Disqualified Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn Smells A Conspiracy

[hellodolly]

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.

Also they were taking their food from the red shirts and hiding behind red shirt built barricades. Another point was not a one black shirt was involved in the hospital invasion. They were to busy protecting them.

[yoshiwara]

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.

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

Edited March 15, 2012 by yoshiwara

[tlansford]

- snip -

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?

nice dodge.

So no intention of addressing the issues? No, now you want to say it is the fault of the police?

Why not actually look at the events and the actions that took place on all sides?

Instead you conjure up a hypothetical scenario. As I said - irrelevant.

Police : the police were called on and used by Abhisit throughout the conflict. So what is your point? The police were used at the beginning of the protests, the police were at Abhisit's house when the protesters threw the blood at his house, the police were used in April and May, too. Abhisit was the one to call out the army.

Here are some of the events/actions that took place.

The government (Abhisit) used the ISA, and called out the military.

The military used live rounds and lethal force - who made that choice? We still don't know.

The government, including Abhisit, spread rumors about violence before the protests started, rumors of fatigues being sold out at the weekend market, bullets being bought up, etc.

Suthep was quoted several times before the protests began that the protesters could be violent, throw grenades, and burn down buildings... Below was reported on March 10th by The Nation.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/03/10/politics/-Govt-steps-up-security-but-personnel-will-not-be--30124331.html

Suthep added that the protesters would try to paralyse Bangkok traffic and some may even carry out violent actions, throwing grenades or burning down government buildings in a bid to provoke the use of force.

In the same report, March 10th 2010, Suthep already was calling the protests"terrorist acts". The protests had not even started.

Suthep told the Cabinet that the international intelligence community also agreed that the red shirts' moves were undemocratic and that their protests could be regarded as terrorist acts.

How did Suthep know all that would happen already on March 10th ? Why did he say the protest would be a terrorist act even before it started? Why was it that within hours of the first grenade attacks that Suthep was on TV saying the grenades were fired from the direction of the red shirts. Witnesses, however, stated that the grenades were fired from buildings which were not within the red shirt protests.

Today, the other paper quoted a DSI report just released that there is "scant evidence" to support the theory that the men in black killed Col. Romklao. In fact after their investigation, the DSI still does not have any information about who the men in black were.

These are events and actions that we know about, and they have nothing to do with a made-up fairy tale about a blind man in the road.

[tlansford]

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.

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

What is documented is that the "fake" protesters at the 2009 ASEAN summit were the government's Blue Shirts which were identified as PAD guards and military (Navy) personnel, and the Blue Shirts attacked the Red Shirts.

[TAWP]

Is your defense that the ASEAN meeting was invaded because the local police had blue shirts alongside when the red shirts came to protest?

[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.

"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.

So poor planning by the military relieves the protesters from any blame when they show up with military weapons and conduct their well-planned ambush. It's immoral for the government to kill its citizens, but protesters can kill army officers as part of legitimate protest.

[longway]

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?

nice dodge.

So no intention of addressing the issues? No, now you want to say it is the fault of the police?

Why not actually look at the events and the actions that took place on all sides?

Instead you conjure up a hypothetical scenario. As I said - irrelevant.

Police : the police were called on and used by Abhisit throughout the conflict. So what is your point? The police were used at the beginning of the protests, the police were at Abhisit's house when the protesters threw the blood at his house, the police were used in April and May, too. Abhisit was the one to call out the army.

Here are some of the events/actions that took place.

The government (Abhisit) used the ISA, and called out the military.

The military used live rounds and lethal force - who made that choice? We still don't know.

The government, including Abhisit, spread rumors about violence before the protests started, rumors of fatigues being sold out at the weekend market, bullets being bought up, etc.

Suthep was quoted several times before the protests began that the protesters could be violent, throw grenades, and burn down buildings... Below was reported on March 10th by The Nation.

http://www.nationmul...--30124331.html

Suthep added that the protesters would try to paralyse Bangkok traffic and some may even carry out violent actions, throwing grenades or burning down government buildings in a bid to provoke the use of force.

In the same report, March 10th 2010, Suthep already was calling the protests"terrorist acts". The protests had not even started.

Suthep told the Cabinet that the international intelligence community also agreed that the red shirts' moves were undemocratic and that their protests could be regarded as terrorist acts.

How did Suthep know all that would happen already on March 10th ? Why did he say the protest would be a terrorist act even before it started? Why was it that within hours of the first grenade attacks that Suthep was on TV saying the grenades were fired from the direction of the red shirts. Witnesses, however, stated that the grenades were fired from buildings which were not within the red shirt protests.

Today, the other paper quoted a DSI report just released that there is "scant evidence" to support the theory that the men in black killed Col. Romklao. In fact after their investigation, the DSI still does not have any information about who the men in black were.

