Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

[Buchholz]

i'm done with trying to explain and reason with you buchholz, i'm done

finito, ok? thanks.

Up to you.

Have a nice day.

[hanuman1]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

You clearly think you know what you are talking about, but I fear you have not attained that level of understanding about what I am saying. Please try to retain the content of this post and the name of this poster in your highly selective memory:

- Thaksin needs to do some time in jail

- Any red shirt leader who incited violence during the events of 18 around months ago, or at any other time (I can't think of any other time but I'm sure you'll fill us in on this detail), should do time in jail

Spoken like a true red apologist, wasn't it?

Only a few actioned the violence. Do you want to disagree with this again?

As for supporting the violence, sure, choose who you decide supported it and you can select your targets for demonization with ease. Any red shirt protester supports terrorism. Yeah right. I would ridicule your ludicrous and narrow-minded stereotyping were it not for the fact that even minority views should be respected in political debates.

Regardless of how tasteless they are.

[MikeyIdea]

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

Seeing the pictures in the Thai newspapers at the time wasn't difficult, I saw a couple of more pictures myself and they were in several Thai newspapers, black and white photos, difficult to miss if you were looking

Looking is part of being informed before having opinions you know

why the need for the smart alec comment at the end, does it make you feel big and intellectually superior yeah?

like you really think i wasn't aware of this phenomenon... childish

anyway, i did see thai newspapers at the time and i don't recall seeing this pictures... so again i ask, can you name of some these several thai newspapers papers so that i can do a bit of research on it please? thanks.

It wasn't difficult to find the pictures in the newspapers at that time. I recall 3 different black and white pictures (apart from the child on the barrier colour picture). The use of children as human shields made my Thai collegues shake their heads in disgust. I saw them and so did many others at work. I cannot remember which newspapers I saw the pictures in 18 months ago, no. I asked colleagues at work and they remember the discussions we had but of course not which newspapers after 18 months.

I share their smiles actually, someone not seeing them at the time and now want to see? Yes. Sorry nurofiend, I can't help you with the names, I give what I remember, they were black and white, not the main page picture as the child on the barrier colour picture but smaller, further down (but I still think it was on the first page)

There were more stories of human shields used.

The interviews with old men lured down to Bangkok and then dumped at Ratchaprasong wearing nothing but the red clothes they wore, free food and no possibility to get home again. I remember 2 interviews with old men, approx 75 years old, very thin. I felt so sorry for them, especially one that I remember clearly. He was so sad to watch, so old, almost toothless, so thin, crying wearing his red rags sobbing that he had wanted to go home to his relatives (in the north) for a long time now but he couldn't because he had no money, nothing, and the organisers who helped him to Bangkok for free wasn't interested in helping him at all.

The same people could pay my wifes friend Ui 1,500 bath per day to demonstrate (not every day though, 2.500 bath of he brough motorcycle and it was needed) but they couldn't pay for a train ticket home again for an old man - because he was more useful at Ratchaprasong.

The interviews were when the people offered free train tickets by the government went home. This was on all the Thai TV channels, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. You can't possibly have missed that

[nurofiend]

It wasn't difficult to find the pictures in the newspapers at that time. I recall 3 different black and white pictures (apart from the child on the barrier colour picture). The use of children as human shields made my Thai collegues shake their heads in disgust. I saw them and so did many others at work. I cannot remember which newspapers I saw the pictures in 18 months ago, no. I asked colleagues at work and they remember the discussions we had but of course not which newspapers after 18 months.

I share their smiles actually, someone not seeing them at the time and now want to see? Yes. Sorry nurofiend, I can't help you with the names, I give what I remember, they were black and white, not the main page picture as the child on the barrier colour picture but smaller, further down (but I still think it was on the first page)

There were more stories of human shields used.

The interviews with old men lured down to Bangkok and then dumped at Ratchaprasong wearing nothing but the red clothes they wore, free food and no possibility to get home again. I remember 2 interviews with old men, approx 75 years old, very thin. I felt so sorry for them, especially one that I remember clearly. He was so sad to watch, so old, almost toothless, so thin, crying wearing his red rags sobbing that he had wanted to go home to his relatives (in the north) for a long time now but he couldn't because he had no money, nothing, and the organisers who helped him to Bangkok for free wasn't interested in helping him at all.

