Avoid Bangkok's Ratchaprasong, Reds Told

[OzMick]

".........mostly unarmed citizens." Note, my emphasis.

So you now admit that weapons were brought to the rally by the "peaceful protesters." Finally we move closer to the truth.

As the military commander was killed by an M-79 grenade during the first dispersal effort, are you willing to admit that this was carried out by the red-shirts? And that they were both earlier and later sprayed around the city, killing at least one bystander (a red-shirt has confessed, if you find this difficult)?

He also confessed to firing RPG rounds at a fuel tank farm, and a hotel. Are RPG the sort of things brought to a peaceful protest?

Are the lives lost in these attacks justifiable to you to prove a political point? Is not "1 life lost one life too many!"?

Want to borrow a beer bottle to bang your head with? I don't drink out of cans.

There were about 160,000 protesters and a few had weapons that Human Rights Watch believe were brought in later by the black shirts. If the intentions were towards violence than why bring women and children? Why wait 4 weeks to initiate it?

From the HRW report:

"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand's central and northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in Bangkok on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary".

The violence was initiated by the army and the commander wastarted. s killed after it I have participated in many demonstrations including some that were dispersed by police using tear gas, rubber bullets and a massive wall of police. You can bet that is this happened in the west there would be a independent investigation, but more importantly it never would have reached that level of violence. Guns would have never been allowed anywhere near the place. The army has 700,000 troops and I don't know how many police.

I completely agreed that even one loss of life is too many. I also agree that the reds defeated the purpose of the protest by allowing the black shirts and other to fight with weapons. Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent. Everyones emotions were aroused and both sides lost control of their people, that's what happens when these things get out of control. That's why government set up and control areas that contain protesters. That's why people are searched before they enter those ares. This is all security 101. The soldiers continued to kill people even after the reds surrendered. several protesters were unarmed when shot by snipers according to wittinesses.

None of the lives lost on either side were justifiable. Even after extensive interviews and review of what evidence is available nobody knows what happen for sure. That's why a independent investigation should be conducted. This government does not want that because they already know the truth.

I'm not defending the reds. What happened is deplorable, but people are angry and fed up being denied any kind of democratic process that is fair.

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress. All of these events stem from the denial of the government to respect it's own constitution. The same constitution that was changed to subvert the democratic process.

Most of us come from democratic country's do you seriously believe that any of the governments actions would stand up in our own country?

Glad you could find an unbiased source! Let's look at one line critically "The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed.............." It was obvious from the video footage that the troops deployed were in crowd control mode, outfitted with riot shields and batons, (admittedly with a few riflemen in case things turned very ugly). this is what is done to disperse a peaceful demonstration that has continued over-long and is affecting others livelihoods. Almost immediately there was auto weapon fire and M-79 attacks , one of which killed the commander.

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

[Bkkorupcountry]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

[longway]

^^ The army was brought because the police by and large were in cahoots with the protestors, they allowed the reds to occupy Ratchaprasong and barricade the area in the first place. They also turned a blind eye to the weapons in the area.

Edited June 21, 2011 by longway

[trisailer]

Glad you could find an unbiased source! Let's look at one line critically "The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed.............." It was obvious from the video footage that the troops deployed were in crowd control mode, outfitted with riot shields and batons, (admittedly with a few riflemen in case things turned very ugly). this is what is done to disperse a peaceful demonstration that has continued over-long and is affecting others livelihoods. Almost immediately there was auto weapon fire and M-79 attacks , one of which killed the commander.

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

I think it's unbiased, feel free to do some work and find your own "unbiased" view. The video footage was included in HRW's analysis along with interviews of wittnesses. Many of the unarmed victims died of head shots be snipers and people continued to be shot in the Wat after the reds surrendered.

I support the truth. If you got some bring it on. "Where's the beef?"

Any objective investigator is going to ask why would a small armed force open fire on thousands of soldiers. It dosn't make any sense except as self defence. Maybe it was covering fire to allow the women and children to escape.

[OzMick]

".........mostly unarmed citizens." Note, my emphasis.

So you now admit that weapons were brought to the rally by the "peaceful protesters." Finally we move closer to the truth.

As the military commander was killed by an M-79 grenade during the first dispersal effort, are you willing to admit that this was carried out by the red-shirts? And that they were both earlier and later sprayed around the city, killing at least one bystander (a red-shirt has confessed, if you find this difficult)?

He also confessed to firing RPG rounds at a fuel tank farm, and a hotel. Are RPG the sort of things brought to a peaceful protest?

Are the lives lost in these attacks justifiable to you to prove a political point? Is not "1 life lost one life too many!"?

Want to borrow a beer bottle to bang your head with? I don't drink out of cans.

There were about 160,000 protesters and a few had weapons that Human Rights Watch believe were brought in later by the black shirts. If the intentions were towards violence than why bring women and children? Why wait 4 weeks to initiate it?

