Thousands Of Red Shirts Protest In Bangkok

[TAWP]

The notion that a criminal act that nullified a sale would in itself make any crime attached to it become nullified once the sale was nullified since there was a crime involved (...) - is hilarious and at the same time suffers from a grandpa-paradox.

[animatic]

More likely is Thaksin is easier to manage out of the country

and doesn't be come a jailed target for 'liberation' but a mini red army of zealots.

If he is off Thai soil his tentacles aren't as effective,

he hesitates more to throw his money in

and has less control when he does.

They are perfectly happy he is hiding out in plain sight in Montenegro,

because he's less trouble there than here.

They parked his ego off shore, like he parked his money.

Suthep and Thaksin in cahoots... HA!

[animatic]

The notion that a criminal act that nullified a sale would in itself make any crime attached to it become nullified once the sale was nullified since there was a crime involved (...) - is hilarious and at the same time suffers from a grandpa-paradox.

Similar situation OJ Simpson murders his wife, but is acquitted,

but later her family sues him for ever potential dime he will ever have and wins.

Oh, but he's not guilty of the murder... criminally,

but he is under a different CIVIL ruling, with financial penalties not incarceration.

In this case she civilly can't buy the land, but he was criminally responsible for authorizing it.

Potjamin lost the property, because she had no right as PM's wife to make the purchase.

Thaksin was convicted of a different law because he signed papers he legally couldn't without quiting his job.

[Lite Beer]

Posts containing names of fictitious characters and also bringing the Monarchy into political discussions have been deleted.

Also replies to them.

[jayboy]

,As as for your comments about him, as well as his cabinet and ministers all being "squeaky clean", I challenge you to name me JUST ONE PM in the history of Thailand who has managed to do that. Believe it or not, I like Abhist, and believe he is a good man, but a good man at perhaps the wrong time. I believe that in his heart he truly does want to do what is right for Thailand, but as an old saying goes: It's hard to soar with eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys. Or in his case, vultures.

All of this is sensible and few reasonable people would disagree.The only key omission in the summary is that Abhisit himself is under pressure from the vested interests in the military (budget doubled since the 2006 coup) and other elite circles.Culturally, as an upper class Thai, it's hard for him to resist but I suspect he knows he must for the good of the country.He has the intellect and liberal education that gives him the necessary detachment.But time is rushing by and soon the political environment will be become very difficult to manage.As Harold Macmillan once said when asked what politicians needed to worry about, "Events, dear boy, events".Already ordinary Thais are discussing politics among themselves in ways that that would horrify the elite that so long has excluded the majority from meaningful power.To some extent and looking at the broad context the events in Bangkok earlier this year simply demonstrate a confirmation that everything has changed and for better or worse there is no going back to the deferential status quo ante.

[SomTumTiger]

As as for your comments about him, as well as his cabinet and ministers all being "squeaky clean", I challenge you to name me JUST ONE PM in the history of Thailand who has managed to do that. Believe it or not, I like Abhist, and believe he is a good man, but a good man at perhaps the wrong time. I believe that in his heart he truly does want to do what is right for Thailand, but as an old saying goes: It's hard to soar with eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys. Or in his case, vultures.

Anand - a really upstanding guy who served his country twice, in difficult circumstances. Still ranks as one of the best leaders Thailand has ever had.

[Buchholz]

nice to see it was uneventful

Quite. I wonder how many more peaceful demonstrations it will take before those labeling the entire red shirt movement as a 'violent organization'

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

[jdinasia]

nice to see it was uneventful

Quite. I wonder how many more peaceful demonstrations it will take before those labeling the entire red shirt movement as a 'violent organization'

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

Buildings in Nonthaburi ---- arrests of suspects in possession of C4 etc in recent weeks don't help the red cause either.

[rubl]

nice to see it was uneventful

Quite. I wonder how many more peaceful demonstrations it will take before those labeling the entire red shirt movement as a 'violent organization'

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

It's called 'having earned a reputation the hard way'. History shows you have to do a lot of good work before it's recognised, but you only need to make one mistake to undo all that. It's a human habit and we're all humans (even the (il)legal aliens here in Thailand )

[scorecard]

As as for your comments about him, as well as his cabinet and ministers all being "squeaky clean", I challenge you to name me JUST ONE PM in the history of Thailand who has managed to do that. Believe it or not, I like Abhist, and believe he is a good man, but a good man at perhaps the wrong time. I believe that in his heart he truly does want to do what is right for Thailand, but as an old saying goes: It's hard to soar with eagles when you're surrounded by turkeys. Or in his case, vultures.

