'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[Buchholz]

Yes a soldier shot Seh Daeng. That is obvious. But it is equally obvious that Seh Daeng was the mastermind of the Red/Black violence campaign. How many grenade/rpg attacks did he order? A lot - that is is obvious. With him gone, the number dropped sharply, and has dwindled to almost none. Seems his elimination had the direct benefit of improving Thailand's public safety - so I won't shed a tear over his demise.

Likely, but not obvious.

"SIEGEL: Now, tell us about what his message was today. I gather that other leaders of the Red Shirts, of the protestors, have been talking to the government to reach some kind of agreement. He considers them a sellout for doing that.

Mr. FULLER: Exactly. He called the other protest leaders wimps and he wanted to continue to fight. He said this was a lot more unconventional than the usual battles he was accustomed to, but he was ready to defend his barricade. So he was in an impediment to this particular phase of the crisis being resolved and the protestors going home."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126805541

Nothing is obvious.

A businessman losing millions of baht because of impediments to shopping could have Sae Daeng whacked by making a contract with a phone call. There's any number of people and groups that would have wanted to see him out of the picture for any number of reasons.

[termad]

Given how much evidence has been doctored and misrepresented as of late (video clips featuring judges, audio clips etc), it will be interesting to see if there's any claims of this leaked report being altered.

The witness accounts might line up, but given that none of the soldiers have actually confessed and instead the conclusion seems to be based on eyewitnesses sighting people in camouflaged clothing on the skytrain tracks, I have my doubts.

Do you really believe that the soldiers will or would confess?

[phiphidon]

Don't ask me, ask the American government - it's their report, not "some blogger", which you would have found out for yourself if you had looked at the link.

Actually, you or anyone else doesn't know the American government said any of it.

All we have is some blog saying that the American government said any of it.

What we do know is... that there is no such page on Facebook and that we can take your reply as a "no" to all the above questions.

btw, just because some blog types out:

"some authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States Government only"

that's not irrefutable evidence that it actually is from the United States Government.

Once again, it's the Internet (see remainder above).

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

Click on that to reach this site

http://publicintelli...d-media-guides/

Scroll down the list of countries on the right hand side until you reach Thailand, click and you reach this site

http://publicintelli...land-documents/

See that second report?

Now tell me it's just some blogger.....................

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

[Buchholz]

Don't ask me, ask the American government - it's their report, not "some blogger", which you would have found out for yourself if you had looked at the link.

Actually, you or anyone else doesn't know the American government said any of it.

All we have is some blog saying that the American government said any of it.

What we do know is... that there is no such page on Facebook and that we can take your reply as a "no" to all the above questions.

btw, just because some blog types out:

"some authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States Government only"

that's not irrefutable evidence that it actually is from the United States Government.

Once again, it's the Internet (see remainder above).

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Buchholz

[rubl]

...

http://publicintelli...d-media-guides/

...

Totally off topic, but should I be devastated that my country of birth is not listed ?

[Emptyset]

e,g the "Enjoy red shirts bodies" page.Some details follow:

I think you're talking about this group: http://www.facebook....18280498&v=wall (warning: graphic image)

Anyway, when it was first up it seemed particularly gruesome, abhorrent & despicable but not much remarkable on there now and not too many members. Likely just immature kids. I requested for it to be taken down months ago, guess FB thinks it's OK. More worryingly there was a group called something like "Sniperman" which I saw in around June, that had many more members. It featured some particularly nasty images of dead red shirts, including super slow-mo head-shots and the like, plus calls for vigilante violence against them and they were apparently offering weapons training but as I didn't join the group I don't know the details (it quickly went private). I can't find it nor remember the exact name so hopefully FB took it down. I reported it back then. Although if people really want to do that, no doubt they'll find some way to do it outside of FB.

[Siam Simon]

Firstly, congratulations on a first attempt at a detailed post. So let's have a look at it.

You understand incorrectly. The soldiers showed considerable restraint, by an large, considering the massive pressure the red leadership was putting on them.

