Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[nicknostitz]

I said that they felt that their demands for new elections were legitimate,

And what exactly does that prove? What group has ever made demands that they feel are not legitimate? Of course the red shirts thought they were right. What else would you expect them to say? Doesn't mean they were. Doesn't justify their actions.

But the Government agreed to new and early elections, the Government gave in to all of the protestors demands, but they still wouldn't go home and still tried to burn down Bangkok! Was that their legitimate right Nick?

Sorry, but that is a bit of a simplistic analyses for a very complex situation. No, based on this strawman i cannot answer such a leading question.

[rixalex]

So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

[hyperdimension]

Because your "the one who ordered it all" is slightly unspecific. Do you have any name, and evidence direct linking that mysterious "the one" to all these incidents?

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

I do not give much credit to this particular writer, as his bias is well known for years, if you research his articles.

Many of the things that Sopon wrote in that article quite accurately played out months later. Do you believe that Thaksin was not at all involved and had nothing to benefit from it at all? Do you believe that it was a genuine fight for true democracy, and not Thaksin using the Red Shirts as a step-ladder back into power? Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[rixalex]

I have never said that all actions of the Red Shirt were justifiable. Some clearly were not.

Nevertheless, that also does not justify all actions of the then government and the military. I have not seen yet from you here anything else than vilifying Red Shirts, and based on this view justifying then everything the military and the Abhisit government did.

I don't vilify the military or the Abhisit government because i don't think they were the ones who had any choice in being involved in any of the mess. The red shirts were the ones who could have walked away at any point had they chosen to, and they should have done exactly that when Abhisit made the early election offer that he did. Although i don't vilify the military or the Abhisit government, i do think they made mistakes, the biggest of which was allowing the red shirts to take over central Bangkok in the first place.

[nicknostitz]

So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

Well, if you struggle to believe that soldiers for a multitude of reason can commit atrocities, i can hardly argue anymore. I am sorry, but thousands of years of documented human history stand against your believes.

[nicknostitz]

Because your "the one who ordered it all" is slightly unspecific. Do you have any name, and evidence direct linking that mysterious "the one" to all these incidents?

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

I do not give much credit to this particular writer, as his bias is well known for years, if you research his articles.

Many of the things that Sopon wrote in that article quite accurately played out months later. Do you believe that Thaksin was not at all involved and had nothing to benefit from it at all? Do you believe that it was a genuine fight for true democracy, and not Thaksin using the Red Shirts as a step-ladder back into power?

What i believe or not does not really matter.

[nicknostitz]

I have never said that all actions of the Red Shirt were justifiable. Some clearly were not.

Nevertheless, that also does not justify all actions of the then government and the military. I have not seen yet from you here anything else than vilifying Red Shirts, and based on this view justifying then everything the military and the Abhisit government did.

I don't vilify the military or the Abhisit government because i don't think they were the ones who had any choice in being involved in any of the mess. The red shirts were the ones who could have walked away at any point had they chosen to, and they should have done exactly that when Abhisit made the early election offer that he did. Although i don't vilify the military or the Abhisit government, i do think they made mistakes, the biggest of which was allowing the red shirts to take over central Bangkok in the first place.

And again you skirted around the issues of more than 90 dead, and about 2000 injured, the vast majority being unarmed protesters and therefore not legitimate targets according to any ROE.

[hyperdimension]

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

I do not give much credit to this particular writer, as his bias is well known for years, if you research his articles.

Many of the things that Sopon wrote in that article quite accurately played out months later. Do you believe that Thaksin was not at all involved and had nothing to benefit from it at all? Do you believe that it was a genuine fight for true democracy, and not Thaksin using the Red Shirts as a step-ladder back into power?

What i believe or not does not really matter.

Why doesn't it matter? I was hoping to get some insight into your own thoughts. Are my questions too difficult to answer?

You had put your own life at serious risk all because of Thaksin's decision to have military weapons at the protest site and militants to use them against the authorities. Would it have been worth dying for Thaksin?

[rixalex]

So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

Well, if you struggle to believe that soldiers for a multitude of reason can commit atrocities, i can hardly argue anymore. I am sorry, but thousands of years of documented human history stand against your believes.

I ask what possible motivation a soldier in this instance might have for injuring or killing a non-legitimate target and your answer is atrocities have been committed before by soldiers. So what you are saying is there was no motivation you can think of. Perhaps they were just shooting for the fun of it.

[tlansford]

- deleted text due to quote limits -

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

So far I've not seen anything which wasn't discussed at least a dozen times before, plus lots of totally non-related "yes, but's".

