Rally At Bangkok's Ratchaprasong

[Siam Simon]

they knew the risks, its not as if protesters have not been shot before in Thailand is it?

if they did not want to run those risks then they should not have been there for their 500 baht

i would venture to say it is those who did were daft to do so and those who support that daftness are even dafter.

and if you have said it before then you are double dafter or even triple because you know it will not do any good

you can say it until you are blue in the face.........or should that be red?

Protestors have been shot before in Thailand. That makes it ok then.

even though i am sure that the reds should they ever get in power will enact such a cleaning law to keep descenters quiet its never gonna happen

red is soooooooo last year and Abhisit and Korn are going to walk the next election with a landslide victory

so its a blooming big som nom na to you too!

I very much doubt red is yesterday's news, though I hope your prediction about Abhisit is correct. I could take or leave Korn: He strikes me as not having any of the moral vision that separates the great politicians from the rest.

[Siam Simon]

Samak's role was disgraceful but he was more of a cheerleader for violence than its instigator.He is incidentally dead so he's not part of any movement.There was a banned member Sriracha John who maintained Samak's final illness was faked, but the general consensus is indeed that he is dead.Bucholz might like to comment.

Forgot about the faked illness allegation. Still, what do you expect from a poster who makes fun of a politician (Mingkwan) taking ill in parliament? Some posters on TV have no moral boundaries, sadly.

[Siam Simon]

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

.

It's all in the 'Ex-pm Samak Has Liver Cancer' thread, John. You were at the forefront of the accusations that Samak was blagging (under your old alias of course), along with some of the usual TV Forum suspects.

[timekeeper]

they knew the risks, its not as if protesters have not been shot before in Thailand is it?

if they did not want to run those risks then they should not have been there for their 500 baht

i would venture to say it is those who did were daft to do so and those who support that daftness are even dafter.

and if you have said it before then you are double dafter or even triple because you know it will not do any good

you can say it until you are blue in the face.........or should that be red?

Protestors have been shot before in Thailand. That makes it ok then.

even though i am sure that the reds should they ever get in power will enact such a cleaning law to keep descenters quiet its never gonna happen

red is soooooooo last year and Abhisit and Korn are going to walk the next election with a landslide victory

so its a blooming big som nom na to you too!

I very much doubt red is yesterday's news, though I hope your prediction about Abhisit is correct. I could take or leave Korn: He strikes me as not having any of the moral vision that separates the great politicians from the rest.

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

[whybother]

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

.

It's all in the 'Ex-pm Samak Has Liver Cancer' thread, John. You were at the forefront of the accusations that Samak was blagging (under your old alias of course), along with some of the usual TV Forum suspects.

I think people were just asking for corroborating evidence rather than just believing a statement from Samak - particularly when it was leading up to potential jail time.

[Siam Simon]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

[whybother]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

Did you count them?

edit: sorry Quote Nazi ... I forgot to mention, I snipped out an irrelevant part of your quote.

Edited January 19, 2011 by whybother

[Buchholz]

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

It's all in the 'Ex-pm Samak Has Liver Cancer' thread

Interesting thread, but from what I read on there, it would seem that posters were questioning the validity of the claim as there was no corroboration or verification of the diagnosis from sources one usually sees in stories about someone being ill... namely, his doctors or a hospital spokesman. Instead, rather than confirm it, they refused to comment on it, even after he was discharged from the hospital, which legitimately would raise suspicions.

Further suspicions were raised when he left the country without being granted permission to do so from the courts who allowed him to be free on bail over the conviction he had as well as the numerous criminal charges he still faced.

Still, he had not died yet when that thread was last posted on so I still have not seen where his death was faked as jayboy had alleged. The thread was also noteworthy in that it was completed before jayboy had even joined Thaivisa, which should set off the radar you seem to obsess over regarding banned members.

.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

It's all in the 'Ex-pm Samak Has Liver Cancer' thread

Interesting thread, but from what I read on there, it would seem that posters were questioning the validity of the claim as there was no corroboration or verification of the diagnosis from sources one usually sees in stories about someone being ill... namely, his doctors or a hospital spokesman. Instead, rather than confirm it, they refused to comment on it, even after he was discharged from the hospital, which legitimately would raise suspicions.

