Recalling October 7, 2008 Police Crackdown On Yellow-Shirt Protest

[noahvail]

They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters.

You seem to have a few difficulties with reading.

I stated that some buildings were indeed burned down by groups of Red Shirts, and that some buidings were burned down by opportunistic looters.

I am very sorry that facts do counter your opinions, but i am forced to follow facts, and not your opinions.

Actually, Nick, you said: "And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city"."

"most likely" really isn't a fact, is it.

[nicknostitz]

"Some parts of the PAD were as heavily armed back then in 2008 as some parts of the Red Shirts were."

Really? Grenade launchers and RPGs? I don't recall bomb attacks against Yellow Shirt "enemies" during their protests. But you may enlighten us over this grenades, RPGs and bombings by Yellow shirts.

There were no grenade attacks by the PAD against their opponents, indeed. Nevertheless - PAD guards did kill and injure several people. They have used guns against police officers. They have been armed with assault rifles.

Nevertheless - there are certain contributing factors that should not be underestimated, such as military support for the PAD, and an almost powerless government that was incapable to do anything against the PAD, and was hindered by many state institutions. Many institutions that were supposed to be independent came out in strong support of the PAD (such as the here cited NACC "inquiry" shows quite clearly).

State forces though were since the military coup poised against anti-coup protesters and then the Red Shirts, which naturally contributed to the increasing violence of hardcore factions within the Red Shirts. Abuses of power by the state against the Red Shirts went largely un-investigated - such as the Blue Shirts, or the early morning attack against Red Shirts April 13, 2009, in which the military used life ammunition against protesters.

Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?

[nicknostitz]

They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters.

You seem to have a few difficulties with reading.

I stated that some buildings were indeed burned down by groups of Red Shirts, and that some buidings were burned down by opportunistic looters.

I am very sorry that facts do counter your opinions, but i am forced to follow facts, and not your opinions.

Actually, Nick, you said: "And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city"."

"most likely" really isn't a fact, is it.

I am so sorry not to have let my post be checked by my editor for proper semantics.

But yes, there were buildings that most likely/ most definitely/ beyond any for me apparent reasonable doubt were burned down by opportunistic looters, and other that were burned down most likely/ most definitely/ beyond any for me apparent reasonable doubt burned down by groups of Red Shirts.

[gl555]

Oh so some of the buildings were burned down by opportunistic looters eh? Is that a personal opinion, a fact that is backed up by proof or as usual, a lie by the Red Shirts and their supporters?

They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters.

You seem to have a few difficulties with reading.

I stated that some buildings were indeed burned down by groups of Red Shirts, and that some buidings were burned down by opportunistic looters.

I am very sorry that facts do counter your opinions, but i am forced to follow facts, and not your opinions.

[h90]

"Some parts of the PAD were as heavily armed back then in 2008 as some parts of the Red Shirts were."

Really? Grenade launchers and RPGs? I don't recall bomb attacks against Yellow Shirt "enemies" during their protests. But you may enlighten us over this grenades, RPGs and bombings by Yellow shirts.

There were no grenade attacks by the PAD against their opponents, indeed. Nevertheless - PAD guards did kill and injure several people. They have used guns against police officers. They have been armed with assault rifles.

Nevertheless - there are certain contributing factors that should not be underestimated, such as military support for the PAD, and an almost powerless government that was incapable to do anything against the PAD, and was hindered by many state institutions. Many institutions that were supposed to be independent came out in strong support of the PAD (such as the here cited NACC "inquiry" shows quite clearly).

State forces though were since the military coup poised against anti-coup protesters and then the Red Shirts, which naturally contributed to the increasing violence of hardcore factions within the Red Shirts. Abuses of power by the state against the Red Shirts went largely un-investigated - such as the Blue Shirts, or the early morning attack against Red Shirts April 13, 2009, in which the military used life ammunition against protesters.

Anyhow, lets try to keep the discussion with the Oct. 7, 2008 topic of the threat. Have you got anything to say about the original article, the "inquiry" by the NACC, and the rejection of the their report by the OAG?

armed with assault rifles?

guns at police officers?

where when?

