Disqualified Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn Smells A Conspiracy

[phiphidon]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

Except there is nothing that says this was any one government responsible.

It is a list of people suspect of being killed in partisan or clan in-fighting.

It shows lots of people in the wrong places, and factional powerplays, and partisan violence,

but only a fraction can be specifically attributed to any government per se.

And considering the time frames this is no one government, but most all covered.

OK I'll save you the trouble. In the year 2010 there was one government. Between April and the May 19th crackdown 89 killed. After the crackdown 5 red shirts killed. Total 94.

[phiphidon]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

I'll be grateful for any of you to point out where I have ever stated that all of the deaths were at the hands of the army.

[phiphidon]

Rubl, ... what ?

Abhisit announces in March that there will elections.

Jutaporn is charged with LM in April, and tossed in the klink.

The actual date of the elections is set in May

There is no issue with the timing on that.

Abhisit also announced in 2010 that there would be elections around the middle of the year.

But besides that, reports at the time indicated that even some red shirts were surprised with what Jatuporn et al had said.

Reports from where? The Nation?

[tlansford]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

drivel.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

Yours is an all-to-common foul-smelling smoke-screen to hide or ignore the fact that the government killed the vast majority of those people in 2010.

The ones who are shameless and shameful are not those who want to see the crack-down investigated completely, and have the facts - as best as can be determined - brought to light.

The ones who are shameful and shameless are those who feel is is justified for a government - any government - to kill its own citizens.

[Buchholz]

Rubl, ... what ?

Abhisit announces in March that there will elections.

Jutaporn is charged with LM in April, and tossed in the klink.

The actual date of the elections is set in May

There is no issue with the timing on that.

You wrote:

"Of course not. Just days after the elections were announced, LM charges were filed against him by army chief Prayuth causing his bail to be revoked so that he could enjoy the scenery of a fine jail cell until August...

Nothing political in that..."

Your posts suggest that there was something suspicious with the timing of the LM charge against k. Jatuporn.

Well, he spoke on the 10th of April, around 16/18th DSI talked with prosecutors, on 18th DSI summoned k. Jatuporn and others to acknowledge charges between 2 and 6 of May.

Mr Jatuporn and Mr Nisit, both former members of parliament, were sent to Bangkok Remand Prison immediately after the Criminal Court revoked their bail on May 12.

my post uses sarcasm to point out that yes, indeed, the LM charges against Jutaporn were politically motivated.

In your opinion. It could also be opined that they are criminally motivated.

Did his speech break the law regarding LM or not? It's not been to trial.

Or are you saying any and all charges of LM are politically motivated?

Or just the ones against the Red Shirts are?

.

.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

If they had complied with dispersing their illegal gathering as repeatedly warned and directed to do so months earlier, there wouldn't have been any casualties.

.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Buchholz

[rubl]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

drivel.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

Yours is an all-to-common foul-smelling smoke-screen to hide or ignore the fact that the government killed the vast majority of those people in 2010.

The ones who are shameless and shameful are not those who want to see the crack-down investigated completely, and have the facts - as best as can be determined - brought to light.

The ones who are shameful and shameless are those who feel is is justified for a government - any government - to kill its own citizens.

Drivel!

If on April 10th, 2010 some MiB didn't start shooting at the army, if some criminals didn't lob grenades on the army, the demonstration might have been cleared without any lethal casualties.

The government didn't set out to kill it's citizens, it almost seemed the protesters (or the UDD leaders) set out to provoke the government till dead would fall. Very regrettable, but mostly 'protesters, not terrorists' made it unavoidable.

Edited March 14, 2012 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Do you have a list provided by an actual journalistic source and not an anti-monarchist NGO'er?

.

By anti-monarchist NGO'er (some sort of pinko liberal I presume) do you mean Junya (Lek) Yimprasert, founder of the Thai Labour Campaign and the Migrant Workers Union?

