h90 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power. Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power. In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence. And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner. Why is simple. Such a private para-military force comes handy. Hitler made the best out of it. The other things are the red villages, which operate under their own laws. What is still missing are red courts (or call it peoples courts?) and red commissars at courts, police, army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patjem Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Interesting claim that Khun_T's next plan is England. I seriously doubt it, considering the relationship between Cameron & Abhisit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed. If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol: Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes. They were not armed. Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless. I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 They were not armed. Arms or not, those definite thug-like characters had no right roughing up protesting students. Students have every right to voice their concerns. I quite agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noBuzz Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes. They were not armed. Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless. I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Apparently, there were a couple of dinosaurs there too. I was going to mention all the other things that were there that haven't been mentioned in any of the news reports, but I don't want to waste screen space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noBuzz Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Apparently, there were a couple of dinosaurs there too. I was going to mention all the other things that were there that haven't been mentioned in any of the news reports, but I don't want to waste screen space. I heard they were hungry alligators trying to get a nice mouthful of redshirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power. Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power. In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence. And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner. That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed. If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol: If you seriously believe that the red shirt movement is not an armed force, despite the dead soldiers and numerous grenade attacks last year, and the number of red shirt members who have been caught with military weapons and/or confessed to using them, then you are seriously mentally imbalanced or suffering serious short term memory loss. Oh, and add in the exploding apartment building. BTW slingshots, Molotov cocktails and even wooden staves are weapons. If I was a serving soldier and you were to attack me with any one of the three, I would have no qualms about shooting you dead centre of the seen mass, just like the instruction manual recommends it. Edit:spelling The red shirts are an armed force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) ... Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. ... Not one article said the red-shirts involved in recent intimidation were unarmed, on the other hand the OP doesn't say they were armed either. The first mention of 'armed' was post #7 by hanuman1 with "That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed." So dear members, keep speculating please Edited August 28, 2011 by rubl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orac Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 ... Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. ... Not one article said the red-shirts involved in recent intimidation were unarmed, on the other hand the OP doesn't say they were armed either. The first mention of 'armed' was post #7 by hanuman1 with "That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed." So dear members, keep speculating please Surely if reporting on groups of unarmed people was newsworthy there would need much bigger newspapers - I went shopping earlier and a reporter would have had a field day if they were with me with all the unarmed people i saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 They were not armed. Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless. I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. Ok.. I have read a few of these articles. Not one says they were unarmed. If you can find one that says that they were unarmed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. How silly. So you're saying that if weapons were seen or used at the incident, then the newspapers wouldn't report it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 They were not armed. Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless. I offer as proof that they were not armed every single article on the incident that you can find in any paper. If you can find one that says that they were armed, please do let us know. Otherwise please stop deluding yourself and others with your misinformation about this incident. No delusion required. I stand by my statement that the red shirts are an armed force, and given you numerous examples of them using weapons. You have surmised that they were unarmed because none were reported, but that is not proof that concealed weapons were not present. That's why they are called concealed weapons, because people don' see them. Simple logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 How silly. So you're saying that if weapons were seen or used at the incident, then the newspapers wouldn't report it? Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Just because they didn't use any weapons on the two victims here doesn't mean that they didn't carry any, had any with them in some bags nor could quickly get them from close by. It merely proves that none was used against the victims. And that police didn't try to arrest any of the criminals that assaulted the victims and therefor no-one was searched for weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 How silly. So you're saying that if weapons were seen or used at the incident, then the newspapers wouldn't report it? Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Just because they didn't use any weapons on the two victims here doesn't mean that they didn't carry any, had any with them in some bags nor could quickly get them from close by. It merely proves that none was used against the victims. And that police didn't try to arrest any of the criminals that assaulted the victims and therefor no-one was searched for weapons. Mae West walking past would have given a clue. She once asked "“Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?”" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Maybe we can just say that there was no evidence of them being armed, and no evidence of them having an arms stash located nearby, and move on. There was also no evidence of there being a bomb in the wreath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccw Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed. If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol: Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you? They may be thugs, but (in this case) they're hardly paramilitary. They looked like a paramilitary when running around with automatic weapons; RPGs and planting bombs across the country! Just because this time they didn't have any weapons on them doesn't make them not part of such an apparatus. Like an unarmed IRA fighter would still be described as a paramilitary all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed. If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol: Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you? They may be thugs, but (in this case) they're hardly paramilitary. They looked like a paramilitary when running around with automatic weapons; RPGs and planting bombs across the country! Just because this time they didn't have any weapons on them doesn't make them not part of such an apparatus. Like an unarmed IRA fighter would still be described as a paramilitary all the same. Precisely - you make your reputation and then you get described by it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 They were not armed. Arms or not, those definite thug-like characters had no right roughing up protesting students. Students have every right to voice their concerns. The violence is not justified. But the men were not students either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noBuzz Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 This seems to be a very difficult issue. Maybe I'd better consult my nearest village elder to find out the truth. I would have thought "paramilitary" meant an illegally armed group. I for one do not know if all those UDD-guards had licenses for their weapons, or if they had acquired permissions to use RPGs againts any enemy of the movement last year and 2009. It seems very hard to find an article saying the didnt have permission or licences. So I guess everything must have been in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) How silly. So you're saying that if weapons were seen or used at the incident, then the newspapers wouldn't report it? Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Just because they didn't use any weapons on the two victims here doesn't mean that they didn't carry any, had any with them in some bags nor could quickly get them from close by. It merely proves that none was used against the victims. And that police didn't try to arrest any of the criminals that assaulted the victims and therefor no-one was searched for weapons. Dear me. So you also accept that just because no evidence of mass red shirt graves have been found, that doesn't mean they don't exist and does nothing to decrease the likelihood of them existing? Fair enough. But using this line of argument reduces the debate to nothing more than a shouting match of opinions, since any purported fact can be undermined by semantic arguments and logic twists. Anyway, let's try to agree on a description of what happened then. How about 'The red shirts were not seen carrying any weapons'. Would this be more agreeable to you? To many, it would mean the same as 'being unarmed' but hey-ho, let's see if we can come to an all-round agreement on this. Edited August 28, 2011 by hanuman1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 no, no, no, ozmick, first YOU show proof that they had arms at their disposal within 5 minutes... ps: had to remove a "quote level" in order to post Get in line as far as wanting proof is concerned. I'm still waiting for it from ages ago when the claim was made that these two men were seen talking to a Dem MP shortly before the incident, i'm still waiting for proof that these two men were hired, i'm still waiting for proof that they were intentionally disguising themselves. Right now about all we have proof of is two men being assaulted by red shirts. The rest is conjecture. The Red Army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 The violence is not justified. But the men were not students either. If the violence is not justified, why is it relevant that men were students or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 How silly. So you're saying that if weapons were seen or used at the incident, then the newspapers wouldn't report it? Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Just because they didn't use any weapons on the two victims here doesn't mean that they didn't carry any, had any with them in some bags nor could quickly get them from close by. It merely proves that none was used against the victims. And that police didn't try to arrest any of the criminals that assaulted the victims and therefor no-one was searched for weapons. Dear me. So you also accept that just because no evidence of mass red shirt graves have been found, that doesn't mean they don't exist and does nothing to decrease the likelihood of them existing? Fair enough. But using this line of argument reduces the debate to nothing more than a shouting match of opinions, since any purported fact can be undermined by semantic arguments and logic twists. Anyway, let's try to agree on a description of what happened then. How about 'The red shirts were not seen carrying any weapons'. Would this be more agreeable to you? To many, it would mean the same as 'being unarmed' but hey-ho, let's see if we can come to an all-round agreement on this. Since there is no evidence to suggest that any Red Shirt mass-graves have ever existed, I wouldn't accept that notion. As oppose to us seeing Red Shirts being armed or reports of them being at training camps for an armed uprising. And the proposition was that you said that the Red Shirts was unarmed - a line that wasn't reported. You took this from the fact that the journalist didn't explicitly state weather they were armed or not. Fact of the matter is that we don't know if they were. If the police had done their job and arrested the attackers we would have. But alas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILT Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 " It is no great measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 The violence is not justified. But the men were not students either. If the violence is not justified, why is it relevant that men were students or not. It's not relevant at all, but it provides a straw that some people can clutch to while their argument drowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanuman1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Just because they didn't use any weapons on the two victims here doesn't mean that they didn't carry any, had any with them in some bags nor could quickly get them from close by. It merely proves that none was used against the victims. And that police didn't try to arrest any of the criminals that assaulted the victims and therefor no-one was searched for weapons. Dear me. So you also accept that just because no evidence of mass red shirt graves have been found, that doesn't mean they don't exist and does nothing to decrease the likelihood of them existing? Fair enough. But using this line of argument reduces the debate to nothing more than a shouting match of opinions, since any purported fact can be undermined by semantic arguments and logic twists. Anyway, let's try to agree on a description of what happened then. How about 'The red shirts were not seen carrying any weapons'. Would this be more agreeable to you? To many, it would mean the same as 'being unarmed' but hey-ho, let's see if we can come to an all-round agreement on this. Since there is no evidence to suggest that any Red Shirt mass-graves have ever existed, I wouldn't accept that notion. As oppose to us seeing Red Shirts being armed or reports of them being at training camps for an armed uprising. And the proposition was that you said that the Red Shirts was unarmed - a line that wasn't reported. You took this from the fact that the journalist didn't explicitly state weather they were armed or not. Fact of the matter is that we don't know if they were. If the police had done their job and arrested the attackers we would have. But alas... Okay, let's try again. There is substantial evidence that arms were not present (none were seen/reported). There is no evidence that arms were present (none were seen/reported). Now you may go on to say 'Don't believe everything you read in the papers'. Well quite. Radicals from both sides of the fence in this argument would do well to remember that. Edited August 28, 2011 by hanuman1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakseedaa Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power. Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power. In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence. And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner. That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed. If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol: Who said they were not armed..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcutman Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 75 years = 18 coup's Odds of another coup= 99% Odds of democracy= .01% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushdepth Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 75 years = 18 coup's Odds of another coup= 99% Odds of democracy= .01% Has anyone ever worked out the half life of a Thai PM? I bet it's still better than Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAG Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 If you seriously believe that the red shirt movement is not an armed force, despite the dead soldiers and numerous grenade attacks last year, and the number of red shirt members who have been caught with military weapons and/or confessed to using them, then you are seriously mentally imbalanced or suffering serious short term memory loss. Oh, and add in the exploding apartment building. BTW slingshots, Molotov cocktails and even wooden staves are weapons. If I was a serving soldier and you were to attack me with any one of the three, I would have no qualms about shooting you dead centre of the seen mass, just like the instruction manual recommends it. Edit:spelling And having been a serving soldier facing such a crowd, which was using such weapons, I can assure you that you would be facing a charge of murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now