These are events and actions that we know about, and they have nothing to do with a made-up fairy tale about a blind man in the road.

I have dodged nothing, nor did I say that the police are to blame, but I do find their actions highly suspect and worth investigation.

I was pointing out the fallacy of stating that intentions dont count, its a ridiculous stance. Something that is still clearly gone over your head or you are in denial about as its just plain silly.

Anyway you know the events that occurred do you? You better go down to the DSI and let them know, there is nothing more to investigate, you have all the answers.

Can you tell me why at every significant action the police were called out they failed to do their job? Do you remeber the farce when they went to arrest that lard ass Arisman? The police allowed the red shirts to take over rajaprasong without any resistance, I was there and walked along with them when they did it. I saw a senior police officer get on the red shirt truck and give a well received speech to the assembled red shirts.

One phrase he used that sprang out that he repeated several times was " Dtamruat bpen bprachachon duay" - given the crowd he addressed he can only mean " The police are one of you"

Shortly after teh last of teh police sped off amid smiles and back slaps. The reds often boasted that the police are reds, NN in his books states how the police chnage into red shirts after work and join demonstrations.

Yes, I for one would like to know why the police failed in their duty and are taking sides, given the that dozens of people ended up killed at rajaprasong.

In the hypthetical situation, the actions are plainly visible, but cannot be interprepted justly until the knowledge and actions of the actors become known.

Edited March 15, 2012 by longway

[tlansford]

- post deleted to accommodate quote limits -

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.

So poor planning by the military relieves the protesters from any blame when they show up with military weapons and conduct their well-planned ambush. It's immoral for the government to kill its citizens, but protesters can kill army officers as part of legitimate protest.

That is your statement, not mine. It is not what I have said and you know that perfectly well.

You've read my posts. I don't believe in violence, nor do I believe that killing people is a solution in any situation.

I've made that position perfectly clear and I have no problem justifying it.

But I do not appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth. Stating an absurd opinion which neither you nor I believe is hardly part of a rational discussion. And less so when you attempt to attribute it to me.

[tlansford]

- snip -

nice dodge.

So no intention of addressing the issues? No, now you want to say it is the fault of the police?

Why not actually look at the events and the actions that took place on all sides?

Instead you conjure up a hypothetical scenario. As I said - irrelevant.

Police : the police were called on and used by Abhisit throughout the conflict. So what is your point? The police were used at the beginning of the protests, the police were at Abhisit's house when the protesters threw the blood at his house, the police were used in April and May, too. Abhisit was the one to call out the army.

Here are some of the events/actions that took place.

The government (Abhisit) used the ISA, and called out the military.

The military used live rounds and lethal force - who made that choice? We still don't know.

The government, including Abhisit, spread rumors about violence before the protests started, rumors of fatigues being sold out at the weekend market, bullets being bought up, etc.

Suthep was quoted several times before the protests began that the protesters could be violent, throw grenades, and burn down buildings... Below was reported on March 10th by The Nation.

http://www.nationmul...--30124331.html

Suthep added that the protesters would try to paralyse Bangkok traffic and some may even carry out violent actions, throwing grenades or burning down government buildings in a bid to provoke the use of force.

In the same report, March 10th 2010, Suthep already was calling the protests"terrorist acts". The protests had not even started.

Suthep told the Cabinet that the international intelligence community also agreed that the red shirts' moves were undemocratic and that their protests could be regarded as terrorist acts.

How did Suthep know all that would happen already on March 10th ? Why did he say the protest would be a terrorist act even before it started? Why was it that within hours of the first grenade attacks that Suthep was on TV saying the grenades were fired from the direction of the red shirts. Witnesses, however, stated that the grenades were fired from buildings which were not within the red shirt protests.

Today, the other paper quoted a DSI report just released that there is "scant evidence" to support the theory that the men in black killed Col. Romklao. In fact after their investigation, the DSI still does not have any information about who the men in black were.

These are events and actions that we know about, and they have nothing to do with a made-up fairy tale about a blind man in the road.

I have dodged nothing, nor did I say that the police are to blame, but I do find their actions highly suspect and worth investigation.

I was pointing out the fallacy of stating that intentions dont count, its a ridiculous stance. Something that is still clearly gone over your head or you are in denial about as its just plain silly.

Anyway you know the events that occurred do you? You better go down to the DSI and let them know, there is nothing more to investigate, you have all the answers.

Can you tell me why at every significant action the police were called out they failed to do their job? Do you remeber the farce when they went to arrest that lard ass Arisman? The police allowed the red shirts to take over rajaprasong without any resistance, I was there and walked along with them when they did it. I saw a senior police officer get on the red shirt truck and give a well received speech to the assembled red shirts.

