Tv Reporter To Sue A Red Shirt For Intimidation

[473geo]

In each of those episode Reds had justification for doing what they did. If you ask someone to explain it now you'll just hear some sort of interpretation of why it felt right to shoot an old, beaten down man in Chiang Mai. KKK felt lynching blacks was right too. You/we just don't share the same value system.

Reds will say they are a sign of progress, because they believe in elections. That is so 2000, as they said on South Park.

Not many people in the West believe that elections can solve any problems. They are just a dog an pony show for hopeless romantics, politics do not control power anymore, it's the other way around. Democracy as it is practiced in the West has discredited itself and is probably beyond salvation so some 1990 slogans about freedoms and crap are meant only for really really thick people just coming out of the woods.

What you should hear is that violent acts are condemned by all. What you should hear is that a human life is worth more than political gain.

[volk666]

I've seen people losing patience with Abhisit over "Occupy Rajprasong" antics. His own supporters thought he was too soft on those reds, so when people say Abhisit supports violence I just don't get it, he dragged the military solution for as long as possible.

Human lives are probably worth more than political gains, unless they are expendable reds, of course. I bet by now even Abhisit has more interest in learning what actually happened to them then the red leaders themselves.

About Hmongs - any news of their incarceration and torture since that forced repatriation two years ago? Or did Lao government actually resettled them happily, as they promised to the Thai government at that time?

[473geo]

Your thoughts on Abhisit actually match mine at the time, I don't often discuss because on this topic is difficult to conduct sensible open conversation in the politics forum without tit for tat circular argument rising to the fore. If I recall correctly, my comment at the time, was that I felt Abhisit had been badly advised, and I mean from the very start of the protest build up. But the people who should be condemning violence from any side are those looking in..but we don't see it do we.......because posters have a habit of always looking outwards from their selected stance

I have no interest in discussing the protest, every person has their own or a borrowed personal view of when and why the pivotal actions took place

As far as the Hmong go, I have heard nothing of their treatment in Laos. I expect if the Lao government made a promise to take care of them we can be assured they did.......rather baffling that they were reluctant to return don't you think.......perhaps they did not share my confidence

Edit: Apparently there were reports of at least a couple of deaths, but I take these as isolated incidents, just as the red shirt violence is perhaps not indicative of the values of the majority of PTP voting electorate.....but that in no way means I condone the violence in either situation

Edited March 30, 2012 by 473geo

[volk666]

Actually, going back to your original comment - it would be nice if, say red leaders, condemned the violence, but they aren't going to, are they? It's a nice wish but they are never going to be sincere in their pledges of peace.

If reds abhorred the violence the country would look much much different now but that's not on the cards, it's a fantasy proposition.

[ianf]

Actually, going back to your original comment - it would be nice if, say red leaders, condemned the violence, but they aren't going to, are they? It's a nice wish but they are never going to be sincere in their pledges of peace.

If reds abhorred the violence the country would look much much different now but that's not on the cards, it's a fantasy proposition.

When the red apologists see posts that clearly contra dict their bigoted views, they never respond. So I doubt Volk666 will get a comprehensive, complete and coherent answer from Calgaryll et al.

[473geo]

@Volk666

Both sides are quick to condemn violence when they feel it is used against them

Sadly both sides tend to justify or ignore any violence that relates to their own side

I do not agree with this lack of equality in their thinking, but then I am not fired up, have not suffered over the years, have never had friends or family killed or incarcerated. I am on the outside looking in as are the majority of posters on this forum, yet they do not whole heartedly condemn violence they take sides and attempt to lay blame and provide mitigation

The real question is why do groups feel the need to use violence, your comment about the red shirts condemning violence is valid, but your lack of rounded thought is apparent......they are not the only group in Thailand that are using this method.......yet you single them out

Edit: add reply to name......looks like intelligent discussion is closed for the day thanks

Edited March 31, 2012 by 473geo

[hellodolly]

"I have no personal grudges but I want to set an example that a wrogdoer should be punished and not rewarded,............."

