Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[birdpooguava]

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 couple of hundred years. When it did happen, there were thousands of casualties.

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

.

That's because in the west legitimate governments are not overthrown by military coups & then other governments formed by shady backroom deals deep in the army barracks. The audacious, underhand manner in which the Dems maneuvered and manipulated their way into power here would have caused mass uprisings in every self respecting nation on the planet.

Edited May 16, 2012 by birdpooguava

[Siam Simon]

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

No I'm not. The short article you quoted stated the fact that the protest leaders had conditionally accepted the Abhisit offer.

Of course, when Abhisit was questioned about the specifics and minutae of the offer, all the provisos came out, and he kept refusing to set a date for House dissolution.

[Buchholz]

- 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.

"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.

For those that read the reply to the quoted post.... no, he doesn't.

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"

[birdpooguava]

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

No I'm not. The short article you quoted stated the fact that the protest leaders had conditionally accepted the Abhisit offer.

Of course, when Abhisit was questioned about the specifics and minutae of the offer, all the provisos came out, and he kept refusing to set a date for House dissolution.

Yes Simon, but your facts don't fit it with the frothers' attempts to vilify the reds.

[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

No I'm not. The short article you quoted stated the fact that the protest leaders had conditionally accepted the Abhisit offer.

Of course, when Abhisit was questioned about the specifics and minutae of the offer, all the provisos came out, and he kept refusing to set a date for House dissolution.

Abhisit had proposed 14th November 2010 as the date of the election. UDD leaders initially accepted then later added their own conditions, like demanding that Suthep report to police. If they cared for peoples' lives, they could have gone home and waited to see if Abhisit kept to his word. If he didn't then they could have come back out to protest again.

In any case, the protests / riots and subsequent deaths were completely unnecessary, as instead of choosing the violent path, Thaksin could have waited a mere 1.5 years for the end of the government's term for the new elections that he so desired in order to re-take power.

Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Buchholz]

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

It all starts and stops with that sentence.

.

[Siam Simon]

Abhisit had proposed 14th November 2010 as the date of the election. UDD leaders initially accepted then later added their own conditions, like demanding that Suthep report to police. If they cared for peoples' lives, they could have gone home and waited to see if Abhisit kept to his word. If he didn't then they could have come back out to protest again.

In any case, the protests / riots and subsequent deaths were completely unnecessary, as instead of choosing the violent path, Thaksin could have waited a mere 1.5 years for the end of the government's term for the new elections that he so desired in order to re-take power.

Abhisit, as I've explained to you already, could not legally set a date for a general election: He could only set a date for House dissolution, which he repeatedly refused to do so. If he'd set that dissolution date on the proviso that there were no more mass protests until dissolution, he would have had complete credibility and legitimacy whatever the protesters did. But he didn't, his offer was never a solid one.

I'm not particularly disputing your other opinions, just correcting the oft stated fallacy that there was a definite offer of elections on the table in 2010. There wasn't.

[GentlemanJim]

birdpooguava, Siam Simon

Please!...................

[birdpooguava]

birdpooguava, Siam Simon

Please!...................

u first!

[hyperdimension]

Abhisit had proposed 14th November 2010 as the date of the election. UDD leaders initially accepted then later added their own conditions, like demanding that Suthep report to police. If they cared for peoples' lives, they could have gone home and waited to see if Abhisit kept to his word. If he didn't then they could have come back out to protest again.

In any case, the protests / riots and subsequent deaths were completely unnecessary, as instead of choosing the violent path, Thaksin could have waited a mere 1.5 years for the end of the government's term for the new elections that he so desired in order to re-take power.

Abhisit, as I've explained to you already, could not legally set a date for a general election: He could only set a date for House dissolution, which he repeatedly refused to do so. If he'd set that dissolution date on the proviso that there were no more mass protests until dissolution, he would have had complete credibility and legitimacy whatever the protesters did. But he didn't, his offer was never a solid one.

I'm not particularly disputing your other opinions, just correcting the oft stated fallacy that there was a definite offer of elections on the table in 2010. There wasn't.

They shouldn't have needed it to be so "definite". The election law stipulates that the election date must be set between 45-60 days after the House is dissolved, so the date of dissolution would be any time between 16 to 30 September 2010. Was it worth having people injured and killed just because a definite dissolution date was not set?