Anand - a really upstanding guy who served his country twice, in difficult circumstances. Still ranks as one of the best leaders Thailand has ever had.

Well said!

[philw]

nice to see it was uneventful

Quite. I wonder how many more peaceful demonstrations it will take before those labeling the entire red shirt movement as a 'violent organization'

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

Got any unequivocal and certain evidence for your final sentence ???

[Buchholz]

nice to see it was uneventful

Quite. I wonder how many more peaceful demonstrations it will take before those labeling the entire red shirt movement as a 'violent organization'

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

Got any unequivocal and certain evidence for your final sentence ???

I'm unaware of any previous burning of Bangkok that exceeded that which occurred in May 2010.

If you do, I'd be interested in reading about it.

[SamritT]

10,000 is too much. I went there and counted about 50. I was bored, hence I stop counting then.

[philw]

Perhaps the 3 and half years the Reds have been a violent organization taints people's impression of them and that 6 months or so is a little too soon to completely forget the 3 and a half years.

Their unprecedented burning of Bangkok is still fresh.

Got any unequivocal and certain evidence for your final sentence ???

I'm unaware of any previous burning of Bangkok that exceeded that which occurred in May 2010.

If you do, I'd be interested in reading about it.

Do please pay attention.

Have you any evidence of who set the fires ??

[whybother]

Do please pay attention.

Have you any evidence of who set the fires ??

What about eyewitness accounts from Jeff Savage who was at Channel 3?

[Buchholz]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds.

.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Buchholz

[SamritT]

And the AirportS closure too.

[Siam Simon]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds.

.

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them (and I'm not referring to elite Army snipers shooting at unarmed civilians, medics and journalists sheltering in the nearby wat).

[rubl]

Do please pay attention.

Have you any evidence of who set the fires ??

Personally no, but just see some of previous posts, newspaper editions, various newssites, or yahoo/google a bit. None of the perpetrators are named though, as far as I know. Doesn't mean it wasn't done. Channel_3 building is a fine example, with people still inside. They were seen as prejudiced and biased; reason enough to burn them also I guess. BP building was evacuated to avoid a possible similar situation being in Klong Toei

Edited December 12, 2010 by rubl

[rubl]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds..

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them (and I'm not referring to elite Army snipers shooting at unarmed civilians, medics and journalists sheltering in the nearby wat).

Channle_3, Stock exchange, ransacked/ burned ATMs on RamaIV, MRT Klong Toei, etc., etc. Correct no names, only lots of red-shirts and 'peaceful protesters' around.

As for strange going-ons at CTW read the conclusion again.

And before I forget, I'm also not referring to militant red-shirts firing at firefighters, army and police , neither do I refer to journalists being assaulted with equipment smashed because they were seen as biased filming destruction.

[TAWP]

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them

No, you don't. And you have already been given a walk-through of the pictures. But since it doesn't fit your agenda you have choosen to ignore it and keep posting the same distortions again and again.

[Buchholz]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds.

.

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever.

Not at all, there is the the aforementioned pallet which you casually dismiss as "whatsoever."

You're saying they are ALL wrong.

Wonderful.

[Siam Simon]

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them

No, you don't. And you have already been given a walk-through of the pictures. But since it doesn't fit your agenda you have choosen to ignore it and keep posting the same distortions again and again.

I don't need to distort anything, the evidence is there in the photos.

[Siam Simon]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds.

.

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever.

Not at all, there is the the aforementioned pallet which you casually dismiss as "whatsoever."

You're saying they are ALL wrong.

Wonderful.

Ah, ok. So, no substantive proof then? (you do understand the meaning of 'substantive', yes?)

[TAWP]

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them

No, you don't. And you have already been given a walk-through of the pictures. But since it doesn't fit your agenda you have choosen to ignore it and keep posting the same distortions again and again.

I don't need to distort anything, the evidence is there in the photos.

