Thousands Of Red Shirts Protest In Bangkok

[whybother]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

[Siam Simon]

"liar and a cancer of the bowels to the Thai people." Which Thai people are you referring to here? You talk as if they are all of one mind. They aren't, although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it.

Please don't get so excited. It's only words on an Internet forum!

I was referring to the Thai people. They are not of one mind and I wasn't grouping them together. But I think that Jatuporn lies to the Thai people (no matter what their political persuasion) and I think his unbridled lies makes him cancerous to the Thai people and an obstacle to any form of progress - pretty easy to understand? This is one of the few things that Suthep and I have in common. Note that few put the likes of Veera and Sombat, who aren't running their mouth off trying to spread hatred, in the same bracket as Jatuporn - if we're all "anti-red obsessives", why is this the case?

As for "getting excited"... what do you expect? They are just words on an Internet forum, but they are public record nonetheless. I consider it my civic duty to chastise clearly ridiculous opinions trying to make out to the public that they're not ridiculous. I would say that a "devil's advocate" type of response to such a heated issue (yes, nearly a hundred people died, thousands injured and hundreds of thousands lost livelihood) must be expected to lead to being chastised. Unless the opinion has been put forward by a genuinely stupid person (which may or may not be the case), the post has been made by a troll or a paid propagandist and so deserves all the abuse it attracts. You probably feel the same given your "although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it" add-on.

So the only apology you'll get from me is a "sorry" if I have labelled a stupid person as a troll/propagandist.

Well, if you only want to read stuff that confirms your prejudices, you're better off sticking with blogs and journals that you trust. Internet forums are not for you, though you're always welcome here from me.

[Siam Simon]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

[rubl]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

Master of suggestion at work again.

'I was convinced red torched till photo's emerged' followed by 'puts army under suspicion, oh btw, wrt shootings'. What you suggest is the army torched CTW. Just say so, don't beat around the bush. You won't be crusefied for your opinion

[Siam Simon]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

Master of suggestion at work again.

'I was convinced red torched till photo's emerged' followed by 'puts army under suspicion, oh btw, wrt shootings'. What you suggest is the army torched CTW. Just say so, don't beat around the bush. You won't be crusefied for your opinion

But I'm not convinced either way, rubl. I was a week ago, but now I have serious doubts. That's the problem.

[whybother]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

How does 2 shots inside CTW and no other evidence of the army being inside CTW put the army under suspicion? You don't think the red shirts had a couple of people that could shoot?

And wrt the shots around Paragon, they would have had nothing to do with anything at CTW given the distance between them.

[Siam Simon]

The court is not bias. Never in Thai history. Get it.

jdinasia "might" disagree with you on this .

[Siam Simon]

<snip>

Anyway, never mind. Back to the original topic of our discussion: Have you had any luck yet finding a news article with conclusive proof of who torched CTW?

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

How does 2 shots inside CTW and no other evidence of the army being inside CTW put the army under suspicion? You don't think the red shirts had a couple of people that could shoot?

And wrt the shots around Paragon, they would have had nothing to do with anything at CTW given the distance between them.

We'll just have to differ on your first point. On your second one, crowds outside CTW are shown in the photo evidence taking cover from gunshots.

[whybother]

How does 2 shots inside CTW and no other evidence of the army being inside CTW put the army under suspicion? You don't think the red shirts had a couple of people that could shoot?

And wrt the shots around Paragon, they would have had nothing to do with anything at CTW given the distance between them.

We'll just have to differ on your first point. On your second one, crowds outside CTW are shown in the photo evidence taking cover from gunshots.

So, despite no evidence of there being army inside CTW, and plenty of evidence of there being red shirts inside CTW (by all the looting shown), you believe that there was an army conspiracy to clear CTW so they could burn it down?

[Pi Sek]

"liar and a cancer of the bowels to the Thai people." Which Thai people are you referring to here? You talk as if they are all of one mind. They aren't, although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it.

Please don't get so excited. It's only words on an Internet forum!

I was referring to the Thai people. They are not of one mind and I wasn't grouping them together. But I think that Jatuporn lies to the Thai people (no matter what their political persuasion) and I think his unbridled lies makes him cancerous to the Thai people and an obstacle to any form of progress - pretty easy to understand? This is one of the few things that Suthep and I have in common. Note that few put the likes of Veera and Sombat, who aren't running their mouth off trying to spread hatred, in the same bracket as Jatuporn - if we're all "anti-red obsessives", why is this the case?

