Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[TAWP]

i'm not biased, you're biased

Classic.

[TAWP]

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?

Now-now, we already established that his testimony is of no weight, in order to not have any double-standard here.

[TAWP]

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.

Since your weren't here when the things went down I understand why it hard for you to grasp the fact that some of the leadership and other prominent figures in the red 'organization' clearly expressed wishes and ideas that would be interpreted as a call to violence in most nations.

If you don't believe me, I am willing to print a translation out if you are willing to post a Youtube video proclaiming what is being said, and instead threaten a target of another nation, say US or France. Deal?

[Ricardo]

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.

It's possibly a "goofy f@cking idea", if one buys the notions that former-PM Thaksin's a born-again democrat, eager to regain power solely for the good of the poor, or that the UDD/DAAD are an entirely-genuine grass-roots political-movement, but to many others it is an entirely-reasonable explanation for why the 'peaceful protest' didn't remain so, IMO.

Former-PM Abhisit's (rightly IMO) letting the initially-peaceful/democratic protest take place & continue for so long, without any sign of a violent response, must really have irritated anyone whose intention was to provoke a violent reaction. So perhaps they sent in the black-shirts & stepped-up the grenade-campaign ?

If only the reasonable compromise-solution of early-elections, offered and accepted on live-TV, had been allowed to stand, by the invisible hand behind the red-shirt leaders ! But a peaceful negotiated settlement clearly wasn't acceptable. One might well wonder why not.

[tlansford]

- snipper-roo -

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.

It's possibly a "goofy f@cking idea", if one buys the notions that former-PM Thaksin's a born-again democrat, eager to regain power solely for the good of the poor, or that the UDD/DAAD are an entirely-genuine grass-roots political-movement, but to many others it is an entirely-reasonable explanation for why the 'peaceful protest' didn't remain so, IMO.

Former-PM Abhisit's (rightly IMO) letting the initially-peaceful/democratic protest take place & continue for so long, without any sign of a violent response, must really have irritated anyone whose intention was to provoke a violent reaction. So perhaps they sent in the black-shirts & stepped-up the grenade-campaign ?

If only the reasonable compromise-solution of early-elections, offered and accepted on live-TV, had been allowed to stand, by the invisible hand behind the red-shirt leaders ! But a peaceful negotiated settlement clearly wasn't acceptable. One might well wonder why not.

For those with reading difficulties, let me spell it out, ...

This,

Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

is a really f@cking goofy idea.

I did not say that the protests were not violent. They were. There was plenty of violence.

And TAWP, please quit trying to guess where I am in the world. It doesn't matter....

[TAWP]

And TAWP, please quit trying to guess where I am in the world. It doesn't matter....

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

Edited January 7, 2012 by TAWP

[Siam Simon]

And TAWP, please quit trying to guess where I am in the world. It doesn't matter....

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post. Edited January 7, 2012 by Siam Simon

[TAWP]

And TAWP, please quit trying to guess where I am in the world. It doesn't matter....

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post.

Are you suggesting we should revert to using double-standards here?

Since your comrades in arms just claimed we cannot take the report from behind the lines from a red shirt camp during the riots (when the reporters talked to the black shirts) since they might have an [unproven] bias. And since Nick has a self-professed bias, should we don't judge his reporting in the same light?

You guys better get your talking points straightened out. Double-standard or not? Reject reports by these photojournalists or not?

[tlansford]

- snip -

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post.

Are you suggesting we should revert to using double-standards here?

Since your comrades in arms just claimed we cannot take the report from behind the lines from a red shirt camp during the riots (when the reporters talked to the black shirts) since they might have an [unproven] bias. And since Nick has a self-professed bias, should we don't judge his reporting in the same light?

You guys better get your talking points straightened out. Double-standard or not? Reject reports by these photojournalists or not?

I do not believe that Nick has said that he has a professional bias in his reporting. In fact, he has said many times that he does not take sides and does his best to report and photograph the events as they occurred and to uncover the related information regarding the events.

