Everyone Entitled To Dress In Red: Democrats

[Buchholz]

so let's hear you punch holes in what i said and answer the three points i made then, instead of a post that really doesn't say anything at all.

me saying there was a difference in army attitude is not a hypothetical.

c'mon let's hear what you think about each point i made, even if they are hypothetical, go crazy and live a little.

sorry, as was said, it's already been done numerous times before so not up for another rehash just for the benefit of the latest member to try and bring it up and who has apparently missed all the previous episodes of the same overdone show.

perhaps in the morning, i'll give it yet another go 'round.

..

yeah, thought as much.

people would have to be very stupid to think that the reds would have been treated the same as the pad by the military if they had marched on the airport in the same manner.

i'll leave it at that.

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

The real myth is your misleading and untruthful insinuation that I've said the PAD was non-violent. I've never claimed they were despite your hollow announcement.

It's typical of the exaggeration and twisting by yourself of what is actually posted.

I agree the last episode of violence employed by the Red Shirts was the most violent of the violence strewn Red Shirt history from 2007 to 2010. Their ratcheting up their level of violent acts is clearly evident.

No one is going blameless (another of your misstatements), all that was said was that one side was more violent than the other in terms of frequency, total occurrences, and level of violence utilized. The "no surprise" is that you attempt to misrepresent that and attempt to spin it off into some exaggerations that I've not ever said.

As for the non-existent hypothetical scenarios, I'll leave that to the dreamers. It's difficult enough dealing with the untruths and twists of factual events that require periodic re-stating, that to then expand that to include fanciful speculation of "what might have been", "could have been", seems nothing more than a distraction and a futile effort to evade the truth.

.

.

[Buchholz]

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests

It truly would be a step forward if that consensus could actually be agreed upon, but unfortunately every time the issue comes up, a number of Red Shirt apologists attempt to refute that, downplay it, or attempt to qualify it. In their minds, rather than "no question"... they attempt to raise a never-ending litany of questions with their exaggerations, denials, and half-truths.

Given that there is not a consensus on the reality, not sure what is to be gained by introducing non-reality speculation of what might have transpired, could have happened, etc. except that it's just the latest effort, added to those above, to muddle the issue of what really did happen in a factual sense.

but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

Perhaps we could if first we can establish what really did happen in the real world.

Once that occurs, than we might indulge in what might have happened.

.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

See there you go and spoil it all - What is it with you pro democrats, anti reds or whatever that impels you to insult people nearly every time you post?

Now I'm quite willing to bet (if such a thing were allowed) that the majority of insults are from one direction only. I don't know why this is, but we, the small majority on this forum that are red leaning or neutral and questioning tend to be of the polite persuasion but there seems to be a lack of control on the other "side".

extremely funny as the freighter-ship size of deleted posts by you and your ilk are a testament to which side lacks control as the litany of "derogatory, profanity, flaming, baiting, and nonsense posts" as they are referred to when they get deleted.

.

Is that because you keep count or because you report most of them?

The vast majority of them are done so entirely at the volition of those empowered.

That you attempt to portray yourself as the victim is hysterical.

.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Buchholz

[ramrod711]

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

"if your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good"

well they're not.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence."

the military were there before any burnings or shooting weren't they? so i guess you think they had no justification when they rolled out!

the red shirts were deemed terrorists before they even arrived too.

"If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements."

it is yes, but my question was if the red shirts did the exact same thing as pad re the airport, would the military have acted differently...

do you think so?

i think so.

You are over looking (conveniently) that the yellow shirts didn't have to bring any barrels of oil. They had enough aviation fuel on hand to burn the whole airport down. But they had a set of standards a little higher than the red shirts. Well actually a lot higher.

Perhaps you are forgetting that the red shirts DID try to burn the airport by setting fire to one of the large fuel tanks. I can't remember whether it was before or after they attempted to blow up one of the main electric towers supplying Bangkok, fortunately only two of the legs were damaged. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the only two people killed during the PAD demonstrations yellow shirts that were present when a grenade was lobbed into their rally?