Abhisit eventually dissolved the House of Representatives early anyway in May 2011, which was months before he was actually obliged to. He also resigned from his position as Democrat party leader when it lost in the elections. All evidence suggests that he is someone who would uphold his promises. So if the Red Shirts did actually go home in May 2010, it would have been more likely than not that the House would be dissolved in September 2010 for elections in November 2010 as promised, and the people who died would still be alive. People lost their lives because of the leaders' stubborness (or Thaksin's and Seh Daeng's desire for violence and as many casualties as possible).

Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Siam Simon]

birdpooguava, Siam Simon

Please!...................

Jim and fellow frothers, please stop (notice there are no faux drama queen histrionics from me, Jim ) .

[philw]

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.

How fluent is your Thai ??

[Siam Simon]

Abhisit had proposed 14th November 2010 as the date of the election. UDD leaders initially accepted then later added their own conditions, like demanding that Suthep report to police. If they cared for peoples' lives, they could have gone home and waited to see if Abhisit kept to his word. If he didn't then they could have come back out to protest again.

In any case, the protests / riots and subsequent deaths were completely unnecessary, as instead of choosing the violent path, Thaksin could have waited a mere 1.5 years for the end of the government's term for the new elections that he so desired in order to re-take power.

Abhisit, as I've explained to you already, could not legally set a date for a general election: He could only set a date for House dissolution, which he repeatedly refused to do so. If he'd set that dissolution date on the proviso that there were no more mass protests until dissolution, he would have had complete credibility and legitimacy whatever the protesters did. But he didn't, his offer was never a solid one.

I'm not particularly disputing your other opinions, just correcting the oft stated fallacy that there was a definite offer of elections on the table in 2010. There wasn't.

They shouldn't have needed it to be so "definite". The election law stipulates that the election date must be set between 45-60 days after the House is dissolved, so the date of dissolution would be any time between 16 to 30 September 2010. Was it worth having people injured and killed just because a definite dissolution date was not set?

Abhisit eventually dissolved the House of Representatives early anyway in May 2011, which was months before he was actually obliged to. He also resigned from his position as Democrat party leader when it lost in the elections. All evidence suggests that he is someone who would uphold his promises. So if the Red Shirts did actually go home in May 2010, it would have been more likely than not that the House would be dissolved in September 2010 for elections in November 2010 as promised, and the people who died would still be alive. People lost their lives because of the leaders' stubborness (or Thaksin's and Seh Daeng's desire for violence and as many casualties as possible).

Why on earth do you keep prevaricating about Abhisit's insincere promise for elections in November? Abhisit called the elections when he did because he thought he had a good chance to form another coalition from it's result. That's what governments do.

[hyperdimension]

Why on earth do you keep prevaricating about Abhisit's insincere promise for elections in November? Abhisit called the elections when he did because he thought he had a good chance to form another coalition from it's result. That's what governments do.

I think his promise for elections in November 2010 were more likely sincere than not. So the Red Shirts stayed put, risking the lives of their useful idiots, because they believed that Abhisit was insincere in his offer of early dissolution?

I guess the violence and deaths turned out to be worth it for them - they used them as martyrs to portray the military and Abhisit and Suthep as evil and ruthless, and they now have a reason to get together for a street party and do some "commemorating" every year.

In the bigger picture, those people who died had unnecessarily sacrificed their lives for Thaksin.

Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[GentlemanJim]

Why on earth do you keep prevaricating about Abhisit's insincere promise for elections in November? Abhisit called the elections when he did because he thought he had a good chance to form another coalition from it's result. That's what governments do.

I think his promise for elections in November 2010 were more likely sincere than not. So the Red Shirts stayed put, risking the lives of their useful idiots, because they believed that Abhisit was insincere in his offer of early dissolution?

I guess the violence and deaths turned out to be worth it for them - they used them as martyrs to portray the military and Abhisit and Suthep as evil and ruthless, and they now have a reason to get together for a street party and do some "commemorating" every year.

In the bigger picture, those people who died had unnecessarily sacrificed their lives for Thaksin.

I agree with everything except your last sentence, maybe it should read 'In the bigger picture, those people that died had their lives abruptly and unnecessarily taken away from them by Thaksin.

Edited May 16, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[hyperdimension]

Thaksin, via his generals, provided military weapons (AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers) to the Red Shirts, which they later used against soliders. Nowhere does it indicate that the 1992 Los Angeles rioters used any military weapons, so it is not a good example.

Frankly, there is no equivalent situation to refer to in the West. It makes my point, really.