From the HRW report:

"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand's central and northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in Bangkok on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary".

The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed after it started. I have participated in many demonstrations including some that were dispersed by police using tear gas, rubber bullets and a massive wall of police. You can bet that is this happened in the west there would be a independent investigation, but more importantly it never would have reached that level of violence. Guns would have never been allowed anywhere near the place. The army has 700,000 troops and I don't know how many police.

I completely agreed that even one loss of life is too many. I also agree that the reds defeated the purpose of the protest by allowing the black shirts and other to fight with weapons. Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent. Everyones emotions were aroused and both sides lost control of their people, that's what happens when these things get out of control. That's why government set up and control areas that contain protesters. That's why people are searched before they enter those ares. This is all security 101. The soldiers continued to kill people even after the reds surrendered. several protesters were unarmed when shot by snipers according to wittinesses.

None of the lives lost on either side were justifiable. Even after extensive interviews and review of what evidence is available nobody knows what happen for sure. That's why a independent investigation should be conducted. This government does not want that because they already know the truth.

I'm not defending the reds. What happened is deplorable, but people are angry and fed up being denied any kind of democratic process that is fair.

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress. All of these events stem from the denial of the government to respect it's own constitution. The same constitution that was changed to subvert the democratic process.

Most of us come from democratic country's do you seriously believe that any of the governments actions would stand up in our own country?

On re-reading I have to point out another HRW glaring error. "Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent."

This is horseshit of the purest kind. The schools were held to mis-inform people of the political situation, to wind them up to a fever pitch. "We woz robbed" was the major theme, with secondary "Praise the great Man Thaksin" I do know an in-law who attended one, and slipped away as soon as possible.

If HRW was correct, how does this balance with Arisman's "Bring a bottle" speech?

[OzMick]

Glad you could find an unbiased source! Let's look at one line critically "The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed.............." It was obvious from the video footage that the troops deployed were in crowd control mode, outfitted with riot shields and batons, (admittedly with a few riflemen in case things turned very ugly). this is what is done to disperse a peaceful demonstration that has continued over-long and is affecting others livelihoods. Almost immediately there was auto weapon fire and M-79 attacks , one of which killed the commander.

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

I think it's unbiased, feel free to do some work and find your own "unbiased" view. The video footage was included in HRW's analysis along with interviews of wittnesses. Many of the unarmed victims died of head shots be snipers and people continued to be shot in the Wat after the reds surrendered.

I support the truth. If you got some bring it on. "Where's the beef?"

Any objective investigator is going to ask why would a small armed force open fire on thousands of soldiers. It dosn't make any sense except as self defence. Maybe it was covering fire to allow the women and children to escape.

Try to stick to the initial event. " Many of the unarmed victims died of head shots.........." Do you think the RTA are the only people in the world to have snipers? do you think the lives of a few barnocks are important to Thaksin's plan to get his money back? 5 minutes after it kicks off, M-79 grenades kill the commander - where did they come from? The army WERE NOT issued with them. "......... why would a small armed force open fire on thousands of soldiers?" To create a big event , make the govt and the RTA look bad, and garner sympathy. Of course, the fatalities have to be in the right proportion, that's why there is video of one protester's brains flying out of his head towards the troops.

". Maybe it was covering fire to allow the women and children to escape." Except there were none to be seen, they all back at Ratchaprasong, and the violence kicked off while the RTA was forming up.

[badgerbailey]

Yes lets cheer for the Anti-Foreigner party to win again. Genius.

I take it you are referring to the democrats? As K.Suthep has clearly demonstrated he dislikes farangs and has no respect for them.

[Buchholz]

".........mostly unarmed citizens." Note, my emphasis.

So you now admit that weapons were brought to the rally by the "peaceful protesters." Finally we move closer to the truth.

As the military commander was killed by an M-79 grenade during the first dispersal effort, are you willing to admit that this was carried out by the red-shirts? And that they were both earlier and later sprayed around the city, killing at least one bystander (a red-shirt has confessed, if you find this difficult)?

He also confessed to firing RPG rounds at a fuel tank farm, and a hotel. Are RPG the sort of things brought to a peaceful protest?

Are the lives lost in these attacks justifiable to you to prove a political point? Is not "1 life lost one life too many!"?

Want to borrow a beer bottle to bang your head with? I don't drink out of cans.

There were about 160,000 protesters and a few had weapons that Human Rights Watch believe were brought in later by the black shirts. If the intentions were towards violence than why bring women and children? Why wait 4 weeks to initiate it?

From the HRW report:

"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand’s central and northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in Bangkok on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary".

The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed after it started. I have participated in many demonstrations including some that were dispersed by police using tear gas, rubber bullets and a massive wall of police. You can bet that is this happened in the west there would be a independent investigation, but more importantly it never would have reached that level of violence. Guns would have never been allowed anywhere near the place. The army has 700,000 troops and I don't know how many police.