[Buchholz]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

As said, it's so difficult for some to recognize and acknowledge the "overwhelmingly more violent history" of the Red Shirts compared to the Yellow Shirts.

Here it's obfuscating to the point where Yellow Shirts aren't even mentioned in the reply.

It seems the apologists are always willing to take their points to the next height of absurdity.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

The fortune of those who back the Democrats dwarf Thaksins

Who are these whose fortune dwarfs Thaksin's?

.

[whybother]

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

The army weren't rolled out to stop the protests!

The protests were allowed to happen. Then the blood spreading was allowed to happen. Then the mobile protests were allowed to happen. The taking over of Ratchaprasong was allowed to happen. The red shirts were allowed to confront troops where they were stationed away from the protests. They were allowed to protest outside the barracks and threaten to storm it.

It was when parliament and Thaicom was stormed and guns were stolen that things started getting out of hand.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[tlansford]

I guess it matters a lot when YOU are called a cretin. To remind you, 9 other people were called that and worse recently but ti doesn't matter then would it? It's freedom of speech and criticizing in the name of Democracy isn't it?

Take the same value system that you have and apply it to the Red Shirt leaders. I don't expect you to show much disdain for their behavior as long as they're on your "side". Speaking about sides, for every 1 insult from a Democrat, I can show you about 20 from the Red Shirts. Both are wrong I admit, but one just seems to flourish in it.

"I guess it matters a lot when YOU are called a cretin. To remind you, 9 other people were called that and worse recently but ti doesn't matter then would it? It's freedom of speech and criticizing in the name of Democracy isn't it?"

I was writing a post on an internet forum. They were responsible for a constitutional crisis that could have led to clashes on the streets and has led to a rewriting of the powers of the Constitutional Court.

A far, far different order of importance and impact on the Thai political system than my posting on here could ever do. Do you wonder why they are criticised?

Actually yes, I do wonder why they're being criticized. They're being criticized NOW because of their recent verdicts on the whitewashing bills but they were NOT criticized when they ruled in favor of Thaksin and the ruling party. You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law.

The Red shirts seem to put the court judges in the former category and criticize them as such, but again, why were there no criticisms when the court had to rule on the Emergency budget bill?

Replace the word "Red shirts" with "Thai people", and we might actually see a reason for such criticisms. As of now, it's coming from one group's hatred which were spurred on by their leaders.

"You can't have it both ways: either they're a truly bias system whose judgements should bear no value, or they are a non partisan system that judges according to the rule of law."

Black or white, yes or no, on or off, only ever two states of being. People are not like that nor are groups of people and certainly groups of judges are not. They may go strictly by the rules one day and the next they make up their own rules or in the case of the constitutional court their own laws. Ever wonder why there is no rule of precedent in Thai law? If they had that at least there might be some reason for their decisions - it's done on a whim. Normallly have to go through the Attorney General - don't worry about that, to accomodate the amart we'll redefine the wording of laws. That is the point the Judicial system can and will be swayed to suit the status quo. They know they have the power, its been demonstrated, and they will do whatever they can to keep it that way, with the dems hanging on their coat tails.

The preface to the book which you linked to made an interesting point relevant to this. It basically stated that the Thai constitution (and by implication the organs of government created through it) cannot pretend to claim authority as a fundamental law, but rather it simply serves as a tool to facilitate the ruling of/by the elite.

At the moment it appears as if the courts are fulfilling their part of that role under the current constitution. In 2007, the courts were strengthen and the executive branch weakened. That was obviously not an accident.

Finally, I would agree that the choice presented by Thaioats is a strawman.

[phiphidon]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

As said, it's so difficult for some to recognize and acknowledge the "overwhelmingly more violent history" of the Red Shirts compared to the Yellow Shirts.

Here it's obfuscating to the point where Yellow Shirts aren't even mentioned in the reply.