Further suspicions were raised when he left the country without being granted permission to do so from the courts who allowed him to be free on bail over the conviction he had as well as the numerous criminal charges he still faced.

Still, he had not died yet when that thread was last posted on so I still have not seen where his death was faked as jayboy had alleged. The thread was also noteworthy in that it was completed before jayboy had even joined Thaivisa, which should set off the radar you seem to obsess over regarding banned members.

.

That's a large bag of excuses, John, and you should stop trying to present it as anything else.

Jayboy has alluded to your last point. Unfortunately, you feel the need to pretend about this, rather than coming clean. What must the mods make of all this? (don't answewr. It's against the rules ).

[Buchholz]

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

It's all in the 'Ex-pm Samak Has Liver Cancer' thread

Interesting thread, but from what I read on there, it would seem that posters were questioning the validity of the claim as there was no corroboration or verification of the diagnosis from sources one usually sees in stories about someone being ill... namely, his doctors or a hospital spokesman. Instead, rather than confirm it, they refused to comment on it, even after he was discharged from the hospital, which legitimately would raise suspicions.

Further suspicions were raised when he left the country without being granted permission to do so from the courts who allowed him to be free on bail over the conviction he had as well as the numerous criminal charges he still faced.

Still, he had not died yet when that thread was last posted on so I still have not seen where his death was faked as jayboy had alleged. The thread was also noteworthy in that it was completed before jayboy had even joined Thaivisa, which should set off the radar you seem to obsess over regarding banned members.

That's a large bag of excuses

Pointing out the realities of what other posters at the time were saying regarding legitimate concerns is hardly "a large bag of excuses." Can you point out what specifically was wrong with their points?

[timekeeper]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

ok for the sake of argument lets say 20 armed insurgents were amongst 30-50,000 reds

did they step back and identify them?

did they say they are not part of this red cause?

did they leave on the ''peaceful protest principle'' they came with when they started shooting at soldiers and police ?

did they protest to the red leaders when they fired grenades at innocent people in rail stations going about their business?

did the red leaders condemn the deaths of soldiers, police and public at the hands of the red paid ronin?

did anyone actually stand up and say this is not what we came for?

if they did i missed it

so they stayed during the gunfights and grenade launchings and supported the mercenaries living amongst them

they celebrated them, rejoiced at every violet success by the law breakers

did they imagine that no one was going to shoot back at them ?

did they imagine they would be allowed to sit there forever?

like all of Thailand we waited for a reaction from the government

to Abhisit's credit it was a long time coming but when it did i was happy it was finally sorted and someone in Thailand had grown some balls

after all they could have said lets go home, this is not what we came for

just as they expected the government to fall, they could have called it a day too

in my opinion they got what they deserved, even the most peaceful and genuine red supporters,deferred to the violent sections of the red movement working against the law.

when the same violence was returned upon them all they can do is whinge and complain

like any bully they did not like a taste of their own medicine

just like their boss Thaksin..........

[Emptyset]

I read most of the article. It was written by students I am sure.

It was written by an American student.

If I had not known better the way they carried on I would have believed thousands had died. The fact that a minimum of 46 died is a horrible thing indeed and it should stand on it's own merits. It really dosen't need all the adverbs, adjectives, innuendos or what ever they are called to make it seem worse.

It's not just how many died, it's how they died and who killed them. It's not just like they were shot by the military. There were police & militia but also mobs of ordinary people carrying out the violence. Groups of middle class housewives baying for blood. There were rapes, people burned & hung whilst still alive etc. And the institutions partly responsible are the ones held up to be arbiter of all that's good and virtuous in Thai society. That's why it's "hard to remember".

It was so one sided that only a true believer would buy it all.

If you're disputing what's written there, I'm happy to provide you with mountains more material. It's true that not all the students were unarmed, and that people hard a justifiable fear of communism (which is noted in the essay I linked), but that doesn't really change much.

