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

[phiphidon]

Surely they must have been mis behaving somewhere?

Or did that not start until 2008?

Well buchholz knows apparently, but he's not telling..............

[Buchholz]

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?

or

[Buchholz]

Surely they must have been mis behaving somewhere?

Or did that not start until 2008?

Well buchholz knows apparently, but he's not telling..............

Buchholz is in Thailand and was sleeping at the time.

.

[tlansford]

As usual Tlansford is being disingenuous. Many people have asked, if the links are there, post them.

There are some entertaining and thoughtful reds on here. I urge everyone to pay attention to them them instead.

As usual ?? Really?

For years, posters get spoon-fed information and go on repeating the same nonsense anyway. That is disingenuous and lazy to boot. The information is right here on TVF - most of the posters complaining have probably even read the same thread. There posters who are very capable of finding anything on TVF who now claim to be helpless - come on, that's BS.

When I want to learn, I search for information. If I need help, I ask.

If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM.

"If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM."

1 week so far... no takers.

From that I should understand that (1) everyone interested in this found the links on TVF forum already, and/or (2) there is no genuine & honest interest - n'est-ce pas?

[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?

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5452128

or

http://www.thaivisa....75#entry5436882

Well fair enough. I will just assume that no such riot took place and was entirely a product of your febrile imagination in your bid to denigrate anything associated with the UDD. I was convinced of that anyway before your confirmation.

[Reasonableman]

Abbott and Costello are back. But which one is supposed to be funny? Don't give up the day job, guys

[Buchholz]

Despite the multiple moderation interventions and deletions, the personal attack and denigration resumes....coupled with a disingenuous feigning of not knowing about an event repeatedly mentioned in the forum ever since it occurred.

Violent Clashes Between Police And Protesters In Bangkok

http://www.thaivisa....ers-in-bangkok/

Edited July 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[whybother]

"If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM."

1 week so far... no takers.

From that I should understand that (1) everyone interested in this found the links on TVF forum already, and/or (2) there is no genuine & honest interest - n'est-ce pas?

I asked on the open forum. Why can't you simply respond to that?

[tlansford]

- deleted -

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

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5452128

or

http://www.thaivisa....75#entry5436882

Well fair enough. I will just assume that no such riot took place and was entirely a product of your febrile imagination in your bid to denigrate anything associated with the UDD. I was convinced of that anyway before your confirmation.

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

The UDD was formed as an umbrella group for the anti-coup protesters. I do not recall the dates, but Nick's vol 1 gives background on this including the first time a group wore red t-shirts which eventually gave them their name. That particular group was either the Sept 19th group or a group formed by the original student leader of the Sept 19 group - one or the other, but I don't have Nick's books at hand for reference.

Wiki notes that there were protests against the military junta in 2007 until the election in December.

The UDD first formed in 2006 to oppose the military government and the military coup, which overthrew Thaksin five weeks before scheduled elections. UDD organized anti-government rallies during the military government's rule in 2006–2007 and opposed the military's 2007 constitution. The UDD stopped protests after the 2007 general election, which the People's Power Party won.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Front_for_Democracy_Against_Dictatorship

[phiphidon]

Despite the multiple moderation interventions and deletions, the personal attack and denigration resumes....coupled with a disingenuous feigning of not knowing about an event repeatedly mentioned in the forum ever since it occurred.

Violent Clashes Between Police And Protesters In Bangkok

http://www.thaivisa....ers-in-bangkok/

And there's always an alternative viewpoint which despite your earnest support of eyewitness accounts (as evidenced by your recent posts) you will no doubt resort to personal attacks and denigration when viewing the source:

Even today this event is cited as proof of the supposedly uncontrollable violence of Thaksin supporters. Most of the Thai media has reported this event as if enraged protesters attacked police and attempted to storm the compound of General Prem. Most international media were not present, and simply copied their articles from the Thai media. At the time international attention to Thai politics had almost completely vanished. Only Asia Sentinel‘s coverage showed a different, and for me far more realistic picture...................

................In the days after, I spoke with many police officers, of both high and low ranks, who took part in the clashes. I also spoke with plain clothes officers who were in the mass of protesters. All officers stated that the decision to attack the protesters came directly from the army. In the opinion of police, violent tactics should not have been used because the UDD protesters would have left anyhow during the night as they did not have sufficient people to continuously block Prem’s compound like the PAD did at Government House before the coup.

In conclusion, this protest, if analysed dispassionately, showed several positive developments. The police did not use lethal force, there were no deaths; there was nobody injured beyond mending. The worst injury was the broken leg of a police officer. The protest leaders mostly controlled the protesters very well, and also managed to stop the protest when it was in danger of descending into further levels of violence. In every modern democracy there are protests, and often violent protests — looking at the recent WTO protests, which are often far more violent. The importance issue is how these protests are dealt with by the government authorities — non-lethal force, or all out confrontation by shooting protesters, as has been done often in Thai history.

http://asiapacific.a...mpound-clashes/

Also http://www.asiasenti...d=594&Itemid=31

[whybother]

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

Are violent clashes not riots?

