Thai Democrats Blocking Reconciliation: Natthawut

[OzMick]

Grenades anyone?

Yes, and as the report states, the people launching them were not identified. It was assumed to have been resdhirts.

What i do know is as follows;

- There were people aligned with the government side seeking to provoke and escalate the events to allow for a serious crackdown. They were unprepared when the military command officers realized what was going on and refused to take the bait. In fairness to PM Abhisit, he didn't take the bait either, but was eventually forced by the growing insistence of the military high command to request a more violent response. This military leadership was soon replaced withmore "reliable" personnel.

- There were opportunistic people on the protestors side who sought to provoke matters as well. As they were often prevented by other protestors from carrying out their plans, their attacks often failed.

- In respect to the visit to the hospital by the redshirts, that seems to be repeatedly cited bt TVFers, there most certainly snipers stationed in the upper floors of the hospital. It was not a bright move by the authorities and most likely taken by one particular commander and one that they attempted to cover up.

- Grenades were thrown, but I do not think they were done either with the tacit approval of the Abhisit government or of the protestors "leaders".

Most of the grenade attacks were by M-79s. They are not thrown, they are fired from a launcher, hence their 350-400 range.

M-79s were specifically EXCLUDED from the RTA arsenal after a factory was found to be making parts for a launcher not long before the protest began. As the RTA were acting in a much more public arena, where is the pictures/video of them armed with very distinctive launchers - either individual or under-slung versions. there are none.

They were red shirt weapons - to suggest that protesters brought their own without knowledge of the organisers is farcical.

BTW M-79 grenades when launched are quite load and very distinctive. Anybody in the vicinity of one being fired would be well aware of it.

Are you implying that red shirt attacks were foiled by intervention of other red shirts? Evidence of such (deleted)?

How many snipers were trapped/caught on the roof of the hospital? Perhaps they borrowed Arisman's invisibility cloak to escape, or more likely they are a figment of an over-active imagination.

[yoshiwara]

There seems to be a split in the Thaksin apologist ranks. There is one side disputing that the reds were armed/pro-actively violent and so on (oh well maybe a few unconnected hot-heads) and the other side defending the red violence as a legitimate (don't laugh) defence against the other side. They really should get their act together. Or maybe not. They are both parts of the same project. Different layers of the onion rings to defend Thaksin. The truth is absolutely secondary. The whole period was an escalation of violence by the reds whipped up to a frenzy by the rhetoric and encouraged by the other side in almost constant retreat in hope that the situation would be diffused. It wasn't. The reds thought they were on a certain path to victory and the nastiness kicked off with the blood throwing. These forum guys aren't interested in reconciliation. That much is plain. And it probably doesn't even bother them that they are at cross purposes. Maybe they still think they are part of Thaksin's Praetorian Guard. Certainly not part of any left-wing initiative so political adventurers they are. T-shirts for Thaksin!

[OzMick]

If it's not on YouTube it didn't happen?

Yes, there are alternatives to youtube. Please feel free to consult with those many sites and provide an example of the examples the frothers consistently.

I was obviously too specific for you. If there is not video evidence of an act, it never happened? How about these mysterious snipers "most certainly" on the hospital roof? how did they escape - do an Arisman?

[Buchholz]

If you place bombs, shoot grenades, attack innocent and spread terror at civilian locations then you are by definition terrorists.

Purely your opinion - but tell me anyway - who shot the grenades? Proof, please, not speculation. You know that the MiB have never been identified. Why not??

And the red shirt protesters were not terrorists. But a lot of them were shot by govt snipers anyway.

But the gov't did claim that they were terrorists even before the protests began.

Edit to add :

"spread terror at civilian locations"

given the reports of mobile phone calls from the Wat on the 19th, then your description of "terrorist" could be equally applied to the army...

0.35 secs

Thank you. Never hurts to be reminded that the Red Shirts had high-velocity, automatic assault weapons in their varied arsenal.

.