I completely agreed that even one loss of life is too many. I also agree that the reds defeated the purpose of the protest by allowing the black shirts and other to fight with weapons. Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent. Everyones emotions were aroused and both sides lost control of their people, that's what happens when these things get out of control. That's why government set up and control areas that contain protesters. That's why people are searched before they enter those ares. This is all security 101. The soldiers continued to kill people even after the reds surrendered. several protesters were unarmed when shot by snipers according to wittinesses.

None of the lives lost on either side were justifiable. Even after extensive interviews and review of what evidence is available nobody knows what happen for sure. That's why a independent investigation should be conducted. This government does not want that because they already know the truth.

I'm not defending the reds. What happened is deplorable, but people are angry and fed up being denied any kind of democratic process that is fair.

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress. All of these events stem from the denial of the government to respect it's own constitution. The same constitution that was changed to subvert the democratic process.

Most of us come from democratic country's do you seriously believe that any of the governments actions would stand up in our own country?

Anyone responding to trisailer post needs to realize that only the first paragraph of his post is actually HRW report. Everything that follows, eg. The violence was initiated by the army, is his own words and his own opinion.

It's deceptive to quote a report in a different font and then continue on with the same font for non-report speculations.

.

[OzMick]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

Obviously, because if you can't accept that, you are being irrational. There was video footage of one protester's brains exploding towards the troops. It could have been an accidental "friendly fire" from one of the MIB. The alternative is that the aim was to make the govt and RTA appear to be murderous animals, so more protesters than troops had to die. Do you believe that K.thaksin actually gives a rat's anus for a bunch of rice peasants?

[ianbaggie]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

....................because that simple truth unsubstantiates ANY argument the red shirts have

[OzMick]

".........mostly unarmed citizens." Note, my emphasis.

So you now admit that weapons were brought to the rally by the "peaceful protesters." Finally we move closer to the truth.

As the military commander was killed by an M-79 grenade during the first dispersal effort, are you willing to admit that this was carried out by the red-shirts? And that they were both earlier and later sprayed around the city, killing at least one bystander (a red-shirt has confessed, if you find this difficult)?

He also confessed to firing RPG rounds at a fuel tank farm, and a hotel. Are RPG the sort of things brought to a peaceful protest?

Are the lives lost in these attacks justifiable to you to prove a political point? Is not "1 life lost one life too many!"?

Want to borrow a beer bottle to bang your head with? I don't drink out of cans.

There were about 160,000 protesters and a few had weapons that Human Rights Watch believe were brought in later by the black shirts. If the intentions were towards violence than why bring women and children? Why wait 4 weeks to initiate it?

From the HRW report:

"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand's central and northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in Bangkok on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary".

The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed after it started. I have participated in many demonstrations including some that were dispersed by police using tear gas, rubber bullets and a massive wall of police. You can bet that is this happened in the west there would be a independent investigation, but more importantly it never would have reached that level of violence. Guns would have never been allowed anywhere near the place. The army has 700,000 troops and I don't know how many police.

I completely agreed that even one loss of life is too many. I also agree that the reds defeated the purpose of the protest by allowing the black shirts and other to fight with weapons. Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent. Everyones emotions were aroused and both sides lost control of their people, that's what happens when these things get out of control. That's why government set up and control areas that contain protesters. That's why people are searched before they enter those ares. This is all security 101. The soldiers continued to kill people even after the reds surrendered. several protesters were unarmed when shot by snipers according to wittinesses.

None of the lives lost on either side were justifiable. Even after extensive interviews and review of what evidence is available nobody knows what happen for sure. That's why a independent investigation should be conducted. This government does not want that because they already know the truth.

I'm not defending the reds. What happened is deplorable, but people are angry and fed up being denied any kind of democratic process that is fair.

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress. All of these events stem from the denial of the government to respect it's own constitution. The same constitution that was changed to subvert the democratic process.

Most of us come from democratic country's do you seriously believe that any of the governments actions would stand up in our own country?

Anyone responding to trisailer post needs to realize that only the first paragraph of his post is actually HRW report. Everything that follows, eg. The violence was initiated by the army, is his own words and his own opinion.

It's deceptive to quote a report in a different font and then continue on with the same font for non-report speculations.

.

Both fraudulent and wrong!

[animatic]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

So does your handle mean;

Bankrupt country

or

Bangkok or Up Country?

Or both.

Simply a question.

If you think rational conversation is no longer possible,

why make the statement?

Do you actually believe zealots will not kill their own pawns to take power? The annals of history are filled with such incidents of pawns sacrificed for their leaders causes. On every continent in most lands. Man has not suddenly become more altruistic and kind in the communication age, just more likely to be caught, or to twist the media to perceptions that aid their aims.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

".........mostly unarmed citizens." Note, my emphasis.