I tend to agree, but it also seems not so unusual for original gems like the above to enter the new re-hashings.

Still, this thread in some ways doesn't seem to change much when the notion that the non-Red Shirt populace needs to "adjust" their lives to accommodate the Red Shirt's desires.

The UDD chairperson urged retailers and shop owners in the Ratchaprasong area to adjust their work and sales hours in anticipation of a mass gathering of Red Shirt supporters and ease its impact on their trade.

.

"mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens."

"It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. "

Please cite the entire statement, and in its intended context, thank you.

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

Buchholz habitually breaks forum rule 30 to make it seem like posters say something that they did not.

[thaihome]

There were many incidents where journalists, for example, were clearly targeted and injured, for example on May 15, at Rajaparop, Chaiwat, a nation photographer was shot in his leg. He was clearly through his armband identifiable as a journalist, and was shot from 80 meters distance. So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

Answering any more here is pointless. Sorry.

And you of course know for fact what was going through the mind of the soldier that shot him? Have you ever been in combat, not as an observer, but as a participant? Had people shooting at you? Tasked with protecting your life and lives of your fellow soldiers and trying to follow orders, scared to death, on the edge of panic, possible for several days?

No, I doubt it. Your position as always been to stand on the outside and expecting people to act rationally in an irrational stressed filled situation and then saying it he shot that person deliberately because he was a journalist.

You don’t know why that journalist got shot other than he had deliberately placed himself in a situation where he could have got shot.

But you are right Nick, you don’t need to answer anymore. You have stated your position clearly and it is understood. Your observations are very valuable, it is a shame that you just cannot bring yourself to admit you are not an unbiased observers and continually shade the truth to fit your agenda.

I remember when you were just a “Flyonthewall” many years ago and you haven’t changed much since then.

TH

[hyperdimension]

Perhaps they were just shooting for the fun of it.

I think it's one possibility, as some people enjoy shooting, which is why there is such a business as a shooting range. Some people join the army because they want to get to play with heavy weapons.

[hyperdimension]

Your observations are very valuable

I also agree that Nick's observations are very valuable.

it is a shame that you just cannot bring yourself to admit you are not an unbiased observers and continually shade the truth to fit your agenda.

Yet he discredits other journalists due to their bias even when their forecasts later turned out to be quite accurate:

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

I do not give much credit to this particular writer, as his bias is well known for years, if you research his articles.

[rixalex]

And again you skirted around the issues of more than 90 dead, and about 2000 injured, the vast majority being unarmed protesters and therefore not legitimate targets according to any ROE.

With regards unarmed protesters, my feeling is that if you are part of a protest group that includes some who are armed, and you are aware that these people exist, you have to accept and take responsibility for your own life that you are choosing to put in danger.

[phiphidon]

I ask what possible motivation a soldier in this instance might have for injuring or killing a non-legitimate target and your answer is atrocities have been committed before by soldiers. So what you are saying is there was no motivation you can think of. Perhaps they were just shooting for the fun of it.

An eye witness report from Australian Ch.9 News reporter, Brett McLeod after just seeing a civilian shot in the head 10 metres from him on 19th May 2010

The military appeared to be "strolling down the street in a very casual way," McLeod said.

"And they just seem to be firing shots randomly down the road, not at anyone in particular," he said.

"We saw a bullet hit the ground in front of us just a short while ago and they've been whizzing over our heads as well.

"This sort of assault isn't about arresting anyone. It's simply about hurting people."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/bangkok-bloodbath-nine-crew-see-journalist-shot-in-head-20100519-vemt.html#ixzz1v1skoN12

[birdpooguava]

And again you skirted around the issues of more than 90 dead, and about 2000 injured, the vast majority being unarmed protesters and therefore not legitimate targets according to any ROE.

With regards unarmed protesters, my feeling is that if you are part of a protest group that includes some who are armed, and you are aware that these people exist, you have to accept and take responsibility for your own life that you are choosing to put in danger.

Yes, this is also AV, Suthep & the Dem's opinion, which is why they are widely hated & got thrashed at the polls. You & your ilk, like them, are out of touch with the majority of Thai people.

[birdpooguava]

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

After their perceived weak response at Kok Wua and the general lack of support for their commanders, the largely conscripted Isaan foot soldiers (& Cambodian border troops) were subjected to brainwashing for 4 hours everyday where they were indoctrinated about the red shirts' alleged hatred for the monarchy & country.