[tlansford]

Despite the multiple moderation interventions and deletions, the personal attack and denigration resumes....coupled with a disingenuous feigning of not knowing about an event repeatedly mentioned in the forum ever since it occurred.

Violent Clashes Between Police And Protesters In Bangkok

http://www.thaivisa....ers-in-bangkok/

And there's always an alternative viewpoint which despite your earnest support of eyewitness accounts (as evidenced by your recent posts) you will no doubt resort to personal attacks and denigration when viewing the source:

Even today this event is cited as proof of the supposedly uncontrollable violence of Thaksin supporters. Most of the Thai media has reported this event as if enraged protesters attacked police and attempted to storm the compound of General Prem. Most international media were not present, and simply copied their articles from the Thai media. At the time international attention to Thai politics had almost completely vanished. Only Asia Sentinel‘s coverage showed a different, and for me far more realistic picture...................

................In the days after, I spoke with many police officers, of both high and low ranks, who took part in the clashes. I also spoke with plain clothes officers who were in the mass of protesters. All officers stated that the decision to attack the protesters came directly from the army. In the opinion of police, violent tactics should not have been used because the UDD protesters would have left anyhow during the night as they did not have sufficient people to continuously block Prem’s compound like the PAD did at Government House before the coup.

In conclusion, this protest, if analysed dispassionately, showed several positive developments. The police did not use lethal force, there were no deaths; there was nobody injured beyond mending. The worst injury was the broken leg of a police officer. The protest leaders mostly controlled the protesters very well, and also managed to stop the protest when it was in danger of descending into further levels of violence. In every modern democracy there are protests, and often violent protests — looking at the recent WTO protests, which are often far more violent. The importance issue is how these protests are dealt with by the government authorities — non-lethal force, or all out confrontation by shooting protesters, as has been done often in Thai history.

http://asiapacific.a...mpound-clashes/

Also http://www.asiasenti...d=594&Itemid=31

'The importance issue is how these protests are dealt with by the government authorities — non-lethal force, or all out confrontation by shooting protesters, as has been done often in Thai history."

historical comment and foreshadowing in one sentence.

[phiphidon]

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

Are violent clashes not riots?

Not in my book. Riots generally imply a number of "clashes" over a span of days but that's just my take on things.

[Reasonableman]

riot (noun)

1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.

2. Law . a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

3. violent or wild disorder or confusion.

4. a brilliant display: a riot of color.

5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Thaddeus]

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

Are violent clashes not riots?

Not in my book. Riots generally imply a number of "clashes" over a span of days but that's just my take on things.

When is your book due out?

Are you going to call it The Phiphidonesaurus?

[carra]

you can have a violent clash between two people, this is not a riot, not sure about thailand but uk law is specific based on the number present and the actions of those number, lower numbers would be affray and not riot.

[Reasonableman]

PPD and his Malapropasaurus rate as #5

[Reasonableman]

Affray:

In England and Wales, affray is a statutory offence. It is created by section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides:

(1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.

(2) Where

2 or more

persons use or threaten the unlawful violence, it is the conduct of them taken together that must be considered for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3) For the purposes of this section a threat cannot be made by the use of words alone.

(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5) Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6) . . .

(7) A person guilty of affray is liable on

conviction

on

indictment

to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine or both, or on

summary conviction

to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the

statutory maximum

or both.

[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affray

Edited July 6, 2012 by Reasonableman

[animatic]

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

Are violent clashes not riots?

Not in my book. Riots generally imply a number of "clashes" over a span of days but that's just my take on things.

When is your book due out?

Are you going to call it The Phiphidonesaurus?

Riots means 2 or more violent out of control clashes

between organized or non-organized groups against normal authority.

Contrasted with the normal way life goes on.

[phiphidon]

PPD and his Malapropasaurus rate as #5

Do you actually understand what a malapropism is? If so please demonstrate by indicating the supposed malapropism in my post............

[Reasonableman]

PPD and his Malapropasaurus rate as #5

Do you actually understand what a malapropism is? If so please demonstrate by indicating the supposed malapropism in my post............

I do, but you clearly do not. You also either do not know what a riot is, or are making a very ham-fisted attempt to redefine it.

Riot: a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

That is a riot. That is what we are talking about, is it not? Or is it affray? At any rate, your definition of riot is erroneous (ie your understanding of the term is wrong). Your ignorance is excusable. Accept it and move on.

[tlansford]

"If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM."

1 week so far... no takers.

From that I should understand that (1) everyone interested in this found the links on TVF forum already, and/or (2) there is no genuine & honest interest - n'est-ce pas?

I asked on the open forum. Why can't you simply respond to that?

We had that discussion a week ago. Had something to do with spoon-feeding.

It is particularly interesting that you do not remember the post, nor can you find it. You personally replied to the post in which the statement was made. You have already read and replied to it.

[tlansford]

PPD and his Malapropasaurus rate as #5

Do you actually understand what a malapropism is? If so please demonstrate by indicating the supposed malapropism in my post............

I do, but you clearly do not. You also either do not know what a riot is, or are making a very ham-fisted attempt to redefine it.