So you now admit that weapons were brought to the rally by the "peaceful protesters." Finally we move closer to the truth.

As the military commander was killed by an M-79 grenade during the first dispersal effort, are you willing to admit that this was carried out by the red-shirts? And that they were both earlier and later sprayed around the city, killing at least one bystander (a red-shirt has confessed, if you find this difficult)?

He also confessed to firing RPG rounds at a fuel tank farm, and a hotel. Are RPG the sort of things brought to a peaceful protest?

Are the lives lost in these attacks justifiable to you to prove a political point? Is not "1 life lost one life too many!"?

Want to borrow a beer bottle to bang your head with? I don't drink out of cans.

There were about 160,000 protesters and a few had weapons that Human Rights Watch believe were brought in later by the black shirts. If the intentions were towards violence than why bring women and children? Why wait 4 weeks to initiate it?

From the HRW report:

"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand's central and northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in Bangkok on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary".

The violence was initiated by the army and the commander was killed after it started. I have participated in many demonstrations including some that were dispersed by police using tear gas, rubber bullets and a massive wall of police. You can bet that is this happened in the west there would be a independent investigation, but more importantly it never would have reached that level of violence. Guns would have never been allowed anywhere near the place. The army has 700,000 troops and I don't know how many police.

I completely agreed that even one loss of life is too many. I also agree that the reds defeated the purpose of the protest by allowing the black shirts and other to fight with weapons. Humans are emotional creatures which is why the reds held "schools" prior to the event to keep people nonviolent. Everyones emotions were aroused and both sides lost control of their people, that's what happens when these things get out of control. That's why government set up and control areas that contain protesters. That's why people are searched before they enter those ares. This is all security 101. The soldiers continued to kill people even after the reds surrendered. several protesters were unarmed when shot by snipers according to wittinesses.

None of the lives lost on either side were justifiable. Even after extensive interviews and review of what evidence is available nobody knows what happen for sure. That's why a independent investigation should be conducted. This government does not want that because they already know the truth.

I'm not defending the reds. What happened is deplorable, but people are angry and fed up being denied any kind of democratic process that is fair.

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress. All of these events stem from the denial of the government to respect it's own constitution. The same constitution that was changed to subvert the democratic process.

Most of us come from democratic country's do you seriously believe that any of the governments actions would stand up in our own country?

Anyone responding to trisailer post needs to realize that only the first paragraph of his post is actually HRW report. Everything that follows, eg. The violence was initiated by the army, is his own words and his own opinion.

It's deceptive to quote a report in a different font and then continue on with the same font for non-report speculations.

.

Both fraudulent and wrong!

'Deception is not thought to be wrong if it furthers the cause',

might be a conclusion to draw.

Certainly TVF history is littered with zealots who have posted a thought too far and taken a long vacation. I suspect Mods are taking a harder line with blatant deceptions these days.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

^^ The army was brought because the police by and large were in cahoots with the protestors, they allowed the reds to occupy Ratchaprasong and barricade the area in the first place. They also turned a blind eye to the weapons in the area.

Certain police factions were seen delivering food and supplies to the red encampment. And there were photos and videos of this, and no, I do not know where they are hosted. Others likely do and might consider posting them. In any case I saw them with my own eyes.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[bubba]

Another attempt by Abhisit to incite violence in the hope to discredit the PTP. This is desperation politics at it's ugliest.

I hope he explains why his forces continued to kill citizens long after they had surrendered within the walls of the Wat that was a agreed upon "safe area" and contained women and children.

I hope he reminds people that the protest was peaceful for 4 weeks before his troops attacked mostly unarmed citizens.

Peaceful except for the two violent incidents in the days before April 10 ... which you constantly seem to ignore.

Maybe the troops were attacking the armed "citizens" amongst the "mostly unarmed citizens"? You know, the ones shooting at the army and throwing grenades?

Or did you ignore these "peaceful protestors", a nearly a full year before 10 April 2010?

And let's not forget that Abhisit was bullied a bit himself back in 2009:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/21409/Protesters_Attack_Thai_Prime_Minister_s_Limo/

[Bkkorupcountry]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

So does your handle mean;

Bankrupt country

or

Bangkok or Up Country?

Or both.

Simply a question.

If you think rational conversation is no longer possible,

why make the statement?

Do you actually believe zealots will not kill their own pawns to take power? The annals of history are filled with such incidents of pawns sacrificed for their leaders causes. On every continent in most lands. Man has not suddenly become more altruistic and kind in the communication age, just more likely to be caught, or to twist the media to perceptions that aid their aims.

It's Bangkok or Up Country as I'm as yet undecided where I will retire too. I hasten to add as well that whoever is in power will have no effect on my eventual decision as that would be purely for economic and social reasons.

I made the statement in the hope of keeping the discussions objective and civil and not clouded with our own bias and prejudice.

