Abhisit Administration Appears To Have Perfect Recipe To Mock Truth

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Sure-Fire recipe to mock truth

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

Over the past seven months or so, the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration appears to have perfected the recipe to make a mockery of truth and reconciliation when it comes to the handling of red-shirt protests and their aftermath, which led to 91 deaths and two thousands injuries.

Here's what their recipe looks like:

First, the government must ensure that conflict of interest persists at multiple levels. After the deaths of mostly red shirts, it assigned the Department of Special Investigation (DSI), whose chief is a member of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES), which played the leading role in the bloody military operations against the red shirts. Consequently, there would be every incentive for DSI chief Tharit Pengdit not to reveal the truth - because nobody in his right mind would want to declare himself guilty.

Then the prime minister, himself a chief party in the conflict, must personally appoint the chairman of a body called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, leading to allegations that the commission is biased or has conflicts of interest that cannot be totally discounted.

Second (to support its mockery of truth), the government must ensure secrecy and make sure there is no transparency when it comes to the investigations.

Relatives of those killed, both Thais and foreigners, have repeatedly complained that the DSI is withholding crucial access to forensic and other information.

Third, in the case of leaked information, simply deny, deny, and repeat the denial again until, it is hoped, the public and the news media become bored or forgetful and the denial sounds more consistent and believable than other claims to the truth.

This is what we have been hearing over the past two weeks or so since leaked reports raised doubts about the Army's role in the deaths of protesters and foreign journalists.

In case some "lapses of judgement" occur - such as admission of the authenticity of the leaked DSI documents by the prime minister or the DSI chief - then quickly revert to denial mode. Then repeat the denial again and again.

Never mind if evidence is growing, keep denying.

By comparison, with WikiLeak's leaked cables detailing Thai politics over the past five years, those at the top echelon of Thai society alleged to be unduly interfering in politics will more likely keep mum - then try to have all related websites blocked and simply hope the Thai public has a fleeting attention span. The mainstream media may be afraid to report WikiLeak's details for fear of breaking some laws - but an increasing number of Thais have the message already and are becoming increasingly sceptical of the Thai elite's role and their alleged manipulation of Thai politics, while insisting otherwise.

Step 4, insist that everything is fine. This is the "perfect" way to deny the mounting reality while at the same time rubbing salt into the political wounds of opponents. Never mind if some ask why, if there existed no intention to kill or maim protesters on the streets, soldiers were issued automatic weapons with live ammunition and designated some areas as "live-fire zones", and were accompanied by armoured vehicles.

Fifth, maintain some draconian "laws" - such as an emergency decree or the Internal Security Act - to keep a lid on certain political discussions and opposition media and to ensure that gossip and distrust become widespread, making reconciliation unattainable.

When in doubt, add more ingredients from steps 3, 4 and 5 as desired. Wait until the cooking is overdone - and repeat the whole process by sticking to the recipe again next year if required.

-- The Nation 2010-12-16

[LomSak27]

Suprised to see this in the Nation, but nothing that was not suspected by many from the beginning.

To have "Truth and Reconciliation" you actually have to do something - not much mind you, and certainly not an equal split, but something! Abhisit and cronies can't even get that together.

Hmmmm ... Did I miss The Event last night ?

[SamritT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcguy0aPWsA Both truth & extrajudicial police killing can be mock. Not only during Thaksin time, but also Mark time. Nation has no guts to report (go to BP to read about it), even though it is the biggest news today in Thailand.

[hammered]

Suprised to see this in the Nation, but nothing that was not suspected by many from the beginning.

To have "Truth and Reconciliation" you actually have to do something - not much mind you, and certainly not an equal split, but something! Abhisit and cronies can't even get that together.

Hmmmm ... Did I miss The Event last night ?

He is a Nation journalist and has been for a long time.

I would argue that for truth and reconcilliation both sides have to start admitting to the mistakes, excesses, violence and murder they have committed themselves. Anything short of this will remain just political posturing with one side or the other hoping to gain advantage.

[hammered]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcguy0aPWsA Both truth & extrajudicial police killing can be mock. Not only during Thaksin time, but also Mark time. Nation has no guts to report (go to BP to read about it), even though it is the biggest news today in Thailand.

Will PTP and the red movement demand the police are prosecuted? It will be a big test of whether they are people's representatives or part of a power clique which includes to this day many police. It is the drug war test that many failed because this action is being praised by many. The test is will you stand up for human rights when something is unpopular. The left have totally let Thailand down over the 2500 drug killings will they repeat the mistake again because of convenient political alliances.