Well thats that then the list is to be totally ignored, no substance in reality. Forget I even mentioned it, not an ounce of truth in it.

Dream on Buchholz.

[phiphidon]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

If they had complied with dispersing their illegal gathering as repeatedly warned and directed to do so months earlier, there wouldn't have been any casualties.

.

As I have stated before the most severe warning the red shirts got was if you don't disperse you will be liable to jail sentences of up to two years. At no time were they told that if they didn't disperse they would likely be shot and killed.

[rubl]

Rubl, ... what ?

Abhisit announces in March that there will elections.

Jutaporn is charged with LM in April, and tossed in the klink.

The actual date of the elections is set in May

There is no issue with the timing on that.

Abhisit also announced in 2010 that there would be elections around the middle of the year.

But besides that, reports at the time indicated that even some red shirts were surprised with what Jatuporn et al had said.

Reports from where? The Nation?

"Meanwhile, a source at Puea Thai yesterday said party chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh will talk about his political future and may also announce his decision to resign from the party at a meeting today.

The source said Gen Chavalit may quit the party because he was unhappy with the red shirt leaders' inappropriate remarks about the monarchy during the April 10 rally."

Found on <URL Automatically Removed>, but from the other newspaper

[Buchholz]

Do you have a list provided by an actual journalistic source and not an anti-monarchist NGO'er?

.

By anti-monarchist NGO'er (some sort of pinko liberal I presume) do you mean Junya (Lek) Yimprasert, founder of the Thai Labour Campaign and the Migrant Workers Union?

By anti-monarchist NGO'er, I simply mean Junya of the Action for People's Democracy in Thailand is a non-professional journalistic source with a strong agenda.

Is there not a list from a more reliable, more professional journalistic source than an NGO blogger?

.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Buchholz

[rubl]

As I have stated before the most severe warning the red shirts got was if you don't disperse you will be liable to jail sentences of up to two years. At no time were they told that if they didn't disperse they would likely be shot and killed.

The army personel involved also didn't get a warning that those lovable 'peacefull protesters, not terrorist' would start shooting at them or even lob a grenade or two.

Must have been that conspiracy k. Jatuporn is smelling

[whybother]

As I have stated before the most severe warning the red shirts got was if you don't disperse you will be liable to jail sentences of up to two years. At no time were they told that if they didn't disperse they would likely be shot and killed.

There probably wasn't enough time to do that after the colonel was blown up.

[tlansford]

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

Edited March 14, 2012 by sbk

[tlansford]

Thanks for the table.

Sobering.

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

This list shows what happens when they do.

There are always other choices.

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

drivel.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

Yours is an all-to-common foul-smelling smoke-screen to hide or ignore the fact that the government killed the vast majority of those people in 2010.

The ones who are shameless and shameful are not those who want to see the crack-down investigated completely, and have the facts - as best as can be determined - brought to light.

The ones who are shameful and shameless are those who feel is is justified for a government - any government - to kill its own citizens.

Drivel!

If on April 10th, 2010 some MiB didn't start shooting at the army, if some criminals didn't lob grenades on the army, the demonstration might have been cleared without any lethal casualties.

The government didn't set out to kill it's citizens, it almost seemed the protesters (or the UDD leaders) set out to provoke the government till dead would fall. Very regrettable, but mostly 'protesters, not terrorists' made it unavoidable.

The gov't set out to use lethal force. If not to kill, then for what?

The gov't denied shooting at protesters. Eye witnesses saw otherwise.

The gov't (army) completely botched the Apr 10th dispersal. Fault of the protesters? I think not.

"regretable" is such a nice term. Hogwash, too. It was a tragedy. It was avoidable.

[rubl]

The repeated dishonesty of the reds and their supporters is not only to put all the deaths at the feet of the army, but to give a free pass to the reds, the blackshirts and their responsibility for not only creating the situation which gave rise to those deaths, but being a part of them as well. Shameful and shameless behaviour.

drivel.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

Yours is an all-to-common foul-smelling smoke-screen to hide or ignore the fact that the government killed the vast majority of those people in 2010.