Yes, I do believe that zealots will kill their own pawns to take power. However, I also believe in the inherent good of the Thai people, coupled with the fact that being devout Buddhists, the intentional taking of a life (particularly a Red and a Red) in such circumstances is absolutely unacceptable and therefore unlikely. I cannot imagine that any Red shirt, whether militant MIB or not, would so intentionally kill one of their own merely as a chess move and not as a checkmate.

[ToffeEFCpower]

If the immigration department were deployed with their airport metal detectors at all protest site entrances, the martydom count would have been zero.

[anterian]

I may be wrong but I think this tactic of Abhisit's will badly backfire on him. He is behaving like a child playing with fire.

[Ricardo]

There is no defending the coup that tossed out Thaksin. Thailand claims to be a country that respects the rule of law, but the reality is another thing. There was a legal process for his removal and had the army chose that process none of this would be happening and we would be moving forward with progress.

Some of us who were here at the time believe that there was a case for the coup, which replaced the time-expired caretaker-PM, and was widely welcomed in the country.

The legal-mechanism of an election had been tried, but the election had been annulled by the E.C., and time for a re-run had expired.

The country was in 'uncharted waters', in terms of the then-constitution, perhaps someone is trying to tell you that PM-Thaksin was still the legally-elected PM by September-2006, but not so.

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

Does "rational discussion" have to exclude even the very possibility, that the former-PM might have been willing to sacrifice (with appropriate compensation to their families) a few of his followers, in order to achieve the fall of the government ? Is it totally unbelieveable that the black-shirt gunmen & grenade-throwers weren't there, to precipitate the violence, even at such a vile cost ?

I agree with Bkkorupcountry that it's a bold statement, and will probably remain unproven, but it would be equally-bold to discard the possibility out-of-hand IMO.

<snip for brevity>

Any objective investigator is going to ask why would a small armed force open fire on thousands of soldiers. It dosn't make any sense except as self defence. Maybe it was covering fire to allow the women and children to escape.

IMO the small force might open-fire first, from amongst the peaceful demonstrators, to provoke the return-of-fire from the soldiers, especially after the assassination of their on-the-ground commander, there is another explanation.

If this would cause the fall of the government, that might be thought worth the price, by the person financing & directing the 'peaceful protest'. It just depends whether you think he is evil/ruthless-enough to contemplate such an action.

[animatic]

The attack was by the red-shirts, and I fully believe that they were willing to kill their own supporters to keep the casualties in the right balance for the sympathy vote. The reds came armed with military weapons, prepared to kill to prove a political point. Don't preach pacifism if you support that.

Bold if unsubstantiated statement. if you truly believe that, then any rational discussion is a waste of time.

So does your handle mean;

Bankrupt country

or

Bangkok or Up Country?

Or both.

Simply a question.

If you think rational conversation is no longer possible,

why make the statement?

Do you actually believe zealots will not kill their own pawns to take power? The annals of history are filled with such incidents of pawns sacrificed for their leaders causes. On every continent in most lands. Man has not suddenly become more altruistic and kind in the communication age, just more likely to be caught, or to twist the media to perceptions that aid their aims.

It's Bangkok or Up Country as I'm as yet undecided where I will retire too. I hasten to add as well that whoever is in power will have no effect on my eventual decision as that would be purely for economic and social reasons.

I made the statement in the hope of keeping the discussions objective and civil and not clouded with our own bias and prejudice.

Yes, I do believe that zealots will kill their own pawns to take power. However, I also believe in the inherent good of the Thai people, coupled with the fact that being devout Buddhists, the intentional taking of a life (particularly a Red and a Red) in such circumstances is absolutely unacceptable and therefore unlikely. I cannot imagine that any Red shirt, whether militant MIB or not, would so intentionally kill one of their own merely as a chess move and not as a checkmate.

I hate to disabuse your faith in 'The Global Thai Mentality',

but they kill each other day in and day out here. Most do not an wish this didn't happen, but it does in a far too large percentage for reasons we hardly comprehend. Not an indictment of the culture, but just observations of reality.

As recently as this week a woman was run over for a parking issue. Some thing as big an powerful, and backed by a multi-year propaganda campaign would not lessen this sense that life is cheap, the powerful do as they wish, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and reincarnation will bring you back better if you die too soon, so lets not worry about tomorrow.

I do believe that you can not imagine them killing each other, but I guess I have been here long enough to no longer believe this wishful thinking. I have seen pictures of a woman tied lengthwise on train tracks and slip in two my a train. I would never have imagined someone would do that either, but it's all too true. And that for nothing less than revenge or jealousy. Not something as strongly held as a truly believed in cause, regardless of the veracity of those teaching the rightness of the cause.