It seems the apologists are always willing to take their points to the next height of absurdity.

You ignore the part the army had to play in the red shirts "overwhelmingly more violent history" as others have told you, But you won't listen so I'll leave you with your flames.

[Buchholz]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

As said, it's so difficult for some to recognize and acknowledge the "overwhelmingly more violent history" of the Red Shirts compared to the Yellow Shirts.

Here it's obfuscating to the point where Yellow Shirts aren't even mentioned in the reply.

It seems the apologists are always willing to take their points to the next height of absurdity.

You ignore the part the army had to play in the red shirts "overwhelmingly more violent history" as others have told you, But you won't listen so I'll leave you with your flames.

You ignore the part when in a straight comparison between two groups, you feel the need to introduce other groups in order to attempt to justify the conclusion of the straight comparison.

.

[tlansford]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

The police fled when the reds rioted in 2010.

I've only read that on TVF. Never anywhere else.

In fact, there are multiple news articles before the Emergency decree when the army took over which mention the police participating in the crowd control measures...

Once the SOE was declared, the army was in charge, not the police.

And the emergency decree was declared by the government *before* any violence occurred at the protest site and before the dispersal attempt. The military was authorized to use live fire and lethal force *before* any violence occurred at the protest. The army somehow had no idea that there was an armed group among the protesters on April 10 and were taken by surprise, yet already had been authorized for lethal force and already operating under an emergency decree.

It seems perfectly clear to me (irrespective of the militants from the protester side) that if the government had not used lethal force, had not operated with such heavy-handedness, and had not completely botched the dispersal attempt on April 10th, there would have been far fewer injuries and far fewer deaths.

Edited August 4, 2012 by tlansford

[tlansford]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests.

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

people here completely ignore the influence of the army in the 2010 protests. It's as if it all happened in a vacuum except for the part where the red shirts were violent...

Until it is recognized that it was a conscious choice by the government to use lethal force, and that that was not an inevitable choice, there cannot be any real discussion of the events : just the usual throwing of mud & jabs...

[tlansford]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

As said, it's so difficult for some to recognize and acknowledge the "overwhelmingly more violent history" of the Red Shirts compared to the Yellow Shirts.

Here it's obfuscating to the point where Yellow Shirts aren't even mentioned in the reply.

It seems the apologists are always willing to take their points to the next height of absurdity.

You ignore the part the army had to play in the red shirts "overwhelmingly more violent history" as others have told you, But you won't listen so I'll leave you with your flames.

The history speaks for itself. Over decades.

As for Abhisit, IMO Abhisit was desperate to hold on to the power he managed to acquire which led him to make poor choices in 2009 & 2010.

Edited August 4, 2012 by tlansford

[whybother]

The history speaks for itself. Over decades.

As for Abhisit, IMO Abhisit was desperate to hold on to the power he managed to acquire which led him to make poor choices in 2009 & 2010.

So desperate to hold on to power, that he called elections 6 months early.

[Ricardo]

The history speaks for itself. Over decades.

As for Abhisit, IMO Abhisit was desperate to hold on to the power he managed to acquire which led him to make poor choices in 2009 & 2010.

So desperate to hold on to power, that he called elections 6 months early.

And also offered to hold them 12 months early, live on national-TV, clearly the act of a man desperate to hold onto power !

[Noistar]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification

to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

For crying out loud the whole city did not burn. This was not Dresden. The propoganda might have worked once but two years later it's recognised for what it is.

A refreshing change to hear the past placed where it should be. It is history and lessons can be learnt from it

Trying to cherry-pick the bits which you feel should be copied from the past, once again shows the IMHO, juvenile attitude of this democratically elected ruling party. Thailand first? Maybe not at the moment

[Noistar]

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear. Tell me Korn didn't say or do that. Tell me The Nation didn't print that. Tell me TV didn't post this. Now if Buchholz doesn't dig out that tired old photograph of Pol. Col. Thingummy dressed all in red with a "funny" caption my day would not be complete.

