No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[phiphidon]

So by what you're saying above, only red shirt protesters, journalists, medics and non aligned citizens who were "provoking" the security forces by shooting at them were shot dead?

No.

I am saying that the army did NOT "open fire unprovoked, on unarmed people".

Lets see how many were shot and killed or injured with sniper rounds. What position they were in and were they shot in the head back or front. Give us some idea of the orders. I just wonder how many were shot in the back

Wondering implies a distinct lack of facts

That was abhisits plan after all - a distinct lack of facts, start up an "investigative" committee with no power of sub - poena, threaten the head of the DSI with his job if he didn't come up with the right answers and slow down/stop investigations, drag the whole procedure out over two years, job done.

[whybother]

Lets see how many were shot and killed or injured with sniper rounds. What position they were in and were they shot in the head back or front. Give us some idea of the orders. I just wonder how many were shot in the back

I wonder how many were shot in the back ... as they faced the army behind their barricades.

[phiphidon]

Lets see how many were shot and killed or injured with sniper rounds. What position they were in and were they shot in the head back or front. Give us some idea of the orders. I just wonder how many were shot in the back

I wonder how many were shot in the back ... as they faced the army behind their barricades.

It stands to reason that if all the red shirts who were shot by the army had been facing the army behind their (army) barricades when they were shot they would not have been shot in the back. However if they were running away from the army and were shot it follows that they would be shot in the back.

Seems bloody obvious to me so I ask myself 2 questions.

1. What on earth is your post about?

2. What does it matter which way you were facing when you were shot dead by the army, it's not as if they are going to feel any shame about shooting anybody in the back. When the Thai army started shooting largely unarmed civilians (again) they trampled on any morals they may have possessed and did so with impunity having being backed up by an emergency decree and the support of the government at the time.

Edited July 4, 2012 by phiphidon

[Thaddeus]

Lets see how many were shot and killed or injured with sniper rounds. What position they were in and were they shot in the head back or front. Give us some idea of the orders. I just wonder how many were shot in the back

I wonder how many were shot in the back ... as they faced the army behind their barricades.

It stands to reason that if all the red shirts who were shot by the army had been facing the army behind their (army) barricades when they were shot they would not have been shot in the back. However if they were running away from the army and were shot it follows that they would be shot in the back.

Seems bloody obvious to me so I ask myself 2 questions.

1. Are Thai people are completely incapable of turning around without instructions from above?

2. Have I watched enough CSI to form a conclusion?

[nurofiend]

Some even claim that they are blessed with superior knowledge by their remote location. An interesting assertion that I have never seen substantiated. But next time they tell you about the atmosphere, the threatening attitudes of the participants, the bullying, the threats, the disruption and fear at a demonstration/protest/riot, just remember they know best, because they were not there. Irrelevant, BS!

oh lord not this pile of dung of a point again

does anyone who was not in bangkok at the time ever argue that they know better about what the atmosphere was like there? no

does anyone ever say, there was nothing to fear during it? no

what a stupid point - "the next time they tell you".... show me one time they've told you about what you've listed, in an argument with someone who was there!

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

Edited July 4, 2012 by nurofiend

[Thaddeus]

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

[nurofiend]

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

what are you even on about?

seriously?

same old shhh on this forum.. you say something - and you get "oh so you have to mean this then don't you?"

boring.

i bet you couldn't even clarify the point you were making so that it counters the point i was making, but that's not your aim is it.

and 'real experience', how would you define that? experience of seeing it in bangkok, yeah? experience of what it was like in bangkok at the time, yeah??

Edited July 4, 2012 by nurofiend

[473geo]

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

You might wish to ask Nick Nostitz if eye witness dialogue is accepted before media reports on this forum....

[nurofiend]

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

You might wish to ask Nick Nostitz if eye witness dialogue is accepted before media reports on this forum....

exactlyl!!

as i've said before, if you weren't on the ground in the thick of it, then being in bangkok only means that you have experience of how it affected normal everyday life in bangkok.

[rubl]

You might wish to ask Nick Nostitz if eye witness dialogue is accepted before media reports on this forum....

exactlyl!!

as i've said before, if you weren't on the ground in the thick of it, then being in bangkok only means that you have experience of how it affected normal everyday life in bangkok.