One phrase he used that sprang out that he repeated several times was " Dtamruat bpen bprachachon duay" - given the crowd he addressed he can only mean " The police are one of you"

Shortly after teh last of teh police sped off amid smiles and back slaps. The reds often boasted that the police are reds, NN in his books states how the police chnage into red shirts after work and join demonstrations.

Yes, I for one would like to know why the police failed in their duty and are taking sides, given the that dozens of people ended up killed at rajaprasong.

In the hypthetical situation, the actions are plainly visible, but cannot be interprepted justly until the knowledge and actions of the actors become known.

Regarding the police, in post 135, you stated,"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."

That, along with your blind man answer indicated to me that you b lame the police as well as the red shirts. If that is not the case, then I have misunderstood what seemed to be a clear statement on your part.

And my point that intentions are not relevant, actions are is based on this. We don't know, but let's presume that Abhisit's intentions did not intend killing citizens. Yet the outcome of his actions were that people died. So are his intentions relevant? I say no. Obviously we disagree on which statement, yours or mine, is "silly" as you say.

Your attempt again to blame the police by stating some sympathize with the red shirts only acknowledges that some police sympathize with the red shirts. There were reports of army members who also sympathized with the red shirts and they reported only shooting into the air, not into the crowd. But to say that the police did not do their job & that this fact caused the tragedy is not born out by the facts. The police were part of the crowd control and did their job. The army was charged with the dispersal on April 10th, not the police. The ISA put the army in command. The army's dispersal was by any measure poorly done.

[yoshiwara]

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.

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

What is documented is that the "fake" protesters at the 2009 ASEAN summit were the government's Blue Shirts which were identified as PAD guards and military (Navy) personnel, and the Blue Shirts attacked the Red Shirts.

The lying by Thaksin as to the red thuggery only kicked in after the publicity turned seriously sour, but the lying about the 'fake reds' was to echo into 2010 with the reds thuggery in Bangkok covered with a thin veneer of peacefulness and relentless lying to this day. What readers should remember however is that the Thaksin cheerleaders, though looking for brownie points in repeating Thaksin's dissembling after the fact, are essentially defending the violence and those who remember the production line of red supporters who entered the forum in 2010 will remember that the mask was thrown away in favour of the violence at each stage of the escalation. So what's the difference? The difference is this: if the battle is going in your favour, you defend, you cheer it. But once in retreat, the Thaksin tactic is to deny, lie and throw sand up in the air. This thread kicked off about Jatuporn, one of the nastiest pieces of work in the Thaksin line-up. The forum Thaksin supporters know what to do. Defend him. Why? Because he is one of Thaksin's 'generals'. What they have learned these last 2 years is that it is hardly worth the bother pushing the 'its not about Thaksin' mantra any more, particularly as they think they can taste the possibility of his return. And the reds are openly demonstrating in favour of both Arisman and Jatuporn. So it is all in. Anything goes. Thaksin's boys. And that is how supposedly intellectual elements begin their slow but relentless slide into neo-fascist tendencies. The leader. Defend the leader. Know this and know everything.

[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.

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.

The leaders would if they didn't trust the sincerity of those who offered it and then piled on caveats as to why the election may be delayed after all.

[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.

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.

By 'we' I of course mean 'reasonable people'.

[OzMick]

That is your statement, not mine. It is not what I have said and you know that perfectly well.

You've read my posts. I don't believe in violence, nor do I believe that killing people is a solution in any situation.

I've made that position perfectly clear and I have no problem justifying it.

But I do not appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth. Stating an absurd opinion which neither you nor I believe is hardly part of a rational discussion. And less so when you attempt to attribute it to me.

I'm still waiting for one clear statement from you that armed protesters killing RTA members is wrong, and that when armed men appeared in their midst, the correct thing for a peaceful protester to do is to distance himself completely.

ALL i have ever read in your clear statements is that the Democrat government was wrong to kill.

"Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens."

How about "Fundamentally, protesters shouldn't be armed."

[longway]

I have dodged nothing, nor did I say that the police are to blame, but I do find their actions highly suspect and worth investigation.

I was pointing out the fallacy of stating that intentions dont count, its a ridiculous stance. Something that is still clearly gone over your head or you are in denial about as its just plain silly.

Anyway you know the events that occurred do you? You better go down to the DSI and let them know, there is nothing more to investigate, you have all the answers.

Can you tell me why at every significant action the police were called out they failed to do their job? Do you remeber the farce when they went to arrest that lard ass Arisman? The police allowed the red shirts to take over rajaprasong without any resistance, I was there and walked along with them when they did it. I saw a senior police officer get on the red shirt truck and give a well received speech to the assembled red shirts.

