Avoid Bangkok's Ratchaprasong, Reds Told

[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?

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.

.

There weren't numerous weapons found at the redshirt camp. As I stated 5 chinese kalashnikovs and 7 american rifles from I guess the vietnam era. Not the kind of gear your "Ronin" "blackshirts" would be using. Also found firecrackers, slingshots, some pingpong bombs.

They should have made long bows and arrows or even crossbows. Agincourt 2.

Did anybody see the debate in parliament afterwards. Jataporn was not allowed to show any video so Peu Thai used boards but the camera never focused on the pictures. It went in and out of focus. You couldn't see. Ha Ha. Then this general from the democrats side he showed a picture, a cropped picture of a man's hand on the ground holding a grenade. There was a lot of blood, dirt on the ground and the man's hand was suspiciously clean and we didn't see the rest of him. It was a fake. A soldier, whoever, rolled up his sleeve and laid his arm on the floor. Hilarious. These guys have IQ's of around 85

[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?

Why were you talking about a hand grenade when the man was killed with an M-79? The resulting shrapnel is quite different and the autopsy quoted an M-79 attack as the cause of death. Again, you seem to have very little experience of the weapon. It is not fired in a straight(ish) line like a bullet, but a high overhead arc, making it ideal to fire from behind a line of people, and provided you could get a gap to sight, very accurate. If the range was known accurately, it might not even be necessary to see the actual target as the kill radius is about 5m with a HE grenade.

How do they tell the difference? Hand grenades are filled with a spiral of flattened wire nicked so that it will fly off in pieces around 1/2" long. these are the primary killing/wounding mechanism, not shrapnel from the casing. AFAIK M-79s are not equipped thus.

A certain number of the red-shirts came to BKK armed to the teeth and looking for a serious showdown which they provoked. I was here for the duration and found the patience and tolerance of the authorities to be almost unbelievable, even after that initial ambush. If you are getting your information from the red press, then you are being fed lies.

[Buchholz]

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.

.

There weren't numerous weapons found at the redshirt camp. As I stated 5 chinese kalashnikovs and 7 american rifles from I guess the vietnam era. Not the kind of gear your "Ronin" "blackshirts" would be using. Also found firecrackers, slingshots, some pingpong bombs.

They should have made long bows and arrows or even crossbows.

Red Shirt commandos equipped with automatic weapons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWjTn3JsF4

and

Seized weapons from Red shirt protesters on display to 50 diplomats

[Buchholz]

and

Red-shirts steal weapons at ThaiCom compound

That's some of the available video on the Red Infantry-like weapons. There's more available on their separate Red Bomber Squad if you'd like.

.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

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

... end removed

Whereas I do not know either precise or even approximate numbers, I find it impossible to accept that there were 50,000 - 70,000 soldiers densely packed in Siam (assuming Siam is the Siam Square area). Where did you get these numbers from ?

[craigt3365]

Again, please do not post unsubstantiated claims in political forums, per these rules:

One warning issued and one member on a short posting holiday.

[lannarebirth]

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.

That is what other Red Shirts claimed at the time. Most of them were as surprised as the Army troops at the intense escalation of violence. It came from behind their lines and videos abound of both Red and Black Shirts carrying and fighting automatic weapons. The Army never used grenades in any of its operations.

[lannarebirth]

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.

Spin it as they may, these are irrefutable facts.

[jdinasia]

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.

From your own statements you state you started researching this 3 days ago which obviously suggests that you can tell biased from unbiased. Why does the HRW report fail to mention the reds using molotov cocktails on April 9th? There is plenty of footage of them using them out there ... yet nary a word about it from the HRW.

Yes there were snipers out there and they were on both sides. Again, widely reported. Not reported were many members of the army killed by snipers and many people believe (with some evidence to support it) that the black-shirt snipers were there to drive up the body-count with the goal being enough blood on the streets to cause the government to fall. History in Thailand shows us that is what happens when the army fires on civilians in BKK. This time it didn't because of the heavily armed reds and their violent nature/history. What does the army have to gain by random sniper fire? Nothing. (The army had a lot to gain by the shot that took out Seh Daeng, but then again so did about 7 other groups!)

edit for typo

Edited June 21, 2011 by jdinasia

[animatic]

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.

Spin it as they may, these are irrefutable facts.

All created just to use for spin, then and now and all in between and into the future if they need to.

Likely the most cynical PR exercise I have ever witnessed,

including Prelude, or Delude to Desert Storm II.

[lannarebirth]

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.

.

There weren't numerous weapons found at the redshirt camp. As I stated 5 chinese kalashnikovs and 7 american rifles from I guess the vietnam era. Not the kind of gear your "Ronin" "blackshirts" would be using. Also found firecrackers, slingshots, some pingpong bombs.