The ones who are shameless and shameful are not those who want to see the crack-down investigated completely, and have the facts - as best as can be determined - brought to light.

The ones who are shameful and shameless are those who feel is is justified for a government - any government - to kill its own citizens.

Drivel!

If on April 10th, 2010 some MiB didn't start shooting at the army, if some criminals didn't lob grenades on the army, the demonstration might have been cleared without any lethal casualties.

The government didn't set out to kill it's citizens, it almost seemed the protesters (or the UDD leaders) set out to provoke the government till dead would fall. Very regrettable, but mostly 'protesters, not terrorists' made it unavoidable.

The gov't set out to use lethal force. If not to kill, then for what?

The gov't denied shooting at protesters. Eye witnesses saw otherwise.

The gov't (army) completely botched the Apr 10th dispersal. Fault of the protesters? I think not.

"regretable" is such a nice term. Hogwash, too. It was a tragedy. It was avoidable.

Tom, we look at the same incident, but with different perspective, assumptions.

You say 'gov't set out to use lethal force', I may say the Army prepared as they are supposed to. Had the police functioned the army wouldn't have been necessary.

The gov't denied shooting at protesters, correct, stupid to do so. Doesn't mean the army they sent out wasn't allowed to protect itself to the best of it abilities.

The Army failed miserably. Only excuse is that they hadn't expected to be shot at or have grenades lobbed on them. Still an army is supposed to deal with that type of setbacks, mostly by shooting back, retreating/reforming.

Was all this avoidable? Yes! A few possibilities there, like 1) government rolls over and submits, 2) protesters leave peacefully without violence. Unfortunately option 3) was choosen. Shoot at the army, lob grenades on them and let slip the dogs of war.

[rubl]

If they had complied with dispersing their illegal gathering as repeatedly warned and directed to do so months earlier, there wouldn't have been any casualties.

As I have stated before the most severe warning the red shirts got was if you don't disperse you will be liable to jail sentences of up to two years. At no time were they told that if they didn't disperse they would likely be shot and killed.

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

When last in a democracy did you see a demonstration where the protesters fired at or even used grenades against government forces (police, army) and other non-aligned people ? None of the 60 odd grenades fired in an almost three months period was aimed at any of the protesters. The army engaged in a war with 'rules of war' applying. That also means that if necessary you shoot first and not ask "please excuse me, are you a peaceful protesters or a violent one?"

Some of the blame you may put on the Armed Forces and the government, but the protesters carry some blame also. Reluctantly the previous government has admitted some, same as the army, the peaceful protesters and their loud-mouthed leaders are only innocent they tell me. Just like k. Jatuporn with his Ghandi Tshirt smelling a conspiracy.

Edited March 14, 2012 by rubl

[GentlemanJim]

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

I think you are grossly over simplifying the entire situation in my opinion. Yes we have protests in London that are loud, where people are heard and where violence breaks out, but those protests do not bring the city center to a stop for 3 Months! They do not involve MP's inciting the protestors to burn parts of the city to the ground. They do not involve protestors invading hospitals where the sick and elderly reside, they do not involve collection then uncontrolled intimidating 'delivery' of large amounts of Human blood on the door of the PM's wife and Kids residence. AND importantly they do not involve armed militia who have been hired by the protesting organisation to aggravate the situation by killing and wounding innocent people with hand grenades, automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades. The hired militia also included snipers. The protests by the time of the tragedy were already akin to a tinder box, and if you consider that the army opened fire without the armed militia opening fire and actively engaging the army and police then you are mistaken.