What you people can't seem to grasp is that the reds wanted a massacre. They put the black shirts in the lttle old lady reds, as human shields, to provoke a huge overeaction, as has happened in the past. Instead the army did a very careful urban containment of the situation. Sealed the area, and slow limited the access, like a vise. Eventually the reds cracked, tried to force the issue with the breakout marches (which is what provoked the final crackdown, if you recall), and the army ended it. Most international military analysts credit the Thai army with a well executed urban riot containment, and confirm this key fact. They did not have any other choice. Should they have allowed the reds to keep lobbing grenades? Should they have allowed them to keep firing LIVE ROUNDS at soldiers and buildings? Should they have allowed the reds to use women and children as human shields (Cattle to the slaughter for Thaksin) in the Red's game of "Kill the innocents, change the government"?

The reds always use the same refrain - "I am against violence, but....the government soldiers are bad.." How about the reds how started it? Who is to blame, the cop who shoots the bad guy, or the bad guy who draws his gun first? The incident was crafted to create a massacre, and the fact that it was handled reasonable well from a strategic standpoint is why the reds finally broke. And what happened with they broke? They continued to destroy! Burning, looting, shooting? And you wanted this to continue indefinitely? You wanted Bangkok to be held hostage by these people?

Soldiers killed reds. Yes they did. Were some of the deaths tragic? Yes. Where some negligent - Yes. What it a perfect flawless operation? - No. But was it successful in restoring peace and sanity to the Red-induced crazy violence - Yes.

Did the reds have a chance to end peacefully - Yes (if they accepted, we would have ALREADY HAD AN ELECTION). Did they accept - No (Because it didn't get Thaksin what he wanted HIS MONEY BACK).

The main thrust of this is the myth that Red leaders wanted their own supporters slaughtered. Nobody is ever able to provide one jot of evidence to support this myth, but if this is queried, myth propagators usually start railing and ranting, accusing the doubter of being stupid/crazy/insert your own derogatory comment. Never any evidence though, just further expansion of conspiracy theories. We shouldn't forget the importance of this myth: It can be used to blame the Reds for everything that followed, and provide cover for the Army getting up to their usual shenanigans.

I don't apologize for anyone who uses violence, but the government has the duty to protect the public from violence perpetrated against them. The Reds were the perpetrators of that violence, and had to be stopped. You say "they should have used water cannons, tear gas, etc. You seem to forget that they tried that, and the Reds/black fired live rounds and grenades at them, killing soldiers. Does this happen in western countries, during protests? No. So that argument has no merit.

There isn't a remotely clear picture of how the violence started on April 10. Your version is mostly speculation, apart from the bit that army personnel were killed (by a grenade). Protestors were also killed (by gunfire), but this is where the myth can be brought into play. In the West, protests are handled in very different ways: Known agitators are surveilled, and specifically targeted if demo's start turning into riots. Whenever there is a security situation involving lethal weapons, specialist units are assigned to isolate and nullify. Were the Thai Army the only people who hadn't known for weeks that there was a small armed element backing the Red protestors? Where was their detailed intel, surveillance? Where were the elite squads that should've taken the known armed element out of the equation?

Stop defending an imoral protest, led by immoral leaders, whose goals and aims were not for anyone's interests but themselves.

FInally - what about the money? When the money stopped flowing, the attacks stopped. Coincidence? These black shirt/red shirts aren't even ideological zealots, they are mercenaries, and when they don't get paid, they don't work. Hence, a peaceful Bangkok. Every argument the proreds use is flawed, because the results of their "it should have been done this way" statement results in more chaos and violence perpetrated against the public by a group of psychopaths. When the bully hits us, we are suppose to take it, without recourse. Nonsense. In the end, history will judge who was right and wrong. In the violence of 1973, 1976, and 1991, it has given verdict. In 2010, I think we all know who will be held responsible for the deaths.

The protest needed to be ended. It was just done all wrong. My own conspiracy theory is that it was deliberately done all wrong, in order to discredit the Reds and justify the sustained crackdown that we have seen since. But I have no more proof of this than you have proof of your 'Reds wanting a massacre' conspiracy theory. History will indeed, judge and I suspect none of the major players will come out smelling of roses (I don't include Abhisit because he wasn't a major player, having been left out of the CRES). In 2010, responsibility for the deaths will be laid at more than one door.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

Don't ask me, ask the American government - it's their report, not "some blogger", which you would have found out for yourself if you had looked at the link.