I don't know anything about assault rifles.

There were a few single shots in the direction of the police from 1 gun unknown from who.

If the police had tear gas and the PAD assault rifles it would have end different.

Edit: It does not make sense to have all the old PAD discussion again and again. I'll stop posting on that topic. It is just pointless to discuss the same thing again and again.

Edited October 7, 2011 by h90

[AleG]

There were no grenade attacks by the PAD against their opponents, indeed.

Therefore when you state that you only state facts and say that the Yellow Shirts were as heavily armed as the Red Shirts, well that isn't quite as much a fact then.

I've only seen proof of some Yellow Shirts firing handguns and "Ping-pong" bombs (large firecrackers), none of throwing grenades, firing RPGs or using automatic fire from assault weapons against security forces or civilians. Stating as a fact that both groups were as heavily armed is a complete twist of the facts.

Edited October 7, 2011 by AleG

[patjem]

The way you're writing it makes it sound that just because the PAD did that, the Red Shirts can do this. "This" being try to burn the city down. Both acts were wrong but what the Red Shirts did was the worse of the two.

Oh they only burned down "a few buildings". Yes I can see why you're called a Red Shirt apologist! Yeah the Red Shirts are all about 'truth'! They do something bad, it's other people's fault. They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters. Yeah they're truly lucky to have diehard revisionists like you to turn shit and make it smell of roses. You're a credit to your kind.

So this excuses the Red Shirts trying to burn down this city? Riiiiight.

I don't see where in my post i have excused anything.

I have stated facts.

Actually - a few burned down buildings does not constitute "trying to burn down this city", which has somewhat more than 40 buildings.

And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city".

But let the truth not get in the way of a good story...

Nick, you love to twist things don't you. In this post, you state "a few", which I would consider 40 to be rather more than a few, and particularly given the selection of said targeted buildings. Your response later on the trail, you then change your verbiage to "some buildings". As for the opportunistic looters, I would suggest that there's more than reasonable assumptions that they were red shirts anyway..... I recollect they'd been told to dispense their red attire, anyway. Anyway, the yellows should also have been dispersed.

[scotbeve]

This article is more than liberal with facts.

A few corrections:

PAD did not just gather around parliament, the protesters blocked all parliament entries already the previous day to hinder the Somchai government from delivering their policy speech. They have erected barbed wire barricades. Police attacked early morning, just after sunrise, and used teargas. Some of the teargas the police used was chinese teargas with RDX explosive charges, which caused several protesters' loss off limbs. Police was just that morning equipped with this teargas (procured under the Chuan government and from old stocks), has not trained with this particular teargas. There was no intend to maim protesters, it was a screw up.

It was not "extremely difficult" to transport wounded to the hospitals. The first police attack was halted as soon as their aim to open the parliament gates was achieved - about 15 to 20 minutes after the operation began. From the side of the pushed back PAD protesters ambulances could access the protesters freely. The injured which remained in the police held area were also soon transported to the hospital.

The second attack at 10 am was actually not an attack by police against PAD protesters trying to break through a police barricade to join their fellow protesters - on the opposite: protesters from government house had all along free access to their fellow protesters at parliament. What happened was that police protecting the National Police Headquarters was attacked by PAD protesters (who also fired a few gunshots at police). Police was pushed back into the Metropolitan Police Headquarters.

In the afternoon, police had to re-open the parliament gates to enable parliamentarians and civil servants to leave the compound, as the PAD has re-taken the streets by then. While keeing the gates open, PAD protesters attacked the police lines and people leaving parliament relentlessly, while police was mostly in a defensive position, constantly in danger of beeing surrounded by PAD protesters. During this time several police officers were injured by gunshots fired by PAD guards, for some time these injured officers were trapped in parliament, PAD not letting ambulances through to them.

Forensics are quite clear over the incident which killed Methee Chartmontree - the jeep was his car, and he the explosion occurred when he lifted the bombs.

When people have left parliament, police retreated to protect the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, and was in a purely defensive position. Ankhana died when police defended itself against a heavy attack by PAD protesters which closed in to parliament (i was there - and i have photographed Ankhana at the place of her death).