As for "getting excited"... what do you expect? They are just words on an Internet forum, but they are public record nonetheless. I consider it my civic duty to chastise clearly ridiculous opinions trying to make out to the public that they're not ridiculous. I would say that a "devil's advocate" type of response to such a heated issue (yes, nearly a hundred people died, thousands injured and hundreds of thousands lost livelihood) must be expected to lead to being chastised. Unless the opinion has been put forward by a genuinely stupid person (which may or may not be the case), the post has been made by a troll or a paid propagandist and so deserves all the abuse it attracts. You probably feel the same given your "although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it" add-on.

So the only apology you'll get from me is a "sorry" if I have labelled a stupid person as a troll/propagandist.

Well, if you only want to read stuff that confirms your prejudices, you're better off sticking with blogs and journals that you trust. Internet forums are not for you, though you're always welcome here from me.

Well, firstly thanks for your friendly remark.

Secondly - no I don't think you're getting my point, which is this: I will continue to highlight clearly ridiculous opinions as the rubbish that they are, as it is my civic duty to do so. Otherwise 3rd parties who are not clued up will mis-educate themselves with clearly ridiculous opinions posing as fact. I accept that this may bring bad feeling to the poster of the clearly ridiculous opinion, and this may in turn lead to some harsh words for me, but I am willing to accept these two knock-on effects as the nature of a public forum. Don't worry, I can defend myself, and I can do it with truth and honesty in my heart.

And I do read blogs and journals - from all sides, including those I absolutely do not trust (pretty much all of them!). Usually they make me cringe because of the fact that they are not open to direct answer and I think this affects their impartiality. I have yet to see an accurate blog on this subject that is not emotionally charged in some way. At least on a forum you get emotionally charged responses from all sides, as well as some neutral factual ones.

I'll admit to having prejudices too, which might have affected my interpretation of the information available to us all. I'd suggest that we all have our prejudices - you certainly do - and I'll add that being able to see that they are prejudices is the key issue here. Until we all can, then we will continue to bicker.

[Siam Simon]

How does 2 shots inside CTW and no other evidence of the army being inside CTW put the army under suspicion? You don't think the red shirts had a couple of people that could shoot?

And wrt the shots around Paragon, they would have had nothing to do with anything at CTW given the distance between them.

We'll just have to differ on your first point. On your second one, crowds outside CTW are shown in the photo evidence taking cover from gunshots.

So, despite no evidence of there being army inside CTW, and plenty of evidence of there being red shirts inside CTW (by all the looting shown), you believe that there was an army conspiracy to clear CTW so they could burn it down?

For some reason, you've made several attempts to gloss over the significance of the shooting both inside and outside and outside CTW. The type of shooting that took place inside could only be carried out by highly skilled gunmen/gunman. And it's hard to imagine why looters would be sniping from distance at security personnel AND each other, that would be counter-productive to say the least. The latest evidence points to somebody having a plan co clear CTW, and carrying out that plan very skillfully and effectively.

[Siam Simon]

"liar and a cancer of the bowels to the Thai people." Which Thai people are you referring to here? You talk as if they are all of one mind. They aren't, although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it.

Please don't get so excited. It's only words on an Internet forum!

I was referring to the Thai people. They are not of one mind and I wasn't grouping them together. But I think that Jatuporn lies to the Thai people (no matter what their political persuasion) and I think his unbridled lies makes him cancerous to the Thai people and an obstacle to any form of progress - pretty easy to understand? This is one of the few things that Suthep and I have in common. Note that few put the likes of Veera and Sombat, who aren't running their mouth off trying to spread hatred, in the same bracket as Jatuporn - if we're all "anti-red obsessives", why is this the case?

As for "getting excited"... what do you expect? They are just words on an Internet forum, but they are public record nonetheless. I consider it my civic duty to chastise clearly ridiculous opinions trying to make out to the public that they're not ridiculous. I would say that a "devil's advocate" type of response to such a heated issue (yes, nearly a hundred people died, thousands injured and hundreds of thousands lost livelihood) must be expected to lead to being chastised. Unless the opinion has been put forward by a genuinely stupid person (which may or may not be the case), the post has been made by a troll or a paid propagandist and so deserves all the abuse it attracts. You probably feel the same given your "although you and many other posters would like readers to believe it" add-on.

So the only apology you'll get from me is a "sorry" if I have labelled a stupid person as a troll/propagandist.

Well, if you only want to read stuff that confirms your prejudices, you're better off sticking with blogs and journals that you trust. Internet forums are not for you, though you're always welcome here from me.

Well, firstly thanks for your friendly remark.