They should have made long bows and arrows or even crossbows.

Red Shirt commandos equipped with automatic weapons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDWjTn3JsF4

and

Seized weapons from Red shirt protesters on display to 50 diplomats

I didn't watch the whole video. Did it show all the CNG canisters the Red shirts rigged up around their perimeter, which of course was a commercial and residential neighborhood. Seh Daeng seemed particularly proud of that "defensive" element.

[Arkady]

Nothing heated in saying that the miltary will do what happened last time - force the small parties (or make them feel they have been forced) to shun the PTP and join a Dem-led coalition. Its happened before, it will happen again, and nothing has changed to suggest another possible outcome.

You seem to be forgetting or perhaps never knew that, while the military undoubtedly applied some pressure to smaller parties, what made the whole thing possible was Newin's defection from the Thaksin party. Why was Newin willing to defect from the man he referred to as his Big Boss? Because the Big Boss's older sister got too greedy when her husband did his stint as nominee PM and pushed Newin and his cobras back from the trough to allow her own faction of Isaan porker MPs gorge themselves in their place. Without this event caused by short term

Shinawatra planning the military could not have influenced things much. The numbers wouldn't have come close to stacking up and probably won't this time around.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Arkady

[janverbeem]

Abhisit want to "inform people about last years bloody events" He just doesn't want to investigate them and find the truth. If he's so sure that it is all the reds fault why not allow an independent authority investigate them. If there had ALREADY been an independent investigation, and he was held without fault (as opposed to being charged with murder) he should welcome it.

If I were him I too would be scared if the PTP gets elected because one of the first things THEY will do is appoint an independent investigation and then maybe we will know the truth. Perhaps he then will be the one in exile from murder charges.

I'm sure you made an honest mistake and you meant to say , a paid investigation and then we will know the truth as it is dictated by PTP.

[Buchholz]

Abhisit want to "inform people about last years bloody events" He just doesn't want to investigate them and find the truth. If he's so sure that it is all the reds fault why not allow an independent authority investigate them. If there had ALREADY been an independent investigation, and he was held without fault (as opposed to being charged with murder) he should welcome it.

If I were him I too would be scared if the PTP gets elected because one of the first things THEY will do is appoint an independent investigation and then maybe we will know the truth. Perhaps he then will be the one in exile from murder charges.

I'm sure you made an honest mistake and you meant to say , a paid investigation and then we will know the truth as it is dictated by PTP.

The "Truth Today" and every day...

A bizarrely dressed Red Shirt armed with a fake gun has just pranced about in front of a passing motorcyclist who was wearing a shirt marked, 'Truth Today'.

http://www.demotix.com/news/654942/red-shirts-commemorate-first-anniversary-bangkok-bloodshed

Edited June 21, 2011 by Buchholz

[Throatwobbler]

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.

A peacful protest does not call for Bangkok to be burned if they do not get their way.

A peacful protest does not take over huge parts of a city and hold it to ransom.

A peaceful protest does not have armed men running around within it.

Sorry I may have a different meaning of peaceful to you. Can you please explain your meaning.

[Throatwobbler]

If Reds supporters were truely against violence as they claim then they would have abandoned them a long time ago. It has been obvious that the reds have been happy to use violence when it suits them.

Examples, Phuket in 2009. The dragging from his car and the beating to death of an elderly PAD supporter in Chiang Mai. The riots in Bangkok in Songkran in 2009.

Yet still they claim they are against violence. To me it is obvious that they are only against violence against them. Violence that they use to get there way way is OK.

To the reds out ther how can you claim to be aginst violence and yet support a party that has put major red proponents of violence on their elite party list.

To claim you are against violence is a lie. If you were you would have abandoned them and fought for a peaceful movement. If that had have happened you would have had my support. However you continue to support a party who sees violence as a mai pen rai. As long as it's my side doing the violence I don't care.

[lannarebirth]

If Reds supporters were truely against violence as they claim then they would have abandoned them a long time ago. It has been obvious that the reds have been happy to use violence when it suits them.

Examples, Phuket in 2009. The dragging from his car and the beating to death of an elderly PAD supporter in Chiang Mai. The riots in Bangkok in Songkran in 2009.

Yet still they claim they are against violence. To me it is obvious that they are only against violence against them. Violence that they use to get there way way is OK.

To the reds out ther how can you claim to be aginst violence and yet support a party that has put major red proponents of violence on their elite party list.

To claim you are against violence is a lie. If you were you would have abandoned them and fought for a peaceful movement. If that had have happened you would have had my support. However you continue to support a party who sees violence as a mai pen rai. As long as it's my side doing the violence I don't care.