The same people could pay my wifes friend Ui 1,500 bath per day to demonstrate (not every day though, 2.500 bath of he brough motorcycle and it was needed) but they couldn't pay for a train ticket home again for an old man - because he was more useful at Ratchaprasong.

The interviews were when the people offered free train tickets by the government went home. This was on all the Thai TV channels, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11. You can't possibly have missed that

I cannot remember which newspapers I saw the pictures in 18 months ago, no. I asked colleagues at work and they remember the discussions we had but of course not which newspapers after 18 months.

I share their smiles actually, someone not seeing them at the time and now want to see? Yes

you can't remember one single newspaper that you seen these pictures in and all your colleagues have succumb to this collective memory loss too?

someone wanting to see proof of a claim that there are numerous pictures of children that were held up as human shields is funny is it?

you are aware that the thai language national and local bangkok newspapers have websites are you not?

do you not think all of these pics would have found their way on to the internet?

considering the huge coverage the one everyone knows about got... which is of a man holding the boy to stand up at the barricade in the line of fire...(that's what using someone as a human shield means) considering that, it is very surprising that there are numerous photo's of children being used as human shields...yet only one such image found it's way onto the world wide web.

you have no proof at all and i think your full of it tbh.

anyway, my questions are meant as rhetorical, i have no interest in keeping up this conversation.

[gregb]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

You clearly think you know what you are talking about, but I fear you have not attained that level of understanding about what I am saying. Please try to retain the content of this post and the name of this poster in your highly selective memory:

- Thaksin needs to do some time in jail

- Any red shirt leader who incited violence during the events of 18 around months ago, or at any other time (I can't think of any other time but I'm sure you'll fill us in on this detail), should do time in jail

Spoken like a true red apologist, wasn't it?

Only a few actioned the violence. Do you want to disagree with this again?

As for supporting the violence, sure, choose who you decide supported it and you can select your targets for demonization with ease. Any red shirt protester supports terrorism. Yeah right. I would ridicule your ludicrous and narrow-minded stereotyping were it not for the fact that even minority views should be respected in political debates.

Regardless of how tasteless they are.

Great.

Now go up and say publicly on a red stage that Thaksin needs to go to prison instead of an anonymous internet forum and you'll earn my respect. While I do appreciate that you seem to have some sense of morality, the people you support clearly do not. You need to reconsider your support of them until they renounce Thaksin the same way you just have.

You can't support a group that is inherently evil and simply say in silence that you don't support their evil ways. Your support of them at all in incriminating. You are naive if you think you can ride Thaksin's coat tails into a position of control and then simply discard him. He is using you, not the other way around. The reds are Thaksin, and Thaksin is the reds. The group is a fundamentally terrorist organization.

Your position that you are pro red but anti violence and anti terrorism is a nonsequitor.

I don't like what the PAD did either, but I find that I agree it was necessary in the larger context. I would not try and convince anyone that I don't bear responsibility for my tacit support of how they acted. Thaksin is the most significant threat Thailand has faced in the last few decades. Many things are justified to eliminate him that would not be under ordinary circumstances. Any red who feels as you do yet still supports them is not seeing reality, and the rest of the country can't worry about the specific motivations of the people who would destroy this country as long as it is still under threat.

All reds are terrorists until the contingent supporting Thaksin and the other violent factions are eliminated. Only then does anyone have the time to discriminate between motives. Until that time, there is no distinction.

Start a new movement if you don't like Thaksin and violence. Staying with the reds makes you a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of peace, no matter what you think of yourself.

[TAWP]

Have the Red Shirt leader ever denounced any of the violence or bombings carried out [in their name] yet?

Maybe this need to be asked once a week.

There is still time.

