Disqualified Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn Smells A Conspiracy

[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..

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.

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

[Buchholz]

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

Cops and soldiers should have whistles?

Yes, but only when responding to Red Shirt rallies.

.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Buchholz

[Heimdallr]

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

I don't see how that situation is in any way related. The "mastermind" behind the protests made a calculated choice to order his troops to attack the army officers to instigate violence and thought that with all the PR potential that the protesters' deaths may have will be more than worth it. He must have calculated the almost certain possibility of deaths and I think that is what we have to remember here about who we really need to blame. No, we don't blame the peaceful protesters, but the a-hole behind all of it who thought peoples' lives are worth less than political gains.

[nurofiend]

^ 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.

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

is the guy thaksin, the blind man the red shirts and the driver the army?

[yoshiwara]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

[nurofiend]

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

I don't see how that situation is in any way related. The "mastermind" behind the protests made a calculated choice to order his troops to attack the army officers to instigate violence and thought that with all the PR potential that the protesters' deaths may have will be more than worth it. He must have calculated the almost certain possibility of deaths and I think that is what we have to remember here about who we really need to blame. No, we don't blame the peaceful protesters, but the a-hole behind all of it who thought peoples' lives are worth less than political gains.

who's we?

because a hell of a lot of people on here DO blame the protesters.

[nurofiend]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

am i a forum thaksin supporter?

[exeter]

I hear theres a bloke in Dubai looking for a butler, might be time for a career change?

[phiphidon]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds.

The deaths were regarded as collateral damage by the government not the Red Shirts. Why would you wish to deploy snipers if you did not wish to inflict deaths. Snipers by definition, do not shoot to miss, and judging by the amount of head shots they did their "job" ruthlessly well. I imagine that the families and loved ones of those killed (on both "sides" journalists, emergency workers and other innocents) regard their deaths with more compassion than you do, but that wouldn't be hard.

That argument would be equivalent to saying that the government supporters on this board were more concerned about their lack of access to the shopping malls than the deaths, but nobody could be that heartless surely?

"The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks"

If that was the case there would have been a pile of about 60 (5 soldiers and 20/21 civilians having already been killed in the April 10th clash) odd bodies piled up in Lumpini Park along with the rest of the protesters - apart from the 6 killed in the Wats grounds and the 2 "guards" on the perimeter of the park this wasn't the case was it. You've seen the videos - most were shot in the streets outside. Or do you still believe the government spin of 500 armed men roaming around the grounds.

I don't dispute there was a group (certainly not 500!) of armed men of no fixed allegiance battling with the army or that some red shirts may have used weapons other than fireworks, bricks and slingshots (one obviously being the guy who shot at the Dusit Hotel and was accused of at least 8 other similar incidents by the DSI) but a proportionate response from the army, I don't think so?

In response to the student riots in the UK, Sir Hugh Orde President of the Association of Chief Police Officers had this to say about the planned response, but more telling is his reaction to being bombed and shot at with live fire in Northern Ireland:

Now is not the time for police to use water cannon and baton rounds

Such tactics should only be used in very specific circumstances and we will not rashly deviate from the British model of policing.

Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.

[OzMick]

so if 91 is not it, what, in your opinion, is the truthful number?

The government didn't order the RTA to kill anyone. They certainly didn't order the RTA to kill the colonel with a grenade or bystanders standing at a train station.

The govt authorized the military to use live rounds. That is as much as I "know" about orders. So far, the investigation is only just barely begun.

But what we do know, regardless of the orders, is that the military killed a lot of civilians. As the list makes perfectly clear, the Thai military has a long history of doing so in violent crack-downs.

It is a military tenet that an officer should not order his men to do something that he wouldn't be prepared to do himself. You find it offensive on principle that the army was ordered to use live rounds while facing rifle-fire and grenades.

I myself would be very reluctant to face such an attack without the use of lethal force, but from the safety of your keyboard you seem to find it reasonable, without any indication that you yourself have performed such an act of heroism.