Riot: a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

That is a riot. That is what we are talking about, is it not? Or is it affray? At any rate, your definition of riot is erroneous (ie your understanding of the term is wrong). Your ignorance is excusable. Accept it and move on.

well, how innocuous, ...

So the neighboring table at the sidewalk restaurant 10 days ago while I was dining with the family were 'rioting'.

Thumbs up!

[soundman]

There has been a few reports of off topic posting/bickering.

Please stop and get on with the topic at hand.

Thank-you for your co-operation.

[Buchholz]

well, what is implied by "riot" (eg: the Watts riots, etc) is reasonably clear and AFAIK there were no riots in 2007 - hence "imagination at work"

I don't think any of the hundreds injured nor the thousands of participants thought it was my imagination.

It was riot,

ri·ot/ˈrīət/

Noun: A violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd: "riots broke out in the capital". Verb: Take part in a violent public disturbance: "students rioted in Paris"; "a night of rioting". Synonyms:

noun. rebellion - disturbance - revolt - disorder - mutiny

but I also accept the New York Times synonym of melee to describe it.

BANGKOK — Hours after a protest that turned into a three-hour melee that injured at least 270 people, Thailand on Monday charged six people in connection with the incident

http://www.nytimes.c...80571.html?_r=1

The UDD was formed as an umbrella group for the anti-coup protesters. I do not recall the dates, but Nick's vol 1 gives background on this including the first time a group wore red t-shirts which eventually gave them their name.

while your rifling through things for nostitz's book, see if you can come up with those six arrested as described above in 2007, and see if they ring any bells with the 2012 Red Shirts....

The six leaders are Veera Musigapong, Jatuporn Phromphan, Jakrapob Penkair, Natthawut Saikua, Wiputalaeng Patanapumithai and Apiwan Wiriyachai.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3584394

That particular group was either the Sept 19th group or a group formed by the original student leader of the Sept 19 group - one or the other, but I don't have Nick's books at hand for reference.

Wrong again. It was UDD. Best to go find that book set instead of just guessing... wrongly... again.

The protesters, who call themselves the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship, accused the police of provoking the violence

http://www.channelne.../289829/1/.html

.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

you can have a violent clash between two people, this is not a riot, not sure about thailand but uk law is specific based on the number present and the actions of those number, lower numbers would be affray and not riot.

Where do thousands of participants and hundreds injured fall in the UK law?

.

[whybother]

"If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM."

1 week so far... no takers.

From that I should understand that (1) everyone interested in this found the links on TVF forum already, and/or (2) there is no genuine & honest interest - n'est-ce pas?

I asked on the open forum. Why can't you simply respond to that?

We had that discussion a week ago. Had something to do with spoon-feeding.

It is particularly interesting that you do not remember the post, nor can you find it. You personally replied to the post in which the statement was made. You have already read and replied to it.

So if I had PM'd you instead of asking on the open forum, you would have given me an answer?

I replied to it ... and you continued making excuses for not providing some information that I can't find ... and you're still making excuses.

[tlansford]

"If someone is genuinely and honestly interested, then they can send me a PM."

1 week so far... no takers.

From that I should understand that (1) everyone interested in this found the links on TVF forum already, and/or (2) there is no genuine & honest interest - n'est-ce pas?

I asked on the open forum. Why can't you simply respond to that?

We had that discussion a week ago. Had something to do with spoon-feeding.

It is particularly interesting that you do not remember the post, nor can you find it. You personally replied to the post in which the statement was made. You have already read and replied to it.

So if I had PM'd you instead of asking on the open forum, you would have given me an answer?

I replied to it ... and you continued making excuses for not providing some information that I can't find ... and you're still making excuses.

I believe that you are the one making excuses for not being able to find it.

And I said I would send it to anyone honestly interested ... Honestly...

[whybother]

I believe that you are the one making excuses for not being able to find it.

And I said I would send it to anyone honestly interested ... Honestly...

I am honestly interested in something that says that a red shirt was the first killed. I have searched and I can't find anything. I am not making excuses. I simply can't find anything about it.

Please help.

[phiphidon]

PPD and his Malapropasaurus rate as #5

Do you actually understand what a malapropism is? If so please demonstrate by indicating the supposed malapropism in my post............

I do, but you clearly do not. You also either do not know what a riot is, or are making a very ham-fisted attempt to redefine it.

Riot: a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

That is a riot. That is what we are talking about, is it not? Or is it affray? At any rate, your definition of riot is erroneous (ie your understanding of the term is wrong). Your ignorance is excusable. Accept it and move on.

Do you know what a malapropism is, there's none in my posts that you refer to?. Oh and why is my supposed

"ignorance" (apparent to you it seems) excusable - Are you aware of some reason why I'm supposedly ignorant - is it because I think differently to you? Don't worry it's a common kneejerk reaction on this forum.

In reality your credibility is not helped by claiming knowledge of the meaning of a word that you clearly misunderstand. No wonder you wish to move on, if only to save your self from further embarrassment.

Tell you what, I'll give you an example of a malapropism so you'll know better next time - See if you can guess who it is:

"The law I sign today directs new funds... to the task of collecting vital intelligence... on weapons of mass production."

Edited July 6, 2012 by phiphidon