The army were there to defend the city, its occupants, its property and the Monarchy, and the organisers of the protest went way too far. Had the situation been in Russia or China there would have been 1000 deaths approximately 4 weeks earlier. Its a pity it did not happen in London as there would have been 5 CCTV's for every one involved, and we would be in no doubt who was responsible. As far as I am concerned the people responsible were the organisers of the protest and the armed militia. Without the incitement to hatred and the firing of live munitions at the army and civilians, the incident would never have occurred. Lets face it the protest organisers went much much further than being 'heard' didn't they? That would have taken 4 days at most to be 'heard'.

Watch this space, because now that victims families are set to receive 7 mil Bht each (an unprecedented amount in Thai history) the next time the reds come to BKK there will be a million of them, all hoping that some member of either the close or distant families gets whacked. In fact they may even start shooting each other to get a lottery sized payout for the family. And the compensation that will ensure this anarchy is being paid by the very party that wants to bring the 'Pretender' back to claim what he believes to be his. The 'Red' Army will march on BKK and they will be armed and ultimately it will result in civil war. There will be a lot more than 91 die because too many people failed to condemn those responsible for instigating the violence...the protest organisers, and their man in exile.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

drivel.

If the government had not used lethal force against the demonstrators and had not completely botched the dispersal attempts in April, while there still may have been casualties, there would have been many, many fewer.

Yours is an all-to-common foul-smelling smoke-screen to hide or ignore the fact that the government killed the vast majority of those people in 2010.

The ones who are shameless and shameful are not those who want to see the crack-down investigated completely, and have the facts - as best as can be determined - brought to light.

The ones who are shameful and shameless are those who feel is is justified for a government - any government - to kill its own citizens.

Drivel!

If on April 10th, 2010 some MiB didn't start shooting at the army, if some criminals didn't lob grenades on the army, the demonstration might have been cleared without any lethal casualties.

The government didn't set out to kill it's citizens, it almost seemed the protesters (or the UDD leaders) set out to provoke the government till dead would fall. Very regrettable, but mostly 'protesters, not terrorists' made it unavoidable.

The gov't set out to use lethal force. If not to kill, then for what?

The gov't denied shooting at protesters. Eye witnesses saw otherwise.

The gov't (army) completely botched the Apr 10th dispersal. Fault of the protesters? I think not.

"regretable" is such a nice term. Hogwash, too. It was a tragedy. It was avoidable.

Tom, we look at the same incident, but with different perspective, assumptions.

You say 'gov't set out to use lethal force', I may say the Army prepared as they are supposed to. Had the police functioned the army wouldn't have been necessary.

The gov't denied shooting at protesters, correct, stupid to do so. Doesn't mean the army they sent out wasn't allowed to protect itself to the best of it abilities.

The Army failed miserably. Only excuse is that they hadn't expected to be shot at or have grenades lobbed on them. Still an army is supposed to deal with that type of setbacks, mostly by shooting back, retreating/reforming.

Was all this avoidable? Yes! A few possibilities there, like 1) government rolls over and submits, 2) protesters leave peacefully without violence. Unfortunately option 3) was choosen. Shoot at the army, lob grenades on them and let slip the dogs of war.

different perspectives in any case.

whether a govt uses police or army to kill people is irrelevant.

the army was poorly prepared and the dispersal, which started just before nightfall, poorly planned

violent protesters is not what caused the army to botch the dispersal on Apr 10th

there were more than 3 possibilities, but it is a nice strawman to justify killing people.

[tlansford]

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

I think you are grossly over simplifying the entire situation in my opinion. Yes we have protests in London that are loud, where people are heard and where violence breaks out, but those protests do not bring the city center to a stop for 3 Months! They do not involve MP's inciting the protestors to burn parts of the city to the ground. They do not involve protestors invading hospitals where the sick and elderly reside, they do not involve collection then uncontrolled intimidating 'delivery' of large amounts of Human blood on the door of the PM's wife and Kids residence. AND importantly they do not involve armed militia who have been hired by the protesting organisation to aggravate the situation by killing and wounding innocent people with hand grenades, automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades. The hired militia also included snipers. The protests by the time of the tragedy were already akin to a tinder box, and if you consider that the army opened fire without the armed militia opening fire and actively engaging the army and police then you are mistaken.

