Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[OzMick]

".... 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?

Feel free to expand on your quote and tell me where I went wrong. Connect your fantasy to reality if you are able.

[OzMick]

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.

Are middle aged men with a lot of experience of economic hardship immune to the offers of mercenaries' wages? I think not.

Where are the women and children?

[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.

Okay, we're disagreeing on a point which would be hard for either of us to prove.

Which point is that? The point about my belief that the unarmed protesters were aware that there were those amongst them with violent intentions? You disagree with that?

[OzMick]

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.

If I was attending a "peaceful protest" and other protesters were heavily armed, I would walk away. You don't bring an AK47 or an M-79 launcher to a peaceful protest - self defence if needed doesn't work as a justification. Staying would make me complicit if violence was initiated by these men as I am supplying the crowd for them to hide in.

Gandhis mass protests provoked moral outrage when the British fired on them. Having a few armed men to kick it off when the authorities are reluctant to do so, reduces my moral outrage to zero.

[rixalex]

If I was attending a "peaceful protest" and other protesters were heavily armed, I would walk away.

As would anyone with an interest in following the law, and an interest in their own safety.

Those who didn't walk away, had no regard for the law and no regard for their own safety. Shock horror, they got injured, some got killed. Now of course, it is everyone's fault but their own.

[weka]

If I was attending a "peaceful protest" and other protesters were heavily armed, I would walk away.

As would anyone with an interest in following the law, and an interest in their own safety.

Those who didn't walk away, had no regard for the law and no regard for their own safety. Shock horror, they got injured, some got killed. Now of course, it is everyone's fault but their own.

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

[rixalex]

If I was attending a "peaceful protest" and other protesters were heavily armed, I would walk away.

As would anyone with an interest in following the law, and an interest in their own safety.

Those who didn't walk away, had no regard for the law and no regard for their own safety. Shock horror, they got injured, some got killed. Now of course, it is everyone's fault but their own.

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

Spot on Weka.

And if these pawns (or their families) are owed anything (i'm not sure they are, as they were all there of their own free choice), it is from the leaders who told them to assemble, told them to fight, and did not tell them to go home when it started getting dangerous.

[weka]

If I was attending a "peaceful protest" and other protesters were heavily armed, I would walk away.

As would anyone with an interest in following the law, and an interest in their own safety.

Those who didn't walk away, had no regard for the law and no regard for their own safety. Shock horror, they got injured, some got killed. Now of course, it is everyone's fault but their own.

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

Spot on Weka.

And if these pawns (or their families) are owed anything (i'm not sure they are, as they were all there of their own free choice), it is from the leaders who told them to assemble, told them to fight, and did not tell them to go home when it started getting dangerous.

I agree Rix - out of interest, how many of the Red leaders were part of the 90 odd "innocently gunned down"? Surely they were on the front lines of this peaceful drive for democracy. (yeah yeah the militant Red General, not much said about him in all this eh?)

[rixalex]

I agree Rix - out of interest, how many of the Red leaders were part of the 90 odd "innocently gunned down"? Surely they were on the front lines of this peaceful drive for democracy. (yeah yeah the militant Red General, not much said about him in all this eh?)

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

[tlansford]

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.

All that text just so you can try to puts words in another's mouth again.

I don't believe Nick has admitted a bias here on TVF or elsewhere. But posters HAVE assigned him one, so your use of "self-admitted" is off the mark.

I have not discussed the other article. My comments above concern the broad brush-strokes of events through the prism of my values, nothing more or less than that. My view that a gov't (any gov't) should not use lethal force against its own citizens is a long standing belief (and has nothing to do with the drivel Ozmick tried to assign it), and in the case of BKK 2010, I believe that the gov't had many other choices than those that they made in order to resolve the protest situation.

It is a good turn of events that the PM at that time will provide more information and details. It will be interesting to see the results. I believe it would be "reasonable" to see what new information comes to light in the coming months.

[AleG]

I agree Rix - out of interest, how many of the Red leaders were part of the 90 odd "innocently gunned down"? Surely they were on the front lines of this peaceful drive for democracy. (yeah yeah the militant Red General, not much said about him in all this eh?)

The ones that where saying from the stages "We will fight until the last drop of (y)our blood!"?

Not one, they promptly surrendered or fled when Karma came knocking.

[rixalex]

I don't believe Nick has admitted a bias here on TVF or elsewhere. But posters HAVE assigned him one, so your use of "self-admitted" is off the mark.

Yes he has actually. Some time ago and i have no memory of what thread it was. He admitted to being biased (as everyone on this planet is i believe) but said he always tried to report fairly. I wish he did.

[phiphidon]

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

Spot on Weka.