My dear chaps, that's BS of a very exquisite kind.

I was in Bangkok at that time (still am btw). I passed from BTS Saladaeng to UCL RamaIV almost daily, I braved the dangers lurking wearing a pink shirt. I was told by my (Thai) boss to avoid the office for more than a week. So, not having been in the thick of it, not having been shot at, I obviously [sic] cannot judge any of the foolishness going on. I obviously cannot judge how those felt having grenades lobbed on them. Sorry, I passed a few hours before with NN arriving just between two attacks. He heard about the first and arrived just in time for the second. Why does this remind me of vultures?

Now some are complaining that then PM Abhisit started the TRTC without real power. Imagine what would be said if no committee had been setup. Stretch your imagination and try to imagine what would have happened if the TRTC was given real power to subpoena, detain, judge. Would that committee have survived the change of government? Amnesty for all but k. Abhisit / Suthep of course?

So far after two years no new facts have come up, and somehow it seems the process even slowed down with the new government. IMHO, my totally unintelligable post of course.

BTW just past 3AM I walked to the local mom&pop shop to buy a beer. A few taxidrivers sitting there (as usual) drinking Mekong, we joke. A police officer arriving to buy sigarets, more joking with him. Nothing special. Other days see an army officer buying whiskey and similarly joking with the taxidrivers. Now that's reconciliation, much more than rather foolish posters here will have it.

Edited July 4, 2012 by rubl

[Yunla]

I was in Bangkok at that time (still am btw). I passed from BTS Saladaeng to UCL RamaIV almost daily, I braved the dangers lurking wearing a pink shirt. I was told by my (Thai) boss to avoid the office for more than a week. So, not having been in the thick of it, not having been shot at, I obviously [sic] cannot judge any of the foolishness going on. I obviously cannot judge how those felt having grenades lobbed on them. Sorry, I passed a few hours before with NN arriving just between two attacks. He heard about the first and arrived just in time for the second. Why does this remind me of vultures?

Now some are complaining that then PM Abhisit started the TRTC without real power. Imagine what would be said if no committee had been setup. Stretch your imagination and try to imagine what would have happened if the TRTC was given real power to subpoena, detain, judge. Would that committee have survived the change of government? Amnesty for all but k. Abhisit / Suthep of course?

So far after two years no new facts have come up, and somehow it seems the process even slowed down with the new government. IMHO, my totally unintelligable post of course.

BTW just past 3AM I walked to the local mom&pop shop to buy a beer. A few taxidrivers sitting there (as usual) drinking Mekong, we joke. A police officer arriving to buy sigarets, more joking with him. Nothing special. Other days see an army officer buying whiskey and similarly joking with the taxidrivers. Now that's reconciliation, much more than rather foolish posters here will have it.

I liked reading that post, thankyou for writing it.

I went for the pink gear in early 2010 here too. It seemed the only sensible option and also showed who I respected more at the time, the PM in office trying to give the redmob more protest time, early elections and making sure they were not overheating in the sun etc., or the cowardly crook in Dubai who did not care who died since he was far away both geographically and morally. Also pink shows that I view the government as only one aspect of the state and frequently not the one I respect the most.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Yunla

[Martstar]

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/protests_turn_deadly_in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

[Moruya]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

[binjalin]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

quite agree.... should have done that at the outset - at the airport! good post

[phiphidon]

You might wish to ask Nick Nostitz if eye witness dialogue is accepted before media reports on this forum....

exactlyl!!

as i've said before, if you weren't on the ground in the thick of it, then being in bangkok only means that you have experience of how it affected normal everyday life in bangkok.

My dear chaps, that's BS of a very exquisite kind.

I was in Bangkok at that time (still am btw). I passed from BTS Saladaeng to UCL RamaIV almost daily, I braved the dangers lurking wearing a pink shirt. I was told by my (Thai) boss to avoid the office for more than a week. So, not having been in the thick of it, not having been shot at, I obviously [sic] cannot judge any of the foolishness going on. I obviously cannot judge how those felt having grenades lobbed on them. Sorry, I passed a few hours before with NN arriving just between two attacks. He heard about the first and arrived just in time for the second. Why does this remind me of vultures?