Edited May 16, 2012 by birdpooguava

[OzMick]

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

After their perceived weak response at Kok Wua and the general lack of support for their commanders, the largely conscripted Isaan foot soldiers (& Cambodian border troops) were subjected to brainwashing for 4 hours everyday where they were indoctrinated about the red shirts' alleged hatred for the monarchy & country.

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

[birdpooguava]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

[hyperdimension]

everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I walked through their camp once at around 04:00 after a big night out at Khaosan Road and the loud and inflammatory speeches were still going on through the huge speakers while the useful idiots were trying to get some sleep on the road and footpath and in their tents. I have no doubt that it was indoctrination, i.e. brainwashing. Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[mca]

So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under.

To be fair Rix mate when we have reports of paras executing wounded POWs in the Falkland War and incidents like the Haditha killings and Mayumidiyah killings and rape in Iraq by supposedly highly trained and disciplied 1st world soldiers then no matter a person's "political leanings" regarding LOS it would be a deliberate wearing of blinkers to think that a developing country's armed forces wouldn't be capable of such a thing.

Edited May 16, 2012 by mca

[OzMick]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

.....before a judge got to hear them. Just like Yingluk's perjury charge.

[birdpooguava]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

.....before a judge got to hear them. Just like Yingluk's perjury charge.

or the Dems misuse of funds charge.....or Abhisit's murder charge

Edited May 16, 2012 by birdpooguava

[OzMick]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

.....before a judge got to hear them. Just like Yingluk's perjury charge.

or the Dems misuse of funds charge.....or Abhisit's murder charge

I believe the first was dismissed y the court, and the second only exists in your head.

[Siam Simon]

I would suggest before issuing such baseless, personally insulting and libelous accusations that you find out more about the person you accuse.

Nothing I said was libelous, nor was it baseless. If you consider it personally insulting then you are not quite as war hardened as you imagine. Your diatribe is always one-sided and never neutral.....fact!

Except that his opinion is formed from personal witness evidence and direct access to many of the relevant players. As opposed to your opinion, which is based on......what?

[sbk]

I seem to recall a post some pages back asking if we could drop this tit for tat bickering?

[hyperdimension]

But the Government agreed to new and early elections, the Government gave in to all of the protestors demands, but they still wouldn't go home and still tried to burn down Bangkok! Was that their legitimate right Nick?

No, they didn't. This is just propaganda spouted by the usual suspects. Abhisit made a vague offer which was subject to all sorts of vague provisos. When he was asked (repeatedly} by the Thai media to set a date for House dissolution (the ONLY action he could take to start the process of a general election - the EC sets the date for a general election), he repeatedly refused to do so.

Are you a historical revisionist?

Thailand's Red Shirts Accept Abhisit's Reconciliation Roadmap

[sbk]

oh yes, yesterday, a little under 24 hours ago too. A lifetime for some here it would seem

Guess my public notice to drop the flaming was ignored or not seen so I will make it clear again. You are welcome to disagree but DROP THE FLAMING.

Yes, I am indeed very bored with this and think Gentleman Jim has it spot on. The relentless rehashing over and over and over again is really quite monotonous at this point. Especially since it seems to bring out the same people flinging the same poo.

The topic of this thread is: RED SHIRTS TO MARK 2ND ANNIVERSARY.

lets do bear that in mind

[Buchholz]

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

"mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens."

"It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. "

Please cite the entire statement, and in its intended context, thank you.

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

Even given the context ... it is patently absurd to suggest that the State has no right to defend itself in any situation against citizens, or non-citizens for that matter.

Act reasonably, yes?

But that's not what you wrote, even citing your full text.

Now it's been watered down to "act reasonably"

Again, you are certainly not a citizen of a western democracy, or have no intimate knowledge of how they operate, or both. Protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time but don't end up like this did - soldiers shooting and killing nearly 100 people. For all the ways you try to explain the public safety aspect, the end result of nearly 100 deaths indicates the State acted unreasonably. The further evidence of this is that the initiating situation for the protests was not resolved. In fact, the actions of the State and military made the situation much, much worse as of today.

When the State acts unreasonably, what recourse do citizens have at the point?

I am a citizen of a Western democracy and I do know how they operate.

Protests of the type like Thailand in 2010 have not happened there in a 147 years. When it did happen, there were hundreds of thousands of casualties.

The recourse the citizens here had at the time was to evacuate from the areas that they were directed to leave.

.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Buchholz

[birdpooguava]

I believe the first was dismissed y the court, and the second only exists in your head.

You believe wrong again. The first was not adjudicated on because of technicality. Their guilt was never in doubt.