Thai Democrats Blocking Reconciliation: Natthawut

[Throatwobbler]

An interesting read for those who deny the armed militia.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE29Ae02.html

[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.

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.

Yet again, not responding intelligently, just insisting you are right & using derision. Please reread my post, have a think about the inherent truth in it, and if you think you can, make an adult attempt at rebutting it.

[yoshiwara]

An interesting read for those who deny the armed militia.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE29Ae02.html

In all future forum red apologist contributions to this thread, there will not be one direct reference to this link, just as there is a blank out of Arisman's now infamous speech to burn down Bangkok.

Their method is dishonest from their heads to their toes. Lie and deny. Anything goes. The Thaksin method.

Edited April 1, 2012 by yoshiwara

[473geo]

The interesting point here is, yes there were reds armed, yes the army were armed

I have 2 questions

1) why did the red shirts not use their arsenal?

2) why do by far the majority of deaths by shooting appear to be on the civilian side?

Perhaps the Joe Witty report carries an element of value

Edited April 1, 2012 by 473geo

[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.

Yet again, not responding intelligently, just insisting you are right & using derision. Please reread my post, have a think about the inherent truth in it, and if you think you can, make an adult attempt at rebutting it.

How about responing to the 2 links I posted. As I said in my first post just turning a blind eye to everything that you don't like. As for responding intelligently who was the person who called people who did not agree with them morons. That is not the mark of an intelligent, adult, person.

[Throatwobbler]

The interesting point here is, yes there were reds armed, yes the army were armed

I have 2 questions

1) why did the red shirts not use their arsenal?

2) why do by far the majority of deaths by shooting appear to be on the civilian side?

Perhaps the Joe Witty report carries an element of value

Several soldiers were killed and lots wounded so can we please stop the lie that the red shirts did not use their arsenal.

[473geo]

The interesting point here is, yes there were reds armed, yes the army were armed

I have 2 questions

1) why did the red shirts not use their arsenal?

2) why do by far the majority of deaths by shooting appear to be on the civilian side?

Perhaps the Joe Witty report carries an element of value

Several soldiers were killed and lots wounded so can we please stop the lie that the red shirts did not use their arsenal.

How many?

Several army personel were also captured and released by the red shirts

Edited April 1, 2012 by 473geo

[Siripon]

"I think it is time to put Thailand before the bickering over Thaksin-related issues," he said.

I'll give Thaksin and his cronies, sycophants, and partners in crime, this much, they have balls the size of cantaloupes to get up there day after day and spread such blatant BS. Honestly amazing they can say this stuff without bursting in to laughter, although with so many billions of baht on the line and lucrative future thefts to look forward to I guess they find a way.

I wanted to laugh when Thida, Weng's wife, said the other day that that one day both General Prem and Thaksin would no longer be with us,and yet the red march for true democracy would go on.

I recall Natawut saying 2 years ago that the red shirts don't depend on Thaksin and if he turns out to be anti-democratic, they will jetison him,

So stop trying to whitewash his crimes, wasting time in Parliament; turn away from the fugitive fuhrer and try to move Thailand forward with legislation to benefit all Thais.

But the disciples and followers are marching to Vientiane and Cambodia to pay homage.

They know without him they will fall apart, bickering over self interests, only his gravy train sustains them.

[phiphidon]

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?

And what does International Law say about "Life(sic) Fire Zones". I'll tell you in the words of an article written by an Army Officer after the event entitled

“Lessons from the Operation Encirclement at the Ratchaprasong area during 14-19 May 2010”

Hazardous zones including Live fire Zones within the effective range between the UDD’s holding ground and the military forces were declared as a military tactic.

The article, however, states that the army should further study and find an appropriate model to implement the “fire zone by real ammunition”. This practice is not universally accepted or found in any other country as a means to suppress riots.

http://asiapacific.a...-ratchaprasong/

And the use of snipers?

Dig that.

Edited April 1, 2012 by metisdead
Font color reset to black.

[Siripon]

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?

And what does International Law say about "Life(sic) Fire Zones". I'll tell you in the words of an article written by an Army Officer after the event entitled “Lessons from the Operation Encirclement at the Ratchaprasong area during 14-19 May 2010” Hazardous zones including Live fire Zones within the effective range between the UDD’s holding ground and the military forces were declared as a military tactic. The article, however, states that the army should further study and find an appropriate model to implement the “fire zone by real ammunition”. This practice is not universally accepted or found in any other country as a means to suppress riots. http://asiapacific.a...-ratchaprasong/ And the use of snipers? Dig that.

