themselves against those who are content to collect money from a corrupt politician to vote for him or protest for him. The army were sent in to do the job because the police were inactive at best and proactively red at worst. There are numerous accounts of laser pointers being used at this stage to point out targets for assassination. The facts that those targetted were military, and that the army initially withdrew following the events of that first dispersal attempt, rather than press on, indiscriminantly shooting anyone in their way, leads to the conclusion that the shots were from the red camp. You put forward a couple of examples of armies shooting civilians in the West and conclude that "Creating live firing zones and often shooting at anything that moves, with all it's resultant death and carnage would simply not happen in a Western democracy in the modern era". Maybe, maybe not, the West hasn't faced armed protestors recently. The nearest it's got has been during terror alerts, where the army are called in to guard airports and other possible targets. A certain Brazilian in the London Underground might well argue that the real world isn't exactly as you say it is though. (And yes, I know he was shot by the police, but they had shoot to kill orders in a "live firing zone").

Suppression and dispersal of over the top protests are hardly unknown in the West. These days every G8 summit is seemingly accompanied by images of protestors beaten bloody and forcibly dragged into police vans. It is a known tactic of many of the more militant groups to themselves target fellow protestors in an attempt to escalate the conflict and provoke sympathy from the media. None have yet gone to the extreme of shootings or bombings, but what would be the odds of any government using like force against them? And, I reiterate, the Thai government did not press forward with indiscriminant gunfire in April following the army coming under fire.

Finally, to the quote at the top of this post: It seems that any pro-red poster, when faced by facts he doesn't want to admit to and/or questions he can't truthfully answer, will resort to personal attack. This time in the form of "the ranting is setting in now". Any discussion about the reds without pointing out/admitting to their known acts of violence is incomplete. Please point out one non fact from what I wrote? The burning buses were clearly evident. The LPG tanker threats made against the Din Daeng community were real, I have talked with residents who were there and did feal extremely threatened - as an aside, this is one reason why the reds no longer have any support in the village I live in, due to some of the threatened residents coming from here, and is the reason I was able to question them about the experience. The murder of two market sellers can not be hidden, neither can the videos of Arisman calling for petrol and containers in order to burn Bangkok. The actual burnings of Central World, and at Siam Square and other locations, along with the attempted burning of Channel Three, when it was clear that people were inside, do show that heed was paid. The links to any red manifesto addressing my questions of how the poor are to be helped, how elections are to be fair, and what their actual aims were/are also remain absent. If posting facts and asking reasonable questions is "ranting" then I guess the red posters are the most non-ranting people on the forum.

Edited December 6, 2010 by ballpoint

[animatic]

Piengrudee,

I am rather appalled that you have twisted my words so badly around from their intent and meaning.

[Piengrudee]

There is a price for everything. When the price is right, even Mafia walk away smiling.

[philw]

Well Simon, if you've never seen police in riot gear dispersing a western protest, then there is no point discussing this any further.

Generally they don't do it with snipers.............

[whybother]

Well Simon, if you've never seen police in riot gear dispersing a western protest, then there is no point discussing this any further.

Generally they don't do it with snipers.............

Generally, they're not dispersing armed protesters.

[TAWP]

There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

That is simply not true. They even stormed locations guarded by the army and the soldiers just abandoning their posts (and equipment) to avoid shooting and harming any civilians. It wasn't until much later that they were given orders to contain the situation...

[Buchholz]

There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

That is simply not true. They even stormed locations guarded by the army and the soldiers just abandoning their posts (and equipment) to avoid shooting and harming any civilians. It wasn't until much later that they were given orders to contain the situation...

and all the while, facing Red grenades...

Suspects in Multiple M79 Attacks Arrested

The suspect admitted to eight other incidents in Bangkok, including the one near the home of Akaratorn Chularat, the President of the Administrative Court, as well as others at Bangkok Bank's Talingchan and Vibhavadi branches, Indra Hotel in Ratchathevi area, and the Government House.

He confessed that he fired 60 grenades into Lumpini Park on May 16, after the security forces threatened to launch a crackdown, and he engaged in a gun battle with security forces from within the red-shirt group during the clashes on May 18 and 19.

[Siam Simon]

The ranting is setting in now. But I would still tend to agree with your basic tenets about Thaksin and his cronies, though that's not my angle here: My point is that, for some reason, The Army handled the dispersal attempts in a brutal and (by Western standards) amateurish way. My own suspicion is that whoever ordered the dispersal didn't care, and wanted to teach the Red Shirts a lesson they wouldn't forget. And I'm also of the opinion that some people won't forget, and that (as is almost always the case) violence will eventually beget more violence. But I hope I'm wrong on that last point.

The reds try and break every argument down into black and white "you're either for the poor, and for the reds, or you're for the elites and against the poor" being one of them, as is "The 'money before life' argument rears it's ugly head again". The argument is more the rights of people, many of whom come from that same poor background that the reds claim to be "fighting" for, to earn a living, to better their lives, to do something for themselves against those who are content to collect money from a corrupt politician to vote for him or protest for him. The army were sent in to do the job because the police were inactive at best and proactively red at worst. There are numerous accounts of laser pointers being used at this stage to point out targets for assassination. The facts that those targetted were military, and that the army initially withdrew following the events of that first dispersal attempt, rather than press on, indiscriminantly shooting anyone in their way, leads to the conclusion that the shots were from the red camp. You put forward a couple of examples of armies shooting civilians in the West and conclude that "Creating live firing zones and often shooting at anything that moves, with all it's resultant death and carnage would simply not happen in a Western democracy in the modern era". Maybe, maybe not, the West hasn't faced armed protestors recently. The nearest it's got has been during terror alerts, where the army are called in to guard airports and other possible targets. A certain Brazilian in the London Underground might well argue that the real world isn't exactly as you say it is though. (And yes, I know he was shot by the police, but they had shoot to kill orders in a "live firing zone").