But you said:

Protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time

Were you wrong?

in Thailand, people armed themselves to the teeth

It wasn't the people who "armed themselves to the teeth", it was the protest / riot organizers who provided the war weapons and the militants who used them against soldiers.

I would still like to know of any example anywhere in the world in which protesters who were fighting for democracy used military weapons against authorities.

[tlansford]

I would still like to know of any example anywhere in the world in which protesters who were fighting for democracy used military weapons against authorities.

I would suggest then to look at the 1848 revolutions in France, Germany and Austria-Hungary, as a starter.

I haven't studied European history, but from what I've just read, there isn't much parallel with the 2010 Bangkok protests in which a billionaire maniac organized protests heavily armed with war weapons to further his clan's own interests using the "democracy" cry as a "noble-cause" smokescreen. Maybe parallels could be found in coup-ridden African nations.

It would seem that posters will reject all other replies to their questions based on the fact that it is not exactly the same in one respect or another depending on how they can best deny the facts.

- wasn't military weapons,

- wasn't the same violence

- wasn't in bangkok,

- wasn't 2010,

... and so on, and so on...

I mean, go back in history and stay on the west side of the Atlantic - you realize that the American revolution protesters used military grade weapons and were financed by a "billionaire" of the time living is a foreign country and that he, too, even fancied himself as a king, ... actually, he was in fact a king, and his home was in Versailles...

So let's not excuse the violence and tactics used by the MIB, but let's not white-wash the actions of the Thai government either. The gov't made their own choices. They were not "forced" into using lethal violence against their own citizens.

As for me, I am very curious how it happened that the government seemed to have such poor intelligence on what they could encounter when they attempted the first dispersal on April 10th. Not only was the time of day a poor choice, the army seemed to be caught by surprise. After 4 weeks of protests, it seems like the government would have had ample time to collect good information on the constitution of the protesters and to have been better prepared or to have taken a different strategy.

[waza]

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.a...l#ixzz1v1skoN12

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespondent.com/32641/australian-papers-on-the-crackdown-and-the-aftermath/

[Buchholz]

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.

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

.

[Siam Simon]

And the line you just edited in is equally breathtaking! Comparing security forces charged with maintaining law and order with a taxi association???

Whats breathtaking is the vein throbbing display of moral outrage from a person that applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them.

Please point out to me any specific post where I "applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them." or admit that you lied and apologise.

[nurofiend]

And the line you just edited in is equally breathtaking! Comparing security forces charged with maintaining law and order with a taxi association???

Whats breathtaking is the vein throbbing display of moral outrage from a person that applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them.

Please point out to me any specific post where I "applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them." or admit that you lied and apologise.

you're better off reporting the post rather than taking someone up on it when they lie about what you post....... i learned this the hard way

[metisdead]

Off topic hyperbole posts, derogatory posts, and replies have been removed.

[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.

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jatuporns-lese-majeste-charge-to-drop-DSI-30181656.html

[nicknostitz]

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.a...l#ixzz1v1skoN12

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespo...-the-aftermath/

The problem of selective quoting...

The same Sydney Morning Herald article states also that:

"The Herald saw a man shot as he crouched behind a phone box. He rolled in the gutter, unable to stand, and cried out for help. Fellow protesters ran out, under a hail of bullets, to drag him to safety.

But help was unable to reach other victims. Another man shot in Ratchadamri Road lay stricken, alone and unmoving.

An ambulance that drove to him was fired upon and, ultimately, forced to abandon him."

and:

"The soldiers, in charge now, fired indiscriminately.

Bullets flew past, slamming into buildings and cars behind.

The windows on an ambulance shattered as it came under heavy fire. Protesters and journalists fled to the relative safety of the centre of the protest site, as yet unreached by the troops."

[Buchholz]

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.

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

http://www.nationmul...I-30181656.html

For the uninitiated, there are more Red Shirt Leaders than the Jatuporn you cite, charged with LM, whose charges have NOT been recommended for dismissal like his was:

Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn

Pheu Thai MP and Deputy Agriculture Minister Nattawut Saikua

Korkaew Pikulthong

Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn

Karun Hosakul

Yoswaris Chuklom

Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai

Veera Musigapong

Shinawat Haboonpat

Wichian Kaokham

Suporn Atthawong

Kwanchai Praiphana

Nisit Sinthuprai

Prasit Chaisisa

Worawut Wichaidit

Laddawan Wongsriwong

Somchai Paiboon

Payap Panket

Somyot Pruksakasemsuk

amongst others...

