Democrat Party Says Provoking 'Red Shirts' Is Not Plan For Rally At Bangkok's Ratchaprasong

[ballpoint]

If they didnt want to provoke they wouldnt chose this venue for a political rally. Maybe PT should hold a political rally at Suvarnabhumi to "explain things". My guess is that the democrats are a bit desperate because the opposition strategy is a very different one from what the democrat campaigners expected it to be. Or they just keep going for their scripted strategy where they expected the opposition to attack them from every possible angle every day for a month. Instead their message have been reconsiliation and a silence about what happened since 2007 that is no coincidence.

What would PT gain by "explaining things" about the airport siege? Do you think a "look what the yellow shirts did" will work against the Democrats? Maybe it's more likely to work FOR the Democrats, since the yellow shirt party are advocating a "No Vote".

It would definitely work for the Democrats, as they could then point out "look at what happened last time the bunch of TRT/PPP/PTP clowns was in charge".

Edited June 19, 2011 by ballpoint

[whybother]

I wonder what's the point doing a rally at this junction. To point out once again the the Red shirt burned Bangkok ? that the black men killed people ? that the reds were actually armed and acted as a terrorist ? Bangkokians has known all of this already. Whether they believe or not will result on July 3. And it's looking like gonna be an epic fail for them if they continue to stick with Thaksin-this, Thaksin-that, Thaksin-those. At this point there is no one to blaim but themselve. The dems has run an incredibly poor rally.

This isn't necessarily about Thaksin. It's about the top half of the PTP party list ... ie the red shirt leaders ... that were involved in the reds being armed, the black shirts killing people and the burning of Bangkok.

[SkyHigh]

I wonder what's the point doing a rally at this junction. To point out once again the the Red shirt burned Bangkok ? that the black men killed people ? that the reds were actually armed and acted as a terrorist ? Bangkokians has known all of this already. Whether they believe or not will result on July 3. And it's looking like gonna be an epic fail for them if they continue to stick with Thaksin-this, Thaksin-that, Thaksin-those. At this point there is no one to blaim but themselve. The dems has run an incredibly poor rally.

This isn't necessarily about Thaksin. It's about the top half of the PTP party list ... ie the red shirt leaders ... that were involved in the reds being armed, the black shirts killing people and the burning of Bangkok.

There are always two sides of story. And it has come to the point that people are so fed up with this. The reds & PT dont even bother to deny.

Since 06, the common belief is that Bankokians are more favor of the dems.

But guess what, polls show they'r actually gaining more and more votes from BKK, even winning the majority, despite all those horrible facts about the red & black & so called criminal Thaksin.

Mr Thaksin himself even said Yingluck are his cloning. Isn't this supposed to be a bad sign for PT ? The answer is 'no'

If the dems are not that stupid, they must realize by now their old tricks about satan Thaksin are not gonna work.

Reading the news page any minutes and you'll see the dems always - always - talk about Thaksin.

And now they plan to rally at Rajaprasong. I can assume they'll be messing around with the burned Bankok story and the mastermind Thaksin on stage once again.

..... good luck with that !

[themockrat]

If they didnt want to provoke they wouldnt chose this venue for a political rally. Maybe PT should hold a political rally at Suvarnabhumi to "explain things". My guess is that the democrats are a bit desperate because the opposition strategy is a very different one from what the democrat campaigners expected it to be. Or they just keep going for their scripted strategy where they expected the opposition to attack them from every possible angle every day for a month. Instead their message have been reconsiliation and a silence about what happened since 2007 that is no coincidence.

What would PT gain by "explaining things" about the airport siege? Do you think a "look what the yellow shirts did" will work against the Democrats? Maybe it's more likely to work FOR the Democrats, since the yellow shirt party are advocating a "No Vote".

It would definitely work for the Democrats, as they could then point out "look at what happened last time the bunch of TRT/PPP/PTP clowns was in charge".

Maybe. And they could even add that the last time the Democrats were in charge, 91 Thais got killed. By who? Nobody knows, of course. Vote for us again!

Edited June 19, 2011 by themockrat

[TAWP]

According to this the Dems won by a massive margin of 0.03% in the proportional votes.

Thanks for admitting that when red-appologists write that TRT/PPP/Thaksin's proxies has won all the election sofar that that they are being dishonest with the truth or atleast clearly trying to fudge the popularity-figures of the parties involved.