While it is true that the police has screwed up with the use of the Chinese teargas grenades, the dispersal was a legal dispersal. It is absolutely untrue to project the PAD as innocent and peaceful protesters - the only side which has used firearms that day were PAD protesters, not the security forces.

Here is the story which i wrote at the time, including images:

http://asiapacific.a...ned-on-7102008/

Thanks for the link and your reply... Lest we forget what happened then....

[rubl]

By the way, this "investigation report" was rejected by the Office of the Attorney General when forwarded by the subcommittee, on grounds of being incomplete, not having interviewed enough witnesses (you can find a link of the story in the Bangkok Post, published on October 21, 2009).

Embarrassing...

Reports rejected because of incompleteness, and not having interviewed enough witnesses seems not really embarrassing. It happens more often. Now if the report had been rejected because of glaring errors that would be another matter

[rubl]

So this excuses the Red Shirts trying to burn down this city? Riiiiight.

I don't see where in my post i have excused anything.

I have stated facts.

Actually - a few burned down buildings does not constitute "trying to burn down this city", which has somewhat more than 40 buildings.

And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city".

But let the truth not get in the way of a good story...

Actually even a single building would be more than those who Dr. weng called 'terrorists' of the PAD burned down. For the UDD 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' somewhat more than 40 buildings torched seems odd

Edited October 7, 2011 by rubl

[Arkady]

"It was widely believed that the police intentionally and directly fired tear gas into the crowd."

As opposed to the rest of the world where Police fire tear gas into the crowd by mistake.

but it was military grade which explodes opposed to the tear gas that is used in the rest of the world. Or did you hear about lost legs from other countries?

...and you know this for a fact? The rest of the world calls military grade explosives, military grade explosives not tear gas. So, you are now saying the below par and mostly incompetent BIB got their hands on military grade explosives, and somehow repacked them to look like tear gas and used them to inflict casualties among the PAD supporters. Been to the Cinema one too many times now have we?

It is long discussed and admitted from the police. They bought the tear gas in China a long time ago and it is in explosive containers. So there is a small explosion to distribute the tear gas, while the western "slowly" gas out on itself. There is a lot old discussion about it, which you can find on Thai visa.

When these are shot into the people instead of somewhere close to them and something unlucky happens bad injuries can happen (and did happen), people lost legs.

The police told, they didn't know about that problem before and I tend to believe them.

It's very charitable of you to believe the police but the fact is that they continued firing the tear gas cylinders at the protesters from shot guns for a long time after they had observed the cans exploding and seriously wounding people. In fact they should not have been firing the tear gas directly at people in the first place, even before they realised it was of the explosive type. Also it is rather hard to believe that no one knew what type of tear gas they were distributing. A police investigation soon afterwards determined that there was no record of the tear gas having been ordered from China and no one was responsible. Yeah, right. You can also believe the eye witness account of red shirt reporter, Nick Nostitz, on the farang red shirt website New Mandala in which he claimed the police acted with the utmost restraint. LOL.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Arkady

[rubl]

It is long discussed and admitted from the police. They bought the tear gas in China a long time ago and it is in explosive containers. So there is a small explosion to distribute the tear gas, while the western "slowly" gas out on itself. There is a lot old discussion about it, which you can find on Thai visa.

When these are shot into the people instead of somewhere close to them and something unlucky happens bad injuries can happen (and did happen), people lost legs.

The police told, they didn't know about that problem before and I tend to believe them.

It's very charitable of you to believe the police but the fact is that they continued firing the tear gas cylinders at the protesters from shot guns for a long time after they had observed the cans exploding and seriously wounding people. In fact they should not have been firing the tear gas directly at people in the first place, even before they realised it was of the explosive type. Also it is rather hard to believe that no one knew what type of tear gas they were distributing. A police investigation soon afterwards determined that there was no record of the tear gas having been ordered from China and no one was responsible. Yeah, right. You can also believe the eye witness account of red shirt reporter, Nick Nostitz, on the farang red shirt website New Mandala in which he claimed the police acted with the utmost restraint. LOL.

