It Didn't Take Long For The Deep Divide To Show Its Head

[scorecard]

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:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

You make a categorical statement 'They were not armed'.

You cannot possibly know this.

I'll put it another way. Given the red types who hang around like this, if I suddenly encountered them, outside of parliament of anywhere, it would very quickly come into my mind 'what weapons are they possibly carrying?', let alone the thought that they would probably have not much hesitation to be quite intimidating, even violent. And that thought would make me very wary of any form of discussion with them.

Edited August 28, 2011 by scorecard

[Crushdepth]

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.

Yeah right. What do you think will happen if you attack your nearest traffic cop with a stave? He'll blow your head off, and he won't be going to jail either. You can't just go around attacking people, if you use violence you have to expect people will defend themselves.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Crushdepth

[moe666]

Well it seems that the PTP have suceeded on this thread which started out as a OP on deep divides showing there heads to a worthless discussion if some thugs where armed or if the men they assulted where students or not. I will have to give PTP supporters a check for round one.

Edited August 28, 2011 by moe666

[lungmi]

The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)

will fight for the truth, for real democracy.

They didn't change their label (may be I missed it).

This time I support them, they wait for the new dictator, his name starts with a T?

I'm confused, my brain is not clear, I stay too longtime in Thailand.

Someone can help me?

[animatic]

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.

Ah hah!

The legendary Drowning Straw Man Argument!!!

[rametindallas]

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:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

They were armed with fists and feet!

[animatic]

The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)

will fight for the truth, for real democracy.

They didn't change their label (may be I missed it).

This time I support them, they wait for the new dictator, his name starts with a T?

I'm confused, my brain is not clear, I stay too longtime in Thailand.

Someone can help me?

My sympathies,

living life inside a circular argument can be hard for the logically minded.

[animatic]

'OzMick' timestamp='1314500940' post='4655490'

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:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

They were armed with fists and feet!

A jackboot in the head will leave you just as dead as a bullet,

Any shod foot is considered a deadly weapon.

A mob kicking you is not going to be any nicer than one man shooting you.

[geriatrickid]

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.

Oh my. So are you saying that the non existant Democratic Student Group actually exists? It does not, nor were these instigators representatives of a student group. Why do you ignore the fact that the incident was an attempt to provoke a confrontation? When people start a fight in the schoolyard they shouldn't go running to the principal to complain when they lose the fight they started.

[geriatrickid]

Well it seems that the PTP have suceeded on this thread which started out as a OP on deep divides showing there heads to a worthless discussion if some thugs where armed or if the men they assulted where students or not. I will have to give PTP supporters a check for round one.

The key element was that two instigators were caught as they attempted to mislead the public. The kneekerk reaction to defend two deceitful troublemakers speaks for itself. Had these people been legitimate protestors that were actually students and represented a bonafide group, I too would be condemning the Thais that had stopped them. The fact of the matter was that these two were really no different than the folks that work in the boiler rooms scamming unsuspecting consumers. These men were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

[Crushdepth]

Well it seems that the PTP have suceeded on this thread which started out as a OP on deep divides showing there heads to a worthless discussion if some thugs where armed or if the men they assulted where students or not. I will have to give PTP supporters a check for round one.

The key element was that two instigators were caught as they attempted to mislead the public. The kneekerk reaction to defend two deceitful troublemakers speaks for itself. Had these people been legitimate protestors that were actually students and represented a bonafide group, I too would be condemning the Thais that had stopped them. The fact of the matter was that these two were really no different than the folks that work in the boiler rooms scamming unsuspecting consumers. These men were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

So they deserved to be beaten up?

[Livinginexile]

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:

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?

Ermmm...you mean like the yellow shirt thugs that did the same thing a couple of years ago?

Those kind of thugs?

[rubl]

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:

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?

Ermmm...you mean like the yellow shirt thugs that did the same thing a couple of years ago?

Those kind of thugs?

Although in some ways similar, also not really similar. The time you refer to is probably the time government house was occupied by yellow-shirts. This time we talk about peaceful red-shirts who just stand there to show their support of the current government. The yellow-shirts were a bit on edge, being besieged; the red-shirts are their normal relaxed self

[OzMick]

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.

Having been a serving soldier, you will no doubt know the expression "Better a court martial than a military funeral." You may also notice that I didn't say that I would do it un-ordered, but that I would have no qualms. If somebody wishes to attack me with an inferior deadly weapon, why should I care that I have a better. And if you had achieved any rank, you should know that a fair fight is far from desirable in military terms.