[TAWP]

If you were Thai which one would you vote for. :jap:

The army isn't part of this election - and there is many more parties (MPs) tho choose from, this isn't a two-party state.

[ballpoint]

If they didnt want to provoke they wouldnt chose this venue for a political rally. Maybe PT should hold a political rally at Suvarnabhumi to "explain things". My guess is that the democrats are a bit desperate because the opposition strategy is a very different one from what the democrat campaigners expected it to be. Or they just keep going for their scripted strategy where they expected the opposition to attack them from every possible angle every day for a month. Instead their message have been reconsiliation and a silence about what happened since 2007 that is no coincidence.

What would PT gain by "explaining things" about the airport siege? Do you think a "look what the yellow shirts did" will work against the Democrats? Maybe it's more likely to work FOR the Democrats, since the yellow shirt party are advocating a "No Vote".

It would definitely work for the Democrats, as they could then point out "look at what happened last time the bunch of TRT/PPP/PTP clowns was in charge".

Maybe. And they could even add that the last time the Democrats were in charge, 91 Thais got killed. By who? Nobody knows, of course. Vote for us again!

We know exactly who killed the members of the army who died last year. And there's a better than even chance that the same reds in black clothing killed a fair number of the rest. Vote for the reds, they kill their own.

[Rinrada]

If you were Thai which one would you vote for. :jap:

The army isn't part of this election - and there is many more parties (MPs) tho choose from, this isn't a two-party state.

armygun.bmp

and the real party poopers are........ will be

[hanuman1]

What would PT gain by "explaining things" about the airport siege? Do you think a "look what the yellow shirts did" will work against the Democrats? Maybe it's more likely to work FOR the Democrats, since the yellow shirt party are advocating a "No Vote".

It would definitely work for the Democrats, as they could then point out "look at what happened last time the bunch of TRT/PPP/PTP clowns was in charge".

Maybe. And they could even add that the last time the Democrats were in charge, 91 Thais got killed. By who? Nobody knows, of course. Vote for us again!

We know exactly who killed the members of the army who died last year. And there's a better than even chance that the same reds in black clothing killed a fair number of the rest. Vote for the reds, they kill their own.

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

[JemJem]

The final throes of a truly desperate bunch. They are throwing away any chance of future reconciliation by riling the opposition just for the sake of their political gain. It's only going to turn more against them. I hope their propaganda is drowned out by the many reds who will surely turn out.

I am not a yellow-shirt or Democrat supporter (nor a red-shirt or Pheua Thai supporter) but I strongly disagree with your comment. The Democrats have every right to hold a rally there. The rally shouldn't be seen as provocation either.

Jem

[whybother]

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

It's irrelevant why people will vote for PTP. PTP will take every vote that they get as a vote for Thaksin. They will say that everyone that voted for them wants amnesty for criminals.

[timekeeper]

What would PT gain by "explaining things" about the airport siege? Do you think a "look what the yellow shirts did" will work against the Democrats? Maybe it's more likely to work FOR the Democrats, since the yellow shirt party are advocating a "No Vote".

It would definitely work for the Democrats, as they could then point out "look at what happened last time the bunch of TRT/PPP/PTP clowns was in charge".

Maybe. And they could even add that the last time the Democrats were in charge, 91 Thais got killed. By who? Nobody knows, of course. Vote for us again!

We know exactly who killed the members of the army who died last year. And there's a better than even chance that the same reds in black clothing killed a fair number of the rest. Vote for the reds, they kill their own.

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

thanks for the suggestions but i like this better:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

it synergies with my other equation:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts= bullies...................................

Edited June 20, 2011 by timekeeper

[philw]

Maybe. And they could even add that the last time the Democrats were in charge, 91 Thais got killed. By who? Nobody knows, of course. Vote for us again!

We know exactly who killed the members of the army who died last year. And there's a better than even chance that the same reds in black clothing killed a fair number of the rest. Vote for the reds, they kill their own.

Ballpoint, why perpetuate nonsense ??

The red demonstrators shot themselves, did they ??

[sbk]

Notification to all political posters:

Defamatory posts will not be tolerated

Abusive posts will not be tolerated

Inflammatory posts will not be tolerated

This nonsense will cease in these threads. Members will find their posting rights suspended until after if they cannot maintain civility and follow forum rules and this will be done without any prior notification other than the warn. This IS your notification.