Suppression and dispersal of over the top protests are hardly unknown in the West. These days every G8 summit is seemingly accompanied by images of protestors beaten bloody and forcibly dragged into police vans. It is a known tactic of many of the more militant groups to themselves target fellow protestors in an attempt to escalate the conflict and provoke sympathy from the media. None have yet gone to the extreme of shootings or bombings, but what would be the odds of any government using like force against them? And, I reiterate, the Thai government did not press forward with indiscriminant gunfire in April following the army coming under fire.

Finally, to the quote at the top of this post: It seems that any pro-red poster, when faced by facts he doesn't want to admit to and/or questions he can't truthfully answer, will resort to personal attack. This time in the form of "the ranting is setting in now". Any discussion about the reds without pointing out/admitting to their known acts of violence is incomplete. Please point out one non fact from what I wrote? The burning buses were clearly evident. The LPG tanker threats made against the Din Daeng community were real, I have talked with residents who were there and did feal extremely threatened - as an aside, this is one reason why the reds no longer have any support in the village I live in, due to some of the threatened residents coming from here, and is the reason I was able to question them about the experience. The murder of two market sellers can not be hidden, neither can the videos of Arisman calling for petrol and containers in order to burn Bangkok. The actual burnings of Central World, and at Siam Square and other locations, along with the attempted burning of Channel Three, when it was clear that people were inside, do show that heed was paid. The links to any red manifesto addressing my questions of how the poor are to be helped, how elections are to be fair, and what their actual aims were/are also remain absent. If posting facts and asking reasonable questions is "ranting" then I guess the red posters are the most non-ranting people on the forum.

There are so many inaccuracies and fallacies in this one it's difficult to know where to start.

Anyway, I'll start with labelling me "red", "pro-red poster", "red posters". I'm not. This is an old-time fave tactic of posters of a particular ilk when confronted with something that doesn't sit quite right in their manifesto. Wait for Ballpoint's chain of logic to 'prove' that I'm a Red that will surely follow: They're always hilarious .

Next up the 'money before life' argument being dressed up in new clothes. Surprise surprise.....it looks just as ugly as before.

There follows some speculation about Army being targeted by snipers which is passed off as fact, though strangely not one single member of the Army was hit by sniper fire prior to April 10 . This speculation then leads to the 'conclusion' that pro-red snipers were the first to open fire, and thus the careful, ordered retreat of The Army on April 10 who were unwilling to fight back. The fact that the Army CO and most of his aides had been murdered by a grenade attack, causing the dispersal operation to collapse in disarray had, I'm sure, nothing to do with it.

Next there is a cursory acknowledgement of my examples of why live firing zones don't happen in the modern era West, which is queried suggesting that the West hasn't faced the prerequisite situation. Poor reading on Ballpoint's part. I'd already brought up the troubles in Northern Ireland, where the British Army were shot at and/or bombed on an almost daily basis for decades. No live firing zones there (other than on that fateful Bloody Sunday that I'd recounted). Maybe Ballpoint just forgot that bit.

Next up, the tragic story of Jean Charles de Menezes is used as an example of a live firing zone in modern day South London. Fact is, this story backs up my previous assertion that Western security forces use sophisticated specific targeting techniques based on intel and surveillance. Briefly: A police Anti-Terror Squad was surveilling a group men living in a block of flats in South London who were strongly suspected of being about to carry out a bombing attack on the London Underground. The officer surveilling the flats mistakenly identified de Menezes (who lived at the same block of flats) as one of the suspected bombers as he left the flats. He was followed, and when he boarded an Underground train he was immediately pinned to the ground by one officer whilst another one loosed seven gunshots into his head at point-blank range. Tragic. And I apologise for being so graphic, but the only 'live firing zone' that day was de Menezes' head.

Then comes another comparison between the events on April 10 and dispersal of riots in the West, which falls on it's ar$e from the off because the Red Shirts weren't rioting at the time the Army made their move to disperse (nor had they rioted at any point in the weeks previous. Rowdy trespass? yes. Isolated incidences of violence? yes. Did I personally agree with their actions? no). This will no doubt lead us back round to the ugly 'money before life' need to disperse argument, but never mind. And then, previous speculation is re-iterated. One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb among all the speculation about the Army behaving in a whiter-than-white manner on April 10: The Thai Armed Forces have a nigh-on 100% track record for brutality and overreaction when requested to deal with internal security issues (Rohingya, the obscene cruelty of the mass-murder of Tak Bai are two that spring to mind, but I could go on and on and on). Hmmmm.....

Finally, another rant about Thaksin and his cronies. Why me? It's as baffling as it's boring: Ballpoint and I are more-or-less on the same page on the subject of Thaksin.