But the prosecutor said there was no wrongdoing...... I understand this is the reporter who wrote a book, idolizing Mr. Abhisit. Although she protests that she has loftier goals than 'personal grudges', this background should certainly contextualize her actions. If I recall, the story goes that she was not questioning Ms. Y, but rather attacking her in a derogatory manner. Considering that the UDD/Red Shirts have a clear and publicly acknowledged personal mandate to protect this Govt. to prevent it being stolen again, it is perhaps understandable as to their reactions, whether justified or not. These protective actions will be a fixture for the immediate future. Expect them. The UDD/RS are determined not be caught napping again, like they were in 2006.

So you are saying the judicial system is doing the right thing.

That is not your stance on their actions against Thaksin which you claim were politically motivated even though it was his own party in power at the time.

[hellodolly]

Isn't this kind of hypocracy.what the Red shirts are all about,Burn Bangkok,create Mayhem on the streets,and hold the Country and Government to ransom,in the false name of Democracy,and freedom of speech.

Now that they are in power the rules have changed,any dissent or opposition,must be crushed at source,the same that will happen in the Red Shirt Villages. No Democracy and No Freedom of speach = Villager Slaves to the Party.........like it or lump it,the only choice you have,is what we tell you, (sigh)....haven't we seen this many times before in other Countries?

For crying out loud don't tell that to calgaryll he will deny it happened.

[phiphidon]

In Chiang Mai reds had set up roadblocks checking all traffic, they pulled a judge out of his van for wearing a yellow polo shirt and scared him to death. On another occasion they pulled the father of a yellow radio DJ out of his car, beaten him and then shot him dead in the cold blood.

In 2006 in Bangkok police hired thugs to beat up early proto-yellow protesters just meters away from Thaksin himself. They singled out an elderly man, whisked him away from the crowd, knocked him on the ground then mercilessly kicked him.

In 2007 in Udon thousands of red thugs descended on dozens of yellows preparing for the evening rally and beat several of them unconscious with Thai flagpoles, ironically. Kwanchai, the guy who plans Thaksin's Songkran celebration now, was with the megaphone offering money to anyone who can "get" a yellow leader.

In 2008, in the middle of the night, reds organized a midnight raid on a yellow camp, several hundreds of them, drunk, armed with machetes. Somehow yellows got the wind of it, got prepared and fought them off.

The very first event signaling the emergence of the "reds" was a demonstration outside Thammasat university where yellows had their first political meeting in 2007. Red threw bags filled feces and urine at their buses and one got photographed showing off his penis. Thus the red revolution was born.

The very first event signaling the emergence of the "reds" was a demonstration outside Thammasat university where yellows had their first political meeting in 2007.

"Red threw bags filled feces(sic) and urine at their buses and one got photographed showing off his penis.

Thus the red revolution was born."

Priceless!

[volk666]

@Volk666

Both sides are quick to condemn violence when they feel it is used against them

Sadly both sides tend to justify or ignore any violence that relates to their own side

I do not agree with this lack of equality in their thinking, but then I am not fired up, have not suffered over the years, have never had friends or family killed or incarcerated. I am on the outside looking in as are the majority of posters on this forum, yet they do not whole heartedly condemn violence they take sides and attempt to lay blame and provide mitigation

The real question is why do groups feel the need to use violence, your comment about the red shirts condemning violence is valid, but your lack of rounded thought is apparent......they are not the only group in Thailand that are using this method.......yet you single them out

Edit: add reply to name......looks like intelligent discussion is closed for the day thanks

Both sides must .... bla bla bla.... Anything but to start changing themselves.

Reds have started it, they provoked response, and it started long before Democrats assumed power, now they argue that because of that response the other side is guilty, too and so reds have no intention of renouncing violence resorting to "both sides" rhetorics instead.

After April 10 incident when army colonel was killed by a grenade along with some twenty other people red shirt international spokesman, Sean Boonprasong, openly admitted to Reuters that an attack by the armed "black shirt" group was absolutely essential to red safety and protection. He can say anything he wants now, that admission shows reds real intentions, not their stage managed appearances and reassurances.