JAG - sounds like a REMF. My apologies if I am mistaken.

[rubl]

Oh my. So are you saying that the non existant Democratic Student Group actually exists? It does not, nor were these instigators representatives of a student group. Why do you ignore the fact that the incident was an attempt to provoke a confrontation? When people start a fight in the schoolyard they shouldn't go running to the principal to complain when they lose the fight they started.

This is a very interesting comparison. It also suggests that the police was wrong in trying to remove the miscreants and should have let the others beat them up. Just like you seem to want teachers just stand by and only pick up the pieces afterwards. Novel idea, my dear chap. Bravo

[OzMick]

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.

Oh my. So are you saying that the non existant Democratic Student Group actually exists? It does not, nor were these instigators representatives of a student group. Why do you ignore the fact that the incident was an attempt to provoke a confrontation? When people start a fight in the schoolyard they shouldn't go running to the principal to complain when they lose the fight they started.

Which is illegal, being confrontational or assault?

[hanuman1]

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

They were armed with fists and feet!

A jackboot in the head will leave you just as dead as a bullet,

Any shod foot is considered a deadly weapon.

A mob kicking you is not going to be any nicer than one man shooting you.

So being in possession of hands, feet and boots means 'being armed'.

Be serious. I know you're both manfully trying to fit this particular group of errant red shirts in with your general perception of the red shirt movement being an armed group, but why not just accept the information we know and admit that these people were seen not to be carrying anything that most people the world over would consider a weapon?

I understand that your predisposition to link red shirted protesters with arms at any given opportunity is based on well documented incidents from some time ago when some members of this rather large movement were clearly armed, but since this thread is about one particular incident where no weapons were observed I don't see the point of attributing the adjective 'armed' to them, unless it is for fear of allowing the possibility that sometimes - and I would argue most times - red shirted demonstrators are actually unarmed.

[TAWP]

No-one actually claimed they were armed per se at the time they beat up the two protesters - but that they can be called an para-military group since they have received military training on foreign soil and is known to be in possession of a lot of weapons, including war weapons.

Even if they were unarmed at the time they beat up two unarmed protestors.

[animatic]

'scorecard' timestamp='1314507765' post='4655813'

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

They were armed with fists and feet!

A jackboot in the head will leave you just as dead as a bullet,

Any shod foot is considered a deadly weapon.

A mob kicking you is not going to be any nicer than one man shooting you.

So being in possession of hands, feet and boots means 'being armed'.

Be serious. I know you're both manfully trying to fit this particular group of errant red shirts in with your general perception of the red shirt movement being an armed group, but why not just accept the information we know and admit that these people were seen not to be carrying anything that most people the world over would consider a weapon?

I understand that your predisposition to link red shirted protesters with arms at any given opportunity is based on well documented incidents from some time ago when some members of this rather large movement were clearly armed, but since this thread is about one particular incident where no weapons were observed I don't see the point of attributing the adjective 'armed' to them, unless it is for fear of allowing the possibility that sometimes - and I would argue most times - red shirted demonstrators are actually unarmed.

No, you are incorrect.

1 ) I never said they were seen to be carrying visible weapons, that was someone else.

2 ) Kicking someone in the head with a shod foot is usually in most places I have lived considered using a lethal weapon.

3 ) Multiple persons assaulting someone to stop their calm actions is generally NEVER considered a peaceful act.

Facts, not trying to bend a premis to fit my feelings.

Nor was I trying to make it a personal argument as you just did.

Don't bother to spin, the posts ideas isn't lubricated enough for more turns on the wheel.

Edited August 28, 2011 by animatic

[hanuman1]

No-one actually claimed they were armed per se at the time they beat up the two protesters - but that they can be called an para-military group since they have received military training on foreign soil and is known to be in possession of a lot of weapons, including war weapons.

Even if they were unarmed at the time they beat up two unarmed protestors.

No-one is excusing the fact that they manhandled (this word is from the report) or even hit those two unarmed 'protestors' - if that's what they were.

The problem for me is that you and others transform the 'they' who allegedly received received military training on foreign soil to the 'they' who assaulted the two people you referred to, and also the 'they' who generally make up the numbers at red shirt protests. Were they the same people? To you it may seem like I am nit-picking. To others, it would appear to be a symptom of prejudice.

[hanuman1]

They were armed with fists and feet!