One phrase he used that sprang out that he repeated several times was " Dtamruat bpen bprachachon duay" - given the crowd he addressed he can only mean " The police are one of you"

Shortly after teh last of teh police sped off amid smiles and back slaps. The reds often boasted that the police are reds, NN in his books states how the police chnage into red shirts after work and join demonstrations.

Yes, I for one would like to know why the police failed in their duty and are taking sides, given the that dozens of people ended up killed at rajaprasong.

In the hypthetical situation, the actions are plainly visible, but cannot be interprepted justly until the knowledge and actions of the actors become known.

Regarding the police, in post 135, you stated,"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."

That, along with your blind man answer indicated to me that you b lame the police as well as the red shirts. If that is not the case, then I have misunderstood what seemed to be a clear statement on your part.

And my point that intentions are not relevant, actions are is based on this. We don't know, but let's presume that Abhisit's intentions did not intend killing citizens. Yet the outcome of his actions were that people died. So are his intentions relevant? I say no. Obviously we disagree on which statement, yours or mine, is "silly" as you say.

Your attempt again to blame the police by stating some sympathize with the red shirts only acknowledges that some police sympathize with the red shirts. There were reports of army members who also sympathized with the red shirts and they reported only shooting into the air, not into the crowd. But to say that the police did not do their job & that this fact caused the tragedy is not born out by the facts. The police were part of the crowd control and did their job. The army was charged with the dispersal on April 10th, not the police. The ISA put the army in command. The army's dispersal was by any measure poorly done.

I pointed out 2 major systematic failures of the police to perform their duty, sympathetic or not, they should do they are paid to do. A senior police officer getting on a red shirt truck saying the police are red shirts too is startling, especially as it happened directly after after the police allowed the red shirts to occupy rajaprasong. If you really think that this is not worth investigating then you need your head examined, and I mean it, and it is certainly not a fact that the police did their jobs, its just your rather bizarre opinion.

Personally, I believe the police played a major part in ensuring the outcome was as bloody as it was, whether that is true or not, I dont know.

Do you differentiate between the rank and file reds and their leaders? I do, as it was the grass-root reds that died and were maimed, miraculously none of the red leaders suffered as much as a scratch; worth looking into how that happened too.

Yes, if dozens died and 100s of people were injured after months long occupation interpersed with bombings and random deaths along with significant fires throughout the city and the country, it requires the most careful investigation of the circumstances surrounding the killings and the events leading up to it , to say otherwise is just stupid; there is no other way to put it.

[tlansford]

I have dodged nothing, nor did I say that the police are to blame, but I do find their actions highly suspect and worth investigation.

I was pointing out the fallacy of stating that intentions dont count, its a ridiculous stance. Something that is still clearly gone over your head or you are in denial about as its just plain silly.

Anyway you know the events that occurred do you? You better go down to the DSI and let them know, there is nothing more to investigate, you have all the answers.

Can you tell me why at every significant action the police were called out they failed to do their job? Do you remeber the farce when they went to arrest that lard ass Arisman? The police allowed the red shirts to take over rajaprasong without any resistance, I was there and walked along with them when they did it. I saw a senior police officer get on the red shirt truck and give a well received speech to the assembled red shirts.

One phrase he used that sprang out that he repeated several times was " Dtamruat bpen bprachachon duay" - given the crowd he addressed he can only mean " The police are one of you"

Shortly after teh last of teh police sped off amid smiles and back slaps. The reds often boasted that the police are reds, NN in his books states how the police chnage into red shirts after work and join demonstrations.

Yes, I for one would like to know why the police failed in their duty and are taking sides, given the that dozens of people ended up killed at rajaprasong.

In the hypthetical situation, the actions are plainly visible, but cannot be interprepted justly until the knowledge and actions of the actors become known.

Regarding the police, in post 135, you stated,"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."

That, along with your blind man answer indicated to me that you b lame the police as well as the red shirts. If that is not the case, then I have misunderstood what seemed to be a clear statement on your part.

And my point that intentions are not relevant, actions are is based on this. We don't know, but let's presume that Abhisit's intentions did not intend killing citizens. Yet the outcome of his actions were that people died. So are his intentions relevant? I say no. Obviously we disagree on which statement, yours or mine, is "silly" as you say.

Your attempt again to blame the police by stating some sympathize with the red shirts only acknowledges that some police sympathize with the red shirts. There were reports of army members who also sympathized with the red shirts and they reported only shooting into the air, not into the crowd. But to say that the police did not do their job & that this fact caused the tragedy is not born out by the facts. The police were part of the crowd control and did their job. The army was charged with the dispersal on April 10th, not the police. The ISA put the army in command. The army's dispersal was by any measure poorly done.

I pointed out 2 major systematic failures of the police to perform their duty, sympathetic or not, they should do they are paid to do. A senior police officer getting on a red shirt truck saying the police are red shirts too is startling, especially as it happened directly after after the police allowed the red shirts to occupy rajaprasong. If you really think that this is not worth investigating then you need your head examined, and I mean it, and it is certainly not a fact that the police did their jobs, its just your rather bizarre opinion.