It will also be a test of government. Thaksin and TRT demonstrated no respect for human rights, law or democracy over the drug war which was the largest human rights abuse in recent Thai history. Will the current government do the same over what is only a single case and therefore arguably easier to pursue.

Everyone talks about those killed in political conflict but it seems nobody is willing to stand up for an ordinary person killed or even 2500 of them, and remember that everyone is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. How many demos have political activists organized to highlight such deaths?

[Ricardo]

The DSI is accused of with-holding forensic evidence, kind of reminds me of the way the 'peaceful protest' Reds invaded that hospital, and 'liberated' the bodies of the dead before post-mortems could be carried out.

As Hammered rightly says, both sides have crimes, which they wish to cover-up. There is enough blame to go around, for all parties, in this sad mess.

[jayjay0]

To begin with it is a Nation article.

That in it self lends very little credibility to the article.

That being said. What is the truth.

From my vantage point it is a group of armed peace lovers going on a camping trip in down town Bangkok and to maintain the camping experience they stopped thousands of honest innocent citizens from making a living. All so they can camp out and get a pay check from out of country.

When the Government asked them to move out they resisted. They also refused to negotiate. They just said I want and would excepted nothing else. In the end the Government had to use force and they retaliated with weapons. There by turning a peaceful camping trip into a armed conflict.

Why is every one so down on the government for stopping them. There refusal to negotiate gave the government no choice. If any thing they should be down on the government for letting it go on so long.

The government did no wrong. Don't any body even try to say they were firing on unarmed civilians. They like in many wars were the support for a armed conflict they knew what was happening and choose to support the conflict.

In any war there is a large civilian support system that gets killed. This was no different. Time to accept the reality of what happened and move on.

Thailand did not deserve what the red shirts choose to give it and they do not deserve to have to nit pick over it to no concevable good. All they do is divert energy away from beneficial projects.

[jayboy]

To begin with it is a Nation article.

That in it self lends very little credibility to the article.

That being said. What is the truth.

From my vantage point it is a group of armed peace lovers going on a camping trip in down town Bangkok and to maintain the camping experience they stopped thousands of honest innocent citizens from making a living. All so they can camp out and get a pay check from out of country.

When the Government asked them to move out they resisted. They also refused to negotiate. They just said I want and would excepted nothing else. In the end the Government had to use force and they retaliated with weapons. There by turning a peaceful camping trip into a armed conflict.

Why is every one so down on the government for stopping them. There refusal to negotiate gave the government no choice. If any thing they should be down on the government for letting it go on so long.

The government did no wrong. Don't any body even try to say they were firing on unarmed civilians. They like in many wars were the support for a armed conflict they knew what was happening and choose to support the conflict.

In any war there is a large civilian support system that gets killed. This was no different. Time to accept the reality of what happened and move on.

Thailand did not deserve what the red shirts choose to give it and they do not deserve to have to nit pick over it to no concevable good. All they do is divert energy away from beneficial projects.

Interesting how agitated some become whenever the events earlier this year are scrutinised, "nitpicking to no conceivable good.... the government did no wrong.... time to move on" etc.I doubt whether many pay much attention to jayjay's hysterical agitprop but one lie has however to be nailed because the army, notwithstanding its overall professional behaviour, did fire on unarmed civilians.One could in addition as plausibly argue that the red shirts did not deserve their treatment.The reality of course is that no side was blameless.Nevertheless it is the responsibility of Abhisit to ensure a proper accounting for the death toll.And The Nation is quite right to call for this.

[asiawatcher]

What a stupid biased article. Khun Pravit Rojanaphruk would be well advised to report an unbiased article that reports the fallacies of both sides. Journalism is all about letting people decide by reporting facts. One sided reporting is never acceptable.

[LomSak27]

Jeez asiawatcher, jayjayo

the Nation has been posting biased pieces for the last 5 years about Thaksin and the REDS but that didn't bother you much then eh bloody heck.

One day you are going to wake up and realize Thaksin was no more corrupt than these guys - Abhisit and the Dems, and shucks guess what these are the guys you are going to live with for the forseeable future.

I would like less corruption in this country and if Abhisit would pursue a policy like that I would support him, just like I would support the Reds if they did the same. But they are for nothing more than a return to business as usual. Do you get that? Do you understand, has this concept made it into the brainpan yet?