And if these pawns (or their families) are owed anything (i'm not sure they are, as they were all there of their own free choice), it is from the leaders who told them to assemble, told them to fight, and did not tell them to go home when it started getting dangerous.

More untruths.

By Simon Montlake, Correspondent / May 17, 2010

Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt leader, says talks are still possible but accused troops of inflaming the situation by shooting unarmed protesters. “You must not ask soldiers to shoot like this,” he says, holding a newspaper with a picture of Army snipers.

At a Buddhist temple inside the rally site, hundreds of red shirts lined up Monday to receive food and medicines from the Thai Red Cross. The temple has offered sanctuary to women, children, and the elderly, and some have bedded down in the leafy temple grounds.

But a government offer to evacuate people from the site ahead of Monday’s deadline went largely ignored. Protesters say they won’t quit, even though the military may be preparing to retake the area by force. Some said they would stay in the temple if the fighting intensifies. Others said they didn’t trust the government’s offer and feared retribution for their actions.

Mr. Weng says protesters are free to leave. “I tell everyone you must make your decision. If you think you want to go home, please go.

http://www.csmonitor...ine-to-disperse

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

[whybother]

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.

Being blown up by grenades is extreme.

[whybother]

<snip>

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

The army were already well back from the barricades. Red shirts went out to attack them. If the red shirts wanted a cease fire, all they needed to do was stay inside the barricades.

There was also evidence of ID cards being kept by the leaders (or the organisation), leaving some protesters with an implied threat of "we know where you live" and "you won't get any payments if you leave".

[TAWP]

I don't believe Nick has admitted a bias here on TVF or elsewhere. But posters HAVE assigned him one, so your use of "self-admitted" is off the mark.

He has, repeatedly. Go to his profile, do a listing of his post and read them.

I have not discussed the other article.

So either don't reply to my post that was exactly doing that or start talking about it. You cannot reply with some mush about your opinion about what did happen or should have happened - I couldn't care less and posting it as a reply to my post makes it highly non-responsive.

So to make us go forward:

- Should we disregard the investigative article from within the red shirt camp about the black shirts actions and responses to the journalists questions because there might, possibly, be an implied bias at either the reporters or websites side?

A yes or no is enough.

[tlansford]

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

Spot on Weka.

And if these pawns (or their families) are owed anything (i'm not sure they are, as they were all there of their own free choice), it is from the leaders who told them to assemble, told them to fight, and did not tell them to go home when it started getting dangerous.

More untruths.

By Simon Montlake, Correspondent / May 17, 2010

Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt leader, says talks are still possible but accused troops of inflaming the situation by shooting unarmed protesters. “You must not ask soldiers to shoot like this,” he says, holding a newspaper with a picture of Army snipers.

At a Buddhist temple inside the rally site, hundreds of red shirts lined up Monday to receive food and medicines from the Thai Red Cross. The temple has offered sanctuary to women, children, and the elderly, and some have bedded down in the leafy temple grounds.

But a government offer to evacuate people from the site ahead of Monday’s deadline went largely ignored. Protesters say they won’t quit, even though the military may be preparing to retake the area by force. Some said they would stay in the temple if the fighting intensifies. Others said they didn’t trust the government’s offer and feared retribution for their actions.

Mr. Weng says protesters are free to leave. “I tell everyone you must make your decision. If you think you want to go home, please go.

http://www.csmonitor...ine-to-disperse

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

The Senate request of the government and the government's refusal of that request. This is an example of an event which no one disputes. Yet it is seldom acknowledged in this forum where the red shirts carry all the responsibility for the violence and the government, if anything, displayed too much patience ... A pause at that time could have spared a lot of lives.

[tlansford]

".... 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?

Feel free to expand on your quote and tell me where I went wrong. Connect your fantasy to reality if you are able.

you are intelligent and able to figure out what I said on your own. Your comment "which would lead us to... is your own fantasy, not mine.

Your posts are just baiting and trolling.

[weka]

This is pertinent.

I remember the government pleading with protestors to leave the area when it turned from a reasonable expression of opinion into a destructive occupation severely affecting the safety and well being of local residents and businesses. The government, broadcasted this constantly on TV, and radio supplied buses to take people back home (mostly up north) and offered food and assistance for at least 2 weeks before the army came in, if memory serves me correctly.

I think they even agreed to the election, which was what the whole thing was about, no?

Many expats friends were in total wonderment that a government could be so patient given that our western governments would have disbanded the group in far less time (but the police would have been used in western countries - but that's another story).

Thai colleagues, neighbours and customers of mine all initially supported the notion of the right to protest, but after about 4 weeks, all said enough is enough and wanted someone to put an end to this occupation. The point had been made - they'd have wanted the police to end it but that's another story.