The army were there to defend the city, its occupants, its property and the Monarchy, and the organisers of the protest went way too far. Had the situation been in Russia or China there would have been 1000 deaths approximately 4 weeks earlier. Its a pity it did not happen in London as there would have been 5 CCTV's for every one involved, and we would be in no doubt who was responsible. As far as I am concerned the people responsible were the organisers of the protest and the armed militia. Without the incitement to hatred and the firing of live munitions at the army and civilians, the incident would never have occurred. Lets face it the protest organisers went much much further than being 'heard' didn't they? That would have taken 4 days at most to be 'heard'.

Watch this space, because now that victims families are set to receive 7 mil Bht each (an unprecedented amount in Thai history) the next time the reds come to BKK there will be a million of them, all hoping that some member of either the close or distant families gets whacked. In fact they may even start shooting each other to get a lottery sized payout for the family. And the compensation that will ensure this anarchy is being paid by the very party that wants to bring the 'Pretender' back to claim what he believes to be his. The 'Red' Army will march on BKK and they will be armed and ultimately it will result in civil war. There will be a lot more than 91 die because too many people failed to condemn those responsible for instigating the violence...the protest organisers, and their man in exile.

in the middle of your post, your opinion boils down to, once again, "it was the protesters fault".

A rather common, group-think, opinion on TVF.

I disagree.

[GentlemanJim]

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

I think you are grossly over simplifying the entire situation in my opinion. Yes we have protests in London that are loud, where people are heard and where violence breaks out, but those protests do not bring the city center to a stop for 3 Months! They do not involve MP's inciting the protestors to burn parts of the city to the ground. They do not involve protestors invading hospitals where the sick and elderly reside, they do not involve collection then uncontrolled intimidating 'delivery' of large amounts of Human blood on the door of the PM's wife and Kids residence. AND importantly they do not involve armed militia who have been hired by the protesting organisation to aggravate the situation by killing and wounding innocent people with hand grenades, automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades. The hired militia also included snipers. The protests by the time of the tragedy were already akin to a tinder box, and if you consider that the army opened fire without the armed militia opening fire and actively engaging the army and police then you are mistaken.

The army were there to defend the city, its occupants, its property and the Monarchy, and the organisers of the protest went way too far. Had the situation been in Russia or China there would have been 1000 deaths approximately 4 weeks earlier. Its a pity it did not happen in London as there would have been 5 CCTV's for every one involved, and we would be in no doubt who was responsible. As far as I am concerned the people responsible were the organisers of the protest and the armed militia. Without the incitement to hatred and the firing of live munitions at the army and civilians, the incident would never have occurred. Lets face it the protest organisers went much much further than being 'heard' didn't they? That would have taken 4 days at most to be 'heard'.

Watch this space, because now that victims families are set to receive 7 mil Bht each (an unprecedented amount in Thai history) the next time the reds come to BKK there will be a million of them, all hoping that some member of either the close or distant families gets whacked. In fact they may even start shooting each other to get a lottery sized payout for the family. And the compensation that will ensure this anarchy is being paid by the very party that wants to bring the 'Pretender' back to claim what he believes to be his. The 'Red' Army will march on BKK and they will be armed and ultimately it will result in civil war. There will be a lot more than 91 die because too many people failed to condemn those responsible for instigating the violence...the protest organisers, and their man in exile.

in the middle of your post, your opinion boils down to, once again, "it was the protesters fault".

A rather common, group-think, opinion on TVF.

I disagree.

Well what a surprise...grossly over simplifying yet again. I think more than that is said.

[tlansford]

If they had complied with dispersing their illegal gathering as repeatedly warned and directed to do so months earlier, there wouldn't have been any casualties.