With an attitude like that, I'm a renter here, just a visitor, albeit long term. I am not investing in this country why would I?

Now, where is my The Two Escobars DVD ?

[hanuman1]

Consequently, there would be every incentive for DSI chief Tharit Pengdit not to reveal the truth - because nobody in his right mind would want to declare himself guilty.

I thought there was already a DSI report that concluded there was significant evidence pointing to the army killing civilians. Or was that one of Jatuporn's 'doctored' ones? I'm confused.

[hammered]

Consequently, there would be every incentive for DSI chief Tharit Pengdit not to reveal the truth - because nobody in his right mind would want to declare himself guilty.

I thought there was already a DSI report that concluded there was significant evidence pointing to the army killing civilians. Or was that one of Jatuporn's 'doctored' ones? I'm confused.

Who knows. Too many spin doctors in this game. The actual truth is probably one thing that all players are agreed on in not actually wanting to come out;)

[rixalex]

One day you are going to wake up and realize Thaksin was no more corrupt than these guys - Abhisit and the Dems, and shucks guess what these are the guys you are going to live with for the forseeable future.

TRT at its height enjoyed a grip on power that was both firm and wide-ranging, and this allowed a much greater scope for abuses. The Dems of today don't have that firm a grip on power and rely on power sharing with other parties to stay in power, and this means that politicians, bless em, have a harder job of skimming off the top.

How is it you can state with such certainty that Thaksin was no more corrupt than Abhisit and the Dems?

Whilst there can be no doubt that The Democrat party has committed acts of corruption in its past and is not squeaky cleam now, since it came to power this time, what examples are there that substantiate your claim? And on a personal level, looking at the individuals at the top of these parties, what examples are there that Abhisit has become as enriched by being in power as Thaksin was?

[animatic]

Suprised to see this in the Nation, but nothing that was not suspected by many from the beginning.

To have "Truth and Reconciliation" you actually have to do something - not much mind you, and certainly not an equal split, but something! Abhisit and cronies can't even get that together.

Hmmmm ... Did I miss The Event last night ?

He is a Nation journalist and has been for a long time.

I would argue that for truth and reconcilliation both sides have to start admitting to the mistakes, excesses, violence and murder they have committed themselves. Anything short of this will remain just political posturing with one side or the other hoping to gain advantage.

The governments opposition has no intention of reconciling anything.

Their only hope is a flat out win or a coup, and then turn the heated tongs to their enemies.

How can you reconcile with those that would put the knife back to your throat at the 1st opportunity?

Please to show ANY actions or words from PTP or Red Shirts that shows they have done anything at all to move forwards reconciliation in any way. There is none that I can think of. When reconciling you must do so with BOTH parties dealing in good faith and that is a premium commodity here... usually for sale to the highest bidder in the Thai political world.

[animatic]

Consequently, there would be every incentive for DSI chief Tharit Pengdit not to reveal the truth - because nobody in his right mind would want to declare himself guilty.

I thought there was already a DSI report that concluded there was significant evidence pointing to the army killing civilians. Or was that one of Jatuporn's 'doctored' ones? I'm confused.

Both, but Justaporns ups the numbers and removes any Red Shirt numbers.

[chuang]

Jeez asiawatcher, jayjayo

the Nation has been posting biased pieces for the last 5 years about Thaksin and the REDS but that didn't bother you much then eh bloody heck.

One day you are going to wake up and realize Thaksin was no more corrupt than these guys - Abhisit and the Dems, and shucks guess what these are the guys you are going to live with for the forseeable future.

Right on...just right on....

[rubl]

To begin with it is a Nation article.

That in it self lends very little credibility to the article.

That being said. What is the truth.

From my vantage point it is a group of armed peace lovers going on a camping trip in down town Bangkok and to maintain the camping experience they stopped thousands of honest innocent citizens from making a living. All so they can camp out and get a pay check from out of country.

When the Government asked them to move out they resisted. They also refused to negotiate. They just said I want and would excepted nothing else. In the end the Government had to use force and they retaliated with weapons. There by turning a peaceful camping trip into a armed conflict.

Why is every one so down on the government for stopping them. There refusal to negotiate gave the government no choice. If any thing they should be down on the government for letting it go on so long.

The government did no wrong. Don't any body even try to say they were firing on unarmed civilians. They like in many wars were the support for a armed conflict they knew what was happening and choose to support the conflict.