Actually, you or anyone else doesn't know the American government said any of it.

All we have is some blog saying that the American government said any of it.

What we do know is... that there is no such page on Facebook and that we can take your reply as a "no" to all the above questions.

btw, just because some blog types out:

"some authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States Government only"

that's not irrefutable evidence that it actually is from the United States Government.

Once again, it's the Internet (see remainder above).

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

.

And here's a tip for you: If you're going to edit someone's quoted post, make it clear that you've done so. Otherwise, you'll end up with a reputation for dishonesty in your usage of quoted material, like Sriracha John, who got banned.

[phiphidon]

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

.

And here's a tip for you: If you're going to edit someone's quoted post, make it clear that you've done so. Otherwise, you'll end up with a reputation for dishonesty in your usage of quoted material, like Sriracha John, who got banned.

Thank you, it saved me the trouble.

[Buchholz]

Actually, you or anyone else doesn't know the American government said any of it.

All we have is some blog saying that the American government said any of it.

What we do know is... that there is no such page on Facebook and that we can take your reply as a "no" to all the above questions.

btw, just because some blog types out:

"some authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States Government only"

that's not irrefutable evidence that it actually is from the United States Government.

Once again, it's the Internet (see remainder above).

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

And here's a tip for you: If you're going to edit someone's quoted post, make it clear that you've done so.

Whatever you're on about, I'm not sure. I shortened the post I quoted. It's obvious the part I shortened as the full post is directly above it.

but, thanks for the tip... whatever it is.

[Buchholz]

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website

http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html

Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.

And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

.

And here's a tip for you: If you're going to edit someone's quoted post, make it clear that you've done so.

Thank you, it saved me the trouble.

It also spared you having to respond with yet another weak rebuttal... which is worthy of your appreciation.

[Prapoj]

e,g the "Enjoy red shirts bodies" page.Some details follow:

I think you're talking about this group: http://www.facebook....18280498&v=wall (warning: graphic image)

Anyway, when it was first up it seemed particularly gruesome, abhorrent & despicable but not much remarkable on there now and not too many members. Likely just immature kids. I requested for it to be taken down months ago, guess FB thinks it's OK. More worryingly there was a group called something like "Sniperman" which I saw in around June, that had many more members. It featured some particularly nasty images of dead red shirts, including super slow-mo head-shots and the like, plus calls for vigilante violence against them and they were apparently offering weapons training but as I didn't join the group I don't know the details (it quickly went private). I can't find it nor remember the exact name so hopefully FB took it down. I reported it back then. Although if people really want to do that, no doubt they'll find some way to do it outside of FB.

The picture is really horrible.

[Siam Simon]

Whatever you're on about, I'm not sure. I shortened the post I quoted. It's obvious the part I shortened as the full post is directly above it.

but, thanks for the tip... whatever it is.

You just cant stop yourself, can you? It's a compulsion, isn't it? You didn't shorten the post, you took a section out of the middle.

[Buchholz]

Whatever you're on about, I'm not sure. I shortened the post I quoted. It's obvious the part I shortened as the full post is directly above it.

but, thanks for the tip... whatever it is.

You just cant stop yourself, can you? It's a compulsion, isn't it? You didn't shorten the post, you took a section out of the middle.

Still don't know what you're babbling about.

I cut out the portion of the post that I wasn't replying to AKA "shortened the post."

Really, try to get a grip.

.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

Whatever you're on about, I'm not sure. I shortened the post I quoted. It's obvious the part I shortened as the full post is directly above it.

but, thanks for the tip... whatever it is.

You just cant stop yourself, can you? It's a compulsion, isn't it? You didn't shorten the post, you took a section out of the middle.

Still don't know what you're babbling about.

I cut out the portion of the post that I wasn't replying to AKA "shortened the post."

Really, try to get a grip.

.

