Popular Post AleG Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 T What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. This would work both ways Sir! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post AleG Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. I don't think you and poo care about the truth, it you would you would know what he said is a lie. You don't know about the attack on ThaiCom? The Assean Assault the previous year? the elderly man killed in Chiang Mai by a Red Mob, the daily grenade attacks around Bangkok since the beggining of the 2010 protests? calls to burn down the city before starting the protests are not a form of violence? etc, etc, etc... Can you handle the truth? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KireB Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. You forgot 2009? How about the killing of the PAD supporter in Chiang Mai? The blood letting? The attack on Abhisit? Death threats before Abhisit came to Chiang Mai. LPG tanker in the streets ready to go off? Attack of the Asian Summit. The Udon reds? The daily grenade attacks? I can probably list 100 violent events by your beloved reds that took place before Kok Wua! I think the main question is why you keep defending these thugs in red! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. come on mate, what you want photos of blood letting of children? Although I agree that taking the airport was wrong, a bunch of old grannies sitting on the pavement is different than heavily armed guards with various other goodies confiscating ID cards of those who dare to enter the first red village - aka Rachaprasong. I appreciate you are a scouse and embellishment comes somewhat naturally but dont cling too hard to such obviously one-eyed views. Even the beeb couldn't wash over it no matter how hard they tried. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha crikey, you sound like cop more than a WUM lol as for the little ones, must have been the spilled (upchucked) milk... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saltandpepper Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha Where are YOUR evidences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Don't mind Carra, when something ill-towards happened in 2010, it twasn't the reds, it twas the black shirts. Sadly for the Army, they only got green ones. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If the troops didn't fire how did the protesters manage to run into their bullets? LIke a broken record, again and again and again..............creating lies and half lies. your post or his? Most people recognize that the army shot civilians. Most people recognize that there were non-army, well-trained people fighting against the army. Neither has been held accountable. The latter has never been identified. Innocent people were caught in the middle. Your idea of a innocent person is one who builds barricades for armed terrorists cooks for them makes sure they have their supplies and knowingly live in or choose to hang around in a war zone when they have homes to go to. Give me a break. Glad to see you finally quit trying to dodge the bullet and take a stand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carra Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If the troops didn't fire how did the protesters manage to run into their bullets? LIke a broken record, again and again and again..............creating lies and half lies. your post or his? Most people recognize that the army shot civilians. Most people recognize that there were non-army, well-trained people fighting against the army. Neither has been held accountable. The latter has never been identified. Innocent people were caught in the middle. Your idea of a innocent person is one who builds barricades for armed terrorists cooks for them makes sure they have their supplies and knowingly live in or choose to hang around in a war zone when they have homes to go to. Give me a break. Glad to see you finally quit trying to dodge the bullet and take a stand. and the journalists, photographers and medical staff that were shot and killed?? Surely if you think the reds were the ones causing all the problems you would want independent journalists there to add proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 What I accept is that the army were ordered in to move the protesters, armed with tear gas and live ammunition. This was unlike the violent occupation of the country's only real international airport where the army told the PM they would not intervene. Before the army used aggressive tactics there were no incidences of violence by the reds. This provocation was on top of the injustice of having their electoral rights overturned time & time again by the army/ elite/ judiciary. The underlined part is a blatant lie. I look forward to you backing up your claim with irrefutable facts, i would like to see this. We can all just call people liars but it would be nice if you backed this up, like I say irrefutable proof, not just what you have heard etc. You forgot 2009? How about the killing of the PAD supporter in Chiang Mai? The blood letting? The attack on Abhisit? Death threats before Abhisit came to Chiang Mai. LPG tanker in the streets ready to go off? Attack of the Asian Summit. The Udon reds? The daily grenade attacks? I can probably list 100 violent events by your beloved reds that took place before Kok Wua! I think the main question is why you keep defending these thugs in red! Makes sense to me a thug inred will always defend a thug in red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post AleG Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha I pointed out instances of Red Shirts resorting to violence before the Army resorted to live fire, you say it doesn't count because that was before that. How convenient: "Show me how they had been violent before that!" "here, there and then" "It doesn't count!, that was before!" As I said, you are not interested in the truth, only in maintaining the Red Shirt Narrative. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 and the journalists, photographers and medical staff that were shot and killed?? Surely if you think the reds were the ones causing all the problems you would want independent journalists there to add proof. You would also want CCTV cameras but the Red Shirts disabled them, afraid of the truth coming out on who was doing what behind their barricades perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfie Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Where are YOUR evidences? I am not the one bleating about truths my friend or calling other posters liars, i just think that if you want to call a poster a liar then back it up with hard facts or it is just your opinion against his, so what is to say you are not the liar? Call the cops and sue yawnnnnnnnnnn, so you still have no proof, no problem, just say that rather than be childish, we are all adults here, well I hope we are Do you have proof of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Suthep said the investigators asked him about the orders for troops and thus he had provided copies of all the orders he had signed as the director of the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) to the investigators. He also told the investigators that DSI chief Tharit Pengdit was the one to suggest that CRES announce the state of emergency. Of course signed orders are the ones that count. If he wasn't at the scene, then he didn't give verbal orders. And giving verbal 'orders to kill civilians' over a portable phone would be sheer idiocy considering how they can be monitored easily. And seems DSI Pengdit is the one trying to hang Suthep out to dry at present. Is the best way to save ones own ass, the later attack on your old boss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha All over youtube for weeks before this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpoint Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Only one side is calling for a blanket amnesty and whitewashing of crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Only one side is calling for a blanket amnesty and whitewashing of crimes. And it just happen to be the side which had the most to gain from chaos and death on the streets. Again, how very convenient. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundman Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Bickering session removed from view. Play nice guys or refrain from posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 If the troops didn't fire how did the protesters manage to run into their bullets? LIke a broken record, again and again and again..............creating lies and half lies. your post or his? Most people recognize that the army shot civilians. Most people recognize that there were non-army, well-trained people fighting against the army. Neither has been held accountable. The latter has never been identified. Innocent people were caught in the middle. Who are "most people"? What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tragickingdom Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Suthep and Abhisit did not pay any attention during their history lessons. The Nazi leaders never claimed that they did not know anything about it. Only ordinary citizens and soldiers used the phrase "Ich habe es nicht gewusst". Not even the Chinese dictatorship established life firing zones in a huge city during the Tieananmen square massacre. Suthep is solely responsible for the mass murder in Bangkok streets. He should be prosecuted for the ICC, though that will not happen because Thailand's upstanding elite did not sign up for it. Abhisit will however stand a fairly good chance to be locked up, he is a British citizen too, the British are a signatory to the ICC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post soundman Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 One more notice. Everybody settle down, stop posting hyperbole, try and check your facts before posting if your memory is hazy, and try to act like grown ups rather than the kid sitting in the corner of the sand-pit hoarding all the toys. Members who cannot be civil and persist in bickering sessions may end up in the sin bin for a day or two. Thank-you. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 It is absolutely amazing that some people are still able to deny that innocent people were killed by the governmnet! Are you living in a paralele world or have you been in Thailand for so long that you start to believe your own lies? I don't think anyone is denying that the army used live rounds and shot some people, the question is - why So far from what has been reported - The army did not fire first - they were upon, the question is - were they justified in returning fire, - at that point several army personel had been killed - I'd say yes. If the reds had armed (black shirts) people in their midst with guns shooting then the idea of a peaceful demonstration turned into a terrorist attack, IMO red shirt protesters upped the game and unfortunately got the only response that one would expect in that situation. Who's to blame - well that has got to be the organisers of the armed gangs within the demonstrators The troops have every right to defend themselves Members of the public should not be on the streets with AK47's grenades etc and that is the simple truth As soon as the red shirt protesters were aware of armed gangs in their midst they should have left immediately what is the proof that the army was fired on first? Suthep? I have read that the first fatality was a protester shot by a sniper and it was not stated definitively that the sniper was from the Army. That would seem likely, but the reporter was prudent enough to not jump to conclusions without any evidence. As for the April 10 dispersal attempt, the reports have been rather clear that the army screwed up the operation... completely. Starting with the timing of the dispersal (late afternoon). In that regard, the CRES and the government have their portion of the responsibility to carry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ballpoint Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 Only one side is calling for a blanket amnesty and whitewashing of crimes. And it just happen to be the side which had the most to gain from chaos and death on the streets. Again, how very convenient. That wouldn't be the side that is on record as calling for violence and arson before the violence and arson kicked off. The side that disabled the CCTV cameras that could have provided information on who was doing what. The side that invaded a hospital. The side that got egg on its face when it tried to claim there was bloodshed during Songkhran 2009, so made dam_n sure it was true in 2010 now would it? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KireB Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Most people recognize that the army shot civilians. Most people recognize that there were non-army, well-trained people fighting against the army. Neither has been held accountable. The latter has never been identified. Innocent people were caught in the middle. I actually agree with you, innocent people were caught in the middle and so did not so innocent people. But without the red text-book revolution, sponsored by Thaksin and his political dynasty, all this wouldn't be necessary. There would be an election and the people of Thailand were allowed, all democratically, to choose a new government. But Thaksin, and his lackeys, couldn't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smedly Posted August 29, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2012 I firmly believe in the rights for people to protest in peace and have a free voice, but these protests went on and on to a point were it became unreasonable, they were asked over several weeks to disperse, they were having a dramatic effect on the everyday lives of residents of Bangkok, at what point is should the authorities take action, well in any western society it would not have gone on as long as it did, all the people here who side with the red shirts - how would you have ended this debacle if you were in government - please answer When the government decided to act (which in my opinion was way too long) they met with armed resistance, in any western society the army would have been involved, if the civil police don't have the manpower or resource to deal with such a situation the army are called in to restore normality. I call again to those that are supporting the Red Shirt mob - How would you have dealt with such civil disturbance, please describe in detail what you would have done differently, and before you go down the road of government giving in to an ugly protest - that is not the answer, it would set a dangerous president that no democratic society could endure. Yes there have been incidents in China were peaceful unarmed protesters were shot dead but that hardly fits with this debacle in Thailand, the moment armed demonstrators appeared on the scene and the army was shot at and killed and grenades thrown - this whole thing went down the toilet. Whoever thought that it was a good idea to arm demonstrators has a lot to answer for - that was definately in any society "the absolute wrong thing to do" This thread is mixed up and confused but there are a few fundamental facts that are known and are the root cause of what transpired, yes I have no doubt the army killed some people but given the situation and how it deteriorated I can't see how that could have been avoided, secondly the protesters were asked over a period of weeks and given multiple warnings that the authorities couldn't allow the disruption to continue - they were ignored, they were also given what they wanted - and election date, so the bottom line is they should have gone home. Who's to blame - well I personally blame the organisers of the protest for inflaming and escalating the situation, someone gained from all this and anyone with any sense knows exactly who. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The thread is clearly about about the incidents in 2010, I asked for irrefutable proof that the reds started violence before the army was sent in, since that there has been 4 posts with no proof whatsoever, irrefutable proof, not what you have heard, not what you think happened, so again I will ask does anyone have irrefutable proof that during the incident ion question the reds were violent before the army were sent in and the shooting started. james the yellow protests were far from peaceful and if you think it was a bunch of grannies sitting round in a party atmosphere you need to look again. Any you know my aim here as I have told you, it is to highlight one sided posts and ask people to back up with facts if they have them, i am neither red nor yellow, simply I believe that if someone wants to form an opinion do it based on facts and not what they think happened or not what the wish happened hey our babies managed some synchronized crying yesterday morning haha The red shirts stormed government house and Thaicom in the 2 days prior to April 10. They were violent. They attacked and overran the riot police (army personnel). There were even some molotov cocktails thrown by the red shirts. Why is it that you don't know about that violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 what is the proof that the army was fired on first? Suthep? I have read that the first fatality was a protester shot by a sniper and it was not stated definitively that the sniper was from the Army. That would seem likely, but the reporter was prudent enough to not jump to conclusions without any evidence. As for the April 10 dispersal attempt, the reports have been rather clear that the army screwed up the operation... completely. Starting with the timing of the dispersal (late afternoon). In that regard, the CRES and the government have their portion of the responsibility to carry... There is no real proof as to who fired first. But just because the army started their dispersal at "the wrong time" doesn't really give an excuse for the red shirts to be heavily armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now