[hanuman1]

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

You clearly think you know what you are talking about, but I fear you have not attained that level of understanding about what I am saying. Please try to retain the content of this post and the name of this poster in your highly selective memory:

- Thaksin needs to do some time in jail

- Any red shirt leader who incited violence during the events of 18 around months ago, or at any other time (I can't think of any other time but I'm sure you'll fill us in on this detail), should do time in jail

Spoken like a true red apologist, wasn't it?

Only a few actioned the violence. Do you want to disagree with this again?

As for supporting the violence, sure, choose who you decide supported it and you can select your targets for demonization with ease. Any red shirt protester supports terrorism. Yeah right. I would ridicule your ludicrous and narrow-minded stereotyping were it not for the fact that even minority views should be respected in political debates.

Regardless of how tasteless they are.

Great.

Now go up and say publicly on a red stage that Thaksin needs to go to prison instead of an anonymous internet forum and you'll earn my respect. While I do appreciate that you seem to have some sense of morality, the people you support clearly do not. You need to reconsider your support of them until they renounce Thaksin the same way you just have.

You can't support a group that is inherently evil and simply say in silence that you don't support their evil ways. Your support of them at all in incriminating. You are naive if you think you can ride Thaksin's coat tails into a position of control and then simply discard him. He is using you, not the other way around. The reds are Thaksin, and Thaksin is the reds. The group is a fundamentally terrorist organization.

Your position that you are pro red but anti violence and anti terrorism is a nonsequitor.

I don't like what the PAD did either, but I find that I agree it was necessary in the larger context. I would not try and convince anyone that I don't bear responsibility for my tacit support of how they acted. Thaksin is the most significant threat Thailand has faced in the last few decades. Many things are justified to eliminate him that would not be under ordinary circumstances. Any red who feels as you do yet still supports them is not seeing reality, and the rest of the country can't worry about the specific motivations of the people who would destroy this country as long as it is still under threat.

All reds are terrorists until the contingent supporting Thaksin and the other violent factions are eliminated. Only then does anyone have the time to discriminate between motives. Until that time, there is no distinction.

Start a new movement if you don't like Thaksin and violence. Staying with the reds makes you a supporter of terrorism and an enemy of peace, no matter what you think of yourself.

Thanks for letting me know what I need to do to earn your respect. As soon as I attach an iota of value to it, I'll be up there putting those thousands of terrorists in their place.

How ludicrous. It may have escaped your attention but many if not most of the perpetrators of violence and those that encouraged it are either involved in legal proceedings against them or are already in jail serving considerable sentences. I presume this is what you meant by "until the contingent supporting Thaksin and the other violent factions are eliminated", although of course I wouldn't put it beyond you to want them dead.

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months. I thought a characterization is usually based on what is commonly observed. You must be seeing things. That some of their leaders said reprehensible things on a stage 18 months ago and a relatively small number of criminals who sided with them committed violence in their name at that time is not a reason to disband the entire movement today. I could bring up examples of where red guards actually stopped worse violence happening, like when soldiers trapped in an APC could have been attacked by demonstrators who had been shot at near Rachadamnoen had they not stepped in, but I realize it won't register at all with you.

You will simply not permit yourself to entertain the idea that people with no other representation on a national level than a group that criminals took advantage of may not have agreed with their methods but have nowhere else to go. Your suggestion of forming an alternative group shows your ignorance of the organization you hate, which has always had several factions some of which are in open disagreement with each other. They stay within the umbrella movement for a simple reason - they carry more political power that way.

And that brings us to your idea about Thaksin using them. Well, he is. But they are also using him. It's politics. Everyone uses each other as best they can to push there own agendas. They use him as a figurehead that represents unjust disenfranchisement from the political process in Thailand. We've never actually seen what would happen if Thaksin upset enough of the people as the Prime Minister. Presumably he would be voted out or pressured out of office. But the democratic process wasn't allowed to prove itself and in 2006 the army and its handlers created Frankenstein.

I would suggest your blind rage at Thaksin and anyone who supports him is born out of your own loss incurred at his hands. You have made no secret in this forum of the fact that you considered him to have conned you in some way. And for you this is a very personal crusade. You want revenge and the only way to feel like you can ever have it is to spout a load of nonsense about all reds being terrorists. You got conned. Man up and live with it. Or does everyone else have to share in your self pity and bitterness?