A jackboot in the head will leave you just as dead as a bullet,

Any shod foot is considered a deadly weapon.

A mob kicking you is not going to be any nicer than one man shooting you.

So being in possession of hands, feet and boots means 'being armed'.

Be serious. I know you're both manfully trying to fit this particular group of errant red shirts in with your general perception of the red shirt movement being an armed group, but why not just accept the information we know and admit that these people were seen not to be carrying anything that most people the world over would consider a weapon?

I understand that your predisposition to link red shirted protesters with arms at any given opportunity is based on well documented incidents from some time ago when some members of this rather large movement were clearly armed, but since this thread is about one particular incident where no weapons were observed I don't see the point of attributing the adjective 'armed' to them, unless it is for fear of allowing the possibility that sometimes - and I would argue most times - red shirted demonstrators are actually unarmed.

No, you are incorrect.

1 ) I never said they were seen to be carrying visible weapons, that was someone else.

2 ) Kicking someone in the head with a shod foot is usually in most places I have lived considered using a lethal weapon.

3 ) Multiple persons assaulting someone to stop their calm actions is generally NEVER considered a peaceful act.

Facts, not trying to bend a premis to fit my feelings.

Nor was I trying to make it a personal argument as you just did.

Don't bother to spin, the posts ideas isn't lubricated enough for more turns on the wheel.

I agree with your points 1 and 3.

As for 2, I don't know anywhere where the law prescribes that a boot is considered a lethal weapon before the fact in any circumstance. If it were so, most street brawls after the pubs have shut in many countries would bring charges of attempted murder.

And whilst we're on the subject of lethal footwear, what do you mean by 'shod'? A sandal? A hushpuppy? Hobnailed boots? Which were those hotheaded redshirts wearing if/when they kicked someone in the head? You may feel this is nit-picking, but judicial decisions are based on such detail.

[rubl]

No-one is excusing the fact that they manhandled (this word is from the report) or even hit those two unarmed 'protestors' - if that's what they were.

The problem for me is that you and others transform the 'they' who allegedly received received military training on foreign soil to the 'they' who assaulted the two people you referred to, and also the 'they' who generally make up the numbers at red shirt protests. Were they the same people? To you it may seem like I am nit-picking. To others, it would appear to be a symptom of prejudice.

As I mentioned in the thread already closed because of a multitude of daft remarks (IMHO), those two protesters must have had days in which they made smarter decisions. Of the red-shirts who may have been a bit bored just standing there, you can say the same. To me the red-shirts are more to blame than the two former students.

What really annoys me is people from both (or all) side of the fence jumping on this incident and vocalising uncalled-for speculation. Now that's where a deep divide is shown. Fortunately most involved are farang, so for Thai it doesn't really matter

[nurofiend]

No, you are incorrect.

1 ) I never said they were seen to be carrying visible weapons, that was someone else.

2 ) Kicking someone in the head with a shod foot is usually in most places I have lived considered using a lethal weapon.

3 ) Multiple persons assaulting someone to stop their calm actions is generally NEVER considered a peaceful act.

Facts, not trying to bend a premis to fit my feelings.

Nor was I trying to make it a personal argument as you just did.

Don't bother to spin, the posts ideas isn't lubricated enough for more turns on the wheel.

i wrote this before you changed your post but anyway....kicking someone with a shoed foot is indeed considered using a lethal weapon in a lot of places, does that mean you call anyone that is wearing shoes 'armed'?

"the deadly giant shoed army are coming, run for the hills"

anyway, this argument is stupid, clearly hanuman is saying they didn't have guns because of the paramilitary comment.

if they did have guns it would have been reported, obviously....did one of them have a gun in their waistband...who knows? but i doubt it

as i said it's a stupid argument that no one can win

but to call the red shirts paramilitaries is a joke

do they have armed groups among their followers, yes

someone used an IRA analogy (i think in this thread).....well i will do the same, the ira are republican catholics. republican catholics in NI are a distinct group with the same basic politicial views..... but do you say republican catholics are paramilitaries? no, you say the ira are.

calling the red shirts a paramilitary group is just factually incorrect

Edited August 28, 2011 by nurofiend

[hanuman1]

No-one is excusing the fact that they manhandled (this word is from the report) or even hit those two unarmed 'protestors' - if that's what they were.

The problem for me is that you and others transform the 'they' who allegedly received received military training on foreign soil to the 'they' who assaulted the two people you referred to, and also the 'they' who generally make up the numbers at red shirt protests. Were they the same people? To you it may seem like I am nit-picking. To others, it would appear to be a symptom of prejudice.