Now some are complaining that then PM Abhisit started the TRTC without real power. Imagine what would be said if no committee had been setup. Stretch your imagination and try to imagine what would have happened if the TRTC was given real power to subpoena, detain, judge. Would that committee have survived the change of government? Amnesty for all but k. Abhisit / Suthep of course?

So far after two years no new facts have come up, and somehow it seems the process even slowed down with the new government. IMHO, my totally unintelligable post of course.

BTW just past 3AM I walked to the local mom&pop shop to buy a beer. A few taxidrivers sitting there (as usual) drinking Mekong, we joke. A police officer arriving to buy sigarets, more joking with him. Nothing special. Other days see an army officer buying whiskey and similarly joking with the taxidrivers. Now that's reconciliation, much more than rather foolish posters here will have it.

"Stretch your imagination and try to imagine what would have happened if the TRTC was given real power to subpoena, detain, judge. Would that committee have survived the change of government?"

It wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to imagine an investigative committee of that sort being given the powers of sub poena (the detain and judge parts are a ridiculous assumption on your part). If the TRTC had had that power to call witnesses in the early period I very much suspect that the dems would be the focus of a change in government.

You keep on banging this drum about two years going past and nothing happening. It's happening all right but there's very little media coverage. You aware of the inquest of the taxi driver that the army wanted to take over and complete inside army barracks? The inquests that are going on now. Muramoto's inquest session No.2 was on July 2nd - did you read anything about it?

Just because you haven't heard, doesn't mean there is nothing is going on. 18 Inquests are ongoing including the six deaths at Wat Prathum Wanaram and ending with Fabio Polenghis inquest which begins on July 23rd.

[Moruya]

"Stretch your imagination and try to imagine what would have happened if the TRTC was given real power to subpoena, detain, judge. Would that committee have survived the change of government?"

It wouldn't take a great stretch of the imagination to imagine an investigative committee of that sort being given the powers of sub poena (the detain and judge parts are a ridiculous assumption on your part). If the TRTC had had that power to call witnesses in the early period I very much suspect that the dems would be the focus of a change in government.

How would this mythical TRCT compare the the AEC and other committees that you condemn?

Surely the law should be left to the courts?

[jayboy]

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

what are you even on about?

seriously?

same old shhh on this forum.. you say something - and you get "oh so you have to mean this then don't you?"

boring.

i bet you couldn't even clarify the point you were making so that it counters the point i was making, but that's not your aim is it.

and 'real experience', how would you define that? experience of seeing it in bangkok, yeah? experience of what it was like in bangkok at the time, yeah??

Experience of the facts, not the colored propaganda, facts that those without direct experience try to rewrite in their ignorance. Or is it deliberate, wilful ignorance? Heaven forfend. So we have a phalanx of absentee experts telling eyewitnesses what they saw and experienced. Hypocrisy at the least, and downright lies and cynical propaganda at the worst. Nurofiend, another who would decry eyewitnesses. Where are you? What have you actually seen? Go ahead, spout off in an experiential vacuum, but we who were here know what we saw and those are the real facts. They just don't suit your case, do they? Not the new facts that support some dogma or subterfuge. Your trying to rewrite the facts from a remote location stinks to high Heaven of collusion, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But i'm sure you're incapable of shame. You just swallow your pride, if you ever had any, and like streetwalkers do what you must and take the money. After reading months of your bs, that is the only logical conclusion.

The trouble is that eye witnesses are not consistent and are capable of being misled as anyone else.Your own observations can easily be challenged by others with equal if not better credentials.This is not unusual as any educated student of street conflicts (or even of fully fledged battles) knows.This fog of war issue is understood by most people.Having said that individual accounts are always useful and contribute to the larger patchwork picture.Obviously in this instance as in others any preconceived prejudices or politics need to be taken into account.So far the only credible overall report has been that produced by HRW, and even that is flawed though has the merit of being fairminded and not dodging awkward questions.The Thai army has not properly cooperated in any enquiry though its incompetence and criminality is steadily becoming more apparent.The question of the government's responsibility for civilian deaths remain unclear but for the usual reasons we can be sure Abhisit and his colleagues will never be subject to adequate interrogation on this mastter.Of course the redshirts have their own axe to grind as well.