Restraint? must have been the special training some police units get regarding crowd control. One of the complaints on using the army to disperse the UDD red-shirts was lack of training

[serenitynow]

So one entity, OAG, constitutes "widely discredited".

Embarrassing.

Given that the OAG decides which case the proceed at court with or not, it is the only entity of real importance here regarding the "inquiry".

And the OAG has rejected the report.

Is that same OAG that just took a dive for Potjaman?

[serenitynow]

They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters.

You seem to have a few difficulties with reading.

I stated that some buildings were indeed burned down by groups of Red Shirts, and that some buidings were burned down by opportunistic looters.

I am very sorry that facts do counter your opinions, but i am forced to follow facts, and not your opinions.

Actually, Nick, you said: "And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city"."

"most likely" really isn't a fact, is it.

I am so sorry not to have let my post be checked by my editor for proper semantics.

But yes, there were buildings that most likely/ most definitely/ beyond any for me apparent reasonable doubt were burned down by opportunistic looters, and other that were burned down most likely/ most definitely/ beyond any for me apparent reasonable doubt burned down by groups of Red Shirts.

How many buildings did opportunistic looters burn down befor the Red Shirts started burning buildings?

[nicknostitz]

armed with assault rifles?

guns at police officers?

where when?

I don't know anything about assault rifles.

There were a few single shots in the direction of the police from 1 gun unknown from who.

If the police had tear gas and the PAD assault rifles it would have end different.

Edit: It does not make sense to have all the old PAD discussion again and again. I'll stop posting on that topic. It is just pointless to discuss the same thing again and again.

There are a lot of things you don't know.

Yes, they have had about three M16's and 12 Uzi's they stole from a Special Branch police station in Government House. One was returned to police in a sting operation by Dindaeng Police (i have images). The remaining weapons are still missing. And those are only the war weapons we have clear proof of having been (being?) in the hand of the PAD.

[gl555]

And we making things up as we go along?

armed with assault rifles?

guns at police officers?

where when?

I don't know anything about assault rifles.

There were a few single shots in the direction of the police from 1 gun unknown from who.

If the police had tear gas and the PAD assault rifles it would have end different.

Edit: It does not make sense to have all the old PAD discussion again and again. I'll stop posting on that topic. It is just pointless to discuss the same thing again and again.

There are a lot of things you don't know.

Yes, they have had about three M16's and 12 Uzi's they stole from a Special Branch police station in Government House. One was returned to police in a sting operation by Dindaeng Police (i have images). The remaining weapons are still missing. And those are only the war weapons we have clear proof of having been (being?) in the hand of the PAD.

[h90]

armed with assault rifles?

guns at police officers?

where when?

I don't know anything about assault rifles.

There were a few single shots in the direction of the police from 1 gun unknown from who.

If the police had tear gas and the PAD assault rifles it would have end different.

Edit: It does not make sense to have all the old PAD discussion again and again. I'll stop posting on that topic. It is just pointless to discuss the same thing again and again.

There are a lot of things you don't know.

Yes, they have had about three M16's and 12 Uzi's they stole from a Special Branch police station in Government House. One was returned to police in a sting operation by Dindaeng Police (i have images). The remaining weapons are still missing. And those are only the war weapons we have clear proof of having been (being?) in the hand of the PAD.

:jap: please send me the images.

And more interestingly when they were used at PAD demonstrations.

You know that it isn't a big thing to buy a M16 or AKA-47 in Thailand, some of the old communist fighters I think both at the PAD and red shirts still have the complete equipment. So it less the question if the PAD could get weapons, which is really not difficult in Thailand, it is the question if they had them and used them at the demonstrations. And there wasn't much. A few bullets on the 7th October, without much harm at a single place officially not known where fired from.

No one even claimed that the police was shot but M16s or Uzis.

[nicknostitz]

armed with assault rifles?

guns at police officers?

where when?

I don't know anything about assault rifles.

There were a few single shots in the direction of the police from 1 gun unknown from who.

If the police had tear gas and the PAD assault rifles it would have end different.

Edit: It does not make sense to have all the old PAD discussion again and again. I'll stop posting on that topic. It is just pointless to discuss the same thing again and again.