Besides what has that got to do with a bunch of people putting on red shirts and shutting down the same portion of Bangkok every two weeks or what ever the flavor of the day for them is.

Well, if you look at the social forces involved, perhaps not a great deal has changed. Many of the people involved are also the same:

"I’d like to propose that this ideology of 14 and 6 October – or, for simplicity, the Octobrist ideology [rights and freedoms + social justice] – has now disintegrated. And the chief reason why it has disintegrated is the fragmentation of the people’s movement in Thailand in the context of the political conflict over the Thaksin government during the past year.

It took over thirty years for the Octobrist ideology to weaken, yet now it seems to have withered and died.

This fact is plainly visible in the conflict among the Octobrist friends and colleagues who have splintered, factionalized, and fallen into mutual recrimination and total confusion.

On one side there are Dr Phrommin Lertsuridet, Phumtham Wechayachai, Chaturon Chaisaeng, Sutham Saengprathum, Phinit Jarusombat, Adisorn Piangket, Kriangkamon Laohapairot, Phichit Likhitkijsombun, and so on.

On the other are Thirayuth Boonmee, Phipob Thongchai, Prasarn Mareukphitak, Dr Weng Tochirakan*, Chermsak Pinthong, Kaewsan Athipo, Chaiwat Surawichai, Khamnun Sitthisaman, Yuk Sri-arya, Suwinai Pornavalai, and so on.

These two sides disagreed fierily and furiously over the Thaksin government, over the call for royal appointment of a prime minister under clause 7 of the 1997 constitution, over the king’s call for judicial intervention, and over the coup of 19 September 2006. And their conflict spread to the activist intellectuals of subsequent generations such as those of May 1992, and those in the political reform and people’s politics movements of 1997.

This conflict reached such ferocity that websites belonging to Octobrist colleagues and former jungle comrades censored the words of Thongchai Winichakul posted from the University of Wisconsin, and the executive committee of Club 19 of the former comrades in the lower northeast were so severely criticized by fellow members for showing a political stance somewhat close to the Thaksin government that the whole board resigned to make way for a new election."

http://kyotoreviewsea.org/Issue_8-9/Kasian.html

*Obviously this was written when Weng was part of the anti-Thaksin protests.

[jdinasia]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

Perhaps 20? Where does THAT number come from?

[Nisa]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

Perhaps 20? Where does THAT number come from?

Spears, rockets, machetes, clubs, bricks, slingshots, barricades doused in kerosene and molotov cocktails I guess don't count as weapons.

Edit: and lets not forget grenades and bombs too (both used and recovered) ... interesting too that the bombing in BKK came with the Red Mob and stopped with their departure.

Also what happened to the hundreds (i believe this was the number) of weapons stolen from the army that were never returned? They all distributed to and stolen by these 20 people?

Edited January 19, 2011 by Nisa

[Pi Sek]

Perhaps 20? Where does THAT number come from?

Well, the govt said on 14 May that they estimated the terrorist element within the Red Shirts at about 500 people. That may or may not be an overexaggeration.

Siam Simon suggests 'a handful', maybe 20, were armed. I am very certain that this is an underexaggeration, probably a huge one, especially since a number similar to this have already confessed to armed violence or died when trying to kill other people (and that's not including any of the April-May deaths, where I suspect a fair number of armed protesters were shot).

I think most reasonable people would number the terrorist element at somewhere between Siam Simon's figure and the government figure. Kinda shines a light on Simon's political neutrality, no?

[rubl]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

A handful militia caused the start of the bloodshed on April 10th 2010. A few others (same?) continuing to lob 60+ grenades for another two months didn't help either. And now you blame the army for a bloody crackdown because they didn't do intel and surveillance? You blame the army for not keeping a better eye on what Thai are doing in Thailand? Do you happen to be one of those 'right wing nutters' you refer to ?

[Emptyset]

Well, the govt said on 14 May that they estimated the terrorist element within the Red Shirts at about 500 people. That may or may not be an overexaggeration.