[TAWP]

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months.

I am willing to admit that their activities have decreased since one of their terrorist cells managed to blow themselves up while making additional bombs.

[Buchholz]

Have the Red Shirt leader ever denounced any of the violence or bombings carried out [in their name] yet?

Maybe this need to be asked once a week.

There is still time.

Rather then denouncement of atrocities, we have a Red Shirt Leader, an alleged physician no less, saying "Up to You" to perpetrators.

But that's understandable to this medical doctor, because, in his view, live fire zones are actually "entertainment" zones for toddlers.

Fortunately, for the toddlers of Thailand, there were others that spoke out and slammed the Red Shirt practice as illustrated in its most widely discussed episode.

RED RALLIES

Activists slam use of children as human shield

Published on May 19, 2010

Children's rights activists and a human-rights commissioner jointly yesterday condemned red-shirt leaders for not preventing the use of children as human shields.

The condemnation arose after the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) displayed photographs of a small boy being held up above a bunker-like structure formed by anti-government protesters, who were preparing to battle it out with soldiers.

"The leaders shouldn't let children come near the bunker. It is too dangerous. Anything could happen to them. I've been protecting children's rights for a long time and I'm worried. One of the leaders has just had a baby. What if someone put his child in the bunkers like this, I wonder how he would feel," children's rights activist Wallop Tangkhananurak said.

However, Red-shirt leader Dr Weng Tochirakarn brushed aside any blame.

"It's the parents' decision to bring their children along," Weng said, adding that though he did not agree with such a decision he suggested that maybe some parents wanted to entertain their children in this manner.

p.s. There's that plural that nurofiend was looking for from me earlier. I'll let the Red Shirt Leader Weng's own use of plural in " parents' " and " children " to demonstrate that more than a singular incident was occurring then.

.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[yoshiwara]

Thanks for letting me know what I need to do to earn your respect. As soon as I attach an iota of value to it, I'll be up there putting those thousands of terrorists in their place.

How ludicrous. It may have escaped your attention but many if not most of the perpetrators of violence and those that encouraged it are either involved in legal proceedings against them or are already in jail serving considerable sentences. I presume this is what you meant by "until the contingent supporting Thaksin and the other violent factions are eliminated", although of course I wouldn't put it beyond you to want them dead.

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months. I thought a characterization is usually based on what is commonly observed. You must be seeing things. That some of their leaders said reprehensible things on a stage 18 months ago and a relatively small number of criminals who sided with them committed violence in their name at that time is not a reason to disband the entire movement today. I could bring up examples of where red guards actually stopped worse violence happening, like when soldiers trapped in an APC could have been attacked by demonstrators who had been shot at near Rachadamnoen had they not stepped in, but I realize it won't register at all with you.

You will simply not permit yourself to entertain the idea that people with no other representation on a national level than a group that criminals took advantage of may not have agreed with their methods but have nowhere else to go. Your suggestion of forming an alternative group shows your ignorance of the organization you hate, which has always had several factions some of which are in open disagreement with each other. They stay within the umbrella movement for a simple reason - they carry more political power that way.

And that brings us to your idea about Thaksin using them. Well, he is. But they are also using him. It's politics. Everyone uses each other as best they can to push there own agendas. They use him as a figurehead that represents unjust disenfranchisement from the political process in Thailand. We've never actually seen what would happen if Thaksin upset enough of the people as the Prime Minister. Presumably he would be voted out or pressured out of office. But the democratic process wasn't allowed to prove itself and in 2006 the army and its handlers created Frankenstein.

I would suggest your blind rage at Thaksin and anyone who supports him is born out of your own loss incurred at his hands. You have made no secret in this forum of the fact that you considered him to have conned you in some way. And for you this is a very personal crusade. You want revenge and the only way to feel like you can ever have it is to spout a load of nonsense about all reds being terrorists. You got conned. Man up and live with it. Or does everyone else have to share in your self pity and bitterness?

And here are your noble reds in action last year. The factions may bicker but they have one job in mind. The one paid for by Thaksin.