Make no mistake, at the time EVERYBODY - yes, everybody, knew that the army was coming in at the end, and had known for at least 10 days, and that it was going to get pretty hairy (dangerous to still be there).

Those that didn't leave were either prepared for violence and to fight or were incorrigibly reassured by the Red Shirt leaders that they were safe and protected.

I repeat, the government made it very clear the army was coming in and all Thais knew what would follow. It's their country, they know far more about what and how things happen than some easily offended farang keyboard warriors on an internet forum.

The whole saga was exactly how it looked - a collection of pawns from poor areas being put in harms way so that a few "leaders" could make some money.

Spot on Weka.

And if these pawns (or their families) are owed anything (i'm not sure they are, as they were all there of their own free choice), it is from the leaders who told them to assemble, told them to fight, and did not tell them to go home when it started getting dangerous.

More untruths.

By Simon Montlake, Correspondent / May 17, 2010

Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt leader, says talks are still possible but accused troops of inflaming the situation by shooting unarmed protesters. “You must not ask soldiers to shoot like this,” he says, holding a newspaper with a picture of Army snipers.

At a Buddhist temple inside the rally site, hundreds of red shirts lined up Monday to receive food and medicines from the Thai Red Cross. The temple has offered sanctuary to women, children, and the elderly, and some have bedded down in the leafy temple grounds.

But a government offer to evacuate people from the site ahead of Monday’s deadline went largely ignored. Protesters say they won’t quit, even though the military may be preparing to retake the area by force. Some said they would stay in the temple if the fighting intensifies. Others said they didn’t trust the government’s offer and feared retribution for their actions.

Mr. Weng says protesters are free to leave. “I tell everyone you must make your decision. If you think you want to go home, please go.

http://www.csmonitor...ine-to-disperse

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

By your logic, we should be criticizing the army....

they were "let loose" with "all guns blazing" and could only deal to 90 odd unarmed innocent civilians - pretty poor effort I'd say.

The truth is people were put (and paid) in harms way by red shirt leaders so they (the leaders) could make money - no striving for freedom or democracy - just to line their own pockets.

That's what happened.

Edited January 8, 2012 by weka

[sparebox2]

It is about time too.

The 92 dead are still waiting for answers.

[TomTao]

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.

I have three uncles who were cops in Australia, two state, one federal, one of my uncles who were in state police was killed on the job, I respect your right to an opinion, but to expect police, or soldiers involved in crowd control to go in unarmed when it is either known or suspected that there are or may be people armed in the crowd is at best shory sighted, I was in the Australian Navy and was caught up in the 1997 Fiji Coup, I was armed facing a large hostile crowd and had Fijian soldiers pointing point weapons at us saying "bang", I would never expect any policeman or soldier to face a potentially dangerous situation unarmed, to do so would be like painting targets on their chests and lining them up like targets at a shooting range and tiing their hands behind their backs.

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

Edited January 8, 2012 by TomTao

[phiphidon]

More untruths.

By Simon Montlake, Correspondent / May 17, 2010

Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt leader, says talks are still possible but accused troops of inflaming the situation by shooting unarmed protesters. “You must not ask soldiers to shoot like this,” he says, holding a newspaper with a picture of Army snipers.

At a Buddhist temple inside the rally site, hundreds of red shirts lined up Monday to receive food and medicines from the Thai Red Cross. The temple has offered sanctuary to women, children, and the elderly, and some have bedded down in the leafy temple grounds.

But a government offer to evacuate people from the site ahead of Monday’s deadline went largely ignored. Protesters say they won’t quit, even though the military may be preparing to retake the area by force. Some said they would stay in the temple if the fighting intensifies. Others said they didn’t trust the government’s offer and feared retribution for their actions.

Mr. Weng says protesters are free to leave. “I tell everyone you must make your decision. If you think you want to go home, please go.

http://www.csmonitor...ine-to-disperse

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

By your logic, we should be criticizing the army....

they were "let loose" with "all guns blazing" and could only deal to 90 odd unarmed innocent civilians - pretty poor effort I'd say.

The truth is people were put (and paid) in harms way by red shirt leaders so they (the leaders) could make money - no striving for freedom or democracy - just to line their own pockets.

That's what happened.

I am criticising the army and the government that let them loose and thought it was reasonable and proportionate behaviour to deploy snipers for crowd control.

Your "pretty poor effort" comment with "only 90 odd unarmed civilian casualties" has been used on this forum several times before and does not become any less despicable in the retelling. Where do you people come from?

[weka]

More untruths.