BTW, I was in BKK for part of the protests. But since I don't have the first hand experience of the events as they occurred, which people like Nick do have, I am aware that there is much information out there that is still not public, and a lot of what is public is not accessible to me (lack of language skills, lack of time, ...).

But the big picture is clear. There were protests and riots. It is pretty clear that the gov't screwed up in the response to the protests. Since I am (always) of the opinion that governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens, I will never agree with the well-documented actions of the government in the 2010 dispersal. But even given what their decisions were, the government / army still screwed up the execution of those decisions.

Please keep your reading comprehension skills turned on guys - the above statement is not a justification on my part of the protesters. I do not condone violence from protesters whether I agree with their ideas or not. Nor do I have any reliable information on some of the more violent incidents (although I probably know as much as anyone else here).

Stepping back and looking at the major events in the 2010 protests, the gov't screwed up. The PM at the time had previously condemned the use of lethal force against the Thai people, and now he has to answer questions at to why and how he decided to use lethal force against the Thai people. I feel that is just.

[ginjag]

- snip -

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post.

Are you suggesting we should revert to using double-standards here?

Since your comrades in arms just claimed we cannot take the report from behind the lines from a red shirt camp during the riots (when the reporters talked to the black shirts) since they might have an [unproven] bias. And since Nick has a self-professed bias, should we don't judge his reporting in the same light?

You guys better get your talking points straightened out. Double-standard or not? Reject reports by these photojournalists or not?

I do not believe that Nick has said that he has a professional bias in his reporting. In fact, he has said many times that he does not take sides and does his best to report and photograph the events as they occurred and to uncover the related information regarding the events.

BTW, I was in BKK for part of the protests. But since I don't have the first hand experience of the events as they occurred, which people like Nick do have, I am aware that there is much information out there that is still not public, and a lot of what is public is not accessible to me (lack of language skills, lack of time, ...).

But the big picture is clear. There were protests and riots. It is pretty clear that the gov't screwed up in the response to the protests. Since I am (always) of the opinion that governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens, I will never agree with the well-documented actions of the government in the 2010 dispersal. But even given what their decisions were, the government / army still screwed up the execution of those decisions.

Please keep your reading comprehension skills turned on guys - the above statement is not a justification on my part of the protesters. I do not condone violence from protesters whether I agree with their ideas or not. Nor do I have any reliable information on some of the more violent incidents (although I probably know as much as anyone else here).

Stepping back and looking at the major events in the 2010 protests, the gov't screwed up. The PM at the time had previously condemned the use of lethal force against the Thai people, and now he has to answer questions at to why and how he decided to use lethal force against the Thai people. I feel that is just.

I seem to get the impression, that a minority love to sidestep the mob/red demo as being a sort of peaceful demo, and emphasis is being put on LETHAL force used. The whole set up of this siege of BKK was illegal -you and everyone knows of the sh#t events of this happening was a intimidation of the government, extreme violence used to occupy and so many chances to peacefully disband after being ordered to do so, then stepping up greater defenses to thwart attempts to stop them being removed.

After all efforts to ask them to go home, finally force had to be used, and was clear the mob was armed with strong firepower.

No way can any government tolerate such rebellion, especially in civilised countries.

when the army broke down barriers to get in all hell broke loose, whoever was killed by who was inevitable, and look at the retreat and what happened.

Now the ex P.M. has to answer -and rightly so-to the court, and again all emphasis is being put on his bad handling, Ha Ha-it's a joke, this red shirt brigade and Family influence are the ones who ought to be thrown to the dogs.

[Crushdepth]

How many of you guys and gals posting here have ever carried a weapon for personal defense into a combat zone and the redshirt encampment was a combat zone. Lets say you are a 19 year old Thai kid with what kind of training you are scared sh------less and it is suprising that more people were not killed.

Roles of engagement go to hell in a hand basket when some joker fires anything at you even a slingshot, they can kill just as fast as a gun. Yeap innocent people got killed but when you are in an area where guns, grenade launchers, slingshots, gas bombs, sharpened spears, and what ever leathal weapon that can be devised is on hand for use, people are going to get killed.