Umm... obviously it's a huge exagerration. If we're defining terrorists as those who had "war weapons" - i.e. high powered rifles and grenade launchers. If it was anything like 500, how come with all the journalists around and other onlookers, there's only a handful of pics of the "MiB" with weapons? In fact it wasn't until the few last day that anyone got clear pictures (that is - unless you include April 10th - which I don't because I think they were not the same militia we saw after that). Also, government has very good pictures of the militia involved on April 10th, but they're not releasing them. Fact is that 500 figure was just a smear. Complete propaganda for which there exists 0 evidence. Unless you think people with molotovs and such are terrorists? In that case a lot of protests all over the world have large terrorist elements, lol.

Siam Simon suggests 'a handful', maybe 20, were armed. I am very certain that this is an underexaggeration, probably a huge one, especially since a number similar to this have already confessed to armed violence or died when trying to kill other people (and that's not including any of the April-May deaths, where I suspect a fair number of armed protesters were shot).

I think most reasonable people would number the terrorist element at somewhere between Siam Simon's figure and the government figure. Kinda shines a light on Simon's political neutrality, no?

There were 15 armed MiB involved in April 10th, to be exact. After that it's hard to believe there were too many more than a dozen. Check out the Asia Times story, it suggests there were about 14 or so paramilitaries: http://www.atimes.co...a/LE29Ae02.html - not only that but why would they want more that that? If the UDD wanted they could've armed a lot more, given the weapons they took off the army, but they didn't. I'm not sure if the MiB were intended just to provoke the army, or whether they really believed that they were protecting the red camp and fighting for the people as best they could. Most of them are just kids, others are old men. Watch the BBC interview with one of them - in that Red Rage documentary. Just a kid. I think most joined because they believed in the "red ideology" whatever that is. Least that's what I remember some Thai political commentator saying some months back after he'd done some investigation of them.

But there were also other armed groups involved, at least on May 19th, not just armed/red militia.

The fact that you think that there could've been, even 250, terrorists shows more about your own biases than it does Simon's, Pi Sek. And you're one of the most reasonable posters here, imo! Look at the relative death tolls! If there were 250 armed men, how come they only managed to kill, what, 3-4 troops after April 10th?

Also, you "suspect" armed protesters were shot? Yet there's no evidence for that that I've seen. Don't forget the MiB only seemed to operate at night until the last few days of the crackdown.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Emptyset

[Nisa]

It is sad for anybody to take anybody's life but one has to wonder how much less culpable those in the mob who acted like human shields are.

The were well aware and warned numerous times of the armed element among them and were repeatedly warned to disperse over a long period of time. I remember one old lady saying she wanted the military to kill her and she would not leave. Then the others who refused to get their children out of there.

I don't believe there are too many governments anywhere that would have been as patient as authorities were in this case. I would say their lack of acting more sooner was part of the problem that made people not take them seriously but there was already violence before this though it appeared the police/army was the one who took the brunt of it. Just my opinion but regardless of if these people had weapons or not, they were acting to support and protect those who did while disobeying repeated lawful orders to disperse. They were also made clear that force was coming if they didn't disperse.

I see these unarmed protesters as being just a tiny notch below those who were armed and using weapons. Kind of like the getaway driver and those who actually went into the back to rob it. To me they are all just as guilty of robbing the bank.

[rubl]

How to respond to a longer posts? Break it up, but start with the link to the original. All quoted text put in italics

check for original

Umm... obviously it's a huge exagerration. If we're defining terrorists as those who had "war weapons" - i.e. high powered rifles and grenade launchers. If it was anything like 500, how come with all the journalists around and other onlookers, there's only a handful of pics of the "MiB" with weapons? In fact it wasn't until the few last day that anyone got clear pictures (that is - unless you include April 10th - which I don't because I think they were not the same militia we saw after that). Also, government has very good pictures of the militia involved on April 10th, but they're not releasing them. Fact is that 500 figure was just a smear. Complete propaganda for which there exists 0 evidence. Unless you think people with molotovs and such are terrorists? In that case a lot of protests all over the world have large terrorist elements, lol.