You know perfectly well what I'm on about. If you edit out part of someone's quoted post, you should make it clear where you have edited. All the regs know your tricks, going way back to when you used to use the name Sriracha John. Your tricks are tolerated by some because they enjoy your obsessive/compulsive blather about Thaksin and co.

Btw, I saw your post before you edited it and added the emoticons. So much for your claim that you only edit yourself to correct typos. You just can't help yourself, can you?

[SomTumTiger]

If Siam Simon is congratulating me, I must be on the wrong track, time to bugger off.

[Buchholz]

Whatever you're on about, I'm not sure. I shortened the post I quoted. It's obvious the part I shortened as the full post is directly above it.

but, thanks for the tip... whatever it is.

You just cant stop yourself, can you? It's a compulsion, isn't it? You didn't shorten the post, you took a section out of the middle.

Still don't know what you're babbling about.

I cut out the portion of the post that I wasn't replying to AKA "shortened the post."

Really, try to get a grip.

You know perfectly well what I'm on about. If you edit out part of someone's quoted post, you should make it clear where you have edited.

Your nonsensical blather is tiresome. If I quote a post that is directly above, it's clear what is edited, particularly a lengthy post that is much shorter in the quote.

[SomTumTiger]

No need to argue with the trolls, it only encourages them.

[whybother]

And here's a tip for you: If you're going to edit someone's quoted post, make it clear that you've done so.

SS (Can I start calling you "The Quote Nazi"?), the idea is that you should NOT change the meaning of a post.

It is entirely acceptable (to most people) to cut out irrelevant parts of a quoted post, particularly if the quoted post is quite long, as long as you are not changing the meaning of the quoted post.

And you really should stop targetting one or two people with your Quote Nazi antics. It's getting quite boring.

Edited December 31, 2010 by whybother

[Prapoj]

I hope that the government would just publish the finding. Even if it is a white wash. At least it will clear some doubt, especially for the Farang that are killed. Stop the ping pongf game and do something. It is 0.75 years already.

[whybother]

Not sure where to start such a thread. General doesn't allow political threads ("temporary" rules).

But given that you don't think the protests should have even been dispersed in the first place, I don't think the discussion would go very far.

Well, you're wrong. I happen to think the protests should have been dispersed, but AFTER the armed element had been dealt with. Until then, they should have used containment and restraint.

You bring up how "Armed Response Units deal with gunmen in the West", but can you give one example of a protest in the west where the protesters were armed?

A small number of the protestors were armed. The troubles in Northern Ireland sometimes had similar (but more complex and deeply-rooted) situations. Apart from one terrible day (Bloody Sunday), British security forces always dealt with the armed as a separate entity to the un-armed. That's one of the main purposes of intel and special units, whether dealing with protests with violent elements or any other internal security threats involving lethal weapons.

Maybe you can give some examples of protests in the west where the protesters were allowed to storm parliament and businesses and not have some sort of police response. (I know I don't have a question mark since it is not strictly a question, but it is a statement where I would like a response.)

I'm not disagreeing with you on the basics here, just the clumsy, brutal way that the Thai security services always do it.

Apologies for not replying to this earlier. I've been away from the laptop for a couple of days and only had access on the mobile.

Didn't we have a long discussion recently about you stating that the protests shouldn't have been dispersed?

How exactly do you remove the armed element from the unarmed protest group when the unarmed portion are supporting the armed portion? The April 10 dispersal attempt was supposed to be a riot gear, rubber bullets, water cannons affair. But it went horribly wrong. No one knows who started shooting, but the fact is, there were armed red shirts there throwing grenades and shooting at soldiers. It's amazing only 18 protesters died.

The troubles in Northern Ireland were NOT thousands of people protesting on the streets with an armed element amongst them. When the police took out an armed element in Northern Ireland, they spent many months on surveillance and then raided a house. And even then, there were lots of "innocent, unarmed" others killed. The police in Northern Ireland were generally not trying to disperse any unarmed protest.

Bloody Sunday is a good comparison to April 10, except there was no armed element amongst the N.I. protesters and no British army personnel killed or injured. About the same number of people were killed, except in Bangkok, some of them were soldiers.