The Pm at the time was actually very restrained for how long 3 months of this crap and he wouldn't order in the army to clear it out. The redshirt leaders and Big T all are responsibile for allowing the demonstration to get out of hand and the encouragement of violence and criminal activity (burning down Bangkok) need to be held responsible. They were given what they wanted, early elections and still refused to leave.

Unfortunately it is not possible to reason with the fruit cakes that inhabit the board. They only see what they want to see and remember half the truth. The ideology is more important than fact.

[OzMick]

- snip -

I am not guessing where you are in the world, I am noting that you were not here during the riots and lack the first hand experience.

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post.

Are you suggesting we should revert to using double-standards here?

Since your comrades in arms just claimed we cannot take the report from behind the lines from a red shirt camp during the riots (when the reporters talked to the black shirts) since they might have an [unproven] bias. And since Nick has a self-professed bias, should we don't judge his reporting in the same light?

You guys better get your talking points straightened out. Double-standard or not? Reject reports by these photojournalists or not?

I do not believe that Nick has said that he has a professional bias in his reporting. In fact, he has said many times that he does not take sides and does his best to report and photograph the events as they occurred and to uncover the related information regarding the events.

BTW, I was in BKK for part of the protests. But since I don't have the first hand experience of the events as they occurred, which people like Nick do have, I am aware that there is much information out there that is still not public, and a lot of what is public is not accessible to me (lack of language skills, lack of time, ...).

But the big picture is clear. There were protests and riots. It is pretty clear that the gov't screwed up in the response to the protests. Since I am (always) of the opinion that governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens, I will never agree with the well-documented actions of the government in the 2010 dispersal. But even given what their decisions were, the government / army still screwed up the execution of those decisions.

Please keep your reading comprehension skills turned on guys - the above statement is not a justification on my part of the protesters. I do not condone violence from protesters whether I agree with their ideas or not. Nor do I have any reliable information on some of the more violent incidents (although I probably know as much as anyone else here).

Stepping back and looking at the major events in the 2010 protests, the gov't screwed up. The PM at the time had previously condemned the use of lethal force against the Thai people, and now he has to answer questions at to why and how he decided to use lethal force against the Thai people. I feel that is just.

".... governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens....." which would lead us to police having only non-lethal weapons while criminals are armed to the teeth, assuming you could find someone brave/stupid enough to volunteer to be a cop with a stick taking on criminals with Uzis.

Do you realise what a fantasy-land concept that is? Have you ever had to face violent criminals yourself, either in service or as a victim? Or do you merely spout unrealistic ideas while cossetted in your coccoon of safety?

[philw]

There is a subtle difference between police officers carrying guns and the government using bullets to the head for purposes of mob control.

I admit, it is subtle.

Personally I am against arming police officers except in the most extreme cases.

I do not think they should routinely be armed,( if only for their own safety in preventing accidental discharges ) but no doubt we will disagree on that.

[AleG]

There is a subtle difference between police officers carrying guns and the government using bullets to the head for purposes of mob control.

I admit, it is subtle.

...

You forgot something there, the word "armed", as in an armed mob. The difference is as subtle as a grenade going off.

[philw]

There is a subtle difference between police officers carrying guns and the government using bullets to the head for purposes of mob control.

I admit, it is subtle.

...

You forgot something there, the word "armed", as in an armed mob. The difference is as subtle as a grenade going off.

Actually not.

Think you will find that most on the receiving end of army bullets ( whether killed or injured ) were not armed.

However, there are those here who will deny this and try to justify whatever the army did during those fateful days.

[tlansford]

You´re hilarious. Nick Nostitz is the only (sometimes) poster on this forum with genuine first-hand experience of all the various recent troubles and, instead of tapping his extensive knowledge, clots like you spend all your time trying to tie him up in knots whenever he takes the time and trouble to post.

Are you suggesting we should revert to using double-standards here?