Probably not 500 armed militants, but more than 20 with simultaneous activities. Complete propaganda, maybe or maybe not. Fact is none of these numbers add up completely, just like the total tally on protesters.

To call '500 is a smear' a fact is actually an opinion.

There were 15 armed MiB involved in April 10th, to be exact. After that it's hard to believe there were too many more than a dozen. Check out the Asia Times story, it suggests there were about 14 or so paramilitaries: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

To be exact, check out the AsiaTimes story which suggest 14 or so. Very exact.

- not only that but why would they want more that that? If the UDD wanted they could've armed a lot more, given the weapons they took off the army, but they didn't. I'm not sure if the MiB were intended just to provoke the army, or whether they really believed that they were protecting the red camp and fighting for the people as best they could. Most of them are just kids, others are old men. Watch the BBC interview with one of them - in that Red Rage documentary. Just a kid. I think most joined because they believed in the "red ideology" whatever that is. Least that's what I remember some Thai political commentator saying some months back after he'd done some investigation of them.

Why would they arm more? Wrong question, should be 'why would they arm protesters?'. That's actually the question you seem to try to answer. You forget to mention the renegade general Seh Daeng, or even Gen. Chavalit who was appointed head of the 'peoples army' by k. Thaksin.

But there were also other armed groups involved, at least on May 19th, not just armed/red militia.

Apart from the army and police you mean? Which ones?

The fact that you think that there could've been, even 250, terrorists shows more about your own biases than it does, Simon's, Pi Sek. And you're one of the most reasonable posters here, imo! Look at the relative death tolls! If there were 250 armed men, how come they only managed to kill, what, 3-4 troops after April 10th?

Terrorists and armed militia is not equal. Some of the UDD leaders are branded (pun intended) as terrorists, but were not armed. As for armed men and death toll, improper comparison. Almost like Robert A. saying 'army fired thousands of rounds into a pack of unarmed protesters'. How come only a few dead?

Also, you "suspect" armed protesters were shot? Yet there's no evidence for that that I've seen. Don't forget the MiB only seemed to operate at night until the last few days of the crackdown.

Most protesters shot were moved. By the time they were moved to safety no weapons were to be seen. It is very difficult to say whether or not they were armed. I doubt that their fingers / hands were tested for residue of firings. Mib operating only at night doesn't matter. As you say 'untill the last few days of the crackdown' when most protesters were shot.

Edited January 19, 2011 by rubl

[pedro01]

Unless you think people with molotovs and such are terrorists?

I do.

[rixalex]

Well, the govt said on 14 May that they estimated the terrorist element within the Red Shirts at about 500 people. That may or may not be an overexaggeration.

Umm... obviously it's a huge exagerration. If we're defining terrorists as those who had "war weapons" - i.e. high powered rifles and grenade launchers.

Defining what does and what doesn't constitute a terrorist is not easy. I'm sure some would take issue with how you have defined it. I would. Rather than going down that path though, why not stick to simply trying to agree on the number of protesters who were armed? This was how the discussion started; with Siam Simon's comment:

Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed.

What's your opinion of that statement?

I personally think that it is nonsense, and that the number of people with arms of one sort or another, was a figure in the hundreds, but that's just my opinion, taken from what i saw of news footage.

[Emptyset]

To be exact, check out the AsiaTimes story which suggest 14 or so. Very exact.

Note, I said there was 15 to be exact involved in April 10th. When was the Asia Times story written? Exactly. I made it clear that I don't think the militia involved in April 10th and those involved after are the same men.

Why would they arm more? Wrong question, should be 'why would they arm protesters?'. That's actually the question you seem to try to answer. You forget to mention the renegade general Seh Daeng, or even Gen. Chavalit who was appointed head of the 'peoples army' by k. Thaksin.

