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.

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Edited August 4, 201213 yr by nurofiend

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Invading, as in breaking through the army's riot police lines and getting into Thaicom. What do you call that?

You should read up on the 2010 protests. The red shirts also stormed parliament forcing politicians to climb over the back fence to escape.

Sent from my HTC phone.

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.

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

anyway you were the one who said "non-violent" not me, as fitting with your style of leading question replies, complete with putting words in mouth.

i said things were not out of control in a violent sense at that stage, that's different to saying there was no scuffles between security and protesters... what i mean by out of control in a violent sense is, what happened on the 10th, you know, a few days after the army were rolled out to take charge.

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Invading, as in breaking through the army's riot police lines and getting into Thaicom. What do you call that?

You should read up on the 2010 protests. The red shirts also stormed parliament forcing politicians to climb over the back fence to escape.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Edited August 4, 201213 yr by nurofiend

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Invading, as in breaking through the army's riot police lines and getting into Thaicom. What do you call that?

You should read up on the 2010 protests. The red shirts also stormed parliament forcing politicians to climb over the back fence to escape.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Invading, as in breaking through the army's riot police lines and getting into Thaicom. What do you call that?

You should read up on the 2010 protests. The red shirts also stormed parliament forcing politicians to climb over the back fence to escape.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

i'm glad you're getting your giggles but you avoid answering whether you think that's out of control violence or not.

Edited August 4, 201213 yr by nurofiend

anyway you were the one who said "non-violent" not me, as fitting with your style of leading question replies, complete with putting words in mouth.

i said things were not out of control in a violent sense at that stage, that's different to saying there was no scuffles between security and protesters... what i mean by out of control in a violent sense is, what happened on the 10th, you know, a few days after the army were rolled out to take charge.

The army were "in charge" from the start! Where were you?

The red shirts escalated their protests until the got the reaction they wanted. And then they brought out their militia.

Sent from my HTC phone.

anyway you were the one who said "non-violent" not me, as fitting with your style of leading question replies, complete with putting words in mouth.

i said things were not out of control in a violent sense at that stage, that's different to saying there was no scuffles between security and protesters... what i mean by out of control in a violent sense is, what happened on the 10th, you know, a few days after the army were rolled out to take charge.

The army were "in charge" from the start! Where were you?

The red shirts escalated their protests until the got the reaction they wanted. And then they brought out their militia.

Sent from my HTC phone.

in chiang mai, why?

do i have to repeat myself again to you that i mean when the SOE was declared, are you really that forgetful?

my original point in this thread remains valid.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

i'm glad you're getting your giggles but you avoid answering whether you think that's out of control violence or not.

I think forcing your way through a riot squad and taking over a telecommunications centre is out of control violence.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

i'm glad you're getting your giggles but you avoid answering whether you think that's out of control violence or not.

I think forcing your way through a riot squad and taking over a telecommunications centre is out of control violence.

Sent from my HTC phone.

well i think you're wrong. i guess i interpret violence gone out of control differently to you.

as i already pointed out, what i consider violence gone out of control began on april 10th.

and what happened to the part about government house, is that no longer out of control violence to you?

Edited August 4, 201213 yr by nurofiend

Last time I was in Chiang Mai I rode round on the back of a motorbike in a bright yellow shirt. Caused quite a stir at the traffic lights

well i think you're wrong.

Well I think that's just weird.

Sent from my HTC phone.

well i think you're wrong.

Well I think that's just weird.

Sent from my HTC phone.

whatever... i think it was a failure to keep order but it certainly wasn't out of control violence.

well i think you're wrong. i guess i interpret violence gone out of control differently to you.

as i already pointed out, what i consider violence gone out of control began on april 10th.

and what happened to the part about government house, is that no longer out of control violence to you?

Yes. When the red stormed government house, that was out of control violence too.

It seems that you don't think the yellow shirts taking over government house was out of control violence though. I do, but that's not the topic.

Sent from my HTC phone.

well i think you're wrong. i guess i interpret violence gone out of control differently to you.

as i already pointed out, what i consider violence gone out of control began on april 10th.

and what happened to the part about government house, is that no longer out of control violence to you?

Yes. When the red stormed government house, that was out of control violence too.

It seems that you don't think the yellow shirts taking over government house was out of control violence though. I do, but that's not the topic.

Sent from my HTC phone.

they were both public order issues, there's a difference between that and out of control violence, if you can't understand that difference, then fine.

anyway you were the one who said "non-violent" not me, as fitting with your style of leading question replies, complete with putting words in mouth.

i said things were not out of control in a violent sense at that stage, that's different to saying there was no scuffles between security and protesters... what i mean by out of control in a violent sense is, what happened on the 10th, you know, a few days after the army were rolled out to take charge.

The army were "in charge" from the start! Where were you?

The red shirts escalated their protests until the got the reaction they wanted. And then they brought out their militia.

Sent from my HTC phone.

in chiang mai, why?

do i have to repeat myself again to you that i mean when the SOE was declared, are you really that forgetful?

my original point in this thread remains valid.