One can only womder how a Yingluck government will utilize these mobs in future, in furtherance of her administration's agenda. I'm sure they'll find that a mob is to valuable a thing to leave unused.

[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.

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.

I live near Ratchaprasong. I saw the day the reds took over the area. The police simply walked back up to silom junction after a sit off. The army then moved in to prevent the reds entering Silom road. As the police left the army came in, it was all quite organised. One of the police commanders gave a speech from one of the reds' trucks to the red shirts, there was even back slapping and smiles as the last of the police zoomed off.

The police could have prevented the occupation of the area on that day relatively easily, its was obvious that it was all planned beforehand.

Edited June 21, 2011 by longway

[kropotkin]

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.

A peacful protest does not call for Bangkok to be burned if they do not get their way.

A peacful protest does not take over huge parts of a city and hold it to ransom.

A peaceful protest does not have armed men running around within it.

Sorry I may have a different meaning of peaceful to you. Can you please explain your meaning.

Peacefull excludes occupying airports and burning down buildings and organising coups and and and and.

Sorry for saying something intelligent, i am now awaiting the answers of the extremists.

[rubl]

Peacefull excludes occupying airports and burning down buildings and organising coups and and and and.

Sorry for saying something intelligent, i am now awaiting the answers of the extremists.

An interesting view, for sure. Talking about peaceful excludes and having 'occupying airports' and 'burning down buildings' in the same sentence, as if those actions would be comparable.

Might I suggest that the post is not completely intelligent or consistent and may be written by an extremist already? IMHO of course

[bf2002]

You are funny, left wing.

Democrats are left wing and traditionalist, reds are populist. All are corrupt and greedy. One party claims the other dishonored the one who may not be spoken of in politics, but they both accuse the other.

It's really corrupt populists vs corrupt moderate/leftist socialists.

sorry, who told reds to avoid the area?

looks like they themselves have decided not to go there

Well, most of them, anyway.

However, an unspecified num-ber of left-wing red shirts plan to dress themselves as ghosts to attend the Democrat Party rally at Ratchaprasong Intersection on Thursday.

[whybother]

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.

.

A huge gaping hole in Babcock's statement was that France 24 got footage of the colonels death.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100411-exclusive-france-24-footage-shows-soldiers-firing-directly-protesters#

Also, the idea that grenade launcher couldn't send a grenade 70 metres (not that the protesters were 70 metres away in France24's footage). The red shirts fired grenades from Lumpini Park that hit Saladaeng BTS station. The corner of the park, where the red shirts were camped, looks directly down Silom road, and three grenades hit BTS station in a line along the station. Not something that would be easy to do from a position on an angle to the station.

The group of pictures showing people shot inside Central World had NO photos of army personnel in or around the building until a couple of days after looking at the burnt shops. http://asiancorrespondent.com/43506/photos-from-may-19-an-update/ There was one photo of a masked man on the BTS. At this time and well into the evening there were still gun fights going on and people escaping into the Wat. The army certainly didn't have control of the area, and there is no evidence that they were in CTW.

[whybother]

sorry, who told reds to avoid the area?

looks like they themselves have decided not to go there

Well, most of them, anyway.

However, an unspecified num-ber of left-wing red shirts plan to dress themselves as ghosts to attend the Democrat Party rally at Ratchaprasong Intersection on Thursday.

You are funny, left wing.

Democrats are left wing and traditionalist, reds are populist. All are corrupt and greedy. One party claims the other dishonored the one who may not be spoken of in politics, but they both accuse the other.

It's really corrupt populists vs corrupt moderate/leftist socialists.

I'm just quoting the OP.

[Throatwobbler]

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.

A peacful protest does not call for Bangkok to be burned if they do not get their way.

A peacful protest does not take over huge parts of a city and hold it to ransom.

A peaceful protest does not have armed men running around within it.

Sorry I may have a different meaning of peaceful to you. Can you please explain your meaning.

Peacefull excludes occupying airports and burning down buildings and organising coups and and and and.

Sorry for saying something intelligent, i am now awaiting the answers of the extremists.

Did I say that the airport occupation and coup were not violent. Just another red apologist trying to use past examples to justify their love of violence. And no you didn't say something intelligent, sorry to dissapoint you. You're "but they did it first" argument belongs on the playground with the other 5 year olds.

[letitbe]

If Reds supporters were truely against violence as they claim then they would have abandoned them a long time ago. It has been obvious that the reds have been happy to use violence when it suits them.