Since your comrades in arms just claimed we cannot take the report from behind the lines from a red shirt camp during the riots (when the reporters talked to the black shirts) since they might have an [unproven] bias. And since Nick has a self-professed bias, should we don't judge his reporting in the same light?

You guys better get your talking points straightened out. Double-standard or not? Reject reports by these photojournalists or not?

I do not believe that Nick has said that he has a professional bias in his reporting. In fact, he has said many times that he does not take sides and does his best to report and photograph the events as they occurred and to uncover the related information regarding the events.

BTW, I was in BKK for part of the protests. But since I don't have the first hand experience of the events as they occurred, which people like Nick do have, I am aware that there is much information out there that is still not public, and a lot of what is public is not accessible to me (lack of language skills, lack of time, ...).

But the big picture is clear. There were protests and riots. It is pretty clear that the gov't screwed up in the response to the protests. Since I am (always) of the opinion that governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens, I will never agree with the well-documented actions of the government in the 2010 dispersal. But even given what their decisions were, the government / army still screwed up the execution of those decisions.

Please keep your reading comprehension skills turned on guys - the above statement is not a justification on my part of the protesters. I do not condone violence from protesters whether I agree with their ideas or not. Nor do I have any reliable information on some of the more violent incidents (although I probably know as much as anyone else here).

Stepping back and looking at the major events in the 2010 protests, the gov't screwed up. The PM at the time had previously condemned the use of lethal force against the Thai people, and now he has to answer questions at to why and how he decided to use lethal force against the Thai people. I feel that is just.

".... governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens....." which would lead us to police having only non-lethal weapons while criminals are armed to the teeth, assuming you could find someone brave/stupid enough to volunteer to be a cop with a stick taking on criminals with Uzis.

Do you realise what a fantasy-land concept that is? Have you ever had to face violent criminals yourself, either in service or as a victim? Or do you merely spout unrealistic ideas while cossetted in your coccoon of safety?

do you realize that you have no idea what I am talking about?

[tlansford]

How many of you guys and gals posting here have ever carried a weapon for personal defense into a combat zone and the redshirt encampment was a combat zone. Lets say you are a 19 year old Thai kid with what kind of training you are scared sh------less and it is suprising that more people were not killed.

Roles of engagement go to hell in a hand basket when some joker fires anything at you even a slingshot, they can kill just as fast as a gun. Yeap innocent people got killed but when you are in an area where guns, grenade launchers, slingshots, gas bombs, sharpened spears, and what ever leathal weapon that can be devised is on hand for use, people are going to get killed.

The Pm at the time was actually very restrained for how long 3 months of this crap and he wouldn't order in the army to clear it out. The redshirt leaders and Big T all are responsibile for allowing the demonstration to get out of hand and the encouragement of violence and criminal activity (burning down Bangkok) need to be held responsible. They were given what they wanted, early elections and still refused to leave.

Unfortunately it is not possible to reason with the fruit cakes that inhabit the board. They only see what they want to see and remember half the truth. The ideology is more important than fact.

absolutely correct.

[AleG]

There is a subtle difference between police officers carrying guns and the government using bullets to the head for purposes of mob control.

I admit, it is subtle.

...

You forgot something there, the word "armed", as in an armed mob. The difference is as subtle as a grenade going off.

Actually not.

Think you will find that most on the receiving end of army bullets ( whether killed or injured ) were not armed.

However, there are those here who will deny this and try to justify whatever the army did during those fateful days.

It was an armed mob, yes or no?

Please also tell us how you know that most of the killed Red Shirts where not armed or in the middle of a shootout with armed men within their ranks.

[rixalex]

There is a subtle difference between police officers carrying guns and the government using bullets to the head for purposes of mob control.

I admit, it is subtle.

...

You forgot something there, the word "armed", as in an armed mob. The difference is as subtle as a grenade going off.

Actually not.

Think you will find that most on the receiving end of army bullets ( whether killed or injured ) were not armed.

However, there are those here who will deny this and try to justify whatever the army did during those fateful days.