[Siam Simon]

Your nonsensical blather is tiresome. If I quote a post that is directly above, it's clear what is edited, particularly a lengthy post that is much shorter in the quote.

The post that you quoted (and edited without indicating an edit) by phiphidon was not a long post. You edited out a section containing two links that were important to the substance of the the part of the post you didn't edit. Once your post, with nests, has been quoted by someone else, the post you quoted is not immediately above, and there is no indication that you have edited it. But that's the idea, isn't it? You just can't stop yourself, can you?

[Siam Simon]

Apologies for not replying to this earlier. I've been away from the laptop for a couple of days and only had access on the mobile.

Didn't we have a long discussion recently about you stating that the protests shouldn't have been dispersed?

We had a discussion where I repeatedly highlighted the lack of violence before dispersal versus the violence that occurred once the clumsy dispersal started.

How exactly do you remove the armed element from the unarmed protest group when the unarmed portion are supporting the armed portion? The April 10 dispersal attempt was supposed to be a riot gear, rubber bullets, water cannons affair. But it went horribly wrong. No one knows who started shooting, but the fact is, there were armed red shirts there throwing grenades and shooting at soldiers. It's amazing only 18 protesters died.

You do it through careful intel, surveillance and the use of counter-insurgency-type specialist units.

The troubles in Northern Ireland were NOT thousands of people protesting on the streets with an armed element amongst them. When the police took out an armed element in Northern Ireland, they spent many months on surveillance and then raided a house. And even then, there were lots of "innocent, unarmed" others killed. The police in Northern Ireland were generally not trying to disperse any unarmed protest.

Bloody Sunday is a good comparison to April 10, except there was no armed element amongst the N.I. protesters and no British army personnel killed or injured. About the same number of people were killed, except in Bangkok, some of them were soldiers.

The troubles in NI were quite often thousands of people protesting on the streets with an armed element amongst them (IRA Gunmen. Plenty more info on this if you can be bothered to search).

There were all sorts of circumstances in which the security forces took out armed elements. The vast majority of victims in Northern Ireland were victims of inter-community violence. The security forces were always careful to avoid civilian casualties (including protestors supporting and mingling with armed gunmen). Except, of course, on that fateful January Sunday, when the Army thought they were being fired upon. After this, lessons were learned. Unlike in Thailand.

Btw, the IRA commander on Bloody Sunday was Martin McGuinness, who is now Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland assembly, Reconciliation goes that far when there is the will.

[Buchholz]

Your nonsensical blather is tiresome. If I quote a post that is directly above, it's clear what is edited, particularly a lengthy post that is much shorter in the quote.

The post that you quoted (and edited without indicating an edit) by phiphidon was not a long post. You edited out a section containing two links that were important to the substance of the the part of the post you didn't edit. Once your post, with nests, has been quoted by someone else, the post you quoted is not immediately above, and there is no indication that you have edited it. But that's the idea, isn't it? You just can't stop yourself, can you?

More tiresome blather.

I did nothing but shorten the post to the sections I addressed in my reply.

I did not break any of the rules concerning quoting:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

If you think I did, you should use the report button and let the real moderators decide and thus save the rest of the forum from having to scroll through your repetitious drivel.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Buchholz

[whybother]

Apologies for not replying to this earlier. I've been away from the laptop for a couple of days and only had access on the mobile.

Didn't we have a long discussion recently about you stating that the protests shouldn't have been dispersed?

We had a discussion where I repeatedly highlighted the lack of violence before dispersal versus the violence that occurred once the clumsy dispersal started.

How exactly do you remove the armed element from the unarmed protest group when the unarmed portion are supporting the armed portion? The April 10 dispersal attempt was supposed to be a riot gear, rubber bullets, water cannons affair. But it went horribly wrong. No one knows who started shooting, but the fact is, there were armed red shirts there throwing grenades and shooting at soldiers. It's amazing only 18 protesters died.

You do it through careful intel, surveillance and the use of counter-insurgency-type specialist units.

...<snip> ...

Storming parliament and Thaicom is lack of violence?

In most western protests that I can remember, if the protesters started invading buildings the riot police usually moved in. Actually, they would have moved in if there was even an attempt to storm a building. And I can't think of one other "peaceful protest" where the protesters shot at police or threw grenades.

