Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[whybother]

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

i'm not biased, you're biased

are you claiming every pad protestor in the past has been peaceful?

well then

"no lethal aggression" does not mean "peaceful".

[OzMick]

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

whatever you think about it

i'd say the exact same thing about pad protestors.

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

i'm not biased, you're biased

are you claiming every pad protestor in the past has been peaceful?

well then

of course I'm biased - never claimed otherwise or that PAD were totally peaceful. But their cause, to rid their country of a corrupt leader, was based on reasoned thought, and they were not LETHAL. Look it up if you don't understand the word.

[nurofiend]

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

i'm not biased, you're biased

are you claiming every pad protestor in the past has been peaceful?

well then

"no lethal aggression" does not mean "peaceful".

ok so, there were members of PAD who were armed at protests before yeah?

what about driving a pick-up truck into five policemen... would that not be deemed lethal force?

[nurofiend]

of course I'm biased - never claimed otherwise or that PAD were totally peaceful. But their cause, to rid their country of a corrupt leader, was based on reasoned thought, and they were not LETHAL. Look it up if you don't understand the word.

yeah i know what the word means... pathetic trolling attempt averted...

driving a pick-up into 5 policemen would be deemed lethal by definition, would it not?

[OzMick]

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

i'm not biased, you're biased

are you claiming every pad protestor in the past has been peaceful?

well then

"no lethal aggression" does not mean "peaceful".

ok so, there were members of PAD who were armed at protests before yeah?

what about driving a pick-up truck into five policemen... would that not be deemed lethal force?

lethal

[lee-thuhl]   Origin

le·thal

   [lee-thuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.

2.

made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.

3.

causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

<deleted> who died? Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

[nurofiend]

lethal

[lee-thuhl]   Origin

le·thal

   [lee-thuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.

2.

made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.

3.

causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

<deleted> who died? Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

• Sufficient to cause death.
  
• Harmful or destructive.
  

Capable of causing death.

1. Capable of causing death.

2. Of, relating to, or causing death.

3. Extremely harmful; devastating

i think fatal might be the word ye're looking for, maybe?

[whybother]

of course I'm biased - never claimed otherwise or that PAD were totally peaceful. But their cause, to rid their country of a corrupt leader, was based on reasoned thought, and they were not LETHAL. Look it up if you don't understand the word.

yeah i know what the word means... pathetic trolling attempt averted...

driving a pick-up into 5 policemen would be deemed lethal by definition, would it not?

Do you have any other examples besides one idiot driving a pick-up into policeman?

If there was only one red shirt that had tossed a grenade, or a single gun man shooting at the soldiers, I'd be saying the same thing. But with so many grenades and so many shooters it's a bit different.

[nurofiend]

of course I'm biased - never claimed otherwise or that PAD were totally peaceful. But their cause, to rid their country of a corrupt leader, was based on reasoned thought, and they were not LETHAL. Look it up if you don't understand the word.

yeah i know what the word means... pathetic trolling attempt averted...

driving a pick-up into 5 policemen would be deemed lethal by definition, would it not?

Do you have any other examples besides one idiot driving a pick-up into policeman?

If there was only one red shirt that had tossed a grenade, or a single gun man shooting at the soldiers, I'd be saying the same thing. But with so many grenades and so many shooters it's a bit different.

you see the difference between you and me is i'm not about arguing for who's cause is greater.... or who's worse than who

i'm saying there were and are scum on both sides.

and i'm right.

[OzMick]

lethal

[lee-thuhl]   Origin

le·thal

   [lee-thuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.

2.

made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.

3.

causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

<deleted> who died? Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

• Sufficient to cause death.
  
• Harmful or destructive.
  

Capable of causing death.

1. Capable of causing death.

2. Of, relating to, or causing death.

3. Extremely harmful; devastating

i think fatal might be the word ye're looking for, maybe?

Meaning 1. is adjectival as in lethal weapon

Meaning 2. is adverb used to describe an action causing death

Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

Fatal aggression is taking a knife to a gunfight ie it can be construed to mean those committing aggression died. Lethal aggression correctly implies death caused by the aggressor.