[phiphidon]

There seems to be a split in the Thaksin apologist ranks. There is one side disputing that the reds were armed/pro-actively violent and so on (oh well maybe a few unconnected hot-heads) and the other side defending the red violence as a legitimate (don't laugh) defence against the other side. They really should get their act together. Or maybe not. They are both parts of the same project. Different layers of the onion rings to defend Thaksin. The truth is absolutely secondary. The whole period was an escalation of violence by the reds whipped up to a frenzy by the rhetoric and encouraged by the other side in almost constant retreat in hope that the situation would be diffused. It wasn't. The reds thought they were on a certain path to victory and the nastiness kicked off with the blood throwing. These forum guys aren't interested in reconciliation. That much is plain. And it probably doesn't even bother them that they are at cross purposes. Maybe they still think they are part of Thaksin's Praetorian Guard. Certainly not part of any left-wing initiative so political adventurers they are. T-shirts for Thaksin!

So the rationality is all one sided and any other option is to be derided .There are some on this forum that least have some respect for another viewpoint and will discuss it, they might not agree with it, but they will discuss it.

Maybe you would like to examine whether you are part of that "group"? I have my viewpoint.

[CalgaryII]

I keep trying to figure out what some video showing furtive and limited instances of protester fighback is supposed to achieve. Does it suggest that protesters shouldn't have done what protesters do? That the armed pro-coup people who protesters were protesting against, should not have been opposed? What else would anyone have expected from protesters? This was not a Mahatma Gandhi type situation. BirdP's description in Post #129 ^ pretty well sums up the protesters capabilities, ".....maybe a few rogue opportunists with rudimentary weapons, but certainly no armed militia". So what is all this indignation about protester fightback all about? What else was expected? Questions, questions, questions. What non-simplified cause were protesters so up-in-arms-about and defending to the death by over 90 of them, is more pertinent IMHO. Everything else was par-for-the-course as far as demonstrations are concerned.

Edited April 1, 2012 by CalgaryII

[TAWP]

Only one side, the Red Shirts, had organized groups that manufactured bombs that was later placed - also even later well after all protests was over - at locations far from protest-areas, only around civilian targets - ending up with only civilian casualties.

One of these groups ended up having an accident, blowing part of their manufacturing factory to smithereens eventually.

The placement of these bombs, attacking only civilian targets, is nothing short of terrorism.

[473geo]

Only one side, the Red Shirts, had organized groups that manufactured bombs that was later placed - also even later well after all protests was over - at locations far from protest-areas, only around civilian targets - ending up with only civilian casualties.

One of these groups ended up having an accident, blowing part of their manufacturing factory to smithereens eventually.

The placement of these bombs, attacking only civilian targets, is nothing short of terrorism.

You have been using google well, however in order to accurately support your accusation you have identified individual terrorist actions.......

Not to be confused with a sit in protest where the group were forced to resort to some measure of defence when confronted by the RTA.....normally called insurgency

[TAWP]

Only one side, the Red Shirts, had organized groups that manufactured bombs that was later placed - also even later well after all protests was over - at locations far from protest-areas, only around civilian targets - ending up with only civilian casualties.

One of these groups ended up having an accident, blowing part of their manufacturing factory to smithereens eventually.

The placement of these bombs, attacking only civilian targets, is nothing short of terrorism.

You have been using google well, however in order to accurately support your accusation you have identified individual terrorist actions.......

Not to be confused with a sit in protest where the group were forced to resort to some measure of defence when confronted by the RTA.....normally called insurgency

The IRA was filled with people that never carried out any terrorist-attacks. The organization however never did shy away from it nor did they denounce it - just like Red Shirts.

[birdpooguava]

Bucholz, Yes the reds were armed. Here's another video showing red shirts heavily armed... with the weapons they had taken off the authorities.

[473geo]

Only one side, the Red Shirts, had organized groups that manufactured bombs that was later placed - also even later well after all protests was over - at locations far from protest-areas, only around civilian targets - ending up with only civilian casualties.

One of these groups ended up having an accident, blowing part of their manufacturing factory to smithereens eventually.

The placement of these bombs, attacking only civilian targets, is nothing short of terrorism.

You have been using google well, however in order to accurately support your accusation you have identified individual terrorist actions.......

