Red Shirts Threaten To Rally For Arisman's Bail

[gl555]

circle the wagons guys - you are just saying that free speech is OK as long as you agree with the people speaking....

If they break the law, then they break the law. But the right to assemble can't be denied because they might break the law.

Otherwise, keep drinking your koolaid, cause it looks like it tastes pretty good....

What a facile piece of tripe! Nobody cares if people execute their right to assemble or speak freely. It is just that each and every time this particular group does assemble it oversteps the bounds of what is lawful speech and assembly. As they are aligned with the police force in this same political/criminal cabal, there is seldom if ever a check on this type of extremism.

Can you remember how many were arrested for throwing blood on Abhisit's property? Can you remember how many were arrested for threating Abhisit's life if he dared to step foot in Chiang Mai and exercise HIS right to free speech and assembly. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

sticking to principles is that easy.

If a group causes problems (ie: breaks the law) every time they assemble, then that is an enforcement issue, isn't it? Freedom of expression is a human right. For as rabid as you and the other posters can be in defending free speech, why the heck is there push-back on this? Let them demonstrate and if some break the law, arrest them.

In the case of the UDD, you cannot state "every time" and be serious. That may be what is popular to say on TVF, but then again, that is where "koolaid" comes in...

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Freedom of expression is a human right! Even if it is intimidation, assault, arson, vandalism and what not! This is Red freedom for you! Bravo!

[TAWP]

what ever happened to the concept of free speech on this forum?

Some people want to demonstrate in support of someone getting bail.

And that deserves over the top hateful "jokes" like hope the truck turns over, catches on fire? Good job guys, just think about the fact that free speech as well as the right to assemble is part of democracy and is a right protected in democracies and extended to everyone, whether you agree with them or not. On the other hand, hate-speech is not protected.

No-one said they aren't allowed to say that they wished Arisman to get bail.

But if you think staging demonstrations and disrupting lives of others for un-tolled amount of time is a right, then I propose you stop giving any hints on FB where you live or we can tell them to camp around your place?

And their protest is clearly to put pressure on the court to change their decision. So answer: Should a courts decision be based on law or weather a group outside the court is threatening them?

[phetaroi]

Mob Rule - Democracy, Red Shirt style.

You got it EXACTLY correct.

[whybother]

Whats the fuss about this wuss? Why are the reds still being funded? They have done their jobs and it's time for some to do their time. Talk about doing time, did any yellow shirt do anytime at all? There is a BIG issue with the justice system here. Thats why we are here today.

Yes.

[wxyz]

the rule of anarchy

Edited December 22, 2011 by wxyz

[wxyz]

red shirts / khmer rouge / red guard

red shirt villages / reeducation camps

coincidence, i don't think so

what about disbanding the red shirt militant wing the black shirts, the 'men in black'?

[sscsamui]

Let another criminal out on there street just like the government More red shirts to do what they want with No regard to the law.... Good idea..555555

[Siam Simon]

circle the wagons guys - you are just saying that free speech is OK as long as you agree with the people speaking....

If they break the law, then they break the law. But the right to assemble can't be denied because they might break the law.

Otherwise, keep drinking your koolaid, cause it looks like it tastes pretty good....

What a facile piece of tripe! Nobody cares if people execute their right to assemble or speak freely. It is just that each and every time this particular group does assemble it oversteps the bounds of what is lawful speech and assembly. As they are aligned with the police force in this same political/criminal cabal, there is seldom if ever a check on this type of extremism.

Can you remember how many were arrested for throwing blood on Abhisit's property? Can you remember how many were arrested for threating Abhisit's life if he dared to step foot in Chiang Mai and exercise HIS right to free speech and assembly. Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

"It is just that each and every time this particular group does assemble it oversteps the bounds of what is lawful speech and assembly."

And you can, in turn, go peddle your own bullsh1t elsewhere.

I've read dozens of examples of it on these very webpages, and if you haven't, or chose not to see it, it's not my job to find it for you.

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

[nurofiend]

I wouldn't shed a tear if a couple of trucks overturned while they're on their way here. Freaking jobless thugs.

yes what horrible scumbag sub-human thugs who wish death on others eh?

[Siam Simon]

I wouldn't shed a tear if a couple of trucks overturned while they're on their way here. Freaking jobless thugs.

yes what horrible scumbag sub-human thugs who wish death on others eh?

Why even bother debating with such hateful people?

[nurofiend]

I wouldn't shed a tear if a couple of trucks overturned while they're on their way here. Freaking jobless thugs.

yes what horrible scumbag sub-human thugs who wish death on others eh?

Why even bother debating with such hateful people?

it's a question i regularly find myself asking...

[wxyz]

Ryan Gaerity: "I've come here to create a new country for you called chaos, and a new government called anarchy."

"Blown Away" (1994)

[OzMick]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

[Siam Simon]

Ryan Gaerity: "I've come here to create a new country for you called chaos, and a new government called anarchy."

"Blown Away" (1994)

But we can create nothing except debate here on TVF.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

"it is the rule rather than the exception."

More bullsh1t. Another intelligent poster who feels the constant urge to post propaganda on an internet forum that has no sway over the course of actual events .

[Siam Simon]

what ever happened to the concept of free speech on this forum?

Some people want to demonstrate in support of someone getting bail.