There's something to this, given what I said about Panlop and Chavalit (and others) planning the April 10th violence. But I suspect that the militants after April 10th might've got their weapons from the army, other than perhaps the grenade launchers they already had. These were the men Seh Daeng had trained and they were under his direction until he died, as the Asia Times story says. Now it's not clear whether Chavalit etc had any direct involvement in this group, but who knows? Didn't one of the guys that CNN caught on tape turn out to be someone connected to Chavalit?

As for April 10, which Chavalit was involved in - why did they plan for violence? Because they saw it as a way to remove the government immediately and force an election. But Chavalit canceled the plan before they'd finished, when Prawit agreed to dissolve the house.

Now as for after that (i.e. April 11th onwards)... how can you be sure that Seh Daeng & these guys didn't just take it upon themselves to arm themselves? Not that that means they didn't get the nod from Thaksin or his intermediaries. If the aim was to "protect" the protesters then obviously it was a grave mistake. If the aim was to provoke the army into killings, then it worked well. But did these MiB know they were being used as tools or did they genuinely think they were protecting the red shirts as the AT article suggests? I think Seh Daeng was also a tool for Thaksin's clique of generals, but he didn't know it. Maybe not a tool, but certainly useful to them... mostly as a distraction.

Anyway, as has been said above, red shirt leaders, if they truly believed in non-violence, should've gone home as soon as it became clear that there were armed elements amongst them. Like on April 11th. People like Rubl think I'm defending these actions, I'm not, I just think whichever side is right or wrong (and I think there were wrongs on both sides), we still have a duty to get the facts right.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

Defining what does and what doesn't constitute a terrorist is not easy. I'm sure some would take issue with how you have defined it. I would. Rather than going down that path though, why not stick to simply trying to agree on the number of protesters who were armed? This was how the discussion started; with Siam Simon's comment:

Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed.

What's your opinion of that statement?

I personally think that it is nonsense, and that the number of people with arms of one sort or another, was a figure in the hundreds, but that's just my opinion, taken from what i saw of news footage.

Well, it depends what constitutes "armed", again, doesn't it? I mean if we mean armed with molotovs and home-made rockets, sharpened poles & other makeshift weapons, you'd have to say hundreds. If we mean "armed" as in with war weapons similar to those of the military, based on all the evidence I've seen, Simon is very likely correct.

[jayjay0]

emptyset

in response to one of your earlier responses to me.

Thanks for your reply.

As I said and you tended to agree with it really has nothing to do with people putting on red shirts and infringing on the rites of honest hard working citizen's. As for social forces yes. It does reinforce the reality that there will always be red shirts with us some years they have yellow shirts on other years nondescript shirts they will always be here. And they will always have members willing to use deadly violence as a way to get there way.

I do not dispute the facts of the events happening. What I do dispute was the way it was written I do not believe there was a rape a minute or a body hung while still alive and on fire. That happened what two times. I don't believe there was groups of house wife's standing by and watching and just howling for blood non stop for days. You get that many Thai ladies together for long and it turns into a social hour. LOL

I was not there or even aware of it. I don't even know how long it went on. So I can not say what happened I rely on written reports and unfortunately they are in my opinion biased and as such useless other than the numbers. And a minimum of 46 dead is not only awful but sad.

I say sad because there are those who will just say collateral damage not a big deal.

It is my personal opinion that bringing that up is a way of deflecting away from the fact that what the red shirts are doing and planing on doing on a regular bases to the same people is wrong. Especialy when they can say what they feel the need to say in a different venue where no one is deprived of there civil liberties. It would be a win win situation. Every body using there civil freedom and no one interfering with it. Is that not one of the supposed goals of the red shirts?

[rubl]

Again, check original for complete text. Here only the paragraphs I respond to

Note, I said there was 15 to be exact involved in April 10th. When was the Asia Times story written? Exactly. I made it clear that I don't think the militia involved in April 10th and those involved after are the same men.

Maybe my mistake to think 'exact 15' and 'read the AT article' were related. That brings us back to 'exact 15?' How do you know this ?