[nurofiend]

Have the Red Shirt leader ever denounced any of the violence or bombings carried out [in their name] yet?

Maybe this need to be asked once a week.

There is still time.

Rather then denouncement of atrocities, we have a Red Shirt Leader, an alleged physician no less, saying "Up to You" to perpetrators.

But that's understandable to this medical doctor, because, in his view, live fire zones are actually "entertainment" zones for toddlers.

Fortunately, for the toddlers of Thailand, there were others that spoke out and slammed the Red Shirt practice as illustrated in its most widely discussed episode.

RED RALLIES

Activists slam use of children as human shield

Published on May 19, 2010

Children's rights activists and a human-rights commissioner jointly yesterday condemned red-shirt leaders for not preventing the use of children as human shields.

The condemnation arose after the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) displayed photographs of a small boy being held up above a bunker-like structure formed by anti-government protesters, who were preparing to battle it out with soldiers.

"The leaders shouldn't let children come near the bunker. It is too dangerous. Anything could happen to them. I've been protecting children's rights for a long time and I'm worried. One of the leaders has just had a baby. What if someone put his child in the bunkers like this, I wonder how he would feel," children's rights activist Wallop Tangkhananurak said.

However, Red-shirt leader Dr Weng Tochirakarn brushed aside any blame.

"It's the parents' decision to bring their children along," Weng said, adding that though he did not agree with such a decision he suggested that maybe some parents wanted to entertain their children in this manner.

p.s. There's that plural that nurofiend was looking for from me earlier. I'll let the Red Shirt Leader Weng's own use of plural in " parents' " and " children " to demonstrate that more than a singular incident was occurring then.

.

yeah, there's that plural... you're so obtuse it's unbelievable

i acknowledged there was children, 'plural' ,there, what i didn't acknowledge is that they were being used as human shields, 'plural' ,so what are you harping on about?

the fact that he says that there were children there, isn't him saying that they were being used as human shields....jesus christ

it's still one case...that is singular...not plural

Edited November 24, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

let me ask and see if at least one of ye will answer

do ye justify any violence that has been carried out by pad?

or verbal statement's that would incite violence?

[Buchholz]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

It's to entertain, after all.

.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

nah, that's not what the conversation was about... it was about intentionally using children as human shields.

[nurofiend]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

It's to entertain, after all.

.

and i thought they said they asked them to leave?

[Buchholz]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

It's to entertain, after all.

nah, that's not what the conversation was about... it was about intentionally using children as human shields.

Their presence in and around live fire zones was intentional and meets the definition:

Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers. This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

It why all the human rights activists were all up in arms over the Reds abuse of children as human shields, even if the Red leadership wasn't.

.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

It's to entertain, after all.

nah, that's not what the conversation was about... it was about intentionally using children as human shields.

Their presence in and around live fire zones was intentional and meets the definition:

Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers. This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

It why all the human rights activists were all up in arms over the Reds abuse of children as human shields, even if the Red leadership wasn't.

.

well in the conversation i was talking in the literal sense as stated in your definition quote.

i have already conceded that children shouldn't have been there at that time, so there's no moral highground to what you're saying just in case you're feeling like there is.

[Buchholz]

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months.

I am willing to admit that their activities have decreased since one of their terrorist cells managed to blow themselves up while making additional bombs.

It's a shame that non-Red Shirt and innocents like 7 year-old Nitipong Phunoo will never be the same again nor that a 20 year-old egg seller and a married couple were ripped to pieces by Red Shirt Bomber Samai Wongsuwan's hand for their anti-democratic offense of occupying adjoining rooms.

.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

check the date, any child there at that time and at any place there is a human shield.... Buddha

and the strongest condemnation the Reds muster up is.... Up to You.

It's to entertain, after all.

nah, that's not what the conversation was about... it was about intentionally using children as human shields.

Their presence in and around live fire zones was intentional and meets the definition:

Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers. This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

It why all the human rights activists were all up in arms over the Reds abuse of children as human shields, even if the Red leadership wasn't.

well in the conversation i was talking in the literal sense as stated in your definition quote.

i have already conceded that children shouldn't have been there at that time, so there's no moral highground to what you're saying just in case you're feeling like there is.