With regards unarmed protesters (not talking about medics, journalists, soldiers etc), i view the fate of those killed in much the same way as i would view the deaths of unarmed bank robbers who were part of a larger group that included some who were armed, who took a bank hostage, and after a lengthy stand-off, got stormed and killed. The fact that they themselves may not have been armed, makes little difference, as it is about the group that they are a part of, and the group they are fighting together with. When you join a group that includes armed members, you have to accept the danger that brings to your own life.

And it wasn't as if things escalated over night. It wasn't as if things went from completely peaceful to a blood bath in minutes. The violence steadily increased over a period of weeks, with the authorities pleading people during that time to go home. Those who didn't faced the consequences of their own decisions.

[tlansford]

-snip, or in this case, sniper -

You forgot something there, the word "armed", as in an armed mob. The difference is as subtle as a grenade going off.

Actually not.

Think you will find that most on the receiving end of army bullets ( whether killed or injured ) were not armed.

However, there are those here who will deny this and try to justify whatever the army did during those fateful days.

With regards unarmed protesters (not talking about medics, journalists, soldiers etc), i view the fate of those killed in much the same way as i would view the deaths of unarmed bank robbers who were part of a larger group that included some who were armed, who took a bank hostage, and after a lengthy stand-off, got stormed and killed. The fact that they themselves may not have been armed, makes little difference, as it is about the group that they are a part of, and the group they are fighting together with. When you join a group that includes armed members, you have to accept the danger that brings to your own life.

And it wasn't as if things escalated over night. It wasn't as if things went from completely peaceful to a blood bath in minutes. The violence steadily increased over a period of weeks, with the authorities pleading people during that time to go home. Those who didn't faced the consequences of their own decisions.

ouch - the innocent protesters who were killed were like bank robbers - there is some twisted logic.

Although if you paint them as complicit bank-robbers, it does give them that slightly evil moral tarnish that makes it OK for a sniper to just take 'em out.

Let's wait and see what Abhisit says. IMO, this is a situation where more information is helpful, and it has been a long time coming...

[rixalex]

ouch - the innocent protesters who were killed were like bank robbers - there is some twisted logic.

Although if you paint them as complicit bank-robbers, it does give them that slightly evil moral tarnish that makes it OK for a sniper to just take 'em out.

Let's wait and see what Abhisit says. IMO, this is a situation where more information is helpful, and it has been a long time coming...

They weren't bank robbers, that was clearly an analogy, to represent a group of people, some of whom armed, involved in breaking the law together. I don't see there being much difference. Obviously you do. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, once again.

[tlansford]

ouch - the innocent protesters who were killed were like bank robbers - there is some twisted logic.

Although if you paint them as complicit bank-robbers, it does give them that slightly evil moral tarnish that makes it OK for a sniper to just take 'em out.

Let's wait and see what Abhisit says. IMO, this is a situation where more information is helpful, and it has been a long time coming...

They weren't bank robbers, that was clearly an analogy, to represent a group of people, some of whom armed, involved in breaking the law together. I don't see there being much difference. Obviously you do. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, once again.

"were like bank-robbers" - yes, I understand the analogy. And yes, it is ok to agree to disagree. Cheers

[hanuman1]

ouch - the innocent protesters who were killed were like bank robbers - there is some twisted logic.

Although if you paint them as complicit bank-robbers, it does give them that slightly evil moral tarnish that makes it OK for a sniper to just take 'em out.

Let's wait and see what Abhisit says. IMO, this is a situation where more information is helpful, and it has been a long time coming...

They weren't bank robbers, that was clearly an analogy, to represent a group of people, some of whom armed, involved in breaking the law together. I don't see there being much difference. Obviously you do. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, once again.

The problem I have with your bank-robbing analogy - if you'll indulge me - is that you have the unarmed bank robbers down as having the same goals as the armed ones i.e. to rob the bank. ie, unity of direction and aims. Fine.