How many countries would have tolerated a seizure of the city centre by armed elements led by a maverik Major General? A live fire zone would have been established in almost every country in the world before Thailand did Edited April 1, 2012 by metisdead

[tlansford]

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??

This is the level the propaganda-posters has stooped to.

Ps. Several MIBs have been ID'd after their arrests. Some was linked to See Daeng. Ds.

calling protesters terrorists is propaganda.

But the gov't started that propaganda before the demonstrations started.

Terrorism is a term loved by gov'ts and authorities around the world today when they want to demonize a group. It allows the gov't to

- stoke fear of the group among the population at large

- justify extreme actions against the group

- suspend or eliminate due process and civil liberties

- apply harsher punishments on people

The people here stating that all the red shirts are thugs, a mob, and terrorists are the people spouting propaganda. Propaganda, I notice, once again repeated without any supporting facts.

[phiphidon]

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.

A video of armed redshirts? 5 or 6 guys a couple armed, one blatantly with a rifle milling around the shopping walkways somewhere just outside a taped off area not aware of the video camera? Meanwhile someone steps over the tape who seems to recognise a video camera when he sees one as he's wearing a black balaclava with eye slits. Not a red shirt granny with a clapper within sight. Obviously armed Red Shirts.

Then theres Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority and then the rest of the video first questions the shootings in the wat and then repeats the government line that there were shots from the wat and anyway the soldiers weren't on the overhead tracks that day. Proven to be a lie.

Sorry, not convincing at all.

[Buchholz]

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.....

They really did get carried away with their silliness, don't they?

Fake guns for fake Reds.

.

[tlansford]

An interesting read for those who deny the armed militia.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE29Ae02.html

That has been posted and discredited many times before...

[CalgaryII]

"The people here stating that all the red shirts are thugs, a mob, and terrorists are the people spouting propaganda" #191 ^

Of equal importance, they clearly demonstrate they have never been around Red Shirts in a meaningful way. When one is socially, and otherwise engaged with them, those descriptors are so out-of-sync with reality that they appear ludicrous, absurd and a total disconnect. It is absolutely clear that in those instances, agenda is at play, and not any sort of knowledge, as they try to project. They have never seen "a red shirt granny with a clapper" as Phiphidon so aptly puts it (above).

Edited April 1, 2012 by CalgaryII

[bigbamboo]

As alluded to earlier the government forces were incredibly patient with red shirt protesters, the vast majority of whom were only interested in doing just that, protesting. Unfortunately there were elements within the group, especially the black shirts, who had a different agenda. After a long stand off the situation became untenable with the country being held to ransom and ultimately and after repeated warnings, action had to be taken.

[yoshiwara]

"I think it is time to put Thailand before the bickering over Thaksin-related issues," he said.

I'll give Thaksin and his cronies, sycophants, and partners in crime, this much, they have balls the size of cantaloupes to get up there day after day and spread such blatant BS. Honestly amazing they can say this stuff without bursting in to laughter, although with so many billions of baht on the line and lucrative future thefts to look forward to I guess they find a way.

I wanted to laugh when Thida, Weng's wife, said the other day that that one day both General Prem and Thaksin would no longer be with us,and yet the red march for true democracy would go on.

I recall Natawut saying 2 years ago that the red shirts don't depend on Thaksin and if he turns out to be anti-democratic, they will jetison him,

So stop trying to whitewash his crimes, wasting time in Parliament; turn away from the fugitive fuhrer and try to move Thailand forward with legislation to benefit all Thais.

But the disciples and followers are marching to Vientiane and Cambodia to pay homage.

They know without him they will fall apart, bickering over self interests, only his gravy train sustains them.

This was supposedly the agenda of those who claimed to hail from the left, namely that they were ostensibly hitching a ride on the Thaksin caravan and they would jettison him after he achieved power, a variation of the Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution. The argument was phrased last year with claims to a 'class war' initiative and tthe red leadership were pushing the 'class' angle for all it was worth at one time. Now dumped by the forum red apologists who can't even be bothered to disguise their abandonment of their 'its not about Thakin' mantra. Now it is. On the button. And the tatters of a fake reconciliation for all to see doesn't bother them either.