The April dispersal consisted of the army standing in a line with their shields and batons and the protesters listening to music ... until someone started shooting and grenades were thrown. It hardly gives anyone a chance to do careful intel and surveillance. And then in May, there wasn't much chance to get in amongst the protesters and interview people.

The troubles Northern Ireland are a terrible comparison, considering they happened over many years. Should the Thai army have waited that long?

edit: oops. forgot the <snip>. can't do that when I'm quoting the Quote Nazi

Edited December 31, 2010 by whybother

[Siam Simon]

Your nonsensical blather is tiresome. If I quote a post that is directly above, it's clear what is edited, particularly a lengthy post that is much shorter in the quote.

The post that you quoted (and edited without indicating an edit) by phiphidon was not a long post. You edited out a section containing two links that were important to the substance of the the part of the post you didn't edit. Once your post, with nests, has been quoted by someone else, the post you quoted is not immediately above, and there is no indication that you have edited it. But that's the idea, isn't it? You just can't stop yourself, can you?

More tiresome blather.

I did nothing but shorten the post to the sections I addressed in my reply.

I did not break any of the rules concerning quoting:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

If you think I did, you should use the report button and let the real moderators decide and thus save the rest of the forum from having to scroll through your repetitious drivel.

It's a common courtesy that when we edit someone's quoted post, we make it clear that we've done so. That way, we keep misunderstandings to a minimum. Not you though. You just can't stop yourself from being sneaky, from being 'mr clever clogs', manipulating quotes to suit your obsessive agenda. As in phiphidon's post, where you felt the need to edit out six lines from the middle of twelve short lines of post (which were 100% relevant to the first five lines, and of which two lines were important links) but leave the last line in. Face it: You have a very long history of this type of sneaky behaviour, going back to your Sriracha John days, when I can remember you getting caught out editing a paragraph out of a quoted news article (naughty naughty) because the paragraph didn't suit your agenda.

[Siam Simon]

Storming parliament and Thaicom is lack of violence?

At the expense of going over old discussions again, I always made it clear that I was opposed to the disruption caused by the protests. But there was very little violence or serious injury at either 'event'. If I remember correctly, a soldier was shot dead near Thaicom, which was first attributed to friendly fire but then changed to 'don't know'. Compare and contrast with the violence, injuries and deaths post April 10.

In most western protests that I can remember, if the protesters started invading buildings the riot police usually moved in. Actually, they would have moved in if there was even an attempt to storm a building. And I can't think of one other "peaceful protest" where the protesters shot at police or threw grenades.

Because that situation of being attacked by a small number of armed insurgent would never be allowed to grow from incubation, it would be caught early.

The April dispersal consisted of the army standing in a line with their shields and batons and the protesters listening to music ... until someone started shooting and grenades were thrown. It hardly gives anyone a chance to do careful intel and surveillance. And then in May, there wasn't much chance to get in amongst the protesters and interview people.

The troubles Northern Ireland are a terrible comparison, considering they happened over many years. Should the Thai army have waited that long?

edit: oops. forgot the <snip>. can't do that when I'm quoting the Quote Nazi

And the protests had been going on for how many weeks? It was long known that there was a small armed element, but this armed element wasn't dealt with, in the several weeks prior to April 10, at all. Thus we ended up with a situation which dragged on for several more weeks and with all the associated carnage.

Whilst the troubles in NI are not a perfect comparison (is there such a thing?), in some respects, they are an excellent one: The problems in NI were far more deeply rooted, going back several centuries. The British security forces were involved on an intense level for decades, sustaining many, many deaths and serious injuries yet showing restraint and intelligent targeted responses to threats except on one tragic day. And at the end of it all, we had genuine reconciliation, with former enemies working together in government. Thailand could learn much from this example, and it's aspirations to becoming a modern first world democracy would be accelerated greatly.

[phiphidon]

Your nonsensical blather is tiresome. If I quote a post that is directly above, it's clear what is edited, particularly a lengthy post that is much shorter in the quote.