In any war there is a large civilian support system that gets killed. This was no different. Time to accept the reality of what happened and move on.

Thailand did not deserve what the red shirts choose to give it and they do not deserve to have to nit pick over it to no concevable good. All they do is divert energy away from beneficial projects.

Interesting how agitated some become whenever the events earlier this year are scrutinised, "nitpicking to no conceivable good.... the government did no wrong.... time to move on" etc.I doubt whether many pay much attention to jayjay's hysterical agitprop but one lie has however to be nailed because the army, notwithstanding its overall professional behaviour, did fire on unarmed civilians.One could in addition as plausibly argue that the red shirts did not deserve their treatment.The reality of course is that no side was blameless.Nevertheless it is the responsibility of Abhisit to ensure a proper accounting for the death toll.And The Nation is quite right to call for this.

Nowhere in JJ's post does he mention the army. So how come you complain about a lie? One could, and many do, argue that none of the 91 deaths deserved their fate, still some seemed to ask for it, some were just joining the fun and some really innocent bystanders.

Already before most people could imagine the army shot and killed protesters and have a bit of 'collateral damage'. What do you expect when one side starts to use violence to a point the police is not effective and even the army takes a toll.

The army fired on unarmed civilians (i.e. protesters). Correct. Mind you with 99% of the protesters unarmed, 1% armed elements mingled. The correct mix for disaster. All were asked to leave peacefully, only some did. Both sides to blame, one maybe more than the other. Which one is which depends on your opinion, less on facts I'm afraid.

Imagine, if k. Thaksin hadn't called the snap elections in February 2006, who knows how things would look like now?

[OzMick]

" Never mind if some ask why, if there existed no intention to kill or maim protesters on the streets, soldiers were issued automatic weapons with live ammunition and designated some areas as "live-fire zones", and were accompanied by armoured vehicles."

This one sentence shows the author's intent - denigration of the government by deception, obfuscation and emotive language.

".... intention to kill or maim protesters......." quite a few of whom were armed as evidenced by pictures, by the number of soldiers killed and wounded, and by the confessions of red shirts admitting firing m-79 and RPG projectiles.

"......soldiers were issued automatic weapons......" These are the weapons that the Thai army normally use, and have been for the last 50 or so years. Bolt action museum pieces might appeal to the writer's sensibilities, but are quite rare. If the rate of fire is such a big concern, why is there so few casualties? Does anyone recall reports of full auto firing?

".....weapons with live ammunition......." The first attempt at dispersal, the army was in crowd control mode; riot shields, batons, rubber bullets. they were neatly ambushed by a heavily armed group, took severe losses, and their commander was killed. Only idiots don't learn from their mistakes.

"........designated some areas as "live-fire zones"........." An area where combat is taking place, or expected o take place. If you go there, you are taking a severe risk. They are actually a way to reduce collateral casualties.

"............ were accompanied by armoured vehicles." Armour is to protect those inside the vehicle from being shot by "peaceful protesters." The armour doesn't hurt anybody. Of course, even APCs are intimidating, but were there any reports of the weapons fitted actually being fired? Not to my knowledge.

[jayjay0]

To begin with it is a Nation article.

That in it self lends very little credibility to the article.

That being said. What is the truth.

From my vantage point it is a group of armed peace lovers going on a camping trip in down town Bangkok and to maintain the camping experience they stopped thousands of honest innocent citizens from making a living. All so they can camp out and get a pay check from out of country.

When the Government asked them to move out they resisted. They also refused to negotiate. They just said I want and would excepted nothing else. In the end the Government had to use force and they retaliated with weapons. There by turning a peaceful camping trip into a armed conflict.

Why is every one so down on the government for stopping them. There refusal to negotiate gave the government no choice. If any thing they should be down on the government for letting it go on so long.

The government did no wrong. Don't any body even try to say they were firing on unarmed civilians. They like in many wars were the support for a armed conflict they knew what was happening and choose to support the conflict.

In any war there is a large civilian support system that gets killed. This was no different. Time to accept the reality of what happened and move on.

Thailand did not deserve what the red shirts choose to give it and they do not deserve to have to nit pick over it to no concevable good. All they do is divert energy away from beneficial projects.