And that deserves over the top hateful "jokes" like hope the truck turns over, catches on fire? Good job guys, just think about the fact that free speech as well as the right to assemble is part of democracy and is a right protected in democracies and extended to everyone, whether you agree with them or not. On the other hand, hate-speech is not protected.

No-one said they aren't allowed to say that they wished Arisman to get bail.

But if you think staging demonstrations and disrupting lives of others for un-tolled amount of time is a right, then I propose you stop giving any hints on FB where you live or we can tell them to camp around your place?

And their protest is clearly to put pressure on the court to change their decision. So answer: Should a courts decision be based on law or weather a group outside the court is threatening them?

At least he's not threatening you with personal violence, Tom. One particularly unsavoury regular poster on this forum actually did that with me .

[OzMick]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

"it is the rule rather than the exception."

More bullsh1t. Another intelligent poster who feels the constant urge to post propaganda on an internet forum that has no sway over the course of actual events .

Thank you for the compliment on my intelligence, but if it is relative, perhaps I am being "damned with faint praise"? We do seem to share an urge to participate in useless activity - I do it for amusement, what's your excuse?

Back on topic, should we compare lists of known red gatherings with and without violence? Perhaps not, mine would take too long to compile.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

"it is the rule rather than the exception."

More bullsh1t. Another intelligent poster who feels the constant urge to post propaganda on an internet forum that has no sway over the course of actual events .

Thank you for the compliment on my intelligence, but if it is relative, perhaps I am being "damned with faint praise"? We do seem to share an urge to participate in useless activity - I do it for amusement, what's your excuse?

Back on topic, should we compare lists of known red gatherings with and without violence? Perhaps not, mine would take too long to compile.

It's far too easy to 'run with the crowd' on these particular threads of the forum, Mick. The angle that you take has a lot of validity. But you and others take the angle too acute at the expense of reality. I don't have any issues with you holding opinions that differ to mine. I just want us all to be honest with each other on here. What's the prize at the end of all the debate?

Back ontopic: Please list all the known Red Shirt gatherings and give a percentage as to ones that ended with riots. And make sure you're scrupulous and honest: There are enough honest posters on here to point out any discrepancies.

[Buchholz]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

"it is the rule rather than the exception."

< profanity snipped >

Another intelligent poster

< unnecessarily derogatory comments removed >

Thank you for the compliment on my intelligence, but if it is relative, perhaps I am being "damned with faint praise"? We do seem to share an urge to participate in useless activity - I do it for amusement, what's your excuse?

Back on topic, should we compare lists of known red gatherings with and without violence? Perhaps not, mine would take too long to compile.

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

[Siam Simon]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

[dominique355]

Pandora's box has been opened. The people have been shown that you can ignore the law as violence or the threat of violence will get you what you want.

Yep, terrible precedent set by lack of action against the yellows for the Government house and airport takeovers. Allowing them to effectively 'mob rule' the army into mounting a coup then unseating an elected government through the courts.

You reap what you sow unfortunately and the seeds most definitely have been sown.

Interesting fact is that the government in power at that time, when the PAD occupied the Government House and the airport and nothing was done, was the PPP with Thaksin's cornies. Thakin's BIL was the PM. Don't forget that.

[dominique355]

From what I remember, the protests weren't related to the court case. The yellow shirts were generally doing what they could to stop the government of the time from changing the constitution, and one of the reasons they went to Swampy was to stop Somchai from arriving.

Let's get the facts right. The yellow shirts wanted to retain the Constitution the military junta pushed through, and not allow the reinstatement of the People's Constitution of 1997 which was abrogated by the junta.

The protests put pressure on the courts, considering the rhetoric used by the yellows at the time I think that was very much an aim.

Yes, let's get the facts right. The Constitution was put to the vote and people accepted it with a large majority. Where was the "Pushing through"?

[Siripon]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

I had to laugh when I read that Arisaman, the red shirt who urged the crowd to burn Bangkok is considering asking the Minister for Defence, General Yuttasak, to stand bail for him!!!!!

[OzMick]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

As I said earlier, the list would take too long to compile. However to help you out I googled "red shirt" + violence with this result:

Search

About 5,890,000 results (0.29 seconds)

You can have fun with that lot.

[Siam Simon]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

As I said earlier, the list would take too long to compile. However to help you out I googled "red shirt" + violence with this result:

Search

About 5,890,000 results (0.29 seconds)

You can have fun with that lot.

Don't try to cop out, Mick. You made the allegation about Red Shirt violence being the norm. Let's see some evidence. Like I keep stating: You just make it up to fit your prejudices.

[OzMick]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

As I said earlier, the list would take too long to compile. However to help you out I googled "red shirt" + violence with this result:

Search

About 5,890,000 results (0.29 seconds)

You can have fun with that lot.

Don't try to cop out, Mick. You made the allegation about Red Shirt violence being the norm. Let's see some evidence. Like I keep stating: You just make it up to fit your prejudices.

Actually, I can. I have stated that the list was too long to compile, and proved it, while agreeing that "each and every" was excessive - I am sure that on at least one occasion 2 or more red shirts assembled without physically attacking someone, however unlikely that may seem.

If you want a statistical analysis, do it yourself. Up to now, you haven't presented ONE occasion to merit your opinion.

[nurofiend]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

.

[whybother]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

[wxyz]

Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.

Christopher Hitchens

[whybother]

Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.

Christopher Hitchens

You don't need to post your quotes in every thread.