[phiphidon]

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?

And what does International Law say about "Life(sic) Fire Zones". I'll tell you in the words of an article written by an Army Officer after the event entitled “Lessons from the Operation Encirclement at the Ratchaprasong area during 14-19 May 2010” Hazardous zones including Live fire Zones within the effective range between the UDD’s holding ground and the military forces were declared as a military tactic. The article, however, states that the army should further study and find an appropriate model to implement the “fire zone by real ammunition”. This practice is not universally accepted or found in any other country as a means to suppress riots. http://asiapacific.a...-ratchaprasong/ And the use of snipers? Dig that.

How many countries would have tolerated a seizure of the city centre by armed elements led by a maverik Major General? A live fire zone would have been established in almost every country in the world before Thailand did

I would imagine most civilized parts of the world not enthralled or run by their own military would take the events of 2010 as a fine example of how not to conduct such an operation.

[FOODLOVER]

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?

And what does International Law say about "Life(sic) Fire Zones". I'll tell you in the words of an article written by an Army Officer after the event entitled

“Lessons from the Operation Encirclement at the Ratchaprasong area during 14-19 May 2010”

Hazardous zones including Live fire Zones within the effective range between the UDD’s holding ground and the military forces were declared as a military tactic.

The article, however, states that the army should further study and find an appropriate model to implement the “fire zone by real ammunition”. This practice is not universally accepted or found in any other country as a means to suppress riots.

http://asiapacific.a...-ratchaprasong/

And the use of snipers?

Dig that.

OMG the blue color! My eyes! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Edited April 1, 2012 by metisdead
Font color reset to black.

[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.

A video of armed redshirts? 5 or 6 guys a couple armed, one blatantly with a rifle milling around the shopping walkways somewhere just outside a taped off area not aware of the video camera? Meanwhile someone steps over the tape who seems to recognise a video camera when he sees one as he's wearing a black balaclava with eye slits. Not a red shirt granny with a clapper within sight. Obviously armed Red Shirts.

Then theres Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority and then the rest of the video first questions the shootings in the wat and then repeats the government line that there were shots from the wat and anyway the soldiers weren't on the overhead tracks that day. Proven to be a lie.

Sorry, not convincing at all.

Exactly the response I expected. Complete refusal to even look at anything that might show your beloved reds in a bad light. Plenty of evidence has been shown but I guess it's hard to look at things when your eyes are shut.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Throatwobbler

[siampolee]

One is constantly amazed by Calgarryll (among others) and their grossly misinformed profound statements made concerning their intimate friendship and knowledge of the Red Shirt hierarchy as well as the rank and file members made here and before in Cargaryll's case in another forum.

The truth of the matter is many of us experienced first hand the delights of the Red Shirt take on democracy, arson, looting the heroic storming of a hospital, street fighting and other assorted terrorist activities.

As such we are probably far better informed than the 2 baht pseudo intellectuals who presume to know what is best for Thailand and its people. Perchance these individuals would be better employed in campaigning for democracy in North Korea, Cambodia etc.

Perhaps if the supporters of these Red Shirt terrorist activities were to actually look at those activities and were involved in any way they might just see the true facts of the matter.

However I very much doubt that those who shout the loudest in support of the terrorist activities were actually troubled by the loutish behavior of the Red Shirts as they were no doubt cozily ensconced in there little ivory towers far from the harsh realities of the terrorism perpetrated by paid for mercenaries in order to create a demonic society rather than a democratic society for the benefit of one person, his family and their brown nosing acolytes.

[Throatwobbler]

An interesting read for those who deny the armed militia.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE29Ae02.html

That has been posted and discredited many times before...

Ok show me where it has been discredited. Pesonally I just think you don't want to believe anything that shows that some of your red shirt s were armed thugs. It goes against the peaceful protestor image that you still like to keep painting.

[Buchholz]

"I think it is time to put Thailand before the bickering over Thaksin-related issues," he said.

I'll give Thaksin and his cronies, sycophants, and partners in crime, this much, they have balls the size of cantaloupes to get up there day after day and spread such blatant BS. Honestly amazing they can say this stuff without bursting in to laughter, although with so many billions of baht on the line and lucrative future thefts to look forward to I guess they find a way.

I wanted to laugh when Thida, Weng's wife, said the other day that that one day both General Prem and Thaksin would no longer be with us,and yet the red march for true democracy would go on.