TONE IT DOWN NOW

[jdinasia]

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

It's irrelevant why people will vote for PTP. PTP will take every vote that they get as a vote for Thaksin. They will say that everyone that voted for them wants amnesty for criminals.

Someone that was actually unbiased would see

"Thaksin thinks, PTP does"

shows Thatksin = PTP

Someone that was actually unbiased would see the addition of all those UDD leaders (facing serious criminal charges) onto the party-list (not constituency votes)

shows PTP=UDD

Simple logic shows them all to be the same. One caveat : this would take an honest view.

I do agree though about one thing .... some voters only vote PTP because they have been paid to, but it doesn't rule out the above, and some voters because they have been told to by the local political machine, though that also does not rule out the consequences above.

[hanuman1]

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

It's irrelevant why people will vote for PTP. PTP will take every vote that they get as a vote for Thaksin. They will say that everyone that voted for them wants amnesty for criminals.

Someone that was actually unbiased would see

"Thaksin thinks, PTP does"

shows Thatksin = PTP

Someone that was actually unbiased would see the addition of all those UDD leaders (facing serious criminal charges) onto the party-list (not constituency votes)

shows PTP=UDD

Simple logic shows them all to be the same. One caveat : this would take an honest view.

I do agree though about one thing .... some voters only vote PTP because they have been paid to, but it doesn't rule out the above, and some voters because they have been told to by the local political machine, though that also does not rule out the consequences above.

Thaksin has a large degree of influence on the PTP.

Some UDD leaders are on the PTP party list.

You reckon Thaksin = PTP = UDD

Do you understand the concept of equivalence?

Edited June 20, 2011 by hanuman1

[animatic]

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

It's irrelevant why people will vote for PTP. PTP will take every vote that they get as a vote for Thaksin. They will say that everyone that voted for them wants amnesty for criminals.

Precisely the point.

For what ever reasons, the end product will not be what they voted for.

[hanuman1]

The celebrated formula used by Thaksin-hating mathematicians:

PTP = Thaksin = Red shirts

falls down (if it ever stood up in the first place) when applied to people voting for the PTP.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for Thaksin.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the reds.

A vote for the PTP does not necessarily mean a vote for the country's ruin.

Some PTP voters will vote PTP for other reasons and if these redshirt/Thaksin haters ever want to overcome their disbelief that so many people could vote PTP despite what said haters consider so blindingly clear, then I suggest they make an effort to find out what those reasons are. One caveat in attempting this: it will require a broader view. You have been warned.

It's irrelevant why people will vote for PTP. PTP will take every vote that they get as a vote for Thaksin. They will say that everyone that voted for them wants amnesty for criminals.

Precisely the point.

For what ever reasons, the end product will not be what they voted for.

When is it ever?

[webfact]

Democrat Party going ahead with rally at Ratchaprasong

BANGKOK, June 20 - Thailand's Democrat Party will press ahead with a major election campaign rally at Bangkok's Ratchaprasong intersection on Thursday, at the site where last year's clashes between government forces and 'Red Shirt' United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) protesters in April and May, a party executive said here Monday.

Ongart Klampaiboon, chairman of the Democrat party's Bangkok MPs, said his party will rally at Ratchaprasong area as planned to foster better understanding between the party and the public about the government's handling of the Red Shirt protest last year.

He said the party neither wanted to cause further rifts nor trouble the public as this week's political activities will be held in the open space in front of CentralWorld shopping mall, not on the roadway that would obstruct traffic.

Mr Ongart, who is also Minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office, urged those who dislike the party to stay clear of such political activity to avoid confrontation that might escalate.

"They should show their political expression or hold political activities on the other day or other time not the same time and the same place to avoid confrontations which could lead to problems. That would not be good for the upcoming general election," he said.

Mr Ongart brushed aside a report that the UDD would dress like ghosts to attend Democrat rally, saying that he believed the Ratchaprasong rally would help the public better understand and acknowledge the facts of last year's incident.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva as the Democrat party leader will address the public himself Thursday, he said.

Meanwhile, Yingluck Shinawatra, opposition Pheu Thai top party-list candidate, said her party is neither involved nor has ordered any movement of Red Shirt supporters to harass Democrat Party candidates as being alleged.