You should also understand that military minds have no concept of a "fair fight" rather they use overwhelming force and numbers to reduce their own casualties. if you wish to attack an army, don't come in lightweight, unless of course you consider casualties to be desirable.

Hey, it won an election!

[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.

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.

you memory doesn't serve you well.

[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.

you memory doesn't serve you well.

Apparently a lot better than yours.

[tlansford]

so if 91 is not it, what, in your opinion, is the truthful number?

The government didn't order the RTA to kill anyone. They certainly didn't order the RTA to kill the colonel with a grenade or bystanders standing at a train station.

The govt authorized the military to use live rounds. That is as much as I "know" about orders. So far, the investigation is only just barely begun.

But what we do know, regardless of the orders, is that the military killed a lot of civilians. As the list makes perfectly clear, the Thai military has a long history of doing so in violent crack-downs.

It is a military tenet that an officer should not order his men to do something that he wouldn't be prepared to do himself. You find it offensive on principle that the army was ordered to use live rounds while facing rifle-fire and grenades.

I myself would be very reluctant to face such an attack without the use of lethal force, but from the safety of your keyboard you seem to find it reasonable, without any indication that you yourself have performed such an act of heroism.

You should also understand that military minds have no concept of a "fair fight" rather they use overwhelming force and numbers to reduce their own casualties. if you wish to attack an army, don't come in lightweight, unless of course you consider casualties to be desirable.

Hey, it won an election!

Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens.

But your point is flawed anyway.

1) the army came to the first dispersal, before violence escalated, with live fire

2) the planning for dispersal was poor (before nightfall) greatly increasing the probability of losing control of the situation which is what happened and amply documented on video.

3) and we know nothing about the level of intelligence the govt had before the Apr 10th dispersal, but either the govt had a massive failure of intelligence in not knowing about the existence of an armed group at the protest site or it made a deadly mistake to start the dispersal before nightfall when the armed group at the protest site would have the cover of darkness.

To say that the govt used live fire because they encountered rpg's ingores the sequence of events.

And yes, I disagree with the decision to use live fire in any case.

[tlansford]

- a poster's comment has been removed to accommodate the nesting levels allowed by the forum software -

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.

you memory doesn't serve you well.

Apparently a lot better than yours.

no, it doesn't.

But your ability to mis-paraphase what people say would qualify you for managing editor at TANN.

[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..

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.

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

is the guy thaksin, the blind man the red shirts and the driver the army?

In a way its irrelevant, whats more imprtant are the intentions of the various actors. Who is at fault if the blind man wanted to commit suicide and blackmailed the guy to lead him to the right spot? How about if he paid him to do it? How about after hutting the blind man the car veered out of control and killed a bunch of passing school children?

I am just bored of the 'its so simple' crowd.

Focusing narrowly on actions, without examining inetentions is just dogma so you can find a scapegoat. Alot of people died or had their lives ruined by during the red shirt blockade, and not just red shrts, finding out the truth is far more important.

Once again, here the police could have prevented a tragedy if they had enforced the laws, and were not bought and did not take sides.

Edited March 15, 2012 by longway

[OzMick]

It is a military tenet that an officer should not order his men to do something that he wouldn't be prepared to do himself. You find it offensive on principle that the army was ordered to use live rounds while facing rifle-fire and grenades.

I myself would be very reluctant to face such an attack without the use of lethal force, but from the safety of your keyboard you seem to find it reasonable, without any indication that you yourself have performed such an act of heroism.

You should also understand that military minds have no concept of a "fair fight" rather they use overwhelming force and numbers to reduce their own casualties. if you wish to attack an army, don't come in lightweight, unless of course you consider casualties to be desirable.

Hey, it won an election!

Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens.

But your point is flawed anyway.

1) the army came to the first dispersal, before violence escalated, with live fire

2) the planning for dispersal was poor (before nightfall) greatly increasing the probability of losing control of the situation which is what happened and amply documented on video.