I recall Natawut saying 2 years ago that the red shirts don't depend on Thaksin and if he turns out to be anti-democratic, they will jetison him,

So stop trying to whitewash his crimes, wasting time in Parliament; turn away from the fugitive fuhrer and try to move Thailand forward with legislation to benefit all Thais.

But the disciples and followers are marching to Vientiane and Cambodia to pay homage.

They know without him they will fall apart, bickering over self interests, only his gravy train sustains them.

This was supposedly the agenda of those who claimed to hail from the left, namely that they were ostensibly hitching a ride on the Thaksin caravan and they would jettison him after he achieved power, a variation of the Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution. The argument was phrased last year with claims to a 'class war' initiative and the red leadership were pushing the 'class' angle for all it was worth at one time. Now dumped by the forum red apologists who can't even be bothered to disguise their abandonment of their 'its not about Thaksin' mantra. Now it is. On the button. And the tatters of a fake reconciliation for all to see doesn't bother them either.

Interesting how they vacillate between one line to another.

.

[TAWP]

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??

This is the level the propaganda-posters has stooped to.

Ps. Several MIBs have been ID'd after their arrests. Some was linked to See Daeng. Ds.

calling protesters terrorists is propaganda.

But the gov't started that propaganda before the demonstrations started.

Terrorism is a term loved by gov'ts and authorities around the world today when they want to demonize a group. It allows the gov't to

- stoke fear of the group among the population at large

- justify extreme actions against the group

- suspend or eliminate due process and civil liberties

- apply harsher punishments on people

The people here stating that all the red shirts are thugs, a mob, and terrorists are the people spouting propaganda. Propaganda, I notice, once again repeated without any supporting facts.

When there is organized bombings of civilian targets, grenades being launched at civilian targets, RPG being shot at civilian targets, then the group behind the actions are terrorists.

Having an illegal sit-in doesn't make them terrorists. Having armed groups that act on their behalf, against civilian targets, with no condemnation - does.

[phiphidon]

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.

Exactly the response I expected from the reds. Refusal to look at anything they don't like.. A complete waste of time to even carry on discussing this.

A video of armed redshirts? 5 or 6 guys a couple armed, one blatantly with a rifle milling around the shopping walkways somewhere just outside a taped off area not aware of the video camera? Meanwhile someone steps over the tape who seems to recognise a video camera when he sees one as he's wearing a black balaclava with eye slits. Not a red shirt granny with a clapper within sight. Obviously armed Red Shirts.

Then theres Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority and then the rest of the video first questions the shootings in the wat and then repeats the government line that there were shots from the wat and anyway the soldiers weren't on the overhead tracks that day. Proven to be a lie.

Sorry, not convincing at all.

Took me a while to find your comment - for everybody else here it is

Throatwobbler: Exactly the response I expected from the reds. Refusal to look at anything they don't like.. A complete waste of time to even carry on discussing this.

Me: How can I have commented on it as I did without looking at it? I did. The above is my response, please tell me where your observations of the video differ to mine and why and then we can discuss. Or you can concede that what I've said is right, or ignore, it's up to you.

Just don't get all upset because I have a different viewpoint to you and pointed it out. That attitude just exemplifies what I said to yoshiwara earlier

[rubl]

The interesting point here is, yes there were reds armed, yes the army were armed

I have 2 questions

1) why did the red shirts not use their arsenal?

2) why do by far the majority of deaths by shooting appear to be on the civilian side?

Perhaps the Joe Witty report carries an element of value

Several soldiers were killed and lots wounded so can we please stop the lie that the red shirts did not use their arsenal.

How many?

Several army personel were also captured and released by the red shirts

The interesting point of course is not the army being armed, but the peaceful red-shirt protesters being armed. 60+ grenades lobbed in/around Bangkok, non-red-shirts died or hurt.

Why did the red-shirt leaders continue to provoke the government and through 24/7 shoutcasts managed to keep the ordinary cannon fodder in position to be shot at or killed?

BTW some army personel had been captured and been released by red-shirt protesters, similarly red-shirt protesters had been captured and released and put on a bus home free of charge courtesy of the government.. Don't bother to ask how many, still counting in Wats in Rayong.