Personally, I believe the police played a major part in ensuring the outcome was as bloody as it was, whether that is true or not, I dont know.

Do you differentiate between the rank and file reds and their leaders? I do, as it was the grass-root reds that died and were maimed, miraculously none of the red leaders suffered as much as a scratch; worth looking into how that happened too.

Yes, if dozens died and 100s of people were injured after months long occupation interpersed with bombings and random deaths along with significant fires throughout the city and the country, it requires the most careful investigation of the circumstances surrounding the killings and the events leading up to it , to say otherwise is just stupid; there is no other way to put it.

I agree that good, thorough (re: honest) investigations would be excellent. We are coming up on 2 years after the events...

[tlansford]

That is your statement, not mine. It is not what I have said and you know that perfectly well.

You've read my posts. I don't believe in violence, nor do I believe that killing people is a solution in any situation.

I've made that position perfectly clear and I have no problem justifying it.

But I do not appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth. Stating an absurd opinion which neither you nor I believe is hardly part of a rational discussion. And less so when you attempt to attribute it to me.

I'm still waiting for one clear statement from you that armed protesters killing RTA members is wrong, and that when armed men appeared in their midst, the correct thing for a peaceful protester to do is to distance himself completely.

ALL i have ever read in your clear statements is that the Democrat government was wrong to kill.

"Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens."

How about "Fundamentally, protesters shouldn't be armed."

Not only have I said it before, as in the post you are replying to, but I'll repeat it here - just for you. Killing is wrong, and that is on all sides.

Brush up your reading skills a bit, please.

[yoshiwara]

That is your statement, not mine. It is not what I have said and you know that perfectly well.

You've read my posts. I don't believe in violence, nor do I believe that killing people is a solution in any situation.

I've made that position perfectly clear and I have no problem justifying it.

But I do not appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth. Stating an absurd opinion which neither you nor I believe is hardly part of a rational discussion. And less so when you attempt to attribute it to me.

I'm still waiting for one clear statement from you that armed protesters killing RTA members is wrong, and that when armed men appeared in their midst, the correct thing for a peaceful protester to do is to distance himself completely.

ALL i have ever read in your clear statements is that the Democrat government was wrong to kill.

"Fundamentally, the government should never kill its own citizens."

How about "Fundamentally, protesters shouldn't be armed."

Not only have I said it before, as in the post you are replying to, but I'll repeat it here - just for you. Killing is wrong, and that is on all sides.

Brush up your reading skills a bit, please.

And spends a lot of time both defending and whitewashing those who initiated the violence, so frankly the 'killing is wrong' get out of jail card worth about as much as Jatuporn's protestations ie worthless.

[longway]

I have dodged nothing, nor did I say that the police are to blame, but I do find their actions highly suspect and worth investigation.

I was pointing out the fallacy of stating that intentions dont count, its a ridiculous stance. Something that is still clearly gone over your head or you are in denial about as its just plain silly.

Anyway you know the events that occurred do you? You better go down to the DSI and let them know, there is nothing more to investigate, you have all the answers.

Can you tell me why at every significant action the police were called out they failed to do their job? Do you remeber the farce when they went to arrest that lard ass Arisman? The police allowed the red shirts to take over rajaprasong without any resistance, I was there and walked along with them when they did it. I saw a senior police officer get on the red shirt truck and give a well received speech to the assembled red shirts.

One phrase he used that sprang out that he repeated several times was " Dtamruat bpen bprachachon duay" - given the crowd he addressed he can only mean " The police are one of you"

Shortly after teh last of teh police sped off amid smiles and back slaps. The reds often boasted that the police are reds, NN in his books states how the police chnage into red shirts after work and join demonstrations.

Yes, I for one would like to know why the police failed in their duty and are taking sides, given the that dozens of people ended up killed at rajaprasong.

In the hypthetical situation, the actions are plainly visible, but cannot be interprepted justly until the knowledge and actions of the actors become known.

Regarding the police, in post 135, you stated,"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."

That, along with your blind man answer indicated to me that you b lame the police as well as the red shirts. If that is not the case, then I have misunderstood what seemed to be a clear statement on your part.

And my point that intentions are not relevant, actions are is based on this. We don't know, but let's presume that Abhisit's intentions did not intend killing citizens. Yet the outcome of his actions were that people died. So are his intentions relevant? I say no. Obviously we disagree on which statement, yours or mine, is "silly" as you say.