For all who haven't read this report yet.. or have. http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/12/thailand-end-political-violence-bring-offenders-justice

From the source:

"The UDD protest turned violent on April 7 when Arisman Pongruangrong, a leader of the UDD, led protesters from their rally site at Phan Fa Bridge to surround the Parliament building while cabinet ministers and members of Parliament (MPs) were meeting. As the riot police retreated, the protesters forced their way through the barred gate using a truck and entered the Parliament compound. Arisman searched for Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban, who was accused of earlier ordering the riot police to throw teargas canisters at the protesters. After Karun Hosakul, a MP from the pro-Thaksin Puea Thai Party urged the crowd on, the protesters assaulted a military police officer from Suthep's protection team and seized his weapons (including a pistol and an M16 assault rifle)."

Violence was provoked on April 7th, the same day the Emergency Decree was declared.

"Human Rights Watch noted that under orders from Prime Minister Abhisit, soldiers and police initially showed great restraint in the face of provocations by protestors. Both the raid on the Parliament compound on April 7 and the confrontation at the Thaicom satellite station on April 9 seemed calculated to bring a violent response by the security forces."

"In this connection, Human Rights Watch expressed concern over the broad-based immunity provision in the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in a State of Emergency (Emergency Decree), originally declared by the Thaksin government. Section 17 of the Emergency Decree states that anyone holding official power to carry out emergency powers is not subject to civil, criminal, or disciplinary liabilities if the act is performed in good faith, is non-discriminatory, and is not unreasonable in the circumstances."

The man himself originated this in 2005, Thaksin's masterplan.

"Some UDD leaders and protesters have reacted aggressively towards Thai reporters who criticized their protest or exposed their acts of violence and abuses. On April 11, reporters were pressured to leave the protest site at Phan Fa Bridge. On the same day, mobile broadcast vans of Modern Nine TV and TPBS TV were seized by red-shirted protesters at the Thaicome satellite office in Pathumthani province. The UDD protesters have targeted the government's NBT TV for protests, including by attacking the NBT TV headquarters in Bangkok and its provincial offices with M79 grenades. UDD protesters attacked the headquarters of Channel 5 TV in Bangkok with M67 hand grenades."

Let's lob grenades at TV HQs.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

i'm glad you're getting your giggles but you avoid answering whether you think that's out of control violence or not.

I think forcing your way through a riot squad and taking over a telecommunications centre is out of control violence.

Sent from my HTC phone.

I think daily bombings around Bangkok is also out of control violence.

Funnily enough those events are conveniently forgotten by some.

Regarding red shirts, Flags, gathering before it and so on, may I point out to this fragment / episode of the mid-90s Sharpe TV series. Please skip the first part, just move on to around 05:00

It does give an indication of Nationalism which maybe k. Korn (from the OP) was talking against.

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...

pure red delusion by the usual suspects who still fail to recognise the crimes committed by their idols.

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.

You can't believe the truth

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?

Because it exists in the dictionary

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

It's been done to death on here so many times. How many people did the PAD kill?

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

You can spew out your distorted opinions until the kwai come home. It won't ever make them facts.

Your hypothetical situations presented as facts are not debate at all. Just nonsense typed in a box.

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.

If a group of people comes out to protest and does so violently several times it makes perfect sense to assume that they will do so again.

For Abhisit to have done otherwise would have been irresponsible.

well i think you're wrong. i guess i interpret violence gone out of control differently to you.

as i already pointed out, what i consider violence gone out of control began on april 10th.

and what happened to the part about government house, is that no longer out of control violence to you?

How many grenades did the PAD launch? How many people did they shoot?

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.

I 'suspect' it may have been because he was putting Thailand first.

Excuse me while I batten down the hatches for the expected, (I suspect) onslaught.

Nice to have exchanged posts with you all

Byeee

invading?

they surrounded thaicom in protest until they were shot at with tear gas, then they moved in.

where was the violence coming from in that situation?

and what are you referring to re government house, the blood? a pretty disgusting symbolic statement but violent?

Invading, as in breaking through the army's riot police lines and getting into Thaicom. What do you call that?

You should read up on the 2010 protests. The red shirts also stormed parliament forcing politicians to climb over the back fence to escape.

Sent from my HTC phone.

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

the PAD were peaceful protesters.

No weapons cache, never shot anyone, never killed anyone.

Get the historical revisionism straight or don't bother...

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.

I 'suspect' it may have been because he was putting Thailand first.

Excuse me while I batten down the hatches for the expected, (I suspect) onslaught.

Nice to have exchanged posts with you all

Byeee

"I 'suspect' it may have been because he was putting Thailand first."

you're funny.

No onslaught required for faked naivety...

you consider that out of control violence do you?

was it ok when pad did it and set up camp there yeah?

Another "but the PAD did it" ...

Sent from my HTC phone.

the PAD were peaceful protesters.

No weapons cache, never shot anyone, never killed anyone.

Get the historical revisionism straight or don't bother...

I'm not suggesting anything about the yellow shirts. I'm just laughing at the fact that they were brought into the discussion.

I didn't have time to read the thread, but I have to say I agree with Korn. Being red is nothing to be ashamed of.

In some circles, being red is not yet accepted. I've a friend who tried to explain his folks he supports Thaksin but in the process he felt so embarassed so he ended up telling them he was gay, Now he doesn't know how to explain his girlfriend why his family look at her in such a weird way