Not to be confused with a sit in protest where the group were forced to resort to some measure of defence when confronted by the RTA.....normally called insurgency

The IRA was filled with people that never carried out any terrorist-attacks. The organization however never did shy away from it nor did they denounce it - just like Red Shirts.

The IRA active terrorist wing predominantly attacked innocent civilians in order to try and influence the government, the red shirts organised an occupation which was designed to disrupt the financial centre of Bangkok, not to inflict terror on civilians........then the army arrived

Edited April 1, 2012 by 473geo

[CalgaryII]

In order to maintain perspective, is to understand that those who have a very strong anti-Red Shirt narrative, have never had meaningful interactions with them. I can confidently say this on the basis of my social immersion among them. The negativity is so totally out-of-sync with that reality, that it is absurd and impossible, reflecting the non-involvement. Begging the question, if this narrative is based on non-association, where does it originate? It is certainly not shared by the majority electorate.

Edited April 1, 2012 by CalgaryII

[TAWP]

The IRA was filled with people that never carried out any terrorist-attacks. The organization however never did shy away from it nor did they denounce it - just like Red Shirts.

The IRA active terrorist wing predominantly attacked innocent civilians in order to try and influence the government, the red shirts organised an occupation which was designed to disrupt the financial centre of Bangkok, not to inflict terror on civilians........then the army arrived

I was specifically mentioning the bombings of areas, even long after the protests was over, that was purely civilian, and shooting grenades of targets that was outside the protest-areas, such as grenade attacks on Sala Daeng, RPG-attacks on the Dusit hotel etc. to highlight that these was indeed terrorist attacks.

I did not mention the armed resistance (as some of you want to call it) inside the protest area, as this was an open conflict and not in itself a terror move.

But the actions talked about above, and the leaderships unwillingness to denounce it, shows that the organization at large is what I previously labeled it as.

[Buchholz]

Bucholz, Yes the reds were armed.

It's Buchholz, but thanks for concurring.

.

[473geo]

Bucholz, Yes the reds were armed.

It's Buchholz, but thanks for concurring.

.

Seems all that ammunition was either not used to good effect.....or death and carnage was clearly not their aim.....

[geriatrickid]

Thank you. Never hurts to be reminded that the Red Shirts had high-velocity, automatic assault weapons in their varied arsenal.

well John, you certainly offer a strident statement that you present as fact.

Unfortunately, the allegation is unproven (in your context). Yes there is an image of a firearm. Is it real or is it a copy?

An excellent example of the use of firearms was demonstrated by "JJ" Winai Naiman, owner of 25 jet skis here in Phuket's septic tank of Patong. Big Trouble in Thailand showed him threatening Royal Marines with a gun. Although eventually detained, no legal action was taken against JJ as the police accepted his explanation that he was "play acting". In a country where so much is for show, where the smiles are insincere, where sawadee krap in Patong is code for screw you farang, I believe that much of the walking about with replica weapons or weapons taken away from soldiers was a show. I don't expect paranoid people to accept that and its fine. However, the military officers that were in charge understood the show aspect and were effectively containing the protestors. The violence only reached its zenith when these commanders were replaced by the key units of any coup in Thailand, Royal Guard units. That's when the violence got out of control.

Edited April 1, 2012 by geriatrickid

[birdpooguava]

So far we have been offered some extremely unconvincing videos. In some we see the use of weaponry, but no idea who is firing. Another has a red shirt run out and fire a large bung fai (that clip was proven not to be a M79 by a weapons expert). Others have red shirts with weapons they had confiscated from the authorities.

Are you people really trying to claim that the government, with the most modern technology, couldn't get any 'real' evidence of this armed militia? Videos of reds blatantly using M79s, as is claimed, would have justified the government and turned sentiment against the reds. Surely with 500 heavily armed terrorists this couldn't have been a difficult task. The simple fact is the government were blatantly lying to justify their own heavy handed tactics. Only morons fail to see this.

[473geo]

The IRA was filled with people that never carried out any terrorist-attacks. The organization however never did shy away from it nor did they denounce it - just like Red Shirts.