Your attempt again to blame the police by stating some sympathize with the red shirts only acknowledges that some police sympathize with the red shirts. There were reports of army members who also sympathized with the red shirts and they reported only shooting into the air, not into the crowd. But to say that the police did not do their job & that this fact caused the tragedy is not born out by the facts. The police were part of the crowd control and did their job. The army was charged with the dispersal on April 10th, not the police. The ISA put the army in command. The army's dispersal was by any measure poorly done.

I pointed out 2 major systematic failures of the police to perform their duty, sympathetic or not, they should do they are paid to do. A senior police officer getting on a red shirt truck saying the police are red shirts too is startling, especially as it happened directly after after the police allowed the red shirts to occupy rajaprasong. If you really think that this is not worth investigating then you need your head examined, and I mean it, and it is certainly not a fact that the police did their jobs, its just your rather bizarre opinion.

Personally, I believe the police played a major part in ensuring the outcome was as bloody as it was, whether that is true or not, I dont know.

Do you differentiate between the rank and file reds and their leaders? I do, as it was the grass-root reds that died and were maimed, miraculously none of the red leaders suffered as much as a scratch; worth looking into how that happened too.

Yes, if dozens died and 100s of people were injured after months long occupation interpersed with bombings and random deaths along with significant fires throughout the city and the country, it requires the most careful investigation of the circumstances surrounding the killings and the events leading up to it , to say otherwise is just stupid; there is no other way to put it.

I agree that good, thorough (re: honest) investigations would be excellent. We are coming up on 2 years after the events...

That it got to the stage that the army had to be used to disperse the protesters is not only worth investigating; it defies belief, I suspect hat collusion between the elite factions of the red shirts and elements in the police and army ensured that this was the only outcome allowed. The army was the one that ended up killing them, but it doesn't mean that they have the sole respnsibility.

I am actually very disapppointed that Abhisit did not call an election is November 2010, this means that either he did not feel a moral obligation to do so or is too weak to ensure that it happened, either way he is not up to the job or not worth supporting IMO.

Secondly the fact that there were elections last year and the transition was relatively smooth and orderly shows the red shirt leaders were either dunderheads, who should be shot for their stupidity, or to be malicious ruthless politically calculating murderers when they refused the offer of Abhisits compromise, when the whole situation could have finsihed without bloodshed.

93 died and 1000s injured and elections were called a year later, what was the point?

[tlansford]

- snip -

Regarding the police, in post 135, you stated,"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."

That, along with your blind man answer indicated to me that you b lame the police as well as the red shirts. If that is not the case, then I have misunderstood what seemed to be a clear statement on your part.

And my point that intentions are not relevant, actions are is based on this. We don't know, but let's presume that Abhisit's intentions did not intend killing citizens. Yet the outcome of his actions were that people died. So are his intentions relevant? I say no. Obviously we disagree on which statement, yours or mine, is "silly" as you say.

Your attempt again to blame the police by stating some sympathize with the red shirts only acknowledges that some police sympathize with the red shirts. There were reports of army members who also sympathized with the red shirts and they reported only shooting into the air, not into the crowd. But to say that the police did not do their job & that this fact caused the tragedy is not born out by the facts. The police were part of the crowd control and did their job. The army was charged with the dispersal on April 10th, not the police. The ISA put the army in command. The army's dispersal was by any measure poorly done.

I pointed out 2 major systematic failures of the police to perform their duty, sympathetic or not, they should do they are paid to do. A senior police officer getting on a red shirt truck saying the police are red shirts too is startling, especially as it happened directly after after the police allowed the red shirts to occupy rajaprasong. If you really think that this is not worth investigating then you need your head examined, and I mean it, and it is certainly not a fact that the police did their jobs, its just your rather bizarre opinion.

Personally, I believe the police played a major part in ensuring the outcome was as bloody as it was, whether that is true or not, I dont know.

Do you differentiate between the rank and file reds and their leaders? I do, as it was the grass-root reds that died and were maimed, miraculously none of the red leaders suffered as much as a scratch; worth looking into how that happened too.

Yes, if dozens died and 100s of people were injured after months long occupation interpersed with bombings and random deaths along with significant fires throughout the city and the country, it requires the most careful investigation of the circumstances surrounding the killings and the events leading up to it , to say otherwise is just stupid; there is no other way to put it.

I agree that good, thorough (re: honest) investigations would be excellent. We are coming up on 2 years after the events...

That it got to the stage that the army had to be used to disperse the protesters is not only worth investigating; it defies belief, I suspect hat collusion between the elite factions of the red shirts and elements in the police and army ensured that this was the only outcome allowed. The army was the one that ended up killing them, but it doesn't mean that they have the sole respnsibility.

I am actually very disapppointed that Abhisit did not call an election is November 2010, this means that either he did not feel a moral obligation to do so or is too weak to ensure that it happened, either way he is not up to the job or not worth supporting IMO.