I'm content then that more than a single episode of children being abused as human shields has been demonstrated.

.

[nurofiend]

I'm content then that more than a single episode of children being abused as human shields has been demonstrated.

.

i would be content too if there was evidence of it (i hope i don't need to refer to the context of what i mean again.)

i thought you were a champion of proof and hard evidence from what i've read in previous exchanges of yours.

anyway, i hope you'll give an answer to these questions

do you justify any violence that has been carried out by pad?

do you justify verbal statement's by pad members or leaders that could incite violence?

[Buchholz]

I'm content then that more than a single episode of children being abused as human shields has been demonstrated.

.

i would be content too if there was evidence of it (i hope i don't need to refer to the context of what i mean again.)

i thought you were a champion of proof and hard evidence from what i've read in previous exchanges of yours.

anyway, i hope you'll give an answer to these questions

do you justify any violence that has been carried out by pad?

do you justify verbal statement's by pad members or leaders that could incite violence?

Why so snippy? Weren't you complaining of that earlier yourself?

Anyway, I'm content that a Red Leader himself used the plural form of parents and children in regards to use of human shields and I'm grateful for the Human Rights Commissioner and child rights activists did what they could to slam the practice.

If you're not content with that, then in the words of Red Shirt Leader Weng, it's up to you.

As you struggle enough to have a congenial discussion on just one topic, I'll forego entering into a second one.

.

[nurofiend]

I'm content then that more than a single episode of children being abused as human shields has been demonstrated.

.

i would be content too if there was evidence of it (i hope i don't need to refer to the context of what i mean again.)

i thought you were a champion of proof and hard evidence from what i've read in previous exchanges of yours.

anyway, i hope you'll give an answer to these questions

do you justify any violence that has been carried out by pad?

do you justify verbal statement's by pad members or leaders that could incite violence?

Why so snippy? Weren't you complaining of that earlier yourself?

Anyway, I'm content that a Red Leader himself used the plural form of parents and children in regards to use of human shields and I'm grateful for the Human Rights Commissioner and child rights activists did what they could to slam the practice.

If you're not content with that, then in the words of Red Shirt Leader Weng, it's up to you.

As you struggle enough to have a congenial discussion on just one topic, I'll forego entering into a second one.

.

snippy? where do you get that out of what i've said?

was it the part where i said that i thought you were always one to demand proof and evidence? or the preemptive statement so that i wouldn't have to explain particularly what i was referring to? which btw ,obviously still didn't hit a home run.

after laying out the context in which i was referring to, numerous times, you resort to a straw man type response.

he was talking particularly about parents literally holding up and using their children as human shields was he? as in, the context of the discussion... no, he wasn't... you'd have to be pretty dim to think that, so i'm sure you don't.

and funnily enough i thought you might opt out of the question i've asked, weird eh?

[metisdead]

Why does every topic regarding Thaksin turn into a re-hash of the red shirts occupation of Bangkok in 2010? Maybe people should return to the opening post, reread the post and refresh their memories:

Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

[hanuman1]

Why does every topic regarding Thaksin turn into a re-hash of the red shirts occupation of Bangkok in 2010? Maybe people should return to the opening post, reread the post and refresh their memories:

Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

In answer to your question, the fact that history cannot easily be changed is very convenient for those who base their hatred on it and have no desire to change their views on it. Nothing since the events of 18 months ago can justify the strength of their ill feeling, so they need to keep referring back to it otherwise their anger today would look entirely misplaced and disproportionate which of course it is.

[hanuman1]

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months.

I am willing to admit that their activities have decreased since one of their terrorist cells managed to blow themselves up while making additional bombs.

Perhaps you could give us a laugh and speculate on what the other 'terrorist cells' have been doing in the meantime?

Maybe through some administrative cockup they've all simultaneously taken an extended gap year in Nepal before going on to Red Shirt Terrorist University?

Or maybe they've all become 'sleeper cells' because being Thai, they would need to work hard at blending into Thai society wouldn't they?