As I have stated before the most severe warning the red shirts got was if you don't disperse you will be liable to jail sentences of up to two years. At no time were they told that if they didn't disperse they would likely be shot and killed.

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

When last in a democracy did you see a demonstration where the protesters fired at or even used grenades against government forces (police, army) and other non-aligned people ? None of the 60 odd grenades fired in an almost three months period was aimed at any of the protesters. The army engaged in a war with 'rules of war' applying. That also means that if necessary you shoot first and not ask "please excuse me, are you a peaceful protesters or a violent one?"

Some of the blame you may put on the Armed Forces and the government, but the protesters carry some blame also. Reluctantly the previous government has admitted some, same as the army, the peaceful protesters and their loud-mouthed leaders are only innocent they tell me. Just like k. Jatuporn with his Ghandi Tshirt smelling a conspiracy.

(2 months, not 3)

1) it was not war, that's Iraq, Afganistan, etc - let's not over do it. It was a <Snip!> up protest situation.

2) admitting blame after the fact is too late.

The protesters carry their own responsibility for protesting, and for their own actions. I have never said otherwise.

The OWS protesters were/are responsible for their actions.

The PAD were responsible for their actions.

BUT

The government is responsible for its actions. In this case, killing its own citizens (and some foreigners, too).

I'm not going to address the "MiB" simply because there is no real information. The only thing obvious about them is that they were fighting the army. Who were they, really? AFAIK, no one have answered that question - in spite of the claims on TVF.

The only entity involved in the 2010 protests that allegedly had a reasonable level of rational control over its decision-making, planning, and actions was the government.

The entity responsible for public safety - including that of the protesters - is the government.

My departure point is "don't kill". The government didn't make that choice. People here say that "but they had no choice". Sorry, that is not true. The government has enormous resources at its disposal. It has choices.

Hey Rubl, looks like we got sidetracked here. Let's get back to Jatuporn and his holiday in a jail cell tomorrow, alright?

Edited March 15, 2012 by metisdead
Profanity removed.

[tlansford]

nor was it "months earlier"

How many times do protesters just "walk away" when the govt says "leave"? Gov't House, the Airport, Central World, Wall Street, Oakland, Berkley ?

How often do they get shot by the army and snipers in a temple? Or get pepper-sprayed while sitting on the ground?

The point of a demonstration is for people to be heard. They get loud. They inconvenience the city. Sometimes the demonstrators also are violent. Authorities often go over the line when dispersing demonstrations. It is not new. But it is due to a choice made by the authorities, not by the protesters, and it should not happen.

I think you are grossly over simplifying the entire situation in my opinion. Yes we have protests in London that are loud, where people are heard and where violence breaks out, but those protests do not bring the city center to a stop for 3 Months! They do not involve MP's inciting the protestors to burn parts of the city to the ground. They do not involve protestors invading hospitals where the sick and elderly reside, they do not involve collection then uncontrolled intimidating 'delivery' of large amounts of Human blood on the door of the PM's wife and Kids residence. AND importantly they do not involve armed militia who have been hired by the protesting organisation to aggravate the situation by killing and wounding innocent people with hand grenades, automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades. The hired militia also included snipers. The protests by the time of the tragedy were already akin to a tinder box, and if you consider that the army opened fire without the armed militia opening fire and actively engaging the army and police then you are mistaken.

The army were there to defend the city, its occupants, its property and the Monarchy, and the organisers of the protest went way too far. Had the situation been in Russia or China there would have been 1000 deaths approximately 4 weeks earlier. Its a pity it did not happen in London as there would have been 5 CCTV's for every one involved, and we would be in no doubt who was responsible. As far as I am concerned the people responsible were the organisers of the protest and the armed militia. Without the incitement to hatred and the firing of live munitions at the army and civilians, the incident would never have occurred. Lets face it the protest organisers went much much further than being 'heard' didn't they? That would have taken 4 days at most to be 'heard'.