3) and we know nothing about the level of intelligence the govt had before the Apr 10th dispersal, but either the govt had a massive failure of intelligence in not knowing about the existence of an armed group at the protest site or it made a deadly mistake to start the dispersal before nightfall when the armed group at the protest site would have the cover of darkness.

To say that the govt used live fire because they encountered rpg's ingores the sequence of events.

And yes, I disagree with the decision to use live fire in any case.

1/ The army came to the first dispersal with SOME soldiers equipped with blank rounds, SOME with live rounds, but the majority ready for crowd dispersal. This is morally wrong, they ALL should have been unarmed and ready for slaughter? M-79 grenades (NOT RPGs) were fired killing the commander, before fire was returned.

2/ Yes they made a big mistake, believing the they were dealing with peaceful protesters. After that attack, they were dealing with CRIMINALS.

Armed criminals get shot anywhere in the world, and particularly in your own country.

[Heimdallr]

who's we?

because a hell of a lot of people on here DO blame the protesters.

Most of them were sheep being shepherded to cause damage without realizing it. The ones that actually committed serious crimes should have of course known better and should suffer the consequences.

[tlansford]

It is a military tenet that an officer should not order his men to do something that he wouldn't be prepared to do himself. You find it offensive on principle that the army was ordered to use live rounds while facing rifle-fire and grenades.

I myself would be very reluctant to face such an attack without the use of lethal force, but from the safety of your keyboard you seem to find it reasonable, without any indication that you yourself have performed such an act of heroism.

You should also understand that military minds have no concept of a "fair fight" rather they use overwhelming force and numbers to reduce their own casualties. if you wish to attack an army, don't come in lightweight, unless of course you consider casualties to be desirable.

Hey, it won an election!

Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens.

But your point is flawed anyway.

1) the army came to the first dispersal, before violence escalated, with live fire

2) the planning for dispersal was poor (before nightfall) greatly increasing the probability of losing control of the situation which is what happened and amply documented on video.

3) and we know nothing about the level of intelligence the govt had before the Apr 10th dispersal, but either the govt had a massive failure of intelligence in not knowing about the existence of an armed group at the protest site or it made a deadly mistake to start the dispersal before nightfall when the armed group at the protest site would have the cover of darkness.

To say that the govt used live fire because they encountered rpg's ingores the sequence of events.

And yes, I disagree with the decision to use live fire in any case.

1/ The army came to the first dispersal with SOME soldiers equipped with blank rounds, SOME with live rounds, but the majority ready for crowd dispersal. This is morally wrong, they ALL should have been unarmed and ready for slaughter? M-79 grenades (NOT RPGs) were fired killing the commander, before fire was returned.

2/ Yes they made a big mistake, believing the they were dealing with peaceful protesters. After that attack, they were dealing with CRIMINALS.

Armed criminals get shot anywhere in the world, and particularly in your own country.

"ready for slaughter" : nice hyperbole. And not my statement at all.

You avoid the point completely that the April 10th dispersal was poorly planned and poorly executed by the military. Instead you throw the blame back on the protesters.

[tlansford]

- a poster's comment has been removed to accommodate the nesting levels allowed by the forum software -

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.

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

is the guy thaksin, the blind man the red shirts and the driver the army?

In a way its irrelevant, whats more imprtant are the intentions of the various actors. Who is at fault if the blind man wanted to commit suicide and blackmailed the guy to lead him to the right spot? How about if he paid him to do it? How about after hutting the blind man the car veered out of control and killed a bunch of passing school children?

I am just bored of the 'its so simple' crowd.

Focusing narrowly on actions, without examining inetentions is just dogma so you can find a scapegoat. Alot of people died or had their lives ruined by during the red shirt blockade, and not just red shrts, finding out the truth is far more important.

Once again, here the police could have prevented a tragedy if they had enforced the laws, and were not bought and did not take sides.

Be bored, then. Principles are simple, situations are not always simple. Principles guide the response to the situation.

Hypothetical questions are meaningless when looking at past events.