Note to Korn: Psst, Blue is a democrat Party colour, Blue is a colour on the national flag. People are entitled to dress in Blue too.

What a complete waste of space.................

Oh dear, oh dear.

Note to phiphidon: Korn didn't even try to suggest that non-democrats can't wear blue. He just remarked on "red colour, flag colour". Just to show you how that works, the democratic part that is, I would not have the slightest objection to you wearing Orange

And nor did I say that he did. I was merely pointing out to him one of the other two colours he could have chosen that are part of the thai flag.

By the way, just because you do not wear blue and may even wear red, it does not follow that you are by definition, a non democrat, as you / he? suggest. I would suspect that a very large percentage of people who either are or support red shirts also support democracy - I know thats not what you hear on here daily but the TV forum is hardly representative of the Thai people,

luckily.

Apologies for the late reply. I thought I'd imagined Phiphidon not KNOWING something. Does it really say 'suspect'? It's nice to see that a reasonable exchange of views can be achieved impartially by everyone.

Thanks Phiphidon for restoring my faith

[Noistar]

people here completely ignore the influence of the army in the 2010 protests. It's as if it all happened in a vacuum except for the part where the red shirts were violent...

Until it is recognized that it was a conscious choice by the government to use lethal force, and that that was not an inevitable choice, there cannot be any real discussion of the events : just the usual throwing of mud & jabs...

I think I've got a fault with my iPad. I keep looking at the title of the topic 'Everyone Entitled To Dress In Red: Democrats', but then I come across posts about the Thai army in 2010. Anyone got a help desk number for Apple?

[rixalex]

Unfortunately, the guards at the yellow shirt encampment weren't camera friendly. As I was being detoured around their encampment, I didn't feel it prudent to pull out my camera. I felt concerned for my safety

The guards you speak of weren't yellow shirts, they were airport security personnel. They set up road blocks shortly after the yellow shirts began their protest. Photos of them have been posted on previous threads, although a long time ago. A lot of people made the same erroneous assumption as you.

I did take photos of the red shirt protest. The times I was there, I was allowed to freely wander the area. At no time, ever, did I feel unwelcome, let alone threatened.

I have spent time passing through a number of red shirt protests - not by choice i hasten to add - and found that the red shirts seem to generally assume your presence implies support for their cause, hence why they are welcoming. I have no doubt this impression is solidified by quite a number of farangs who tag along with their Isaan teeraks and in-laws and who dutifully wear the red shirts and carry about all the Thaksin paraphernalia. I don't for a second imagine this welcome would be extended if they knew you did not support their cause. I'm sure the same goes for yellow shirt rallies.

[Jawnie]

More school yard politics from Thailand's national leaders, as in, "You're not the boss of me!"

[tlansford]

The history speaks for itself. Over decades.

As for Abhisit, IMO Abhisit was desperate to hold on to the power he managed to acquire which led him to make poor choices in 2009 & 2010.

So desperate to hold on to power, that he called elections 6 months early.

why did he do that? Can you think of any reason why he would have called for elections just before the end of the term when it would have been necessary anyway? Maybe it was because he thought that would be a good time for his party - maybe it was to improve the chances for the democrats in the elections?

Maybe you just ignore that the timing of the party in power to call elections is a political calculation.

Or maybe you think there was some other selfless reason for him to call elections when he did? Let's hear what might have been Abhisit's reasons for calling an early election.

[nurofiend]

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests.

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

The worst thing is trying to convince yourself of these clear untruths

the worst thing is making a post claiming clear untruths were told and not backing it up, because you can't.

[nurofiend]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

The police fled when the reds rioted in 2010.

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

[nurofiend]

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

"Contradictory" would be a better choice of word

why?

[nurofiend]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

Taking bits of facts, mangling them and hacking them about into a fiction that exists in a post in this magnificent organ can never make it a fact in anyone's mind but yours

why don't you try to actually debate anything that's in a post, instead of just giving your review of it.