Interesting how agitated some become whenever the events earlier this year are scrutinised, "nitpicking to no conceivable good.... the government did no wrong.... time to move on" etc.I doubt whether many pay much attention to jayjay's hysterical agitprop but one lie has however to be nailed because the army, notwithstanding its overall professional behaviour, did fire on unarmed civilians.One could in addition as plausibly argue that the red shirts did not deserve their treatment.The reality of course is that no side was blameless.Nevertheless it is the responsibility of Abhisit to ensure a proper accounting for the death toll.And The Nation is quite right to call for this.

Nowhere in JJ's post does he mention the army. So how come you complain about a lie? One could, and many do, argue that none of the 91 deaths deserved their fate, still some seemed to ask for it, some were just joining the fun and some really innocent bystanders.

Already before most people could imagine the army shot and killed protesters and have a bit of 'collateral damage'. What do you expect when one side starts to use violence to a point the police is not effective and even the army takes a toll.

The army fired on unarmed civilians (i.e. protesters). Correct. Mind you with 99% of the protesters unarmed, 1% armed elements mingled. The correct mix for disaster. All were asked to leave peacefully, only some did. Both sides to blame, one maybe more than the other. Which one is which depends on your opinion, less on facts I'm afraid.

Imagine, if k. Thaksin hadn't called the snap elections in February 2006, who knows how things would look like now?

Rubi he was correct when he said I said unarmed citizens. What I meant to post was innocent citizens. Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists. You will notice he did not try to discredit any thing else. The man is a cause with out a head and will never be able to carry on a intelligent conversation with. That s unless you agree with him.

The sooner Thailand can free them self's from those type people ( I realize he is not Thai but there a lot of Thais like him) the sooner they will be on the road to recovery. As for political unity well that would require people with different ideas working together to come about. As it stands If they have a different idea they start to work tearing down people with different ideas. Much easier than saying well you have some good points and so do we. Can we talk about them?

What did the red shirts do to help the ones they put out of work? What did the red shirts do to clean up there mess? Answer to both questions nothing. Unarmed yes Innocent not even in the same country.

[hanuman1]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

[OzMick]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

[jayjay0]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

Not if you are a red shirt supporter.

I actually had to laugh when I read his post. He is obviously one of those who maintain the red shirts are not all that bright. He knows he is on a loosing horse and dosen't know how to get off it. Hence the Reply that they were maybe stupid.

[Orac]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

So you are now suggesting that the govt had infiltrated the Red Shirts and were using loud hailers to coordinate their actions - I am really confused now.

[OzMick]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

So you are now suggesting that the govt had infiltrated the Red Shirts and were using loud hailers to coordinate their actions - I am really confused now.

You certainly are! The original statement was that red shirts were using loudhailers to urge people not to engage in violence. As this is the complete antithesis of what they had been preaching prior to that point, I was light-heartedly suggesting that they must have been govt infiltrators.

[Pi Sek]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

Well, it was announced on the Rajprasong stage before 10 April that the "third element" of the UDD had joined their ranks - the armed element, to add to the popular and political elements. So the Red Leaders clearly informed the protesters (OK, they might have been drunk, not present or just weren't listening) that they were 'directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army'.

Still, I think it would be very naive to think that they really believed the rantings of some highly-paid "mah-hao" hardliner on the stage... even though they were informed otherwise, I don't believe for a second that as many as 50% thought they were supporting a terrorist/insurgency movement.

[thaihome]

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

....

The UDD leaders made no doubt of the violence that was going to happen. This started with upcountry rallies before April and May.

There is plenty of proof. Do a few YouTube searches. It's not hard.

In my in-laws village, in area that did not have a large UDD organization, nobody joined when the recuriters showed up. They knew there was a very good chance it would turn out violent. All you had to do was watch PTV.

You are in extreme denial to think the people in crowd didn't know what was likely to happen.

TH

[hanuman1]

Pretty hard to claim innocence when you are cooking cleaning getting supplies and building barricades for armed Terrorists.

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

We all know there were also efforts made by red shirts with loudhailers at Pan Fa telling the crowd not to engage in violence. I'm not making any sweeping statements, just trying to balance the rather one-sided view you're portraying.

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

Not if you are a red shirt supporter.

I actually had to laugh when I read his post. He is obviously one of those who maintain the red shirts are not all that bright. He knows he is on a loosing horse and dosen't know how to get off it. Hence the Reply that they were maybe stupid.

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

[Buchholz]

The red shirts with loud hailers were probably govt infiltrators. Does that balance out the string of idiots with microphones and a sound system big enough for a Rolling Stones concert screaming a litany of hate and violence a la "Bring a bottle of petrol..........."