Yes, it is, so why are you pulling out the wrong conclusions? Didn't you look at the pictures?

[rubl]

Just for those who haven't seen the photo's, here's the link again:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog/photos-from-may-19-an-update

Don't forget to read the conclusions:

Conclusions

The photographs show that were at least three groups of people inside CTW in the hours just before the fire: (1) small numbers of protesters, who may have been looting; (2) CTW security guards, who apparently fled the mall after being fired at; and (3) unseen gunmen. Whether there was more than one group of gunmen, and whether the same gunmen shot the security guards in Photos 15-28 and the protester with the slingshot in Photo 9 (if he was indeed shot), we simply do not know based on these photographs.

The photographs also show at least three different sources of apparent gunfire: (1) unseen shooter(s) inside CTW, who fired upon security guards and possibly fired at a protester; (2) unseen shooter(s) located near the northeast corner of Siam Paragon; and (3) unseen shooter(s) on the west side of Siam Paragon, possibly connected to the camouflaged man in the ski mask photographed on the Siam BTS platform.

As discussed above, the photographer was almost certainly a security guard for CTW. This raises an important question: Have the security guards from inside the mall been questioned as to what they saw at CTW before the fire? Many faces can be clearly seen. No doubt they saw more than was photographed here. Will any journalists step up and track down these witnesses?

Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd made a response to these photographs on behalf of CRES this past Tuesday, December 7th. (See the Matichon report.) He dismissed the photographs, saying they contain nothing new.

And while these photographs do not provide us with any ground shaking new conclusions about the CentralWorld fire, their release and the ongoing public response is striking, because it demonstrates how little information the public actually has about what happened. More than six months later we're still guessing, still bickering about who did what.

The government's dismissal of this new evidence out of hand, and their refusal to acknowledge and respond to a public clearly hungry for more information, simply demonstrates their ongoing dedication to a policy of strict opacity, and a lack of responsibility towards informing the public they are supposed to serve.

[Buchholz]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds..

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever. What we do now have, though, is photographic evidence of some very strange goings-on in and around CTW in the hours leading up to the arson which have the Army's modus operandi stamped all over them (and I'm not referring to elite Army snipers shooting at unarmed civilians, medics and journalists sheltering in the nearby wat).

Channle_3, Stock exchange, ransacked/ burned ATMs on RamaIV, MRT Klong Toei, etc., etc. Correct no names, only lots of red-shirts and 'peaceful protesters' around.

As for strange going-ons at CTW read the conclusion again.

And before I forget, I'm also not referring to militant red-shirts firing at firefighters, army and police , neither do I refer to journalists being assaulted with equipment smashed because they were seen as biased filming destruction.

and Udon Thani

and Ubon Ratchathani

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC_dlubXEpo&feature=related

and Chiang Mai

and

and

[Buchholz]

I see philw is still struggling with managing quotes.

Anyway, if he wants me to "pay attention", it helps if he is able to "pay attention" by making his posts clear as to what exactly it is that he is asking. Of course, that may mean posting more than a few words in a throwaway one liner that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways.

As for the evidence that it was the Red shirts that set the fires, I'm basing that on a pallet load of news articles like this one, for example:

Red Shirts set Bangkok ablaze as troops storm barricades

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835528-thai-army-storms-red-shirt-protest-camp.do

Have they been tried and convicted yet? No.

We're still waiting for them to stand in court to face charges for their July 2007 Riot that injured hundreds.

.

In other words, no substantive proof whatsoever.

Not at all, there is the the aforementioned pallet which you casually dismiss as "whatsoever."

You're saying they are ALL wrong.

Wonderful.

Ah, ok. So, no substantive proof then? (you do understand the meaning of 'substantive', yes?)

dictionary.com says: Having a firm basis in reality.

So the dozens and dozens of articles were all written by hallucinating psychotic patients.

Wonderful.

[JetsetBkk]

And the AirportS closure too.

Wrong colour shirt.

[Siam Simon]

dictionary.com says: Having a firm basis in reality.

Really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substantive

So the dozens and dozens of articles were all written by hallucinating psychotic patients.

Wonderful.

Care to point me in the direction of an article which actually contains any evidence of who started the fire at CTW?