The post that you quoted (and edited without indicating an edit) by phiphidon was not a long post. You edited out a section containing two links that were important to the substance of the the part of the post you didn't edit. Once your post, with nests, has been quoted by someone else, the post you quoted is not immediately above, and there is no indication that you have edited it. But that's the idea, isn't it? You just can't stop yourself, can you?

More tiresome blather.

I did nothing but shorten the post to the sections I addressed in my reply.

I did not break any of the rules concerning quoting:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

If you think I did, you should use the report button and let the real moderators decide and thus save the rest of the forum from having to scroll through your repetitious drivel.

Sorry the post was so long, here's a modified version for you

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.Click on that to reach this site http://publicintelli...d-media-guides/ Scroll down the list of countries on the right hand side until you reach Thailand, click and you reach thissite http://publicintelli...land-documents/ See that second report? Now tell me it's just some blogger.....................And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

The original version was easier to read, am I right.

Happy New Year

[Buchholz]

Sorry the post was so long, here's a modified version for you

Irrefutable evidence coming up:

First go to this website http://www.fas.org/i.../osc/index.html Look below the official seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States of America, and find the link to Public Intelligence.Click on that to reach this site http://publicintelli...d-media-guides/ Scroll down the list of countries on the right hand side until you reach Thailand, click and you reach thissite http://publicintelli...land-documents/ See that second report? Now tell me it's just some blogger.....................And you can assume my replies are "no" as much as you like.

The original version was easier to read, am I right.

Happy New Year

In the absence of any evidence produced by you in reply to the questions, how else should we take your reply but as a "no" to the questions asked?

As for a seal making a website a legitimate government source,

gee... I guess that makes Thaivisa an official U.S.government website now.

p.s. A tip: It's best to take your .org and .net websites as pretty much anything goes and .gov websites as government sourced websites.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Storming parliament and Thaicom is lack of violence?

At the expense of going over old discussions again, I always made it clear that I was opposed to the disruption caused by the protests. But there was very little violence or serious injury at either 'event'. If I remember correctly, a soldier was shot dead near Thaicom, which was first attributed to friendly fire but then changed to 'don't know'. Compare and contrast with the violence, injuries and deaths post April 10.

In most western protests that I can remember, if the protesters started invading buildings the riot police usually moved in. Actually, they would have moved in if there was even an attempt to storm a building. And I can't think of one other "peaceful protest" where the protesters shot at police or threw grenades.

Because that situation of being attacked by a small number of armed insurgent would never be allowed to grow from incubation, it would be caught early.

The April dispersal consisted of the army standing in a line with their shields and batons and the protesters listening to music ... until someone started shooting and grenades were thrown. It hardly gives anyone a chance to do careful intel and surveillance. And then in May, there wasn't much chance to get in amongst the protesters and interview people.

The troubles Northern Ireland are a terrible comparison, considering they happened over many years. Should the Thai army have waited that long?

edit: oops. forgot the <snip>. can't do that when I'm quoting the Quote Nazi

And the protests had been going on for how many weeks? It was long known that there was a small armed element, but this armed element wasn't dealt with, in the several weeks prior to April 10, at all. Thus we ended up with a situation which dragged on for several more weeks and with all the associated carnage.

Whilst the troubles in NI are not a perfect comparison (is there such a thing?), in some respects, they are an excellent one: The problems in NI were far more deeply rooted, going back several centuries. The British security forces were involved on an intense level for decades, sustaining many, many deaths and serious injuries yet showing restraint and intelligent targeted responses to threats except on one tragic day. And at the end of it all, we had genuine reconciliation, with former enemies working together in government. Thailand could learn much from this example, and it's aspirations to becoming a modern first world democracy would be accelerated greatly.

another sensible post - well done! my view is that if the authorities had dealt with the yellow airport take-over in the same way there could well have been violence there too - but they just sat back and had the future deputy PM go and tell them what a great job they were doing! talk about double standards! what's done is done - we now need an election so the people can actually CHOOSE their government not have it pushed on them due to the last elected government being 'banned' and skulduggery amongst turncoat MP's who jump parties despite being elected on a different platform - and no i don't agree with this happening in other country's either.