Examples, Phuket in 2009. The dragging from his car and the beating to death of an elderly PAD supporter in Chiang Mai. The riots in Bangkok in Songkran in 2009.

Yet still they claim they are against violence. To me it is obvious that they are only against violence against them. Violence that they use to get there way way is OK.

To the reds out ther how can you claim to be aginst violence and yet support a party that has put major red proponents of violence on their elite party list.

To claim you are against violence is a lie. If you were you would have abandoned them and fought for a peaceful movement. If that had have happened you would have had my support. However you continue to support a party who sees violence as a mai pen rai. As long as it's my side doing the violence I don't care.

One can only womder how a Yingluck government will utilize these mobs in future, in furtherance of her administration's agenda. I'm sure they'll find that a mob is to valuable a thing to leave unused.

probably just like hitlers brown shirts pol pots brigades and rest. what else can anyone expect if red thugs on Taksins party list become MP's and probably a number of them ministers. At least their is no longer any pretence its not all for 1 man or that theirs anything other than total compliance with his wishes and soon like animal farm we will no longer have any pretence about anything else. At that time even forang supporters except sheep as in Animal farm will see the truth but by then it will be far to late. I recommend everyone reads George Orwell's animal farm perhaps dems should screen it to all <snip> who follow Taksin like a god but I doubt they have much capacity left for any rational thought. Hitlers propaganda minister Goebbels would be proud of job Taksins PR people have done.

Edited June 23, 2011 by soundman
Removed derogatory stereo-type.

[phiphidon]

The "Truth Today" and every day...

A bizarrely dressed Red Shirt armed with a fake gun has just pranced about in front of a passing motorcyclist who was wearing a shirt marked, 'Truth Today'.

http://www.demotix.c...ngkok-bloodshed

Another post to your growing post count - and another picture - but what, pray tell, is the point? What are you trying to say that is relevant to this thread? As captioned, a bizarrely dressed person dressed all in red carrying a fake gun in a photograph taken, amongst many others, on the 10th April 2011. So, what great insight has this provided on the thread about Red Shirts being told to avoid the Democrat "rally" at Rachaprhasong? Will this guy walk behind that motorcycle dressed like that every day? Why else the title? More importantly, Why do you insist on wasting our time and bandwidth?

[rubl]

The "Truth Today" and every day...

A bizarrely dressed Red Shirt armed with a fake gun has just pranced about in front of a passing motorcyclist who was wearing a shirt marked, 'Truth Today'.

http://www.demotix.c...ngkok-bloodshed

Another post to your growing post count - and another picture - but what, pray tell, is the point? What are you trying to say that is relevant to this thread? As captioned, a bizarrely dressed person dressed all in red carrying a fake gun in a photograph taken, amongst many others, on the 10th April 2011. So, what great insight has this provided on the thread about Red Shirts being told to avoid the Democrat "rally" at Rachaprhasong? Will this guy walk behind that motorcycle dressed like that every day? Why else the title? More importantly, Why do you insist on wasting our time and bandwidth?

In some of your complaint you may be right, dear phiphidon. On the other hand a well-dressed red with (fake) gun even on the 10th of April 2011 is almost like 'déjà vu'. Pure coincidence of course.

Well, assuming the handsome chap in red avoids Ratchaprasong today there shouldn't be a problem, now should there be? No offence, and not meant as provocation, but going to work and passing Ratchaprasong with BTS I might, just might decide to have a look. Mostly I'm wearing a pink shirt to work anyway, beats being in dress-shirt and tie

[MAJIC]

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.

The Beef: unfortunately is: I fear you are somewhat a stranger to the truth.

And also would that be the same Women and Children who were used by the Reds as the main part of the Barricades/Human Shields?

Get a grip!

Edited June 22, 2011 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

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

Just calm down and wait for the Coalition Trade off, anything is possible in Thailand,for better or worse,and the rights or wrongs of it,dont count,such is the madness.

Edited June 22, 2011 by MAJIC

[Buchholz]

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.

A peacful protest does not call for Bangkok to be burned if they do not get their way.

A peacful protest does not take over huge parts of a city and hold it to ransom.

A peaceful protest does not have armed men running around within it.

Sorry I may have a different meaning of peaceful to you. Can you please explain your meaning.

Peacefull excludes occupying airports and burning down buildings and organising coups and and and and.

Sorry for saying something intelligent, i am now awaiting the answers of the extremists.

Did I say that the airport occupation and coup were not violent. Just another red apologist trying to use past examples to justify their love of violence. And no you didn't say something intelligent, sorry to dissapoint you. You're "but they did it first" argument belongs on the playground with the other 5 year olds.

Even worse, it's not even accurate as the Reds started their cycle of violence 18 months before the airport.