The IRA active terrorist wing predominantly attacked innocent civilians in order to try and influence the government, the red shirts organised an occupation which was designed to disrupt the financial centre of Bangkok, not to inflict terror on civilians........then the army arrived

I was specifically mentioning the bombings of areas, even long after the protests was over, that was purely civilian, and shooting grenades of targets that was outside the protest-areas, such as grenade attacks on Sala Daeng, RPG-attacks on the Dusit hotel etc. to highlight that these was indeed terrorist attacks.

I did not mention the armed resistance (as some of you want to call it) inside the protest area, as this was an open conflict and not in itself a terror move.

But the actions talked about above, and the leaderships unwillingness to denounce it, shows that the organization at large is what I previously labeled it as.

Nope, it shows there were rogue factions who operated on their own initiative outside the protest area......and does not give you licence to label all the people involved in the red shirt organisation, terrorists.......

[geriatrickid]

Only one side, the Red Shirts, had organized groups that manufactured bombs that was later placed - also even later well after all protests was over - at locations far from protest-areas, only around civilian targets - ending up with only civilian casualties.

One of these groups ended up having an accident, blowing part of their manufacturing factory to smithereens eventually.

The placement of these bombs, attacking only civilian targets, is nothing short of terrorism.

You have been using google well, however in order to accurately support your accusation you have identified individual terrorist actions.......

Not to be confused with a sit in protest where the group were forced to resort to some measure of defence when confronted by the RTA.....normally called insurgency

The IRA was filled with people that never carried out any terrorist-attacks. The organization however never did shy away from it nor did they denounce it - just like Red Shirts.

There was also reconciliation of sorts and parliamentary elections. Maybe it's time Thailand asked retired Canadian General John de Chastelain to come and work the same magic on Thailand.

[geriatrickid]

Bucholz, Yes the reds were armed.

It's Buchholz, but thanks for concurring.

.

Seems all that ammunition was either not used to good effect.....or death and carnage was clearly not their aim.....

That won't stop John from speculaing, though.

[Buchholz]

So far we have been offered some extremely unconvincing videos.

Probably because the topic has been covered in 490 previous threads.

Sorry you missed the boat.

.

[lungmi]

I keep trying to figure out what some video showing furtive and limited instances of protester fighback is supposed to achieve. Does it suggest that protesters shouldn't have done what protesters do? That the armed pro-coup people who protesters were protesting against, should not have been opposed? What else would anyone have expected from protesters? This was not a Mahatma Gandhi type situation. BirdP's description in Post #129 ^ pretty well sums up the protesters capabilities, ".....maybe a few rogue opportunists with rudimentary weapons, but certainly no armed militia". So what is all this indignation about protester fightback all about? What else was expected? Questions, questions, questions. What non-simplified cause were protesters so up-in-arms-about and defending to the death by over 90 of them, is more pertinent IMHO. Everything else was par-for-the-course as far as demonstrations are concerned.

protesters have to protest inside the law. outside the law (international standard) the law fights back. You dig it?

[birdpooguava]

protesters have to protest inside the law. outside the law (international standard) the law fights back. You dig it?

What does 'international law' say about the military overthrowing a democratically elected government? You dig it?

[CalgaryII]

Another perplexing curiosity I have, is why all this focus on the limited fightback capabilities of the protesters, but nary a comment about what they faced. Just the sheer number of highly trained coup-defenders, never mind their overwhelming firepower, is hardly discussed. Why all this focus on 'David' instead of 'Goliath"? Especially when subsequent elections validated "David", and repudiated 'Goliath".

Edited April 1, 2012 by CalgaryII

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and nonsense posts have been removed as well as the replies.

[FOODLOVER]

Thank you. Never hurts to be reminded that the Red Shirts had high-velocity, automatic assault weapons in their varied arsenal.

well John, you certainly offer a strident statement that you present as fact.

Unfortunately, the allegation is unproven (in your context). Yes there is an image of a firearm. Is it real or is it a copy?