A world class indoctrination of people raised to not question their teachers in any way, can have far reaching affects and make justifications similar to any soldier being sent to war. Kill them, they are against you and you are for the right cause.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[ianbaggie]

If the immigration department were deployed with their airport metal detectors at all protest site entrances, the martydom count would have been zero.

But the red shirts would have rioted over the infringement on their rights and blamed the government - were learning a lesson about democracy im afraid

[animatic]

If the immigration department were deployed with their airport metal detectors at all protest site entrances, the martydom count would have been zero.

But the red shirts would have rioted over the infringement on their rights and blamed the government - were learning a lesson about democracy im afraid

Attempting to do that would have just touched off the inevitable violent reactions, if the Reds thought it would serve their interests.

[jdinasia]

Another attempt by Abhisit to incite violence in the hope to discredit the PTP. This is desperation politics at it's ugliest.

I hope he explains why his forces continued to kill citizens long after they had surrendered within the walls of the Wat that was a agreed upon "safe area" and contained women and children.

I hope he reminds people that the protest was peaceful for 4 weeks before his troops attacked mostly unarmed citizens.

"mostly unarmed citizens" --- what an amazing distinction

Edited June 21, 2011 by jdinasia

[themockrat]

Makes you wonder if this isn't a tactic by Abhisit's puppetmaster to put him as a "sitting duck" at Ratchprasong. And when something happens, there will be another army coup. Strange theory, I know, but what if it happens? After all, he's already lost the election. What good is he now?

[Who, me ?]

Makes you wonder if this isn't a tactic by Abhisit's puppetmaster to put him as a "sitting duck" at Ratchprasong. And when something happens, there will be another army coup. Strange theory, I know, but what if it happens? After all, he's already lost the election. What good is he now?

Lost the elections? Wow, I must have been sleeping quite a long time...What day is today? Post 3 July already?

[themockrat]

Makes you wonder if this isn't a tactic by Abhisit's puppetmaster to put him as a "sitting duck" at Ratchprasong. And when something happens, there will be another army coup. Strange theory, I know, but what if it happens? After all, he's already lost the election. What good is he now?

Lost the elections? Wow, I must have been sleeping quite a long time...What day is today? Post 3 July already?

Face it, Abhisit has lost the elections. Everyone knows it, some people are just still struggling to accept it, but it's over. Come back here on the evening of July 3rd, then call me the greatest fortune teller of all times

[OzMick]

Firstly France 24 captured the explosion that killed the army colonel on april 10th. The soldiers didn't dive for cover had a grenade been thrown and spotted. The redshirts were 70 meters away and even with a grenade launcher it would have been a miracle strike to take out the commanding officers. That's why it's believed the grenade was rolled along the ground from within the army ranks. This started the mayhem leading to the panicked withdrawal of these elite queen's guard.

On the burning of Central world. Have none of you seen the pictures taken on May 19th at Central World shot from the 3rd floor by security staff showing them being shot at as well as stall holders on the ground floor with shotgun wounds to the legs. One fat security guard got shot in the back.

How do we know they were security guards well they had clip-on id badges and they all carried red walkie talkies.

All the staff including it admin etc were moved to one of the carparking levels and then escorted out the back of the building and led outside and made to wait by the soldiers who stood around casually with only some armed.

Eventually a small plume of smoke rises from the bulding and they are ordered to leave.

The back of Central world is next door to Wat Pathum where some 2000 people saught refuge. As the staff left Central world they were pinned down on the ground by shooters (soldiers clearly seen) firing from the BTS. This was late afternoon.

There were some 70000 soldiers in and around Siam at this time.

We're told that an intrepid band of professional arsonist terrorists set alight to the 4th floor of Central World all the time this building was surrounded by soldiers.

Believe what you like but a year on the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of who burnt this building down.

The chair of Central world group has come out stating he believes the army started the fire.

Sure there were some redshirts who had petrol cans for the generators and their pickups and some of them tried to set fires but most people fled from the oncoming soldiers who were firing at will.

Note: Not one person killed was armed.

5 kalashnikov rifles and 7 ancient american rifles were found at the redshirt rally site. People were searched for weaponsat the rally site as they arrived. You don't want some lunatic in a mass of people brandishing and shooting people as it would cause panic and a stampede.

I have 1000's of photos and 100's of videos including a recent one shot from inside a shop showing soldiers brutalising a group of redshirt detainees. The soldiers behaved in a murderous cowardly manner throughout and would be no match for a professional army.

I have 1 photo of a man with a submachine gun at a BTS station. He's got it under his jacket. Is he a blackshirt, security for the leaders or for the BTS? There were a few agent provacateurs who succeeded in getting many people shot

On what experience do you base claims about the grenade attack? An M-79 doesn't roll around the ground, it explodes on impact, leaving no time to react. Secondly, they are quite accurate. On a 50m range we had plywood man-shape targets on a 2"x1" stick, and used to amuse ourselves by aiming for the base of the target and snapping the rod. At 70m, I reckon I could still drop one in your shirt pocket. Miracle my RRs.