[Nickymaster]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

If someone should be blamed for all this death and destruction, it should be the Police for allowing this to happen.

This country could be so nice to live in if only the Police would do their job. FOLLOW THE LAW.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Moruya]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

If someone should be blamed for all tthis death and destruction, it should be the Police for allowing this to happen.

I concur.

I firmly believe that Chuwit should replace Priewpan

[Moruya]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

quite agree.... should have done that at the outset - at the airport! good post

They weren't in power at the time.

Try to keep up!

[jayboy]

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

Not strictly true.Thaksin certainly has strong police associations but there are many senior police officers (and ordinary policemen) who have no allegiance to him.I agree that the police force is in need of root and branch reform.Two positive factors in the police's favour is that unlike the army they do not meddle in politics and are ideologically neutral.(This wasn't always so, certainly in the two decades after WW2).As for corruption one obviously tends to have more personal experience of police misdemeanours.However anyone who believes the Thai army (specifically its top brass) isn't equally compromised (more so in fact) is laughably naive, ill informed or (there are one or two about) an uncritical army groupie.

[Nickymaster]

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

Not strictly true.Thaksin certainly has strong police associations but there are many senior police officers (and ordinary policemen) who have no allegiance to him.I agree that the police force is in need of root and branch reform.Two positive factors in the police's favour is that unlike the army they do not meddle in politics and are ideologically neutral.(This wasn't always so, certainly in the two decades after WW2).As for corruption one obviously tends to have more personal experience of police misdemeanours.However anyone who believes the Thai army (specifically its top brass) isn't equally compromised (more so in fact) is laughably naive, ill informed or (there are one or two about) an uncritical army groupie.

Wow, you say the Thai police don't meddle in politics. They do the opposite. That's what my post was all about. They let the red shirts do whatever they want. THAT is meddling in politics.

[jayboy]

Wow, you say the Thai police don't meddle in politics. They do the opposite. That's what my post was all about. They let the red shirts do whatever they want. THAT is meddling in politics.

In comparison with the army's deplorable record there is no comparison.It's not even up for debate.

I should add there are examples of both the army and the police disobeying, ignoring or going slow on the lawful instructions of the government of the day.

Edited July 5, 2012 by jayboy

[tlansford]

- deleted -

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

what are you even on about?

seriously?

same old shhh on this forum.. you say something - and you get "oh so you have to mean this then don't you?"

boring.

i bet you couldn't even clarify the point you were making so that it counters the point i was making, but that's not your aim is it.

and 'real experience', how would you define that? experience of seeing it in bangkok, yeah? experience of what it was like in bangkok at the time, yeah??

Experience of the facts, not the colored propaganda, facts that those without direct experience try to rewrite in their ignorance. Or is it deliberate, wilful ignorance? Heaven forfend. So we have a phalanx of absentee experts telling eyewitnesses what they saw and experienced. Hypocrisy at the least, and downright lies and cynical propaganda at the worst. Nurofiend, another who would decry eyewitnesses. Where are you? What have you actually seen? Go ahead, spout off in an experiential vacuum, but we who were here know what we saw and those are the real facts. They just don't suit your case, do they? Not the new facts that support some dogma or subterfuge. Your trying to rewrite the facts from a remote location stinks to high Heaven of collusion, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But i'm sure you're incapable of shame. You just swallow your pride, if you ever had any, and like streetwalkers do what you must and take the money. After reading months of your bs, that is the only logical conclusion.

The trouble is that eye witnesses are not consistent and are capable of being misled as anyone else.Your own observations can easily be challenged by others with equal if not better credentials.This is not unusual as any educated student of street conflicts (or even of fully fledged battles) knows.This fog of war issue is understood by most people.Having said that individual accounts are always useful and contribute to the larger patchwork picture.Obviously in this instance as in others any preconceived prejudices or politics need to be taken into account.So far the only credible overall report has been that produced by HRW, and even that is flawed though has the merit of being fairminded and not dodging awkward questions.The Thai army has not properly cooperated in any enquiry though its incompetence and criminality is steadily becoming more apparent.The question of the government's responsibility for civilian deaths remain unclear but for the usual reasons we can be sure Abhisit and his colleagues will never be subject to adequate interrogation on this mastter.Of course the redshirts have their own axe to grind as well.