Even when PAD consolidated itself to one protected camp at the government house in 2008 they still suffered quite a few deadly grenade attacks, always on the sleeping people in the middle of the night.

Yeah, now reds can't renounce violence because yellows and dems are guilty, too. That's disingenuous at best and it won't change the fact that violence was essential part of their campaign from the very birth of their movement. That's the reality the country has to deal with, not with dreamy proposition like "what if they were not violent". They ARE violent, the other side are not some wimpy kids either, plus the state had a legitimate license on the use of force that was allegedly abused.

Deal with that, not with some alternate reality scenarios.

[473geo]

@Volk666

Both sides are quick to condemn violence when they feel it is used against them

Sadly both sides tend to justify or ignore any violence that relates to their own side

I do not agree with this lack of equality in their thinking, but then I am not fired up, have not suffered over the years, have never had friends or family killed or incarcerated. I am on the outside looking in as are the majority of posters on this forum, yet they do not whole heartedly condemn violence they take sides and attempt to lay blame and provide mitigation

The real question is why do groups feel the need to use violence, your comment about the red shirts condemning violence is valid, but your lack of rounded thought is apparent......they are not the only group in Thailand that are using this method.......yet you single them out

Edit: add reply to name......looks like intelligent discussion is closed for the day thanks

Both sides must .... bla bla bla.... Anything but to start changing themselves.

Reds have started it, they provoked response, and it started long before Democrats assumed power, now they argue that because of that response the other side is guilty, too and so reds have no intention of renouncing violence resorting to "both sides" rhetorics instead.

After April 10 incident when army colonel was killed by a grenade along with some twenty other people red shirt international spokesman, Sean Boonprasong, openly admitted to Reuters that an attack by the armed "black shirt" group was absolutely essential to red safety and protection. He can say anything he wants now, that admission shows reds real intentions, not their stage managed appearances and reassurances.

Even when PAD consolidated itself to one protected camp at the government house in 2008 they still suffered quite a few deadly grenade attacks, always on the sleeping people in the middle of the night.

Yeah, now reds can't renounce violence because yellows and dems are guilty, too. That's disingenuous at best and it won't change the fact that violence was essential part of their campaign from the very birth of their movement. That's the reality the country has to deal with, not with dreamy proposition like "what if they were not violent". They ARE violent, the other side are not some wimpy kids either, plus the state had a legitimate license on the use of force that was allegedly abused.

Deal with that, not with some alternate reality scenarios.

Now you have descended into the usual finger pointing rant.......go ahead enter another circular discussion for the umpteenth time about who is more violent than who, and while we observe the same mitigation cries from both sides you can ask yourself why there is not a similar outpouring against the violence in the south, my guess is that there is no political traction on those events....your opinion?.........I expect you will not try to tell me the southern insurgents are red shirts on holiday

[Siripon]

I've seen people losing patience with Abhisit over "Occupy Rajprasong" antics. His own supporters thought he was too soft on those reds, so when people say Abhisit supports violence I just don't get it, he dragged the military solution for as long as possible.

Human lives are probably worth more than political gains, unless they are expendable reds, of course. I bet by now even Abhisit has more interest in learning what actually happened to them then the red leaders themselves.

About Hmongs - any news of their incarceration and torture since that forced repatriation two years ago? Or did Lao government actually resettled them happily, as they promised to the Thai government at that time?

I've seen people losing patience with Abhisit over "Occupy Rajprasong" antics. His own supporters thought he was too soft on those reds, so when people say Abhisit supports violence I just don't get it, he dragged the military solution for as long as possible.

Human lives are probably worth more than political gains, unless they are expendable reds, of course. I bet by now even Abhisit has more interest in learning what actually happened to them then the red leaders themselves.

About Hmongs - any news of their incarceration and torture since that forced repatriation two years ago? Or did Lao government actually resettled them happily, as they promised to the Thai government at that time?

I think Apisit had very few options regarding Rachaprasong. The police did nothing, being mainly supporters of Thaksin.

Anupong as army commander was extremely reluctant to end his career with Thais killing each other.He refused to take any action for a long time.

And yes, many Bangkokians thoght the army should have moved in a whole lot earlier.