By Simon Montlake, Correspondent / May 17, 2010

Weng Tojirakarn, a red-shirt leader, says talks are still possible but accused troops of inflaming the situation by shooting unarmed protesters. “You must not ask soldiers to shoot like this,” he says, holding a newspaper with a picture of Army snipers.

At a Buddhist temple inside the rally site, hundreds of red shirts lined up Monday to receive food and medicines from the Thai Red Cross. The temple has offered sanctuary to women, children, and the elderly, and some have bedded down in the leafy temple grounds.

But a government offer to evacuate people from the site ahead of Monday’s deadline went largely ignored. Protesters say they won’t quit, even though the military may be preparing to retake the area by force. Some said they would stay in the temple if the fighting intensifies. Others said they didn’t trust the government’s offer and feared retribution for their actions.

Mr. Weng says protesters are free to leave. “I tell everyone you must make your decision. If you think you want to go home, please go.

http://www.csmonitor...ine-to-disperse

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

By your logic, we should be criticizing the army....

they were "let loose" with "all guns blazing" and could only deal to 90 odd unarmed innocent civilians - pretty poor effort I'd say.

The truth is people were put (and paid) in harms way by red shirt leaders so they (the leaders) could make money - no striving for freedom or democracy - just to line their own pockets.

That's what happened.

I am criticising the army and the government that let them loose and thought it was reasonable and proportionate behaviour to deploy snipers for crowd control.

Your "pretty poor effort" comment with "only 90 odd unarmed civilian casualties" has been used on this forum several times before and does not become any less despicable in the retelling. Where do you people come from?

The real world, you're welcome to visit...

Edited January 8, 2012 by weka

[weka]

And while I'm being despicable, I'll say it again, people got shot because they ignored repeated advice and chose to take on the army OR they were led into a lethal situation by their pocket lining leaders

Actions and consequences

Real world sunshine...

[phiphidon]

And while I'm being despicable, I'll say it again, people got shot because they ignored repeated advice and chose to take on the army OR they were led into a lethal situation by their pocket lining leaders

Actions and consequences

Real world sunshine...

I'm really not your sunshine, trust me

[473geo]

The overiding factor here is the use of reasonable force and the timing of such use

I said at the time I thought Abhisit is against sending in the troops, and badly advised, did the troops arrival rapidly escalate the violence?

Abhisit has the opportunity to explain the options open to him as the protest progressed, I think he did not receive many options, I have no doubt Abhisit is not guilty of doing anything other than try and resolve a very difficult situation given limited options and pressure to find a resolution quickly

In my opinion no army general is going to send his troops into a situation for any length of time if they are not enabled to reasonably protect themselves, they could just pull out if they did not have the instruction required, so in a sense Abhisit by involving the army lost an element of control......but by this time had he any control?

So once the army arrived it as only a matter of time before a handful of people could light the touch paper

[TAWP]

Anyone that saw the treatment of the fully unarmed Occupy [some street] protesters on several locations in the US must know that an equal occupation as we saw here downtown, with armed thugs 'guarding' the fortress build up, would have been meet with swift and hard force in the west. To claim anything else is to be ignorant.

So, given that, what exactly should Abhisit have done? Obviously the police is completely useless when it comes to riot-containment.

[473geo]

Anyone that saw the treatment of the fully unarmed Occupy [some street] protesters on several locations in the US must know that an equal occupation as we saw here downtown, with armed thugs 'guarding' the fortress build up, would have been meet with swift and hard force in the west. To claim anything else is to be ignorant.

So, given that, what exactly should Abhisit have done? Obviously the police is completely useless when it comes to riot-containment.

Guilty perhaps of under estimating the ability of the protestors to create the occupation scenario they did

I don't consider ignoring the build up of people and barriers to have been the smartest move, smarter to keep them moving, but easy to say after the event

[OzMick]

".... 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?

Feel free to expand on your quote and tell me where I went wrong. Connect your fantasy to reality if you are able.

you are intelligent and able to figure out what I said on your own. Your comment "which would lead us to... is your own fantasy, not mine.

Your posts are just baiting and trolling.

How is asking you to explain your own words " just baiting and trolling." If your words were meant not to include police (an arm of government ), please say so. You could also answer some of the other pertinent questions put to you.

[OzMick]

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

Do YOU know what happened at the "so called sanctuary" ? Have you read the DSI report as linked earlier?

Black shirts attacked troops at ground level outside the wat, who responded and called for assistance from those on the BTS tracks. Witness 41 (a red -shirt?) said that the MIB shot and killed his companions as he approached the wat. One soldier reported fire coming from inside the wat.

Finally motive for what was claimed to be random senseless killing. Ask yourself the basic question "who gained?"