If you have seen the footage , you will also notice the batons, shields and visored helmets being worn. If you are in crowd control mode and someone starts dropping M-79 grenades, if you don't panic then you don't understand the situation.

A person with a fuel can trying to light a fire is called an arsonist. Arsonists get shot - son nom na. For weeks idiots ahd been claiming that they were going to burn down Central World, including one farang. Central World was burnt to the ground. So the army must have done it to make the red-shirts look bad. Sure. So who started all the other fires, Donald Duck?

[Buchholz]

Firstly France 24 captured the explosion that killed the army colonel on april 10th. The soldiers didn't dive for cover had a grenade been thrown and spotted. The redshirts were 70 meters away and even with a grenade launcher it would have been a miracle strike to take out the commanding officers. That's why it's believed the grenade was rolled along the ground from within the army ranks. This started the mayhem leading to the panicked withdrawal of these elite queen's guard.

On the burning of Central world. Have none of you seen the pictures taken on May 19th at Central World shot from the 3rd floor by security staff showing them being shot at as well as stall holders on the ground floor with shotgun wounds to the legs. One fat security guard got shot in the back.

How do we know they were security guards well they had clip-on id badges and they all carried red walkie talkies.

All the staff including it admin etc were moved to one of the carparking levels and then escorted out the back of the building and led outside and made to wait by the soldiers who stood around casually with only some armed.

Eventually a small plume of smoke rises from the bulding and they are ordered to leave.

The back of Central world is next door to Wat Pathum where some 2000 people saught refuge. As the staff left Central world they were pinned down on the ground by shooters (soldiers clearly seen) firing from the BTS. This was late afternoon.

There were some 70000 soldiers in and around Siam at this time.

We're told that an intrepid band of professional arsonist terrorists set alight to the 4th floor of Central World all the time this building was surrounded by soldiers.

Believe what you like but a year on the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of who burnt this building down.

The chair of Central world group has come out stating he believes the army started the fire.

Sure there were some redshirts who had petrol cans for the generators and their pickups and some of them tried to set fires but most people fled from the oncoming soldiers who were firing at will.

Note: Not one person killed was armed.

5 kalashnikov rifles and 7 ancient american rifles were found at the redshirt rally site. People were searched for weaponsat the rally site as they arrived. You don't want some lunatic in a mass of people brandishing and shooting people as it would cause panic and a stampede.

I have 1000's of photos and 100's of videos including a recent one shot from inside a shop showing soldiers brutalising a group of redshirt detainees. The soldiers behaved in a murderous cowardly manner throughout and would be no match for a professional army.

I have 1 photo of a man with a submachine gun at a BTS station. He's got it under his jacket. Is he a blackshirt, security for the leaders or for the BTS? There were a few agent provacateurs who succeeded in getting many people shot

On what experience do you base claims about the grenade attack? An M-79 doesn't roll around the ground, it explodes on impact, leaving no time to react. Secondly, they are quite accurate. On a 50m range we had plywood man-shape targets on a 2"x1" stick, and used to amuse ourselves by aiming for the base of the target and snapping the rod. At 70m, I reckon I could still drop one in your shirt pocket. Miracle my RRs.

If you have seen the footage , you will also notice the batons, shields and visored helmets being worn. If you are in crowd control mode and someone starts dropping M-79 grenades, if you don't panic then you don't understand the situation.

A person with a fuel can trying to light a fire is called an arsonist. Arsonists get shot - son nom na. For weeks idiots ahd been claiming that they were going to burn down Central World, including one farang. Central World was burnt to the ground. So the army must have done it to make the red-shirts look bad. Sure. So who started all the other fires, Donald Duck?

Another gaping hole in the inaccurate speculation promulgated by babcock was the fact that numerous weapons were found at the Red Shirt camps.

Add to that all the RPG's, bombs, etc. of the Red Shirt Bomber Squad members.

.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Buchholz

[Babcock]

Firstly France 24 captured the explosion that killed the army colonel on april 10th. The soldiers didn't dive for cover had a grenade been thrown and spotted. The redshirts were 70 meters away and even with a grenade launcher it would have been a miracle strike to take out the commanding officers. That's why it's believed the grenade was rolled along the ground from within the army ranks. This started the mayhem leading to the panicked withdrawal of these elite queen's guard.

On the burning of Central world. Have none of you seen the pictures taken on May 19th at Central World shot from the 3rd floor by security staff showing them being shot at as well as stall holders on the ground floor with shotgun wounds to the legs. One fat security guard got shot in the back.

How do we know they were security guards well they had clip-on id badges and they all carried red walkie talkies.

All the staff including it admin etc were moved to one of the carparking levels and then escorted out the back of the building and led outside and made to wait by the soldiers who stood around casually with only some armed.