[hellodolly]

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

If that's the last you heard, you should read this: http://asiapacific.a.../watpathum2.pdf - it is a translation of the DSI investigation into the incident, which was leaked to Prachatai (and Reuters, among others, last December IIRC).

Found it quite interesting that people shot at long range had powder residue on them.

[nurofiend]

lethal

[lee-thuhl]   Origin

le·thal

   [lee-thuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.

2.

made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.

3.

causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

<deleted> who died? Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

• Sufficient to cause death.
  
• Harmful or destructive.
  

Capable of causing death.

1. Capable of causing death.

2. Of, relating to, or causing death.

3. Extremely harmful; devastating

i think fatal might be the word ye're looking for, maybe?

Meaning 1. is adjectival as in lethal weapon

Meaning 2. is adverb used to describe an action causing death

Meaning 3 is used for inanimate objects.

Fatal aggression is taking a knife to a gunfight ie it can be construed to mean those committing aggression died. Lethal aggression correctly implies death caused by the aggressor.

i can't be arsed getting into a nitpicking debate on the meaning of lethal

as it's sometimes defined as capable of causing death, then i think driving a pick-up truck into people could be considered lethal

/discussion

[OzMick]

of course I'm biased - never claimed otherwise or that PAD were totally peaceful. But their cause, to rid their country of a corrupt leader, was based on reasoned thought, and they were not LETHAL. Look it up if you don't understand the word.

yeah i know what the word means... pathetic trolling attempt averted...

driving a pick-up into 5 policemen would be deemed lethal by definition, would it not?

Do you have any other examples besides one idiot driving a pick-up into policeman?

If there was only one red shirt that had tossed a grenade, or a single gun man shooting at the soldiers, I'd be saying the same thing. But with so many grenades and so many shooters it's a bit different.

you see the difference between you and me is i'm not about arguing for who's cause is greater.... or who's worse than who

i'm saying there were and are scum on both sides.

and i'm right.

of course,you are. You just fail to see that the percentages, the damage done, and the intent to cause that damage were not the same, or you do see but don't want to discuss it.

[SomTumTiger]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

I'd love to hear GK, or any of the other Thaksin lovers address this issue - and their belief in or rejection of it. They never have addressed it. I wonder why? It doesn't further their agenda, perhaps.

Still waiting.

[nurofiend]

of course,you are. You just fail to see that the percentages, the damage done, and the intent to cause that damage were not the same, or you do see but don't want to discuss it.

how do i fail to see that? what have i said that makes me fail to see that?

evidently more lives were lost during the red shirt protests.. so that makes the damage considerably worse.

what you would probably fail to see is the difference in reaction by the army for let's say, the airport takeover, can you imagine if the red shirts tried the same thing... do you think they would have been treated the same... i bet you won't answer that question with a yes or no

i know what my answer would be.

[Emptyset]

Do you have any other examples besides one idiot driving a pick-up into policeman?

If there was only one red shirt that had tossed a grenade, or a single gun man shooting at the soldiers, I'd be saying the same thing. But with so many grenades and so many shooters it's a bit different.

There are other examples, Nirmal Ghosh reported on a 'volley of gunfire' from the PAD, when they were confronted by red shirts in Sept 08: http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2008/9/2/clash-of-the-thai-tans/ - Nick Nostitz reported police being shot at and seeing a PAD protestor with a gun, during the confrontation which resulted in the deaths of two PAD members, didn't he? Indeed, there are a few videos and pictures about that show a handful of PAD protesters with handguns. I've posted some here before and I don't really see the point in doing so again.

Of course, the red shirt confrontation was far more violent, but then they were faced with the army - and the period of confrontation was much longer too. Who knows what would've happened had PAD been confronted by the military. Sondhi was pretty clear, IIRC, that there'd be a fight to the death and that armed PAD guards would respond to armed confrontation in kind. I've posted this statement here before, but am unable to find it with the search function... in any case, I don't think the average PAD protester was any more armed than the average red shirt was.