Now as for after that (i.e. April 11th onwards)... how can you be sure that Seh Daeng & these guys didn't just take it upon themselves to arm themselves? Not that that means they didn't get the nod from Thaksin or his intermediaries. If the aim was to "protect" the protesters then obviously it was a grave mistake. If the aim was to provoke the army into killings, then it worked well. But did these MiB know they were being used as tools or did they genuinely think they were protecting the red shirts as the AT article suggests? I think Seh Daeng was also a tool for Thaksin's clique of generals, but he didn't know it. Maybe not a tool, but certainly useful to them... mostly as a distraction.

I care less for the motives, more for the existence of those armed elements. I'd even go so far as to call militants part of a strategy. Don't ask for proof, just my opinion.

People like Rubl think I'm defending these actions, I'm not, I just think whichever side is right or wrong (and I think there were wrongs on both sides), we still have a duty to get the facts right.

I doubt you know what I think. I may give the impression I think you defend these actions, but come on, surely that can't be true?

(edit: add insider joke: If I thought so surely I would have wished you a tune different than PTV, now wouldn't I)

Edited January 19, 2011 by rubl

[Pi Sek]

Well, the govt said on 14 May that they estimated the terrorist element within the Red Shirts at about 500 people. That may or may not be an overexaggeration.

Umm... obviously it's a huge exagerration. If we're defining terrorists as those who had "war weapons" - i.e. high powered rifles and grenade launchers. If it was anything like 500, how come with all the journalists around and other onlookers, there's only a handful of pics of the "MiB" with weapons? In fact it wasn't until the few last day that anyone got clear pictures (that is - unless you include April 10th - which I don't because I think they were not the same militia we saw after that). Also, government has very good pictures of the militia involved on April 10th, but they're not releasing them. Fact is that 500 figure was just a smear. Complete propaganda for which there exists 0 evidence. Unless you think people with molotovs and such are terrorists? In that case a lot of protests all over the world have large terrorist elements, lol.

Siam Simon suggests 'a handful', maybe 20, were armed. I am very certain that this is an underexaggeration, probably a huge one, especially since a number similar to this have already confessed to armed violence or died when trying to kill other people (and that's not including any of the April-May deaths, where I suspect a fair number of armed protesters were shot).

I think most reasonable people would number the terrorist element at somewhere between Siam Simon's figure and the government figure. Kinda shines a light on Simon's political neutrality, no?

There were 15 armed MiB involved in April 10th, to be exact. After that it's hard to believe there were too many more than a dozen. Check out the Asia Times story, it suggests there were about 14 or so paramilitaries: http://www.atimes.co...a/LE29Ae02.html - not only that but why would they want more that that? If the UDD wanted they could've armed a lot more, given the weapons they took off the army, but they didn't. I'm not sure if the MiB were intended just to provoke the army, or whether they really believed that they were protecting the red camp and fighting for the people as best they could. Most of them are just kids, others are old men. Watch the BBC interview with one of them - in that Red Rage documentary. Just a kid. I think most joined because they believed in the "red ideology" whatever that is. Least that's what I remember some Thai political commentator saying some months back after he'd done some investigation of them.

But there were also other armed groups involved, at least on May 19th, not just armed/red militia.

The fact that you think that there could've been, even 250, terrorists shows more about your own biases than it does Simon's, Pi Sek. And you're one of the most reasonable posters here, imo! Look at the relative death tolls! If there were 250 armed men, how come they only managed to kill, what, 3-4 troops after April 10th?

Also, you "suspect" armed protesters were shot? Yet there's no evidence for that that I've seen. Don't forget the MiB only seemed to operate at night until the last few days of the crackdown.

This is obviously a contentious question as it's hard to exactly call what is and what isn't a terrorist. I'd certainly call someone without a gun calling for a mob to burn down the country a terrorist - others wouldn't. I think that a terrorist is someone who uses terror to override the Law, and that was the Red Shirt plan from very early on - that's why I've always agreed with the government's insistence that there were terrorist elements within the protest.

I would also argue that someone throwing a rock must be referred to as a violent protester. Would you call them armed? I would, especially in the case of bang fai rockets, slingshots, machetes, bamboo spears and molotov cocktails, all of which can be deadly regardless of how much they cost.