Secondly the fact that there were elections last year and the transition was relatively smooth and orderly shows the red shirt leaders were either dunderheads, who should be shot for their stupidity, or to be malicious ruthless politically calculating murderers when they refused the offer of Abhisits compromise, when the whole situation could have finsihed without bloodshed.

93 died and 1000s injured and elections were called a year later, what was the point?

The last line is a good question.

As for the police thing at the start, I haven't looked at that in detail, but my understanding is that by invoking the Internal Security Act, ISA, from March 10-23rd, this put the military in charge and seems to indicate that Abhisit planned to use the military from the start. I know people love to hate the police and I have no desire to delve any deeper into it myself, so I'll leave it at that.

[animatic]

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.

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

What is documented is that the "fake" protesters at the 2009 ASEAN summit were the government's Blue Shirts which were identified as PAD guards and military (Navy) personnel, and the Blue Shirts attacked the Red Shirts.

As I remember it The Blue shirts blocked the way, and the Redshirts tried to bull their way past.

[Siam Simon]

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.

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

What is documented is that the "fake" protesters at the 2009 ASEAN summit were the government's Blue Shirts which were identified as PAD guards and military (Navy) personnel, and the Blue Shirts attacked the Red Shirts.

As I remember it The Blue shirts blocked the way, and the Redshirts tried to bull their way past.

There's a blog about this from Nirmal Ghosh of the Straights Times here:

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/4/11/flashpoint-pattaya/

[tlansford]

- snip --

That would be the blackshirts seen both prancing around at the back of the red stage and in the middle of the red throngs firing their weapons.

Another layer of Thaksin's onion: PTP, reds, blackshirts. I am reminded of Thaksin who when confronted with the evidence in 2009 of the red's violent attack on the ASEAN conference (a dress rehearsal for 2010) turned around and lied that they were fake reds. More of the same. A Jatuporn me-too. And worn with pride no doubt.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.'

What is documented is that the "fake" protesters at the 2009 ASEAN summit were the government's Blue Shirts which were identified as PAD guards and military (Navy) personnel, and the Blue Shirts attacked the Red Shirts.

As I remember it The Blue shirts blocked the way, and the Redshirts tried to bull their way past.

There's a blog about this from Nirmal Ghosh of the Straights Times here:

http://blogs.straits...hpoint-pattaya/

The blue shirt thing was strange. At the Asean summit, they were filmed and photographed being trucked / walking in and out from inside the gov't's security perimeter, they were filmed and photographed with their clubs, bats, & handguns, Newin was photographed with them in a blue shirt, Newin and Suthep were photographed together, they were recognized as military personnel and PAD guards, after the event, they were tied to the gov't, and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts...

Who's bright idea was that?

[yoshiwara]

The blue shirt thing was strange. At the Asean summit, they were filmed and photographed being trucked / walking in and out from inside the gov't's security perimeter, they were filmed and photographed with their clubs, bats, & handguns, Newin was photographed with them in a blue shirt, Newin and Suthep were photographed together, they were recognized as military personnel and PAD guards, after the event, they were tied to the gov't, and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts...

Who's bright idea was that?

'and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts... '

Just amazing twaddle. The reds of course were just there for a picnic and not intending to wreck the ASEAN conference.

[phiphidon]

The blue shirt thing was strange. At the Asean summit, they were filmed and photographed being trucked / walking in and out from inside the gov't's security perimeter, they were filmed and photographed with their clubs, bats, & handguns, Newin was photographed with them in a blue shirt, Newin and Suthep were photographed together, they were recognized as military personnel and PAD guards, after the event, they were tied to the gov't, and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts...

Who's bright idea was that?

'and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts... '

Just amazing twaddle. The reds of course were just there for a picnic and not intending to wreck the ASEAN conference.

Do some digging. You might suprise yourself and find something other than what you thought was the case, though I doubt it.

[tlansford]

The blue shirt thing was strange. At the Asean summit, they were filmed and photographed being trucked / walking in and out from inside the gov't's security perimeter, they were filmed and photographed with their clubs, bats, & handguns, Newin was photographed with them in a blue shirt, Newin and Suthep were photographed together, they were recognized as military personnel and PAD guards, after the event, they were tied to the gov't, and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts...

Who's bright idea was that?

'and then they were used to create a conflict with the red shirts... '

Just amazing twaddle. The reds of course were just there for a picnic and not intending to wreck the ASEAN conference.

Everything stated above is documented by multiple sources.

If facts are "amazing twaddle" in your mind, that would explain your posting habits.

The red shirts were demonstrating in BKK already. On Apr 10th, there was a clash between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts in Pattaya when Arisaman delivered a letter of protest to the ASEAN delegates.