Intentions may be good or bad, but intentions are irrelevant since actions are the only thing which count.

Simple and dogmatic is the position of "the red shirt thugs were the problem and the military/government had no choice but to kill them".

[whybother]

Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens.

But your point is flawed anyway.

1) the army came to the first dispersal, before violence escalated, with live fire

2) the planning for dispersal was poor (before nightfall) greatly increasing the probability of losing control of the situation which is what happened and amply documented on video.

3) and we know nothing about the level of intelligence the govt had before the Apr 10th dispersal, but either the govt had a massive failure of intelligence in not knowing about the existence of an armed group at the protest site or it made a deadly mistake to start the dispersal before nightfall when the armed group at the protest site would have the cover of darkness.

To say that the govt used live fire because they encountered rpg's ingores the sequence of events.

And yes, I disagree with the decision to use live fire in any case.

You forget that the protesters had already stormed government house and Thaicom before the army attempted the first dispersal.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[longway]

A guy leads a blind man to stand in the middle of a road in the path of a driver who doesnt care who he hits and slows down for no-one and then runs away. Who is at fault?

is the guy thaksin, the blind man the red shirts and the driver the army?

In a way its irrelevant, whats more imprtant are the intentions of the various actors. Who is at fault if the blind man wanted to commit suicide and blackmailed the guy to lead him to the right spot? How about if he paid him to do it? How about after hutting the blind man the car veered out of control and killed a bunch of passing school children?

I am just bored of the 'its so simple' crowd.

Focusing narrowly on actions, without examining inetentions is just dogma so you can find a scapegoat. Alot of people died or had their lives ruined by during the red shirt blockade, and not just red shrts, finding out the truth is far more important.

Once again, here the police could have prevented a tragedy if they had enforced the laws, and were not bought and did not take sides.

Be bored, then. Principles are simple, situations are not always simple. Principles guide the response to the situation.

Hypothetical questions are meaningless when looking at past events.

Intentions may be good or bad, but intentions are irrelevant since actions are the only thing which count.

Simple and dogmatic is the position of "the red shirt thugs were the problem and the military/government had no choice but to kill them".

Interesting insight into the thinking of a red shirt supporter, there are many more like you. You would think it would be far more simple for them to just close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and go lalalala instead of debating in these threads.

In the hyothetical situation that doesnt count.

A policeman could have stopped the blind man from getting into the middle of the road, as it was an illegal act, but did not. He did nothing, in fact smiled and waved the two on, so I guess no matter what his intention in the situation, he is blameless?

Edited March 15, 2012 by longway

[yoshiwara]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds.

The deaths were regarded as collateral damage by the government not the Red Shirts. Why would you wish to deploy snipers if you did not wish to inflict deaths. Snipers by definition, do not shoot to miss, and judging by the amount of head shots they did their "job" ruthlessly well. I imagine that the families and loved ones of those killed (on both "sides" journalists, emergency workers and other innocents) regard their deaths with more compassion than you do, but that wouldn't be hard.

That argument would be equivalent to saying that the government supporters on this board were more concerned about their lack of access to the shopping malls than the deaths, but nobody could be that heartless surely?

"The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks"

If that was the case there would have been a pile of about 60 (5 soldiers and 20/21 civilians having already been killed in the April 10th clash) odd bodies piled up in Lumpini Park along with the rest of the protesters - apart from the 6 killed in the Wats grounds and the 2 "guards" on the perimeter of the park this wasn't the case was it. You've seen the videos - most were shot in the streets outside. Or do you still believe the government spin of 500 armed men roaming around the grounds.

I don't dispute there was a group (certainly not 500!) of armed men of no fixed allegiance battling with the army or that some red shirts may have used weapons other than fireworks, bricks and slingshots (one obviously being the guy who shot at the Dusit Hotel and was accused of at least 8 other similar incidents by the DSI) but a proportionate response from the army, I don't think so?