An excellent example of the use of firearms was demonstrated by "JJ" Winai Naiman, owner of 25 jet skis here in Phuket's septic tank of Patong. Big Trouble in Thailand showed him threatening Royal Marines with a gun. Although eventually detained, no legal action was taken against JJ as the police accepted his explanation that he was "play acting". In a country where so much is for show, where the smiles are insincere, where sawadee krap in Patong is code for screw you farang, I believe that much of the walking about with replica weapons or weapons taken away from soldiers was a show. I don't expect paranoid people to accept that and its fine. However, the military officers that were in charge understood the show aspect and were effectively containing the protestors. The violence only reached its zenith when these commanders were replaced by the key units of any coup in Thailand, Royal Guard units. That's when the violence got out of control.

So you are saying that the reds were carrying copies of weapons for show and since the military is run by Thai commanders who understand that aspect of the Thai psyche they should have known that it was for show and therefore done nothing?

Edited April 1, 2012 by FOODLOVER

[AleG]

Thank you. Never hurts to be reminded that the Red Shirts had high-velocity, automatic assault weapons in their varied arsenal.

well John, you certainly offer a strident statement that you present as fact.

Unfortunately, the allegation is unproven (in your context). Yes there is an image of a firearm. Is it real or is it a copy?

An excellent example of the use of firearms was demonstrated by "JJ" Winai Naiman, owner of 25 jet skis here in Phuket's septic tank of Patong. Big Trouble in Thailand showed him threatening Royal Marines with a gun. Although eventually detained, no legal action was taken against JJ as the police accepted his explanation that he was "play acting". In a country where so much is for show, where the smiles are insincere, where sawadee krap in Patong is code for screw you farang, I believe that much of the walking about with replica weapons or weapons taken away from soldiers was a show. I don't expect paranoid people to accept that and its fine. However, the military officers that were in charge understood the show aspect and were effectively containing the protestors. The violence only reached its zenith when these commanders were replaced by the key units of any coup in Thailand, Royal Guard units. That's when the violence got out of control.

So you are saying that the reds were carrying copies of weapons for show and since the military is run by Thai commanders who understand that aspect of the Thai psyche they should have known that it was for show and therefore done nothing?

The excuses really are getting more ridiculous, aren't they?

"They were toy guns!" "They really didn't mean to use them!"

Geeez.....

[Throatwobbler]

I keep trying to figure out what some video showing furtive and limited instances of protester fighback is supposed to achieve. Does it suggest that protesters shouldn't have done what protesters do? That the armed pro-coup people who protesters were protesting against, should not have been opposed? What else would anyone have expected from protesters? This was not a Mahatma Gandhi type situation. BirdP's description in Post #129 ^ pretty well sums up the protesters capabilities, ".....maybe a few rogue opportunists with rudimentary weapons, but certainly no armed militia". So what is all this indignation about protester fightback all about? What else was expected? Questions, questions, questions. What non-simplified cause were protesters so up-in-arms-about and defending to the death by over 90 of them, is more pertinent IMHO. Everything else was par-for-the-course as far as demonstrations are concerned.

Can you imagine what they could have done if they were really peaceful protestors. Imagine how much good will they could have won if they had simply sat down had had to be carried out by the army. That could have done so much good for the image of the movement.

Of course the people at the topdidn't want that. They needed bodies to use against the then government.

[Throatwobbler]

A video of armed redshirts. I wonder if the usual suspects will actually acknowledge this video or just ignore it like they have done other things they have been shown. Or maybe they'll just pretend they're carrying water pistols. It was around Songkran after all.

[Throatwobbler]

So far we have been offered some extremely unconvincing videos. In some we see the use of weaponry, but no idea who is firing. Another has a red shirt run out and fire a large bung fai (that clip was proven not to be a M79 by a weapons expert). Others have red shirts with weapons they had confiscated from the authorities.

Are you people really trying to claim that the government, with the most modern technology, couldn't get any 'real' evidence of this armed militia? Videos of reds blatantly using M79s, as is claimed, would have justified the government and turned sentiment against the reds. Surely with 500 heavily armed terrorists this couldn't have been a difficult task. The simple fact is the government were blatantly lying to justify their own heavy handed tactics. Only morons fail to see this.

There is plenty of evidence out there. You just turn a blind eye to everything you don't like. As for calling people morons I would suggest the same thing to yourself about falling hook line and sinker for the red propaganda. That is if you truely believe everything you are writing.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Throatwobbler