I don't understand the recent fascination with eye-witness accounts. One of the most experienced eye-witnesses to frequent the forum is routinely ridiculed when he posts. But the point being that with events like this, there is not one eye-witness for all of the events anyway, so even if one was in BKK at during the 2010, if that person wanted to be informed, they would still need to rely on the accounts of many sources.

As you point out, eye-witnesses of the same events will also recount different stories - sometimes conflicting stories. To be informed and to debate, therefore takes effort and is not dependent on personally witnessing every event. Hence the importance in situations like this of good investigations of which there has been very little done. Phiphidon points out correctly that the investigative panel setup by the government did not have the powers needed to actually do the job. The HRW report you point out is the closest we have at this time.

For my part, I try to pay more attention to verifiable events to build a picture of how things unfolded and to pose more questions. For example, it is clear that there was a para-military element among the UDD protesters and the army was apparently taken by surprise by them. Why? The government was predicting grenade attacks and terrorists before the protests began. Why didn't the army, after one month of protests, not have better intelligence before they began the dispersal on Apr 10th. Besides the other obvious issues around this action, that one flaw cost the lives of people on both sides.

Coming back to the eye-witness point, one does not need to be an eye-witness to pose questions similar to the one above and look for answers. Additionally, AFAIK, no one is trying to tell an eye-witness what they did or did not see...

[tlansford]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

If someone should be blamed for all this death and destruction, it should be the Police for allowing this to happen.

This country could be so nice to live in if only the Police would do their job. FOLLOW THE LAW.

"This country could be so nice to live in if only the Police would do their job. FOLLOW THE LAW."

The police are a visible representation of the general level of corruption in Thailand which IMO is one of the key problems. They don't, however, have a monopoly on corruption and neither does any side of the political spectrum.

That said, most of the countries ex-pats in Thailand come from would not want to look under the glossy veneer of their own societies and examine the corruption they either ignore or are ignorant of...

Not that long ago, blatantly open corruption as one might see here was equally open and blatant in many "civilized" countries. And in most countries today, if you travel in the right (or wrong) circles, it is equally so... just not at the street-level like in Thailand.

[Buchholz]

http://www.boston.co..._in_thaila.html

As one poster said, what would have happened in any other country? Probably the same, once rockets and pistols and what ever else were deployed against security forces, that was that. The whole red short camp was done and deaths were to certainly follow. There seems to be only one retreat was security forces an that was probably when they weren't using live ammunition... that retreat was certainly done because it was life or death.

I dare say in a few other democratic countries the patience shown by the government and security forces at the beginning here would not have been the case. The smashing would have occurred a lot sooner.

The only mistake that the Dems made in this process was not going in hard from the outset. Water cannon, baton charges, teargas etc.

quite agree.... should have done that at the outset - at the airport! good post

Should have done that at the outset - at the Red Shirt riot in July 2007.

.

[phiphidon]

Should have done that at the outset - at the Red Shirt riot in July 2007.

.

You want to run that riot by us again, who, what , where?

[Moruya]

Should have done that at the outset - at the Red Shirt riot in July 2007.

.

You want to run that riot by us again, who, what , where?

Can't cast your mind back to 2007 and the outbreak of red violence?

Shame on you

Edited July 5, 2012 by Moruya

[phiphidon]

Should have done that at the outset - at the Red Shirt riot in July 2007.

.

You want to run that riot by us again, who, what , where?

Can't cast your mind back to 2007 and the outbreak of red violence?

Shame on you

No, it's still passing me by, give us a clue...................

[Moruya]

Should have done that at the outset - at the Red Shirt riot in July 2007.

.

You want to run that riot by us again, who, what , where?

Can't cast your mind back to 2007 and the outbreak of red violence?

Shame on you

No, it's still passing me by, give us a clue...................

Surely they must have been mis behaving somewhere?

Or did that not start until 2008?