In response to the student riots in the UK, Sir Hugh Orde President of the Association of Chief Police Officers had this to say about the planned response, but more telling is his reaction to being bombed and shot at with live fire in Northern Ireland:

Now is not the time for police to use water cannon and baton rounds

Such tactics should only be used in very specific circumstances and we will not rashly deviate from the British model of policing.

Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.

When someone makes the comment:

I don't dispute there was a group (certainly not 500!) of armed men of no fixed allegiance battling with the army

any further comments cannot be taken seriously . A desperately poor attempt at a whitewash. The rest of it just disappears into a puddle.

[rubl]

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

Let's get back to k. Jatuporn smelling a conspiracy and let's put it in a historical perspective somehow

"The guns of Vendémiare: 5 October 1795

While he was in Paris, a royalist mob threatened to overthrow the Directory, and the Directory asked Napoleon to disperse the mob. Napoleon sent Captain Murat and his cavalry to fetch artillery, and with this artillery Napoleon fired a "whiff of grapeshot" into the mob and dispersed it, earning the gratitude of the government. Grateful for their continued existence, the Directory promoted him to general de division and gave him command of the Army of the Interior."

Edited March 15, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

who's we?

because a hell of a lot of people on here DO blame the protesters.

Most of them were sheep being shepherded to cause damage without realizing it. The ones that actually committed serious crimes should have of course known better and should suffer the consequences.

oh i fully agree, i was just wondering who the 'we' was in your post when you talked about people who don't balme it on the protesters... cos you'll find a hell of a lot of people on here do tar them all with the one brush.

[phiphidon]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds.

The deaths were regarded as collateral damage by the government not the Red Shirts. Why would you wish to deploy snipers if you did not wish to inflict deaths. Snipers by definition, do not shoot to miss, and judging by the amount of head shots they did their "job" ruthlessly well. I imagine that the families and loved ones of those killed (on both "sides" journalists, emergency workers and other innocents) regard their deaths with more compassion than you do, but that wouldn't be hard.

That argument would be equivalent to saying that the government supporters on this board were more concerned about their lack of access to the shopping malls than the deaths, but nobody could be that heartless surely?

"The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks"

If that was the case there would have been a pile of about 60 (5 soldiers and 20/21 civilians having already been killed in the April 10th clash) odd bodies piled up in Lumpini Park along with the rest of the protesters - apart from the 6 killed in the Wats grounds and the 2 "guards" on the perimeter of the park this wasn't the case was it. You've seen the videos - most were shot in the streets outside. Or do you still believe the government spin of 500 armed men roaming around the grounds.

I don't dispute there was a group (certainly not 500!) of armed men of no fixed allegiance battling with the army or that some red shirts may have used weapons other than fireworks, bricks and slingshots (one obviously being the guy who shot at the Dusit Hotel and was accused of at least 8 other similar incidents by the DSI) but a proportionate response from the army, I don't think so?

In response to the student riots in the UK, Sir Hugh Orde President of the Association of Chief Police Officers had this to say about the planned response, but more telling is his reaction to being bombed and shot at with live fire in Northern Ireland:

Now is not the time for police to use water cannon and baton rounds

Such tactics should only be used in very specific circumstances and we will not rashly deviate from the British model of policing.

Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.

When someone makes the comment:

I don't dispute there was a group (certainly not 500!) of armed men of no fixed allegiance battling with the army

any further comments cannot be taken seriously . A desperately poor attempt at a whitewash. The rest of it just disappears into a puddle.

As usual if it gets difficult to answer you use the "credibility" argument. Pathetic in itself. Do you know who the black shirts were in league with? Perhaps I should have phrased it as no obvious allegiance. Were they alligned to the PTP, OR whatever of the various factions of the UDD, OR members of the army that oppose the 2nd, 12th and 21st Infantry i.e. "Eastern Tigers", OR Seh Daengs "ronin warriors", OR Newins Blue shirts raised once more to cause trouble on behalf of the government/Suthep/CRES again, who knows for sure? Anyone of the above has a motive and the wherewithall. You think you know of course. Curious that the democrats didn't call on your expertise at the time, they couldn't work out who they were, still haven't.