Secondly - no I don't think you're getting my point, which is this: I will continue to highlight clearly ridiculous opinions as the rubbish that they are, as it is my civic duty to do so. Otherwise 3rd parties who are not clued up will mis-educate themselves with clearly ridiculous opinions posing as fact. I accept that this may bring bad feeling to the poster of the clearly ridiculous opinion, and this may in turn lead to some harsh words for me, but I am willing to accept these two knock-on effects as the nature of a public forum. Don't worry, I can defend myself, and I can do it with truth and honesty in my heart.

And I do read blogs and journals - from all sides, including those I absolutely do not trust (pretty much all of them!). Usually they make me cringe because of the fact that they are not open to direct answer and I think this affects their impartiality. I have yet to see an accurate blog on this subject that is not emotionally charged in some way. At least on a forum you get emotionally charged responses from all sides, as well as some neutral factual ones.

I'll admit to having prejudices too, which might have affected my interpretation of the information available to us all. I'd suggest that we all have our prejudices - you certainly do - and I'll add that being able to see that they are prejudices is the key issue here. Until we all can, then we will continue to bicker.

And thanks for being so polite as to acknowledge it.

Your second paragraph is touchingly naive. try thinking outside the box sometimes. I'm not sure about what went on at CTW on May 19, haven't formed a complete opinion. But if the Army were involved, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Why should it? The Thai Army's whole modern history is defined by highly immoral acts.

Yes, we all have prejudices. The great thing about reading and posting on internet forums is that those prejudices are continually confronted, and we get the opportunity to work them. It's a fascinating learning process. Why put anyone on ignore? Even the posters who appear daft to you are at worst providing light entertainment. And don't worry about civic duty, that hints of not trusting other posters to be able to work things out for themselves . Anyway, we'll all continue to bicker, whether or not we accept our own and each others' prejudices: It's all part of the fun of an internet forum .

[termsak]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

[animatic]

Poor Jatuporn, it would be hard for him to find many people in Thailand who are not 'biased' against such a madman as he...

Quote of the day, week, likely whole year.

[Siam Simon]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Black ops .

[Siam Simon]

Any luck yet?

Edited December 14, 2010 by metisdead
Off topic comments removed.

[termsak]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Black ops .

Siam Simon....You officially top my list of (insert) people I've ever come across this year.

That's a feat, and you truly deserves it along with your peaceful innocent red shirts fighting so bravely for our country's freedom and democracy alongside the "prai" Thaksin.

[Buchholz]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Pretty amazing stuff that some of these guys come up with, isn't it?

[animatic]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Pretty amazing stuff that some of these guys come up with, isn't it?

Agreed!

Apologies to Scott Adams.

Edited December 14, 2010 by animatic

[Siam Simon]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Black ops .

Siam Simon....You officially top my list of (insert) people I've ever come across this year.

That's a feat, and you truly deserves it along with your peaceful innocent red shirts fighting so bravely for our country's freedom and democracy alongside the "prai" Thaksin.

termsak....I've never held the view that the Reds are fighting for freedom and democracy alongside the "prai" Thaksin, and have never stated approval of anything of the sort on this forum. Which just goes to show how truly (insert) some posters on TV are (that's you by the way). My only angle wrt the troubles of April/May is all the unnecessary loss of life and life-changing injuries.

[Siam Simon]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Pretty amazing stuff that some of these guys come up with, isn't it?

John, Ive excused your fibbing for now . Could you please hurry up with that conclusive news report on who was responsible for the CTW arson? The members, as you can see, are getting restless.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed from view.

[philw]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Black ops .

Siam Simon....You officially top my list of (insert) people I've ever come across this year.

That's a feat, and you truly deserves it along with your peaceful innocent red shirts fighting so bravely for our country's freedom and democracy alongside the "prai" Thaksin.

termsak....I've never held the view that the Reds are fighting for freedom and democracy alongside the "prai" Thaksin, and have never stated approval of anything of the sort on this forum. Which just goes to show how truly (insert) some posters on TV are (that's you by the way). My only angle wrt the troubles of April/May is all the unnecessary loss of life and life-changing injuries.

Well said and just to raise another bugbear why have there been no arrests, accusations, video footage released, in short zero progress in the pursuit of those persons who lit the buildings ??

Just who did it is increasingly uncertain.

The area was awash with troops, police, security guards and possibly some staff and concerned owners and video cameras..........

How come nothing to indicate anything has been released.

Edited December 15, 2010 by metisdead
Comment meant to incite argument removed.

[rubl]

Is conclusive proof only required when the evidence points to it being red shirts? You seem to have made up your mind that it was the army shooting people inside CTW without ANY evidence at all.