.

[OzMick]

It would seem that posters will reject all other replies to their questions based on the fact that it is not exactly the same in one respect or another depending on how they can best deny the facts.

- wasn't military weapons,

- wasn't the same violence

- wasn't in bangkok,

- wasn't 2010,

... and so on, and so on...

I mean, go back in history and stay on the west side of the Atlantic - you realize that the American revolution protesters used military grade weapons and were financed by a "billionaire" of the time living is a foreign country and that he, too, even fancied himself as a king, ... actually, he was in fact a king, and his home was in Versailles...

So let's not excuse the violence and tactics used by the MIB, but let's not white-wash the actions of the Thai government either. The gov't made their own choices. They were not "forced" into using lethal violence against their own citizens.

As for me, I am very curious how it happened that the government seemed to have such poor intelligence on what they could encounter when they attempted the first dispersal on April 10th. Not only was the time of day a poor choice, the army seemed to be caught by surprise. After 4 weeks of protests, it seems like the government would have had ample time to collect good information on the constitution of the protesters and to have been better prepared or to have taken a different strategy.

You have promoted this theory before Tom. OK lets assume the RTA is aware that they are facing a relatively small but heavily armed force being sheltered, protected and assisted by a much larger group who are lightly armed or unarmed. The larger group refuses to disperse, and the smaller is firing at security forces and the general populace.

I await your brilliant strategy as to how to deal with this situation, ruling out lethal force which you find abhorrent.

[GentlemanJim]

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.a...l#ixzz1v1skoN12

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespo...-the-aftermath/

The problem of selective quoting...

The same Sydney Morning Herald article states also that:

"The Herald saw a man shot as he crouched behind a phone box. He rolled in the gutter, unable to stand, and cried out for help. Fellow protesters ran out, under a hail of bullets, to drag him to safety.

But help was unable to reach other victims. Another man shot in Ratchadamri Road lay stricken, alone and unmoving.

An ambulance that drove to him was fired upon and, ultimately, forced to abandon him."

and:

"The soldiers, in charge now, fired indiscriminately.

Bullets flew past, slamming into buildings and cars behind.

The windows on an ambulance shattered as it came under heavy fire. Protesters and journalists fled to the relative safety of the centre of the protest site, as yet unreached by the troops."

So why didn't you chastise phiphidon for his selective quoting?

[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.

How fluent is your Thai ??

Not as fluent as the Thai soldiers.

[nurofiend]

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespo...-the-aftermath/

The problem of selective quoting...

The same Sydney Morning Herald article states also that:

"The Herald saw a man shot as he crouched behind a phone box. He rolled in the gutter, unable to stand, and cried out for help. Fellow protesters ran out, under a hail of bullets, to drag him to safety.

But help was unable to reach other victims. Another man shot in Ratchadamri Road lay stricken, alone and unmoving.

An ambulance that drove to him was fired upon and, ultimately, forced to abandon him."

and:

"The soldiers, in charge now, fired indiscriminately.

Bullets flew past, slamming into buildings and cars behind.

The windows on an ambulance shattered as it came under heavy fire. Protesters and journalists fled to the relative safety of the centre of the protest site, as yet unreached by the troops."

So why didn't you chastise phiphidon for his selective quoting?

well, his (ppd) selective quoting wasn't really hiding anything contradictory was it?

[GentlemanJim]

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespo...-the-aftermath/

The problem of selective quoting...

The same Sydney Morning Herald article states also that:

"The Herald saw a man shot as he crouched behind a phone box. He rolled in the gutter, unable to stand, and cried out for help. Fellow protesters ran out, under a hail of bullets, to drag him to safety.

But help was unable to reach other victims. Another man shot in Ratchadamri Road lay stricken, alone and unmoving.

An ambulance that drove to him was fired upon and, ultimately, forced to abandon him."

and:

"The soldiers, in charge now, fired indiscriminately.

Bullets flew past, slamming into buildings and cars behind.

The windows on an ambulance shattered as it came under heavy fire. Protesters and journalists fled to the relative safety of the centre of the protest site, as yet unreached by the troops."

So why didn't you chastise phiphidon for his selective quoting?

well, his (ppd) selective quoting wasn't really hiding anything contradictory was it?

well of course it was, it omitted the very first paragraph of the article talking of redshirts advancing with weapons and the lie of the red leaders who said their people were unarmed.