Not if you are a red shirt supporter.

I actually had to laugh when I read his post. He is obviously one of those who maintain the red shirts are not all that bright. He knows he is on a loosing horse and dosen't know how to get off it. Hence the Reply that they were maybe stupid.

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

You forgot to include the other part of your reply to posters opposed to red shirts

You attack thousands of people who you don't personally know

your bigotted views

[Emptyset]

So any individual who cooked, cleaned or got supplies (building barricades is more borderline) at that rally consciously knew they were directly helping individuals who had guns and were prepared to shoot at the army? I find that hard to believe and surely this can only be speculation on your part - correct me if I'm wrong and you have proof.

....

The UDD leaders made no doubt of the violence that was going to happen. This started with upcountry rallies before April and May.

There is plenty of proof. Do a few YouTube searches. It's not hard.

In my in-laws village, in area that did not have a large UDD organization, nobody joined when the recuriters showed up. They knew there was a very good chance it would turn out violent. All you had to do was watch PTV.

You are in extreme denial to think the people in crowd didn't know what was likely to happen.

TH

To be sure, many thought it would turn violent (a lot of the speeches people are discussing on here are about what they should do if the army moves in). However, that doesn't automatically mean that it was justifiable to shoot anyone that was in the crowd. Just because they knew there'd be violence, and hell a lot were willing to stand up to the army, and some knew there were armed men in amongst them. But if you enter a crowd or are part of a protest are you responsible for everything anyone else in the crowd does? Should I be shot because someone else apparently on my side is using a gun? I don't think I should be. You seem to have justified the military's irresponsibility on the basis that people in the mob knew what they were getting into. Obviously people in the crowd should take responsibility for their actions & yes, I think they have agency and thought for themselves about what they were getting into. But it doesn't justify everything the security forces did, nor does it mean they shouldn't be held accountable. I think when you put on a uniform I think you have to accept you're going to be held to greater account than ordinary people in a crowd, and we should demand high standards from those supposedly working to protect & serve ordinary citizens.

[jayjay0]

hunman1 you said

I wouldn't accuse someone of being stupid just because they don't know a particular fact. I'm sure we both don't know plenty of things, yet calling us stupid would probably be unfair as well as insulting.

Anyway for the record, I think Abhisit's a nice guy and I'd personally be delighted if the government measures to improve the lives of the rural poor came to effective fruition. Furthermore, anyone involved in the violence - or inciting the violence - at the rallies earlier in the year should be punished appropriately in accordance with the law. Do I sound like a red shirt supporter to you?

You simply take anything anyone says in mitigation of any red shirted supporters on that day and decide that since it questions your blanket assumptions, it must therefore be actively in support of the other side. If you are not my friend, you are my enemy. That is simplistic and doesn't help to engage in a constructive debate.

I wouldn't even call you a yellow supporter, even though you dislike reds, because I don't know your politics. See? I'm allowing for the possibility of the world being more than black and white. In fact the only label I could put on you would be 'red shirt hater', because only that is clear from your posts. And I don't even have a problem with you hating red-shirts - go ahead, some of them probably deserve you ire. But what I dislike is the effect your hatred has on your ability to stay objective and allow for the possibility that exceptions exist to your blanket condemnation of thousands of people.

That's what my posts are usually about and for this you and other red-shirt haters say I'm a red shirt supporter. Don't you want to have a balanced debate on this subject?

This post has been edited by hanuman1: Today, 14:46

You might not accuse them of being stupid because that is the Thai way. If they were not stupid what would you call them. Did they think the barricades were to throw money into and have the kids find it. Did they not understand what there leaders were wanting them to do with the violent rhetoric. Are you maintaining it was just a pay check to them they did not pay any attention to what was going on. Give me and yourself a break.

I am not overly fond of Abhist but I do care about Thailand. And he is the best thing Thailand has going for itself.

I am incapable of hatred so you lose there also.

As far as I am concerned The Yellow Shirts are No better for Thailand than the Red Shirts. Neither one of them has admitted to doing any thing wrong (well the red shirts did admit they were wrong invading the hospital) other than that they think the rest of the world is wrong.

Did either one try to make up the monetary damage they did to private citizens. The answer is no.

Ask them and they will tell you. No why should we, we did nothing wrong. And you my fine feathered friend are a ed shirt supporter. Saying they were not stupid as they loaded the gun for the next shot.

Only a Red Shirt supporter would say they didn't have a clue what was going on.