[nurofiend]

Given that there is not a consensus on the reality, not sure what is to be gained by introducing non-reality speculation of what might have transpired, could have happened, etc. except that it's just the latest effort, added to those above, to muddle the issue of what really did happen in a factual sense.

Perhaps we could if first we can establish what really did happen in the real world.

Once that occurs, than we might indulge in what might have happened.

.

it's not an effort to muddle the issue of what really did happen in a factual sense at all.

it's an effort for people to look past their bias and take note that a difference in how a protest is tackled by a government can result in a difference in how the protesters act.

that's all, it's an easy and pretty obvious thing to acknowledge.

[nurofiend]

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

The army weren't rolled out to stop the protests!

The protests were allowed to happen. Then the blood spreading was allowed to happen. Then the mobile protests were allowed to happen. The taking over of Ratchaprasong was allowed to happen. The red shirts were allowed to confront troops where they were stationed away from the protests. They were allowed to protest outside the barracks and threaten to storm it.

It was when parliament and Thaicom was stormed and guns were stolen that things started getting out of hand.

Sent from my HTC phone.

yes, the army were rolled out to stop the protests, things weren't out of hand in a violent sense at that stage, it was still a protest when the army came out.. but come out they did and then came the bodies.

and that's not saying the army killed first because i don't know that and neither do you, but what i do know is that after they got involved, the bodies began to pile up, not before.

so to not recognise that the actions of the military had a big impact on how the protests unfolded, to me, is a joke.

[whybother]

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

The army weren't rolled out to stop the protests!

The protests were allowed to happen. Then the blood spreading was allowed to happen. Then the mobile protests were allowed to happen. The taking over of Ratchaprasong was allowed to happen. The red shirts were allowed to confront troops where they were stationed away from the protests. They were allowed to protest outside the barracks and threaten to storm it.

It was when parliament and Thaicom was stormed and guns were stolen that things started getting out of hand.

Sent from my HTC phone.

yes, the army were rolled out to stop the protests, things weren't out of hand in a violent sense at that stage, it was still a protest when the army came out.. but come out they did and then came the bodies.

and that's not saying the army killed first because i don't know that and neither do you, but what i do know is that after they got involved, the bodies began to pile up, not before.

so to not recognise that the actions of the military had a big impact on how the protests unfolded, to me, is a joke.

What are you talking about? The army were rolled out before the protests started.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[nurofiend]

The army weren't rolled out to stop the protests!

The protests were allowed to happen. Then the blood spreading was allowed to happen. Then the mobile protests were allowed to happen. The taking over of Ratchaprasong was allowed to happen. The red shirts were allowed to confront troops where they were stationed away from the protests. They were allowed to protest outside the barracks and threaten to storm it.

It was when parliament and Thaicom was stormed and guns were stolen that things started getting out of hand.

Sent from my HTC phone.

yes, the army were rolled out to stop the protests, things weren't out of hand in a violent sense at that stage, it was still a protest when the army came out.. but come out they did and then came the bodies.

and that's not saying the army killed first because i don't know that and neither do you, but what i do know is that after they got involved, the bodies began to pile up, not before.

so to not recognise that the actions of the military had a big impact on how the protests unfolded, to me, is a joke.

What are you talking about? The army were rolled out before the protests started.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you know well that i mean when the SOE was declared.

Edited August 4, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

yes, the army were rolled out to stop the protests, things weren't out of hand in a violent sense at that stage, it was still a protest when the army came out.. but come out they did and then came the bodies.

and that's not saying the army killed first because i don't know that and neither do you, but what i do know is that after they got involved, the bodies began to pile up, not before.

so to not recognise that the actions of the military had a big impact on how the protests unfolded, to me, is a joke.

What are you talking about? The army were rolled out before the protests started.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you know well that i mean when the SOE was declared.

So do you call invading government house and Thaicom "non-violent"?

Sent from my HTC phone.