[phiphidon]

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

Let's get back to k. Jatuporn smelling a conspiracy and let's put it in a historical perspective somehow

"The guns of Vendémiare: 5 October 1795

While he was in Paris, a royalist mob threatened to overthrow the Directory, and the Directory asked Napoleon to disperse the mob. Napoleon sent Captain Murat and his cavalry to fetch artillery, and with this artillery Napoleon fired a "whiff of grapeshot" into the mob and dispersed it, earning the gratitude of the government. Grateful for their continued existence, the Directory promoted him to general de division and gave him command of the Army of the Interior."

In theory at least, most countries and their governments have moved on from 18th Century thinking with regard to crowd dispersal, Syria and others obviously not included.

[rubl]

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

Let's get back to k. Jatuporn smelling a conspiracy and let's put it in a historical perspective somehow

"The guns of Vendémiare: 5 October 1795

While he was in Paris, a royalist mob threatened to overthrow the Directory, and the Directory asked Napoleon to disperse the mob. Napoleon sent Captain Murat and his cavalry to fetch artillery, and with this artillery Napoleon fired a "whiff of grapeshot" into the mob and dispersed it, earning the gratitude of the government. Grateful for their continued existence, the Directory promoted him to general de division and gave him command of the Army of the Interior."

In theory at least, most countries and their governments have moved on from 18th Century thinking with regard to crowd dispersal, Syria and others obviously not included.

In the Thai case it was the mob with the artillery (if I may be excuses to call grenade launchers artillery).

[AleG]

As usual if it gets difficult to answer you use the "credibility" argument. Pathetic in itself. Do you know who the black shirts were in league with? Perhaps I should have phrased it as no obvious allegiance. Were they alligned to the PTP, OR whatever of the various factions of the UDD, OR members of the army that oppose the 2nd, 12th and 21st Infantry i.e. "Eastern Tigers", OR Seh Daengs "ronin warriors", OR Newins Blue shirts raised once more to cause trouble on behalf of the government/Suthep/CRES again, who knows for sure? Anyone of the above has a motive and the wherewithall. You think you know of course. Curious that the democrats didn't call on your expertise at the time, they couldn't work out who they were, still haven't.

Since the "Black Shirts" freely mingled among the Red Shirts, were called by them as their protectors, Red Shirt leaders called on them to confront the security forces, some were actually captured and confessed being part of the Red Shirt movement, etc, etc... I would say it would take a lot of effort not to see who their were aligned with.

[TAWP]

What is required as definite proof that Black Shirts was in league with the Red Shirts [leaders]?

[hellodolly]

Some forum Thaksin supporters have learned well from the Jatuporn method of treating the truth as expendable. The fake turn contained in the 'lethal force' comment is that the reds were a peaceful demonstration fired upon by the army. And that the reds are the heirs of previous progressive demonstrations against the state. All nonsense. The reds ratcheted up the violence in 2010 day by day. Pushing pushing pushing. This included armed violence. The desired objective was to topple the government by the escalation of force. They failed and it is their failure which grates rather then the deaths. The deaths were collateral damage for the reds. Once one points out that the peaceful demo story is not going to work, they then pull back to a second position. Yes, they say there were some unknown independent armed forces but they weren't the peaceful reds. The army fired on the peaceful unarmed reds. A very thin argument. The whole tactic was to use the bulk of the supporters (the ones who remained that is) as a part of the barricade behind which they would launch attacks. When someone plays the pacifist card what they really wanted was for the state to roll over in the face of the red violence. One way traffic and naive at best. About as impressive as listening to Jatuporn and Arisman giving a spirited rendition of 'We Shall Overcome' i would say.

am i a forum thaksin supporter?

Also when they had negotiated a deal to end it they turned around and backed out of it. Now would peaceful unarmed protestors back out of a deal that they had agreed on to end it all.