As I mentioned in the thread already closed because of a multitude of daft remarks (IMHO), those two protesters must have had days in which they made smarter decisions. Of the red-shirts who may have been a bit bored just standing there, you can say the same. To me the red-shirts are more to blame than the two former students.

What really annoys me is people from both (or all) side of the fence jumping on this incident and vocalising uncalled-for speculation. Now that's where a deep divide is shown. Fortunately most involved are farang, so for Thai it doesn't really matter

I know - but it passes the time and adds content to ThaiVisa, so everyone's happy!!!

[whybother]

No-one actually claimed they were armed per se at the time they beat up the two protesters - but that they can be called an para-military group since they have received military training on foreign soil and is known to be in possession of a lot of weapons, including war weapons.

Even if they were unarmed at the time they beat up two unarmed protestors.

No-one is excusing the fact that they manhandled (this word is from the report) or even hit those two unarmed 'protestors' - if that's what they were.

The problem for me is that you and others transform the 'they' who allegedly received received military training on foreign soil to the 'they' who assaulted the two people you referred to, and also the 'they' who generally make up the numbers at red shirt protests. Were they the same people? To you it may seem like I am nit-picking. To others, it would appear to be a symptom of prejudice.

Actually, GK is excusing the fact that they were attacked, all because they weren't currently students.

[lannarebirth]

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.

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

If you care to visit Chiang Mai, I can show you proof that every Thai I've ever met has arms available within 5 minutes. What, do you live in some kind of inner city bubble? Well, if you do, know this; all those people have arms available in 5 minutes also, and most a dam_n sight quicker.

Edited August 29, 2011 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

The key element was that two instigators were caught as they attempted to mislead the public. The kneekerk reaction to defend two deceitful troublemakers speaks for itself. Had these people been legitimate protestors that were actually students and represented a bonafide group, I too would be condemning the Thais that had stopped them. The fact of the matter was that these two were really no different than the folks that work in the boiler rooms scamming unsuspecting consumers. These men were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

What a an idiot you show youself to be by spinning all this irrelevant bullshit. I think I speak for many people here when I say that your posts used to contain, interesting and often factual material that helped clarify some topics that you had more knowledge of than others. If they weren't absolutely true, they were at least intriguing. Now you're just a spammer for a would be fascist dictator. You and Goebbels would seem to have a lot in common. NTTAWRT!

[lannarebirth]

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:

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?

Ermmm...you mean like the yellow shirt thugs that did the same thing a couple of years ago?

Those kind of thugs?

Liar. The day is still young, are you drunk already?

[thaivisitorTeeVee]

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

glad you are not a soldier

Agreed. He will be a trigger happy jarhead....soldiers take orders and not fire indiscriminately.

[scorecard]

The key element was that two instigators were caught as they attempted to mislead the public. The kneekerk reaction to defend two deceitful troublemakers speaks for itself. Had these people been legitimate protestors that were actually students and represented a bonafide group, I too would be condemning the Thais that had stopped them. The fact of the matter was that these two were really no different than the folks that work in the boiler rooms scamming unsuspecting consumers. These men were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

What a an idiot you show youself to be by spinning all this irrelevant bullshit. I think I speak for many people here when I say that your posts used to contain, interesting and often factual material that helped clarify some topics that you had more knowledge of than others. If they weren't absolutely true, they were at least intriguing. Now you're just a spammer for a would be fascist dictator. You and Goebbels would seem to have a lot in common. NTTAWRT!

Geriatrickid, you leave yourself open again and again.

- What difference does it make whether they were students, ex-students, members of a movie star fan club, or whatever?

- You, in a round about way suggest they were not legitimate protestors - how can you possible know this?

- Represent a bonafide group - so you seem to be saying that citizens are not allowed to protest unless they do so under the name of a recognized group. So who decides what/who is a recognized group? So where does universal freedom of speech for every citizen fit into this scenario?

- The Thais that stopped them - so vigilante actions based on no details is OK with you?

- Your comparison to folks who work in boiler rooms is simply not relevant.

- You really want to take up a discussion about legitimate protesters then be ready for a lot of posts suggesting that the red shirt protests were not legitimate: paid to attend, the vast majority of attendees have no real understanding of what they supposedly protesting about, incited to riot rather than encouraged to take up logical and insightful discussion, etc.

Edited August 29, 2011 by scorecard