Speaking during her campaign in the lower North on Monday, the youngest sister of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra said legal action must be taken against anyone found violating the law and that will demonstrate her party’s sincerity, and that it does not support such action.

“We want all parties concerned to ensure that the election will be run constructively. Any satisfaction or discontent should be kept (to oneself) and make it heard on the polling day,” she said. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2011-06-20

[trisailer]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

[jdinasia]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

Huh?

The reds escalated the violence at every step. Anything else is simply not accurate. The police and the army failed to protect protesters at both Government House and at the airport. The police caused death at parliament house. Over the course of the PAD protests quite a few people were killed. Less than there were when the reds protested but that is solely due to the violence of the reds.

It is sad to see someone defending the reds when it was the reds that have proven to be outrageously violent at every turn.

[jayboy]

Huh?

The reds escalated the violence at every step. Anything else is simply not accurate. The police and the army failed to protect protesters at both Government House and at the airport. The police caused death at parliament house. Over the course of the PAD protests quite a few people were killed. Less than there were when the reds protested but that is solely due to the violence of the reds.

It is sad to see someone defending the reds when it was the reds that have proven to be outrageously violent at every turn.

It's sad to see someone reinterpreting history (and very inaccurately ) based it seems on his political prejudices including unquestioning support for the Thai army , whatever abuses and crimes it is responsible for

The fact is there is only one authoritative report so far, produced by Human Rights Watch.It is very fair minded and allocates blame where appropriate on both sides, uncomfortable reading both for diehard redshirts and military cheerleaders.If anyone hasn't seen it, I can provide a link.

Of course it's a pity (actually a total disgrace) the Thai Government hasn't made any progress with its investigation, probably because there's no political capital in it for them.Additionally the Thai army has refused to co-operate.

I'm not sure there were more than a couple killled in the PAD protests,very regrettable but more by police incompetence than anything else with unsuitable tear gas equipment.Quite different from the military's murderous intent of 2010.If one includes that PAD prat who blew himself up accidentally ferrying bombs around Bangkok the PAD total might be a little higher.

[trisailer]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

Huh?

The reds escalated the violence at every step. Anything else is simply not accurate. The police and the army failed to protect protesters at both Government House and at the airport. The police caused death at parliament house. Over the course of the PAD protests quite a few people were killed. Less than there were when the reds protested but that is solely due to the violence of the reds.

It is sad to see someone defending the reds when it was the reds that have proven to be outrageously violent at every turn.

Your ignoring the facts. No civilized country on earth would allow a uncontrolled protest demonstration who's stated aim was to shut down the government.

You need to look at the facts. I have studied it over the last two days and it is clear to every objective viewer that the protesters were provoked after 4 weeks of peaceful gathering.

You can say anything, but you cannot back up what your saying with any facts at all. These are just uninformed opinions. Do a little research and learn the facts. I have.

Why don't you start with explaining what the reds did to escalate the violence and at what "steps" If I am wrong please correct me with facts

You have made a lot of comments about this issue, but I have yet to see a single fact to back up any of them.

[hyperdimension]

The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them.

That's a long time, isn't it, and they refused to go home until their demands were met (dissolve the House, so that there would be elections). The death of Colonel Romklao by a grenade in the initial attempt to clear the protest site at Phan Fa was an indication that there were militant elements with heavy weapons amongst the protesters very early on.

I strongly doubt that you were even in Bangkok at that time. Many of us were here and know what went on as we were glued to the news on television and the internet in real time, and some even have first-hand experience in the streets.

[jdinasia]

The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them.

That's a long time, isn't it, and they refused to go home until their demands were met (dissolve the House, so that there would be elections). The death of Colonel Romklao by a grenade in the initial attempt to clear the protest site at Phan Fa was an indication that there were militant elements with heavy weapons amongst the protesters very early on.

I strongly doubt that you were even in Bangkok at that time. Many of us were here and know what went on as we were glued to the news on television and the internet in real time, and some even have first-hand experience in the streets.

The day before they first attempted to clear Pan Faa -- the reds were using petrol bombs in 2 different places. Hmmmm the reds step up the confrontation and their propaganda machine blames anyone but the people actually escalating the violence.

[jdinasia]

Your ignoring the facts. No civilized country on earth would allow a uncontrolled protest demonstration who's stated aim was to shut down the government.