Keep 'em coming....

[AleG]

The fact is that if the red movement is a terrorist organization, then they have been sorely negligent in their modus operandi over the past 18 months.

I am willing to admit that their activities have decreased since one of their terrorist cells managed to blow themselves up while making additional bombs.

Perhaps you could give us a laugh and speculate on what the other 'terrorist cells' have been doing in the meantime?

Maybe through some administrative cockup they've all simultaneously taken an extended gap year in Nepal before going on to Red Shirt Terrorist University?

Or maybe they've all become 'sleeper cells' because being Thai, they would need to work hard at blending into Thai society wouldn't they?

Keep 'em coming....

The election is over; there's no need, for the moment, to stir up trouble.

Same as how the bombings on banks that held Thaksin's frozen assets ended after the verdict on the case (he got some of the money back).

[hyperdimension]

The election is over; there's no need, for the moment, to stir up trouble.

Same as how the bombings on banks that held Thaksin's frozen assets ended after the verdict on the case (he got some of the money back).

Add also that there are no longer monthly protests demanding justice for those who were killed in the protests. The real reason for the protests were to create chaos and instability to discredit and bring down the Democrat-led government.

[hanuman1]

I am willing to admit that their activities have decreased since one of their terrorist cells managed to blow themselves up while making additional bombs.

Perhaps you could give us a laugh and speculate on what the other 'terrorist cells' have been doing in the meantime?

Maybe through some administrative cockup they've all simultaneously taken an extended gap year in Nepal before going on to Red Shirt Terrorist University?

Or maybe they've all become 'sleeper cells' because being Thai, they would need to work hard at blending into Thai society wouldn't they?

Keep 'em coming....

The election is over; there's no need, for the moment, to stir up trouble.

Same as how the bombings on banks that held Thaksin's frozen assets ended after the verdict on the case (he got some of the money back).

Just as a reminder, there was a period of around 12 months before the election during which these 'terrorist cells' were apparently engaged in...well, nothing.

Or maybe it was Black Ops - the type of thing no-one ever knows about. As if it never happened...

[rubl]

The election is over; there's no need, for the moment, to stir up trouble.

Same as how the bombings on banks that held Thaksin's frozen assets ended after the verdict on the case (he got some of the money back).

Just as a reminder, there was a period of around 12 months before the election during which these 'terrorist cells' were apparently engaged in...well, nothing.

Or maybe it was Black Ops - the type of thing no-one ever knows about. As if it never happened...

The failed 'bombmaking 101' in Nonthaburi was on the 5th of October 2010, new elections were announced around the 5th of May 2011. Eight months.

Anyway as Dept. PM Chalerm has said a few times "I'll bring back k. Thaksin". He's been studying the law again. Being very busy with 'law and order' in general, 'anti-drug campaign', 'crime prevention and keeping roads open in BKK', but not directly involved with the flooding measures, (too) many capable men working on that already. All a matter of priority, people complaining about hardly a meter of water in their living room should spare a thought for k. Thaksin, waterless in the desert, poor man

[yoshiwara]

Oddly enough it is easier for a government to to organise an amnesty for political actions which are tied to events and historical periods which are considered to have ended than it is to organise amnesties for economic offences which must be continually opposed. What is even more difficult to slough off are economic offences amassed during a period of political power. When someone is caught and convicted of committing money laundering offences while holding the position of PM, and the evidence is not disputed, there is a very serious issue, particularly when the offender goes on the run, does not admit their guilt and does not personally request a pardon. The problem for the government is two-fold: on practical grounds it is difficult to know what they can do, what they can frame to legitimise Thaksin's position while at the same time claiming that that it is not for him or about him. (As a side-bar the forum Thaksin apologists are always swerving about on the road going from a position of 'its not about Thaksin' to the other side declaiming that it is about him and should be amnestied/he's innocent etc....the swerving done by most of them with a po face). The other problem is that Thaksin chose the cabinet members and dare one say it the current PM precisely to carry out the task of bringing him back. Thaksin has their undated resignation letters in his pocket. It is this dilemma which sets and keeps the government on a dangerous path.