Edited April 1, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

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

And what does International Law say about "Life(sic) Fire Zones". I'll tell you in the words of an article written by an Army Officer after the event entitled

“Lessons from the Operation Encirclement at the Ratchaprasong area during 14-19 May 2010”

Hazardous zones including Live fire Zones within the effective range between the UDD’s holding ground and the military forces were declared as a military tactic.

The article, however, states that the army should further study and find an appropriate model to implement the “fire zone by real ammunition”. This practice is not universally accepted or found in any other country as a means to suppress riots.

http://asiapacific.a...-ratchaprasong/

And the use of snipers?

Dig that.

The practise came into practise AFTER the 'peaceful protests' transformed into full blown riots with grenades lobbed at non-red-shirts, paramilitary elements mingling amongst the protesters, etc., etc. As a military tactic it sounds 'reasonable' when confronted with non-peaceful protesters, rioters and terrorists.

Mind you in lots of countries there is a functioning police force with special units trained to deal with protests. Still I doubt those units are trained to handle armed protesters. In most countries army units would be called in, like the National Guard, or units of a Rapid Deployment force.

PS although colourful I changed all to allow for a default black/white situation

[rubl]

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??

This is the level the propaganda-posters has stooped to.

Ps. Several MIBs have been ID'd after their arrests. Some was linked to See Daeng. Ds.

calling protesters terrorists is propaganda.

But the gov't started that propaganda before the demonstrations started.

Terrorism is a term loved by gov'ts and authorities around the world today when they want to demonize a group. It allows the gov't to

- stoke fear of the group among the population at large

- justify extreme actions against the group

- suspend or eliminate due process and civil liberties

- apply harsher punishments on people

The people here stating that all the red shirts are thugs, a mob, and terrorists are the people spouting propaganda. Propaganda, I notice, once again repeated without any supporting facts.

"But the gov't started that propaganda before the demonstrations started."

I notice without supporting facts

[rubl]

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.

... link to clip removed, available in original ...

A video of armed redshirts? 5 or 6 guys a couple armed, one blatantly with a rifle milling around the shopping walkways somewhere just outside a taped off area not aware of the video camera? Meanwhile someone steps over the tape who seems to recognise a video camera when he sees one as he's wearing a black balaclava with eye slits. Not a red shirt granny with a clapper within sight. Obviously armed Red Shirts.

Then theres Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority and then the rest of the video first questions the shootings in the wat and then repeats the government line that there were shots from the wat and anyway the soldiers weren't on the overhead tracks that day. Proven to be a lie.

Sorry, not convincing at all.

"Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority"

Well, that explains all, now doesn't it

[phiphidon]

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.

... link to clip removed, available in original ...

A video of armed redshirts? 5 or 6 guys a couple armed, one blatantly with a rifle milling around the shopping walkways somewhere just outside a taped off area not aware of the video camera? Meanwhile someone steps over the tape who seems to recognise a video camera when he sees one as he's wearing a black balaclava with eye slits. Not a red shirt granny with a clapper within sight. Obviously armed Red Shirts.

Then theres Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority and then the rest of the video first questions the shootings in the wat and then repeats the government line that there were shots from the wat and anyway the soldiers weren't on the overhead tracks that day. Proven to be a lie.

Sorry, not convincing at all.

"Abhisit - even he says these armed men are in the minority"

Well, that explains all, now doesn't it

Earlier in the campaign he was also of the opinion that there were "500 men in black" mingling with the red shirts. If you read the link I provided "lessons learned" you will see that this myth is still perpetuated in the article. Of course this "intel" would make it more easy to swallow if the army had to go in "tooled up" and firing live rounds around the place and using 20,000 troops to do so. Don't dispute the figure, it's in the article.

3. The dispersal of the demonstrations was carried out after four days of waiting. During the second stage, attempts were made to gather intelligence about the UDD’s deployment and weapons in the Lumpini area, the deployment of forces behind checkpoints and UDD guards around Ratchaprasong, the location of M-79 grenade launchers, the deployment of 500 militants in different areas, etc. Once all units were ready, the Operation commenced at dawn on 19 May 2010 and it was supposed to finish by 18.00 the same day............

6. The operational plan was advanced carefully in each area as it was estimated that the potential of the UDD guards would be much higher than during the 10 April operation. The troops thus needed better protection. As a result, during the operation utilizing around 20,000 personnel, only one died and a few were injured. This loss was acceptable.

http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2642

Edited April 1, 2012 by phiphidon