Eventually a small plume of smoke rises from the bulding and they are ordered to leave.

The back of Central world is next door to Wat Pathum where some 2000 people saught refuge. As the staff left Central world they were pinned down on the ground by shooters (soldiers clearly seen) firing from the BTS. This was late afternoon.

There were some 70000 soldiers in and around Siam at this time.

We're told that an intrepid band of professional arsonist terrorists set alight to the 4th floor of Central World all the time this building was surrounded by soldiers.

Believe what you like but a year on the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of who burnt this building down.

The chair of Central world group has come out stating he believes the army started the fire.

Sure there were some redshirts who had petrol cans for the generators and their pickups and some of them tried to set fires but most people fled from the oncoming soldiers who were firing at will.

Note: Not one person killed was armed.

5 kalashnikov rifles and 7 ancient american rifles were found at the redshirt rally site. People were searched for weaponsat the rally site as they arrived. You don't want some lunatic in a mass of people brandishing and shooting people as it would cause panic and a stampede.

I have 1000's of photos and 100's of videos including a recent one shot from inside a shop showing soldiers brutalising a group of redshirt detainees. The soldiers behaved in a murderous cowardly manner throughout and would be no match for a professional army.

I have 1 photo of a man with a submachine gun at a BTS station. He's got it under his jacket. Is he a blackshirt, security for the leaders or for the BTS? There were a few agent provacateurs who succeeded in getting many people shot

On what experience do you base claims about the grenade attack? An M-79 doesn't roll around the ground, it explodes on impact, leaving no time to react. Secondly, they are quite accurate. On a 50m range we had plywood man-shape targets on a 2"x1" stick, and used to amuse ourselves by aiming for the base of the target and snapping the rod. At 70m, I reckon I could still drop one in your shirt pocket. Miracle my RRs.

If you have seen the footage , you will also notice the batons, shields and visored helmets being worn. If you are in crowd control mode and someone starts dropping M-79 grenades, if you don't panic then you don't understand the situation.

A person with a fuel can trying to light a fire is called an arsonist. Arsonists get shot - son nom na. For weeks idiots ahd been claiming that they were going to burn down Central World, including one farang. Central World was burnt to the ground. So the army must have done it to make the red-shirts look bad. Sure. So who started all the other fires, Donald Duck?

I was talking about a hand grenade.docx

[Babcock]

Oz Mick

On what experience do you base claims about the grenade attack? An M-79 doesn't roll around the ground, it explodes on impact, leaving no time to react. Secondly, they are quite accurate. On a 50m range we had plywood man-shape targets on a 2"x1" stick, and used to amuse ourselves by aiming for the base of the target and snapping the rod. At 70m, I reckon I could still drop one in your shirt pocket. Miracle my RRs.

If you have seen the footage , you will also notice the batons, shields and visored helmets being worn. If you are in crowd control mode and someone starts dropping M-79 grenades, if you don't panic then you don't understand the situation.

A person with a fuel can trying to light a fire is called an arsonist. Arsonists get shot - son nom na. For weeks idiots ahd been claiming that they were going to burn down Central World, including one farang. Central World was burnt to the ground. So the army must have done it to make the red-shirts look bad. Sure. So who started all the other fires, Donald Duck?

I was talking about a hand grenade. What's the fuse? 7 seconds or less.? To fire from the redshirts positions the launcher would have to be in the front and clearly visible to the soldiers on the ground and the snipers in the school and other buildings? The colonel was not right at the front. If the grenade was fired from a window it would not have been from above the soldiers if fired by teh redshirts, blackshirts whatever.

Your "idiots" talking from the stage were simply stating that if the army attacked and began killing the redshirts they threatened to burn down central Bangkok. I think if I was in a similar situation and was threatened with death I would try and bluff my way out. I mean it's a bit of postering, fronting up to the man. Saying you're going to kill someone doesn't mean you really intend to do it. Does it?

This though may have provided a pretext for what followed.

Abhisit said that the fireman couldn't reach the fires because the redshirts prevented them.

The redshirts said that the army prevented the firemen from attending the blaze.

We've never heard from the firemen have we? We do know that paramedics in green uniforms were targeted by shooters,snipers as well as those few journalists who managed to get through to the redshirt side. I suspect at the very least that it was unsafe for the firemen to proceed at the risk of being shot.

What would Inspector Clouseau have made of it? In a crime the first rule is to look to see who gains. From the fires not the redshirts but for the elite amart etc this conveniently shows the redshirts in a bad light. Again there have been no proper investigations. Makes ya think huh?

There were between 50000-70000 soldiers in Siam. 2000 people sheltered at Wat Pathum.

Thai Rath newspaper published pictures showing empty water bottles and spent cartridges on the BTS tracks overlooking the temple and we have all the pictures of the soldiers aiming and firing their weapons from the BTS. They couldn't be bothered to remove the evidence.