None of the actual red shirt protesters were using heavy arms, were they? The MiB were sent in - by someone - at Kok Wua, which isn't the fault of ordinary red shirts. After that, (during the second round of conflict in May) well, they saw the MiB that came and fired grenades at the army etc as helping them. The protesters were already fighting the army, using makeshift weapons, and being shot at with live rounds, so why would they refuse the help of those apparently on their side who could fight back with the same weapons that the military were using? Same goes for PAD. If they had fought with the police, it'd be the guards doing the fighting... ordinary protesters could leave of course, in order not to get hurt, but would they if they really believed in the cause? I don't think so, given the manner in which they confronted the police before.

[whybother]

you see the difference between you and me is i'm not about arguing for who's cause is greater.... or who's worse than who

i'm saying there were and are scum on both sides.

and i'm right.

Yes ... there is scum on both sides.

But there is a big difference between a lone driver with (probably not even) lethal intent, and a quite a number of "protesters" with lethal intent.

[Emptyset]

of course,you are. You just fail to see that the percentages, the damage done, and the intent to cause that damage were not the same, or you do see but don't want to discuss it.

I don't think you or I, or anyone, except perhaps the PAD leadership itself, knows how far the PAD were willing to go had they not won. How do you know that the damage wouldn't have been commensurate to that caused by the red shirts if PPP hadn't been dissolved etc? Certainly the PAD leaders were willing to put lives on the line, if Wikileaks is to be believed. http://asiancorrespo...kileaks-cables/

Edited January 7, 2012 by Emptyset

[OzMick]

of course,you are. You just fail to see that the percentages, the damage done, and the intent to cause that damage were not the same, or you do see but don't want to discuss it.

how do i fail to see that? what have i said that makes me fail to see that?

evidently more lives were lost during the red shirt protests.. so that makes the damage considerably worse.

what you would probably fail to see is the difference in reaction by the army for let's say, the airport takeover, can you imagine if the red shirts tried the same thing... do you think they would have been treated the same... i bet you won't answer that question with a yes or no

i know what my answer would be.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no doesn't seem an appropriate answer does it. Personally I couldn't be arsed nitpicking over something that didn't happen to help justify later unjustifiable actions.

[nurofiend]

of course,you are. You just fail to see that the percentages, the damage done, and the intent to cause that damage were not the same, or you do see but don't want to discuss it.

how do i fail to see that? what have i said that makes me fail to see that?

evidently more lives were lost during the red shirt protests.. so that makes the damage considerably worse.

what you would probably fail to see is the difference in reaction by the army for let's say, the airport takeover, can you imagine if the red shirts tried the same thing... do you think they would have been treated the same... i bet you won't answer that question with a yes or no

i know what my answer would be.

Do you still beat your wife? Yes or no doesn't seem an appropriate answer does it. Personally I couldn't be arsed nitpicking over something that didn't happen to help justify later unjustifiable actions.

mmm ok... but thanks for proving me right that you wouldn't answer the question.

[OzMick]

Do you have any other examples besides one idiot driving a pick-up into policeman?

If there was only one red shirt that had tossed a grenade, or a single gun man shooting at the soldiers, I'd be saying the same thing. But with so many grenades and so many shooters it's a bit different.

There are other examples, Nirmal Ghosh reported on a 'volley of gunfire' from the PAD, when they were confronted by red shirts in Sept 08: http://blogs.straits...-the-thai-tans/ - Nick Nostitz reported police being shot at and seeing a PAD protestor with a gun, during the confrontation which resulted in the deaths of two PAD members, didn't he? Indeed, there are a few videos and pictures about that show a handful of PAD protesters with handguns. I've posted some here before and I don't really see the point in doing so again.

Of course, the red shirt confrontation was far more violent, but then they were faced with the army - and the period of confrontation was much longer too. Who knows what would've happened had PAD been confronted by the military. Sondhi was pretty clear, IIRC, that there'd be a fight to the death and that armed PAD guards would respond to armed confrontation in kind. I've posted this statement here before, but am unable to find it with the search function... in any case, I don't think the average PAD protester was any more armed than the average red shirt was.