The news of the brief clash prompted red shirts at demonstrations to go to Pattaya by the pick-up truck load. On the 11th, there were more clashes and stand-offs between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts, and the ASEAN summit was canceled.

Why didn't the gov't just use normal techniques to protect & control the protests at the ASEAN summit? What was the logic of creating and using the "blue" shirts against the red shirts? Why escalate the tensions with a fake, unofficial "protest" group in stead of just doing the job of security for the Summit?

[rubl]

Everything stated above is documented by multiple sources.

If facts are "amazing twaddle" in your mind, that would explain your posting habits.

The red shirts were demonstrating in BKK already. On Apr 10th, there was a clash between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts in Pattaya when Arisaman delivered a letter of protest to the ASEAN delegates.

The news of the brief clash prompted red shirts at demonstrations to go to Pattaya by the pick-up truck load. On the 11th, there were more clashes and stand-offs between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts, and the ASEAN summit was canceled.

Why didn't the gov't just use normal techniques to protect & control the protests at the ASEAN summit? What was the logic of creating and using the "blue" shirts against the red shirts? Why escalate the tensions with a fake, unofficial "protest" group in stead of just doing the job of security for the Summit?

Do we really have to have this discussion again? It's hardly three weeks ago we did the same, with 661 replies to a topic:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087390

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087404

""But the Hotel incursion happened hours after, the clashes with the Blue Shirts were completely over. The Blue Shirts at no point pushed the Red Shirts into a “confined space”. There was no “confined space”. There was no panic under Red Shirts, the plan by Newin (and Suthep, and the Supreme Command) went completely to shit, and the reasons why i have elaborated on in my book.

The Red Shirts sat for several hours in front of the Hotel while Arisaman held a press conference inside the Hotel with a sack of blue shirts the Red Shirts found on the way to the Hotel.

Red Shirts stormed into the Hotel grounds (some of them have been resting already at the hotel golf course), and pressed against the entry door, which broke.

I have all this documented by photos, and with my text, in my book."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/03/09/nick-nostitz-on-thailands-political-awakening/

Edited March 17, 2012 by rubl

[Buchholz]

Everything stated above is documented by multiple sources.

If facts are "amazing twaddle" in your mind, that would explain your posting habits.

The red shirts were demonstrating in BKK already. On Apr 10th, there was a clash between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts in Pattaya when Arisaman delivered a letter of protest to the ASEAN delegates.

The news of the brief clash prompted red shirts at demonstrations to go to Pattaya by the pick-up truck load. On the 11th, there were more clashes and stand-offs between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts, and the ASEAN summit was canceled.

Why didn't the gov't just use normal techniques to protect & control the protests at the ASEAN summit? What was the logic of creating and using the "blue" shirts against the red shirts? Why escalate the tensions with a fake, unofficial "protest" group in stead of just doing the job of security for the Summit?

Do we really have to have this discussion again? It's hardly three weeks ago we did the same, with 661 replies to a topic:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087390

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087404

they do like to go round and round with revision attempts... check back in another few weeks

,

[Crushdepth]

Did Jatuporn ever get around to revealing his conspiracy?

[longway]

No, but its generally agreed that he smells.

[tlansford]

Everything stated above is documented by multiple sources.

If facts are "amazing twaddle" in your mind, that would explain your posting habits.

The red shirts were demonstrating in BKK already. On Apr 10th, there was a clash between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts in Pattaya when Arisaman delivered a letter of protest to the ASEAN delegates.

The news of the brief clash prompted red shirts at demonstrations to go to Pattaya by the pick-up truck load. On the 11th, there were more clashes and stand-offs between the "blue" shirts and the red shirts, and the ASEAN summit was canceled.

Why didn't the gov't just use normal techniques to protect & control the protests at the ASEAN summit? What was the logic of creating and using the "blue" shirts against the red shirts? Why escalate the tensions with a fake, unofficial "protest" group in stead of just doing the job of security for the Summit?

Do we really have to have this discussion again? It's hardly three weeks ago we did the same, with 661 replies to a topic:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087390

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087404

""But the Hotel incursion happened hours after, the clashes with the Blue Shirts were completely over. The Blue Shirts at no point pushed the Red Shirts into a “confined space”. There was no “confined space”. There was no panic under Red Shirts, the plan by Newin (and Suthep, and the Supreme Command) went completely to shit, and the reasons why i have elaborated on in my book.

The Red Shirts sat for several hours in front of the Hotel while Arisaman held a press conference inside the Hotel with a sack of blue shirts the Red Shirts found on the way to the Hotel.

Red Shirts stormed into the Hotel grounds (some of them have been resting already at the hotel golf course), and pressed against the entry door, which broke.

I have all this documented by photos, and with my text, in my book."

http://asiapacific.a...ical-awakening/

"Do we really have to have this discussion again?"

Not as far as I am concerned.