Suthep Denies Troops Fired During The Day Of April 10, 2010

[bkkjames]

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?

lets not forget pattaya

[AleG]

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?

lets not forget pattaya

Or Kattiya threatening the Army chief to teach him the "Hand grenade dance" (among many other deadly threats he issued) months before taking charge of the Red Shirt protest "security". Someone fired grenades into Anupong's office shortly after that remark.

Obviously the kind of individual you want to oversee things so they remain peaceful...

But no!, lovely, peace loving people those Red Shirts!

[whybother]

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?

lets not forget pattaya

Even limiting it to the events in 2010, the red shirts escalated every chance they had.

The red shirts came to protest. The government let them.

The red shirts spread blood at Government house and Abhisit's house. The government let them.

The red shirts went on their mobile protest tour. The government let them.

The red shirts confronted the soldiers where they were stationed away from the protests. The soldiers moved.

The red shirts took over Ratchaprasong. The police let them.

The red shirts went to the army barracks and threatened to storm them.

The red shirts went to Government house and broke through riot police forcing politicians to escape over fences.

The red shirts went to Thaicom breaking through riot police and storming the building.

Finally when the army did try and disperse the protesters, the red shirts brought their militia out.

[OzMick]

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.

" Not even the Chinese dictatorship established life firing zones in a huge city during the Tieananmen square massacre."

What a rubbish comparison of events coupled with a complete lie regarding Chinese ROE.

[saltandpepper]

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?

lets not forget pattaya

Even limiting it to the events in 2010, the red shirts escalated every chance they had.

The red shirts came to protest. The government let them.

The red shirts spread blood at Government house and Abhisit's house. The government let them.

The red shirts went on their mobile protest tour. The government let them.

The red shirts confronted the soldiers where they were stationed away from the protests. The soldiers moved.

The red shirts took over Ratchaprasong. The police let them.

The red shirts went to the army barracks and threatened to storm them.

The red shirts went to Government house and broke through riot police forcing politicians to escape over fences.

The red shirts went to Thaicom breaking through riot police and storming the building.

Finally when the army did try and disperse the protesters, the red shirts brought their militia out.

Your post summarize the chain of events quite well .... But, I think that you will get answers like: Do you have proof? Do you have links? Do you have pictures? Movies? Testimonies from x and x certified by x & x........Some people will never admit the facts

[tlansford]

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.

"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."

"mob references again, ... so accurate... not.

The dangerous precedent IMO actually occurred when the government that was in power in 2010 came to power in 2008.

you recall that the army was involved because the gov't chose to invoke an SOE.

It is amazing that the military screwed up the first dispersal attempt with such incompetence. It led to the deaths of many people, and none of them needed to die. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/541283-red-shirts-to-mark-2nd-anniversary-of-protests/page__view__findpost__p__5302954

It is interesting and tragic, that the military appeared to not know about the militants when they began the operations on April 10th. I still find this to be an almost unbelievable intelligence failure.

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

[OzMick]

"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."

"mob references again, ... so accurate... not.

The dangerous precedent IMO actually occurred when the government that was in power in 2010 came to power in 2008.

you recall that the army was involved because the gov't chose to invoke an SOE.

It is amazing that the military screwed up the first dispersal attempt with such incompetence. It led to the deaths of many people, and none of them needed to die. http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5302954

It is interesting and tragic, that the military appeared to not know about the militants when they began the operations on April 10th. I still find this to be an almost unbelievable intelligence failure.

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

So because the RTA didn't realise that the so-called "peaceful protesters" had an armed mercenary militia preparing an ambush grenade attack on them - it's all the Army's fault. Because they treated them like peaceful fellow citizens and approached them in crowd dispersal mode - all the deaths are down to them.

OK. Had the RTA had the required intelligence, and treated the protesters as armed insurgents, would there have been less deaths or more?

Edited August 29, 2012 by OzMick

[whybother]

<snip>

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

"cave-in or kill them all camp"?? Not even the government were in that camp.

Do you think the government should have let the protests continue, or should they have been brought to a stop?

[AleG]

<snip>

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

"cave-in or kill them all camp"?? Not even the government were in that camp.

Do you think the government should have let the protests continue, or should they have been brought to a stop?

The last thing the Red Shirts, or at least those controlling them, wanted was a satisfactory solution to the crisis. Do you think they would have handed Abhisit a triumph of governance, so he could claim how he defused the situation and brought peace to the country in the following elections?

No, they wanted mayhem, and they wanted to pin it squarely on Abhisit. Stopping a mob from creating mayhem when they set their minds to it, without injuries or even deaths is nigh impossible.

Anyway, good luck with getting a straight answer to that quandry from Tlansford.

Edited August 29, 2012 by AleG

[birdpooguava]

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?

The government closed down their TV channel. Yet again, the reds reactions were preceded by aggressive and unjust government actions

[GentlemanJim]

"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."

"mob references again, ... so accurate... not.

The dangerous precedent IMO actually occurred when the government that was in power in 2010 came to power in 2008.

you recall that the army was involved because the gov't chose to invoke an SOE.