None of the actual red shirt protesters were using heavy arms, were they? The MiB were sent in - by someone - at Kok Wua, which isn't the fault of ordinary red shirts. After that, (during the second round of conflict in May) well, they saw the MiB that came and fired grenades at the army etc as helping them. The protesters were already fighting the army, using makeshift weapons, and being shot at with live rounds, so why would they refuse the help of those apparently on their side who could fight back with the same weapons that the military were using? Same goes for PAD. If they had fought with the police, it'd be the guards doing the fighting... ordinary protesters could leave of course, in order not to get hurt, but would they if they really believed in the cause? I don't think so, given the manner in which they confronted the police before.

So the reds and the blacks aren't the same, and a few handguns which didn't kill anybody justifies the reds.What a crock! The blacks were Thaksins's mercenary assassins, and the "innocent" reds were the facade behind which they hid - with the knowledge and consent of the red leaders.

Please explain the red shirt just sentenced to 38 years for firing an RPG at the emerald buddha, the RPG attack on the fuel tank farm and the hotel, the almost continuous firing of M-79 grenades, the car bombs, the burning buildings, the assaults on people trying to pass through the red camp and the continuous stage calls for violence.

91 people died in that intentional shit-storm and you try to justify it with what the PAD might have done. Pathetic.

[Emptyset]

So the reds and the blacks aren't the same, and a few handguns which didn't kill anybody justifies the reds.What a crock! The blacks were Thaksins's mercenary assassins, and the "innocent" reds were the facade behind which they hid - with the knowledge and consent of the red leaders.

Please explain the red shirt just sentenced to 38 years for firing an RPG at the emerald buddha, the RPG attack on the fuel tank farm and the hotel, the almost continuous firing of M-79 grenades, the car bombs, the burning buildings, the assaults on people trying to pass through the red camp and the continuous stage calls for violence.

91 people died in that intentional shit-storm and you try to justify it with what the PAD might have done. Pathetic.

I'm not justifying anything, merely saying that I don't see your average red protester as being any worse than your average PAD protester if judged purely on the level of violence they directed towards state forces. Your conspiratorial theory might be true. Just as it might be true that the PAD leadership saw their followers as a disposable means towards an end, i.e. they weren't really interested in what their followers thought and wanted, just saw them as fodder, a couple of dozen bodies and the govt would be out. Perhaps that's true of both sets of leaders, after all, in every protest up until the red shirt protest, any mass killing by state forces had been followed by the government's swift exit. Yes, it might be that both sets of leaders saw their followers purely as instruments in their elite struggles, but I don't... I'm actually interested in what they thought, what their motivations for protesting were, why they chose to do what they did. Of course, if you just totally go with the conspiratorial elite angle - they didn't choose anything at all, they were simpy under the spell of demagogues, an irrational rable, incapable of individual or collective deliberation.

Of course, if you do think that - then you shouldn't judge individual protesters too harsly, after all, they had little choice in the matter once they were under the sway of Thaksin, who could 'turn them off and on like a tap', as Sean Crispin said. But things surely aren't that simple, are they? The academic Thongchai once pointed out that some Thai academics could analyse peasant rebellions, say from the 1800s, and try to understand (and sympathize with) the complex motivations of people that rose up in the name of the 'Future Buddha' - I mean is it true that people simply rebelled because they really believed in the coming of the Future Buddha, or was this just a symbol which belied more complicated motivations - political/economic*? - but these same academics fail to see how Thaksin 'means more and less than the person'... it may be true that Thaksin is a bad guy, a corrupt demagogue, but there may still be, nevertheless, good reasons - or reasons that make sense to the red shirts and not to us - why they support him. And I want to understand what their logic might be (even if they can't articulate it themselves), more so than just assuming Thaksin has deceived them and they're just ignorant dupes etc.