There are a lot of things you don't know.

Yes, they have had about three M16's and 12 Uzi's they stole from a Special Branch police station in Government House. One was returned to police in a sting operation by Dindaeng Police (i have images). The remaining weapons are still missing. And those are only the war weapons we have clear proof of having been (being?) in the hand of the PAD.

:jap: please send me the images.

And more interestingly when they were used at PAD demonstrations.

You know that it isn't a big thing to buy a M16 or AKA-47 in Thailand, some of the old communist fighters I think both at the PAD and red shirts still have the complete equipment. So it less the question if the PAD could get weapons, which is really not difficult in Thailand, it is the question if they had them and used them at the demonstrations. And there wasn't much. A few bullets on the 7th October, without much harm at a single place officially not known where fired from.

No one even claimed that the police was shot but M16s or Uzis.

Well, yes, i know that it is quite easy and amazingly cheap to buy black market AK 47's and M16's. I am talking here about stolen Uzi's and M16's which are registered. Go to a book store and have a look into my first book on this mess - there is a picture of the weapons caught in the sting, including the ID card of the Srivichai warrior. There is another image of the guards that were arrested for taking the public bus, including their home made shotgun pistol. They were just sentenced to two years in prison.

I never said that the police officers were shot by these assault rifles. There were though in the hands of the PAD, and at the time it was assumed (correctly in my opinion) than in case of a real dispersal - they would have been used.

Oct. 7 was not a dispersal action, police had only court orders to open the parliament gates, and not to disperse the PAD.

There were during 2008 far more shots fired by PAD guards than just the shots fired on Oct. 7. One drunk man was killed by guards behind the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, a car with young people was shot at one of their barricades when they made the wrong turn - the driver wounded in the shoulder, the infamous attack against the taxi community radio station at Vibhavadi Soi 3, the many shots fired by PAD guards on the September 2 battle at makhawan, a van of a journalist's team being fired up at Don Muang airport, a dead yet unidentified Naclop Srivichai left behind at Don Muang, a man whose throat was slit and who was left for dead in a ditch at Suvanabhumi Airport, etc.

Yes, we know that what most likely were Red Shirts launched many M79 grenades into the PAD killing and wounding many. But please do not try to make the PAD appear as peaceful - because they weren't either. There was more violence also by PAD fighters in 2009, and also in 2010, some of which i have managed to photograph. And yes, before anyone says so - i have also photographed Red Shirt violence on more than a few occasions.

[rubl]

There are a lot of things you don't know.

Yes, they have had about three M16's and 12 Uzi's they stole from a Special Branch police station in Government House. One was returned to police in a sting operation by Dindaeng Police (i have images). The remaining weapons are still missing. And those are only the war weapons we have clear proof of having been (being?) in the hand of the PAD.

Well, yes, i know that it is quite easy and amazingly cheap to buy black market AK 47's and M16's. I am talking here about stolen Uzi's and M16's which are registered. Go to a book store and have a look into my first book on this mess - there is a picture of the weapons caught in the sting, including the ID card of the Srivichai warrior. There is another image of the guards that were arrested for taking the public bus, including their home made shotgun pistol. They were just sentenced to two years in prison.

rubl: Complete paragraphs removed, just check the original

I know I'm a stickler for details, sorry.

If one of the weapons was recovered in a sting the picture in your book can hardly show 'the weapons caught'. It's either one weapon, or more, not both

Edited October 7, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

I know I'm a stickler for details, sorry.

If one of the weapons was recovered in a sting the picture in your book can hardly show 'the weapons caught'. It's either one weapon, or more, not both

The stolen and recovered Uzi, and a handgun.

Weapons.

[Buchholz]

ever the apologist

Government House was not burned down. It returned to functioning a lot sooner than the 40 buildings torched during May Red Mayhem 2010.

Rather than "imagine", people like gl555 are aware of happened and can differentiate the two situations.

No, i simply state facts.

No, you don't "simply state facts" when you include in your post such non-factual events that never occurred...

Imagine how

[Buchholz]

So one entity, OAG, constitutes "widely discredited".

Embarrassing.