Those physically standing among the red shirts who were armed with lethal weaponry - a very small number compared to the number of unarmed people around them - probably had the aim of killing people. Beyond that, they may have had some tentative, grander design of causing some kind of escalation - that is arguable though. Their one clear aim would have been to kill, if possible. This cannot be said - with any qualification - of the unarmed demonstrators. If the unarmed demonstrators all knew there were people there who were armed and intended to kill people in their name and provided help of any kind, then your argument about them being complicit would hold some water.

Otherwise, you're just using a very broad moral brush in a way that could be construed as bigotry against all red shirt protesters based on the actions of a culpable few (whose identities we're still not sure of). And I'm prepared to accept that that is not your position.

Edited January 8, 2012 by hanuman1

[TAWP]

I do not believe that Nick has said that he has a professional bias in his reporting. In fact, he has said many times that he does not take sides and does his best to report and photograph the events as they occurred and to uncover the related information regarding the events.

BTW, I was in BKK for part of the protests. But since I don't have the first hand experience of the events as they occurred, which people like Nick do have, I am aware that there is much information out there that is still not public, and a lot of what is public is not accessible to me (lack of language skills, lack of time, ...).

But the big picture is clear. There were protests and riots. It is pretty clear that the gov't screwed up in the response to the protests. Since I am (always) of the opinion that governments should not use lethal force against its own citizens, I will never agree with the well-documented actions of the government in the 2010 dispersal. But even given what their decisions were, the government / army still screwed up the execution of those decisions.

Please keep your reading comprehension skills turned on guys - the above statement is not a justification on my part of the protesters. I do not condone violence from protesters whether I agree with their ideas or not. Nor do I have any reliable information on some of the more violent incidents (although I probably know as much as anyone else here).

Stepping back and looking at the major events in the 2010 protests, the gov't screwed up. The PM at the time had previously condemned the use of lethal force against the Thai people, and now he has to answer questions at to why and how he decided to use lethal force against the Thai people. I feel that is just.

All that text to avoid having to admit that you and your ilk loves double-standard and have no wish to be objective and reasonable.

It is very easy:

- The report from inside the Red Shirt camp with interviews of Black Shirts was decried by some here as 'unreliable' and 'possibly faked' because they didn't know anything about the photojournalists and because a news-site that published it has an implied bias. There deduction was therefor that the report should be disregarded.

- Nick has a self-admitted bias. Surely he claims to be 'presenting facts objectively' but it is clear, from his usage of loaded words, the exclusion of some facts etc that his reporting is biased.

Somehow Nick's reporting, with bias, should not be disregarded? But everyone else's reporting, even if they don't have any confirmed bias, should be?

So, make up your talking points. No double-standard. Either we disregard biased reporters and photojournalists, be it implied and expressed bias, or we don't. Applying different standards all the time becomes highly frustrating as it makes any reasonable debate a complete comedy show.

[TAWP]

And again, the absolute brute share of the 'protesters' killed wasn't protesters, they where occupiers, rioters and thugs. No, that doesn't mean they deserved to be killed per se, but lets put things in perspective. Not a lot of grannies was killed, the brute was young men. This at the same time some posters here tried to say that most of the protesters was old grannies.

There is a reason for this discrepancy in numbers of type of people among protesters and those among rioters wounded and killed. (There clearly was two groups of civilians people at this event and to proclaim them all as one group is not factual.)

Edited January 8, 2012 by TAWP

[hanuman1]

And again, the absolute brute share of the 'protesters' killed wasn't protesters, they where occupiers, rioters and thugs. No, that doesn't mean they deserved to be killed per se, but lets put things in perspective. Not a lot of grannies was killed, the brute was young men. This at the same time some posters here tried to say that most of the protesters was old grannies.

There is a reason for this discrepancy in numbers of type of people among protesters and those among rioters wounded and killed. (There clearly was two groups of civilians people at this event and to proclaim them all as one group is not factual.)

I seem to remember being surprised at the number of older men (40+) in the list of the 93 or so dead. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly. Would be interesting to find the stats again though.