*Not saying people didn't believe in the future buddha literally, of course, they did. But likely their literal belief in such things doesn't entirely explain the reasons for such uprisings in their complex totality.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Emptyset

[Markaew]

One of the few people who might have done some good for this country and due to a political system that allows completely uneducated people to vote and to sell that vote to the highest bidding or most threatening political team , a chance for this Nation to step forward is lost . Instead it looks to a future of lies and deceipt so criminals can avoid punishment .

I have just noticed that some or all of your posts are quite bizarre. I suppose these uneducated people that are allowed to vote should just be exterminated as well.

[Markaew]

post #2 must be a GK zombie, just not as verbose.

The simple truth is that Abhisit faces up to any allegations against him as an honourable man.

He could, I guess, run away and live in Dubai.

It's still early yet. Give him time, but it would be England.

[smutcakes]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

I'd love to hear GK, or any of the other Thaksin lovers address this issue - and their belief in or rejection of it. They never have addressed it. I wonder why? It doesn't further their agenda, perhaps.

Still waiting.

Your still waiting for an answer to an assumption from another poster?

Whatever happened to the 80 odd bank accounts which were ‘frozen’ under suspicion of financing the red shirts?

[SomTumTiger]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

I'd love to hear GK, or any of the other Thaksin lovers address this issue - and their belief in or rejection of it. They never have addressed it. I wonder why? It doesn't further their agenda, perhaps.

Still waiting.

Your still waiting for an answer to an assumption from another poster?

Whatever happened to the 80 odd bank accounts which were ‘frozen’ under suspicion of financing the red shirts?

Dodging the issue, won't even comment on its validity or lack thereof - sign of a true believer, kool aid and all.

[SomTumTiger]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

Still cannot get a True Believer Red on TV to agree, disagree or even comment on this assumption. Hard to wipe it off once you touch it, I guess. Still waiting.

Edited January 7, 2012 by SomTumTiger

[philw]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

Still cannot get a True Believer Red on TV to agree, disagree or even comment on this assumption. Hard to wipe it off once you touch it, I guess. Still waiting.

Not speaking as one of your "True Believer Red on TV " however, I agree with animatic, clearly there was an intention to provoke the government from some people, however, there was also ( in my opinion ) a clear intention on the part of the government ( read military ) to punish those who dared to make the challenge, without thought by the military to due process or consequences or accountability.

The Thai equivalent of a Mexican stand off, perhaps, but with very long reaching consequences.

Welcome to Thailand, where duplicity rules and the ringers can play for both sides.

The fact remains the army used snipers to kill unarmed people in circumstances where it cannot possibly be justified.

[tlansford]

I think it will be a waste of time.

Like Suthep, he would probably say (like Suthep DID) that the dead themelves ran toward life bullets.

If I was dead, I would try and run towards a life bullet too.

if I were dead" (next signature maybe??)

But it made me laughed, ...

[tlansford]

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

I'd love to hear GK, or any of the other Thaksin lovers address this issue - and their belief in or rejection of it. They never have addressed it. I wonder why? It doesn't further their agenda, perhaps.

it isn't an issue, it is a goofy f@cking idea. That is why people don't address it.

[TAWP]

Seems pretty obvious that the 'red shirt' military arm the 'black shirts, aka 'black angels', aka 'men in black'

were the perpetrators of violence and death along with the leaders of the 'red shirts' including mr T

asia times headline, "Unmasked: Thailand's men in black"

The govt at the time showed a lot of restraint, too much restraint if anything, allowing the 'red shirt' mobs to break laws and abuse civilians and businesses. The govt is tasked with enforcing the laws even with the use of deadly force.

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

"Blown Away" (1994)

Asia Times Quote "They let us inside their secret world on one condition: if we took any pictures, they would kill us" all credibility for this story finished there. Not one image in the whole story just text. Biggest load of cr4p ever. The non return of over 2200 sniper bullets shows they were in a turkey shoot in those abhorrent live fire zones. It was murder and somebody will have to cop it

So you say that journalists with expressed or implied bias cannot be trusted? I guess that excludes the photojournalist that like to visit this forum to spread his propaganda is on your 'not to be trusted' list too.