Given that the OAG decides which case the proceed at court with or not, it is the only entity of real importance here regarding the "inquiry".

And the OAG has rejected the report.

So then, your "widely discredited" boils down to simply one entity.

Speaking of discredited, that's a bit of rather embarrassingly hyperbole on your part.

.

[Buchholz]

They burn down 'just a few buildings' and it was done by looters.

You seem to have a few difficulties with reading.

I stated that some buildings were indeed burned down by groups of Red Shirts, and that some buidings were burned down by opportunistic looters.

I am very sorry that facts do counter your opinions, but i am forced to follow facts, and not your opinions.

Actually, Nick, you said: "And if we go into the details of the burned down buildings - there are some that were clearly burned down by groups of Red Shirts, but others that have most likely been burned down by opportunistic looters. Things were a bit more complex than "Red Shirts burned the city"."

"most likely" really isn't a fact, is it.

It went from "most likely" at 15:16 to becoming a "fact" at 15:55.

You have to admire nick's speed, noahvail.

.

[Buchholz]

There were no grenade attacks by the PAD against their opponents, indeed.

Therefore when you state that you only state facts and say that the Yellow Shirts were as heavily armed as the Red Shirts, well that isn't quite as much a fact then.

I've only seen proof of some Yellow Shirts firing handguns and "Ping-pong" bombs (large firecrackers), none of throwing grenades, firing RPGs or using automatic fire from assault weapons against security forces or civilians. Stating as a fact that both groups were as heavily armed is a complete twist of the facts.

Correct you are, AleG.

It's revisionism to attempt to equate the two onto a level field of offenses, when clearly that was not the case.

.

[Buchholz]

It's very charitable of you to believe the police but the fact is that they continued firing the tear gas cylinders at the protesters from shot guns for a long time after they had observed the cans exploding and seriously wounding people. In fact they should not have been firing the tear gas directly at people in the first place, even before they realised it was of the explosive type. Also it is rather hard to believe that no one knew what type of tear gas they were distributing. A police investigation soon afterwards determined that there was no record of the tear gas having been ordered from China and no one was responsible. Yeah, right. You can also believe the eye witness account of red shirt reporter, Nick Nostitz, on the farang red shirt website New Mandala in which he claimed the police acted with the utmost restraint. LOL.

Absolutely lethal stuff the police were firing and they were firing their RDX-explosive tear gas on a horizontal level.

[Siam Simon]

Nick, as usual, thanks for your witness evidence. I hope you're only posting for fun in debating with the posters you're debating with. You may by now have realised that, on this forum, establishing the truth of political events is at best not important. What is really, really important is to blame everything that goes wrong in Thailand on Thaksin Shinawatra/anybody associated with him. It's completely unnaceptable to ever, ever, ever blame anybody, anywhere for any wrong-doing if they happen to oppose Thaksin or anybody associated with him. Failure to comply will always result in the poster being hounded into a state of complete boredom by the 'team' .

[Buchholz]

<snip>

It's completely unnaceptable to ever, ever, ever blame anybody, anywhere for any wrong-doing if they happen to oppose Thaksin or anybody associated with him. <snip>

How's that again?

[craigt3365]

One post discussing moderation has been removed along with an associated reply.

It is acceptable to <snip> part of a member's post, and only display a section for a reply. But it's best to insert the <snip> part to show you have removed that part of the other members post.

:jap:

[Buchholz]

Thank you for restating Thaivisa's policy on not needing to include an entire post when quoting.

I'll remember to include <snip> on future replies and in the meantime will await SiamSimon's to reply to the question posed.

[tlansford]

Nick, as usual, thanks for your witness evidence. I hope you're only posting for fun in debating with the posters you're debating with. You may by now have realised that, on this forum, establishing the truth of political events is at best not important. What is really, really important is to blame everything that goes wrong in Thailand on Thaksin Shinawatra/anybody associated with him. It's completely unnaceptable to ever, ever, ever blame anybody, anywhere for any wrong-doing if they happen to oppose Thaksin or anybody associated with him. Failure to comply will always result in the poster being hounded into a state of complete boredom by the 'team' .

several valid points regarding the value of truth and hounding.