Watch this space, because now that victims families are set to receive 7 mil Bht each (an unprecedented amount in Thai history) the next time the reds come to BKK there will be a million of them, all hoping that some member of either the close or distant families gets whacked. In fact they may even start shooting each other to get a lottery sized payout for the family. And the compensation that will ensure this anarchy is being paid by the very party that wants to bring the 'Pretender' back to claim what he believes to be his. The 'Red' Army will march on BKK and they will be armed and ultimately it will result in civil war. There will be a lot more than 91 die because too many people failed to condemn those responsible for instigating the violence...the protest organisers, and their man in exile.

in the middle of your post, your opinion boils down to, once again, "it was the protesters fault".

A rather common, group-think, opinion on TVF.

I disagree.

Well what a surprise...grossly over simplifying yet again. I think more than that is said.

It is simple.

It is not easy.

Big difference.

Yes, a lot more was said in your post. Some of it incorrect (eg: 3 months) and much of it irrelevant. It's not China/Russia. And blood, speeches, hospitals, & militia are not relevant to the government's and the army's display of incompetence, nor is it relevant to their inability to control the situation rather than escalate the violence - which is what they did on April 10th.

And yes, the core of your opinion as posted above boils down to "it was the protesters fault", albeit you add a dose of the "armed militia", which in this forum is just the same as "the protesters". Grossly over-simplified? Seems more like a rather succinct summary.

Sorry for the brevity.

Edited March 14, 2012 by tlansford

[longway]

^ I wouldn't bother GJ; for these guys its always simple, always black or white, good or bad, its how they think.

I think the OP should be more simple too.

How about 'Jatuporn smells'?

A pretty succint summary I think..

Edited March 14, 2012 by longway

[TAWP]

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

Cops and soldiers should have whistles?

[prefabs]

I always think it is the job of the army, police force, security forces to maintain the status quo. And that was what we had after all the rioting or freedom fighting, or peace protests, whatever you want to call it. The change of Government never came about because of the demonstrations.Anyone who wants to take on the State needs to have a think about it first. If, as happened here, deaths were the end result, then that is unfortunate. The State will always have the best and most weapons.

However, I bet most of the people who died were innocent of anything more than making loud noises, but the people who led them, made all the rabble rousing speeches, paid the daily allowances(let us not forget it was not a 100% idealogical protest)must shoulder the blame. And guess who complains loudest??? The same ones as led the poor buggers into their deaths. Jatuporn and his ilk should be prosecuted vigorously over all this.

[tlansford]

I do not believe that governments should use lethal force against their own citizens (ie: kill).

Cops and soldiers should have whistles?

trolling, are we?

[tlansford]

^ I wouldn't bother GJ; for these guys its always simple, always black or white, good or bad, its how they think.

I think the OP should be more simple too.

How about 'Jatuporn smells'?

A pretty succint summary I think..

Principles are simple. Like don't kill.

Sticking to principles takes more effort. Again, the difference between simple and easy.

You can jeer at it all you want. That is your right. But I prefer simple principles to the simple-minded dogma that is often repeated here.

[sbk]

And we are all entitled to our opinion, so while you may choose to disagree, using baiting language is not allowed. tone it down

[OzMick]

^ I wouldn't bother GJ; for these guys its always simple, always black or white, good or bad, its how they think.

I think the OP should be more simple too.

How about 'Jatuporn smells'?

A pretty succint summary I think..

Principles are simple. Like don't kill.

Sticking to principles takes more effort. Again, the difference between simple and easy.

You can jeer at it all you want. That is your right. But I prefer simple principles to the simple-minded dogma that is often repeated here.

I remember when you posted that is was the government's fault that the protesters had weapons because they didn't set up roadblocks and search them. I'm still waiting for a response as to how exactly that would have been done.