And as for "other armed groups involved"... well, I keep talking about separating the UDD from Red Siam from 24 June from this-and-that and that the term "Red Shirts" should be used as an umbrella for the whole movement, including all these factions. Therefore, I'm afraid I would have to call a terrorist within the Red Shirt protest a "Red Shirt terrorist", even though I don't like the term as it makes it look like I think they all are, and I don't.

[rixalex]

Well, it depends what constitutes "armed", again, doesn't it? I mean if we mean armed with molotovs and home-made rockets, sharpened poles & other makeshift weapons, you'd have to say hundreds. If we mean "armed" as in with war weapons similar to those of the military, based on all the evidence I've seen, Simon is very likely correct.

I don't think it does depend. The term armed simply means being furnished with a weapon. Where are you getting this new definition from?

[jayjay0]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

ok for the sake of argument lets say 20 armed insurgents were amongst 30-50,000 reds

did they step back and identify them?

did they say they are not part of this red cause?

did they leave on the ''peaceful protest principle'' they came with when they started shooting at soldiers and police ?

did they protest to the red leaders when they fired grenades at innocent people in rail stations going about their business?

did the red leaders condemn the deaths of soldiers, police and public at the hands of the red paid ronin?

did anyone actually stand up and say this is not what we came for?

if they did i missed it

so they stayed during the gunfights and grenade launchings and supported the mercenaries living amongst them

they celebrated them, rejoiced at every violet success by the law breakers

did they imagine that no one was going to shoot back at them ?

did they imagine they would be allowed to sit there forever?

like all of Thailand we waited for a reaction from the government

to Abhisit's credit it was a long time coming but when it did i was happy it was finally sorted and someone in Thailand had grown some balls

after all they could have said lets go home, this is not what we came for

just as they expected the government to fall, they could have called it a day too

in my opinion they got what they deserved, even the most peaceful and genuine red supporters,deferred to the violent sections of the red movement working against the law.

when the same violence was returned upon them all they can do is whinge and complain

like any bully they did not like a taste of their own medicine

just like their boss Thaksin..........

Not sure of my facts but I do believe 10,000 protesters would have been a closer figure to when the shooting started.

Now for my opinion Abhist should not have allowed this to go on as long as he did. Two weeks maximum and that would have been generous. The whole nation heard them it was nothing new just a outright attempt to take over the government by a man who is a citizen of another country.

[rubl]

For lack of a separate topic, let's put info on the TPN protest here.

It seems the TPN blocks part of Phisanulok Rd., 'to make space for people from upcountry coming to join them'. Apart from a certain wishful thinking aspect, blocking the road with only a handful of people seems deliberate and reason to disperse them, apprehend some leaders / organisers. Almost in contrast 30,000 at Ratchaprasong can't help but create a chaos just by being there.

Definitively time to get protests organised and performed properly before too many people get really annoyed.

[gemini81]

its not as if this red mob were unarmed is it?

only the most naive of red supporters would think they weren't armed and weren't out for blood

if protestors fire grenades, shoot at soldiers and kill innocents then in my view, yes its ok to shoot right back at them

Yes, it is as if the protestors were unarmed, isn't it? Out of tens of thousands of protestors, a handful (possibly twenty) of militia were armed. But, apparently, the Thai military don't do intel and surveillance. So we had to have yet another bloody crackdown (or if you are pre-disposed to believe the forum's right wing nutters, we had Reds executing each other).

as for Korn, he's a banker, a very good one, you expect morals from him?

how naive of you........

Good one .

In the age we live simon, the tons of videos and CCTV are surveillance enough to show us that hordes of reds were armed with lots of weapons used by military. One video, if you look at youtube, or recall, depicts several dozen of them firing m16s and what appears to be AK's in the final hours inside lumpini. And for the massive stashes of ammo and guns? Everyone in the camp knew about it and contributed to the violence. The clips we've seen put the numbers in total to hundreds, when you conider the kerosene, spikes, molitovs.