I haven't made up my mind. I was convinced that Red militants had torched CTW before the latest photo evidence surfaced. But this latest evidence definitely puts the Army under suspicion, at least wrt the shootings in and around CTW.

Master of suggestion at work again.

'I was convinced red torched till photo's emerged' followed by 'puts army under suspicion, oh btw, wrt shootings'. What you suggest is the army torched CTW. Just say so, don't beat around the bush. You won't be crusefied for your opinion

But I'm not convinced either way, rubl. I was a week ago, but now I have serious doubts. That's the problem.

Terribly sorry for a late reply, but I had to work today.

You still do not firmly say what you are convinced of or what not, even if it was a week ago. Now you have serious doubts, but I'm still not sure as to of what, because you do not state. That's the problem.

I can probably clarify things a little bit, IMHO of course, but well, for obvious reasons I'm not in a position to provide the clear answers you seek and I'd like to provide. For one I doubt you've got the right security clearance. With wikileaks being embarrassing I also have to watch my every single step and (as some have it) even my IP address. Go figure.

I might ask for people to check on you to get clearance, but that might not give the expected result. Anyway we try and will get in touch with you in due time.

Don't loose hope or faith in the mean time. Try to stay cool and keep smiling.

[jdinasia]

Seriously????! Are there people here actually believing that the Red shirts didn't burn the buildings down? That it was an act by the government to tarnish Red shirt reputation? Really? Seriously? OMG! Are you telling me that you would burn your own house to make your neighbor look bad? Every building burnt were pre planned and strategically targeted. Buildings known for not supporting Thaksin were burnt. Is that a coincidence? How come all Shin buildings in tact and fine? How come Paragon not a scratch??

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

I really underestimated stupidity.

Pretty amazing stuff that some of these guys come up with, isn't it?

John, Ive excused your fibbing for now . Could you please hurry up with that conclusive news report on who was responsible for the CTW arson? The members, as you can see, are getting restless.

I still don't see a poster named john ...... hmmmmm

[whybother]

How does 2 shots inside CTW and no other evidence of the army being inside CTW put the army under suspicion? You don't think the red shirts had a couple of people that could shoot?

And wrt the shots around Paragon, they would have had nothing to do with anything at CTW given the distance between them.

We'll just have to differ on your first point. On your second one, crowds outside CTW are shown in the photo evidence taking cover from gunshots.

So, despite no evidence of there being army inside CTW, and plenty of evidence of there being red shirts inside CTW (by all the looting shown), you believe that there was an army conspiracy to clear CTW so they could burn it down?

For some reason, you've made several attempts to gloss over the significance of the shooting both inside and outside and outside CTW. The type of shooting that took place inside could only be carried out by highly skilled gunmen/gunman. And it's hard to imagine why looters would be sniping from distance at security personnel AND each other, that would be counter-productive to say the least. The latest evidence points to somebody having a plan co clear CTW, and carrying out that plan very skillfully and effectively.

No. Not gloss over it. Just looking at the evidence, or lack of it. Both sides had army personnel that could have shot 2 people in the leg.

There is no evidence of army being inside CTW, but there is plenty of evidence of red shirts being in there.

Outside, there is no evidence of who was shooting, and there is no evidence of any relationship between shooting inside and shooting outside.

You've put the pieces together and see an army conspiracy. The evidence could just as easily point to a red shirt conspiracy to clear the building and burn it down.

Except, with no evidence of the army being inside, an army conspiracy is clutching at straws.

[fractrain]

Except, with no evidence of the army being inside, an army conspiracy is clutching at straws.

grasping. Grasping at straws is the saying

[rubl]

Except, with no evidence of the army being inside, an army conspiracy is clutching at straws.

grasping. Grasping at straws is the saying

Being non-native English speaker I still may try to explain for others in my position (I think). Grasping suggest trying to get hold off, clutching suggest grasping succeeded and we do not want to loose grip.

From your local Dutch uncle who would really prefer to do this type of conversation in Dutch

[Insight]

Red (Black) Ops...

They encouraged the burning of everything other than the building they had been camped out to and one of their more familiar members to us previously threatened to burn down?

There's no conspiracy here. They simply delivered on the threats everybody knew they were making.

[Insight]

The Red's that stormed the hospital...fake reds? This is like me saying Yellow shirts never closed the airport. It was Red shirt disguised as Yellow shirt.

Notice on the last clip I posted featuring our friend Mr Savage that the narrator says that there's snipers "on top of Chula Hospital... and one of the banks over there... they're not even hiding.. just trailing their guns..."

Yet when the reds raided the hospital they couldn't find a single one. Why is that?

Not likely to lynch one of their own now, are they?

Edited December 14, 2010 by Insight