You need to look at the facts. I have studied it over the last two days and it is clear to every objective viewer that the protesters were provoked after 4 weeks of peaceful gathering.

You can say anything, but you cannot back up what your saying with any facts at all. These are just uninformed opinions. Do a little research and learn the facts. I have.

Why don't you start with explaining what the reds did to escalate the violence and at what "steps" If I am wrong please correct me with facts

You have made a lot of comments about this issue, but I have yet to see a single fact to back up any of them.

You have spent TWO whole days learning about this?!? Wow!

April 9th Reds use molotov cocktails at the regiment and Thaicom. April 10th the military starts trying to clear Pan Fa. (This is disregarding the random grenade attacks all over the city -- aimed at targets all perceived to be against the reds/Thaksin.)

Your objectivity is certainly subjective.

(edit to add ---- where are the facts in your posts?)

ooops here is one of your facts.... "Funny how none of those people were killed. " --- which, of course, is entirely wrong.

Thai airport blast kills activist

Anti-government protesters at the airport were attacked on the weekend

A blast has killed at least one Thai anti-government protester and wounded 22 others at Bangkok's Don Mueang airport, emergency officials have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7759899.stm Edited June 20, 2011 by jdinasia

[dinooz]

The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them.

That's a long time, isn't it, and they refused to go home until their demands were met (dissolve the House, so that there would be elections). The death of Colonel Romklao by a grenade in the initial attempt to clear the protest site at Phan Fa was an indication that there were militant elements with heavy weapons amongst the protesters very early on.

I strongly doubt that you were even in Bangkok at that time. Many of us were here and know what went on as we were glued to the news on television and the internet in real time, and some even have first-hand experience in the streets.

Agreed,Trisailor, you really had to be here to know what went on, with all the disinformation spouted and reported it would be near impossible to to get a balanced opinion buy reading up on things for two days, live it day in day out for two months, its the sort of thing you had to 'feel, not read about.

[lannarebirth]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

Huh?

The reds escalated the violence at every step. Anything else is simply not accurate. The police and the army failed to protect protesters at both Government House and at the airport. The police caused death at parliament house. Over the course of the PAD protests quite a few people were killed. Less than there were when the reds protested but that is solely due to the violence of the reds.

It is sad to see someone defending the reds when it was the reds that have proven to be outrageously violent at every turn.

Your ignoring the facts. No civilized country on earth would allow a uncontrolled protest demonstration who's stated aim was to shut down the government.

You need to look at the facts. I have studied it over the last two days and it is clear to every objective viewer that the protesters were provoked after 4 weeks of peaceful gathering.

You can say anything, but you cannot back up what your saying with any facts at all. These are just uninformed opinions. Do a little research and learn the facts. I have.

Why don't you start with explaining what the reds did to escalate the violence and at what "steps" If I am wrong please correct me with facts

You have made a lot of comments about this issue, but I have yet to see a single fact to back up any of them.

Replying to the quoted section I would suggest you becomne more familiar with the Thai culture or the "collective Thai psyche" if you will. Then you can decide for yourself whether or not it is civilized or not. IMO it is almost ultra-civilised. To it's own detriment sometimes.

Edited June 20, 2011 by lannarebirth

[hyperdimension]

You need to look at the facts. I have studied it over the last two days

Just two days? A lot of us have been researching and discussing it since when it started happening in April 2010 (and even long before when Thaksin was around).

Read the HRW report here: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos-0

and it is clear to every objective viewer that the protesters were provoked after 4 weeks of peaceful gathering.

"clear to every objective viewer" is a very sweeping statement and factually incorrect, because you don't know every single "objective viewer".

You can say anything, but you cannot back up what your saying with any facts at all. These are just uninformed opinions. Do a little research and learn the facts. I have.

jdinasia has been around all this time and he and others have provided plenty of facts and news reports and articles to back things up. You were simply not around (probably not even in Bangkok or Thailand) to see them. You'd have to go through over a year's worth of of news threads. Much of this has already been discussed for over a year, it's old discussion material to many of us here, but it's new to you because you are new here.

Edited June 20, 2011 by hyperdimension

[whybother]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

I asked you in a previous post at what point Abhisit provoked the red shirts. Given that "you don't know the time line of events", maybe you can do some research into it and tell me when the provocation came from Abhisit.