[rixalex]

If the unarmed demonstrators all knew there were people there who were armed and intended to kill people in their name and provided help of any kind, then your argument about them being complicit would hold some water.

Otherwise, you're just using a very broad moral brush in a way that could be construed as bigotry against all red shirt protesters based on the actions of a culpable few (whose identities we're still not sure of). And I'm prepared to accept that that is not your position.

I'm not sure about the unarmed demonstrators knowing that there were people among them, protesting alongside them, who had the intention to kill, but i am sure that they knew there were people among them, protesting alongside them, who had the intention of using violent means to attack soldiers and to destroy property. Now for me, whatever group i was part of, however passionately i felt, the point in which i realised that some of my group had that sort of action in mind, would be the point that i walked away, if for no other reason, than for my own safety.

[hanuman1]

If the unarmed demonstrators all knew there were people there who were armed and intended to kill people in their name and provided help of any kind, then your argument about them being complicit would hold some water.

Otherwise, you're just using a very broad moral brush in a way that could be construed as bigotry against all red shirt protesters based on the actions of a culpable few (whose identities we're still not sure of). And I'm prepared to accept that that is not your position.

I'm not sure about the unarmed demonstrators knowing that there were people among them, protesting alongside them, who had the intention to kill, but i am sure that they knew there were people among them, protesting alongside them, who had the intention of using violent means to attack soldiers and to destroy property. Now for me, whatever group i was part of, however passionately i felt, the point in which i realised that some of my group had that sort of action in mind, would be the point that i walked away, if for no other reason, than for my own safety.

Okay, we're disagreeing on a point which would be hard for either of us to prove. I guess we are using judgement calls to inform our views on what the unarmed protesters were experiencing and thinking, based on our own experience and learning, which of course is different. I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.

[ginjag]

How many of you guys and gals posting here have ever carried a weapon for personal defense into a combat zone and the redshirt encampment was a combat zone. Lets say you are a 19 year old Thai kid with what kind of training you are scared sh------less and it is suprising that more people were not killed.

Roles of engagement go to hell in a hand basket when some joker fires anything at you even a slingshot, they can kill just as fast as a gun. Yeap innocent people got killed but when you are in an area where guns, grenade launchers, slingshots, gas bombs, sharpened spears, and what ever leathal weapon that can be devised is on hand for use, people are going to get killed.

The Pm at the time was actually very restrained for how long 3 months of this crap and he wouldn't order in the army to clear it out. The redshirt leaders and Big T all are responsibile for allowing the demonstration to get out of hand and the encouragement of violence and criminal activity (burning down Bangkok) need to be held responsible. They were given what they wanted, early elections and still refused to leave.

Unfortunately it is not possible to reason with the fruit cakes that inhabit the board. They only see what they want to see and remember half the truth. The ideology is more important than fact.

absolutely correct.

Two peas in a pod with the grub still there.

If he did a very wrong (Abhisit) he will have to face the music the same as those you are defending. Are you really attacking the only outcome ??? but never attacking the real violence, and who was behind it, all because the reds wanted their way with big money back up, but the money wasn't to help the poor Issan people it was to get back ultra greedy so and so's in power-and used the less educated to do it. So now you have them in power, please tell me what they have done for Thailand and in what way have they improved their image, and helped the poor ??

[TAWP]

And again, the absolute brute share of the 'protesters' killed wasn't protesters, they where occupiers, rioters and thugs. No, that doesn't mean they deserved to be killed per se, but lets put things in perspective. Not a lot of grannies was killed, the brute was young men. This at the same time some posters here tried to say that most of the protesters was old grannies.

There is a reason for this discrepancy in numbers of type of people among protesters and those among rioters wounded and killed. (There clearly was two groups of civilians people at this event and to proclaim them all as one group is not factual.)

I seem to remember being surprised at the number of older men (40+) in the list of the 93 or so dead. Maybe I'm remembering wrongly. Would be interesting to find the stats again though.

You might be right, middle aged men might also have been over-represented. I hope that doesn't detract from my assertion that it wasn't a reflection of the overall constitution of the protesters.