It is amazing that the military screwed up the first dispersal attempt with such incompetence. It led to the deaths of many people, and none of them needed to die. http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5302954

It is interesting and tragic, that the military appeared to not know about the militants when they began the operations on April 10th. I still find this to be an almost unbelievable intelligence failure.

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

My bold to highlight the exact part I wish you to refer to. The thing is that I can't think of any alternative choices the Abhisit Government could have made, so please let me ask you a question and would you be so kind as to give a direct answer and stop sitting on the fence. What effective alternative choices do you consider could have been made by the Abhisit Government and the Army?

[KireB]

It is amazing that the military screwed up the first dispersal attempt with such incompetence. It led to the deaths of many people, and none of them needed to die. http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5302954

It is interesting and tragic, that the military appeared to not know about the militants when they began the operations on April 10th. I still find this to be an almost unbelievable intelligence failure.

As for what the government could have done, you seem to be firmly planted in the "cave-in or kill them all" camp. Surely you yourself could think of many alternatives to the choices made by the Abhisit government and the army.

It was indeed almost unbelievable that the reds had the courage to attack the army during the day of April 10th, all live of national television. They tried to enter army baracks and fought fierce battles with soldiers. Where was the police that day? Why didn't they do their job?

That a group of heavily armed red shirts, the black shirts, attacked the army with grenades and high velocity weapons that night, you would only see in movies. But it really happened. Was the army professional? I doubt it, but the reds raised the stakes that day and especially night at a for Thais strategic and historic location.

After the massacre you saw groups of reds parading around with the bodies of their buddies, they had their proverbal lambs and thought they could nail the government with the whole country behind them!

Shame on those who organized all this.

[whybother]

The government closed down their TV channel. Yet again, the reds reactions were preceded by aggressive and unjust government actions

The government closed down their TV channel because they were using it to incite unrest by broadcasting lies.

What did the government do before the red shirts spread blood everywhere?

What did the government do before the red shirts stormed government house?

[birdpooguava]

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.

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power. I am tired of hearing what would have happened to the protesters in the UK or US, because the overriding fact is that in those places there would not have been a military coup, a violent takeover of several transport hubs, the refusal of the army to follow the PM's orders, the pressuring of government coalition members to change allegiances by 'irresistible forces'...... If there had been I'm sure the electoral majority would not have taken it lying down either.

Edited August 29, 2012 by birdpooguava

[birdpooguava]

The government closed down their TV channel. Yet again, the reds reactions were preceded by aggressive and unjust government actions

The government closed down their TV channel because they were using it to incite unrest by broadcasting lies.

What did the government do before the red shirts spread blood everywhere?

What did the government do before the red shirts stormed government house?

The illegitimate government closed it down because they didn't want the truth about their usurpation of power to be known by the people.

Edited August 29, 2012 by birdpooguava

[AleG]

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power. I am tired of hearing what would have happened to the protesters in the UK or US, because the overriding fact is that in those places there would not have been a military coup, a violent takeover of several transport hubs, the refusal of the army to follow the PM's orders, the pressuring of government coalition members to change allegiances by 'irresistible forces'...... If there had been I'm sure the electoral majority would not have taken it lying down either.

It would never happen because in the first place they wouldn't take a psychopathic megalomaniac robbing their country blind, killing thousands of their countrymen, rigging elections, changing laws in his favour, stuffing government with family members, unconstitutionally refusing to step down when his legal period as PM expired, etc, etc.. lying down.

Or are we to forget or ignore when this clusterf### began?

[rixalex]

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power.

PTP are now showing they are as happy as the Dems to jump into bed with the military, but when PTP does it, your description of the relationship switches from being in cahoots, to maintaining an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power.

A Thai government simply can't exist without a working relationship with the army. PT & RTA maintain an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power. Not confusing at all.

[birdpooguava]

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power.

PTP are now showing they are as happy as the Dems to jump into bed with the military, but when PTP does it, your description of the relationship switches from being in cahoots, to maintaining an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power.

A Thai government simply can't exist without a working relationship with the army. PT & RTA maintain an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power. Not confusing at all.

A government having a relationship with the army is normal & essential.....the opposition having a secret relationship with the military is unacceptable

[whybother]

A government having a relationship with the army is normal & essential.....the opposition having a secret relationship with the military is unacceptable

A secret relationship? Didn't you know about it?

[GentlemanJim]

The government closed down their TV channel. Yet again, the reds reactions were preceded by aggressive and unjust government actions

The government closed down their TV channel because they were using it to incite unrest by broadcasting lies.

What did the government do before the red shirts spread blood everywhere?

What did the government do before the red shirts stormed government house?

The illegitimate government closed it down because they didn't want the truth about their usurpation of power to be known by the people.

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.

[whybother]

The illegitimate government closed it down because they didn't want the truth about their usurpation of power to be known by the people.

Shutting one station down stopped all information from getting out? Don't the people have other forms of communication?

Do you think it's right that doctored video/audio is broadcast to the people to incite unrest?

[khunken]

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.

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power. I am tired of hearing what would have happened to the protesters in the UK or US, because the overriding fact is that in those places there would not have been a military coup, a violent takeover of several transport hubs, the refusal of the army to follow the PM's orders, the pressuring of government coalition members to change allegiances by 'irresistible forces'...... If there had been I'm sure the electoral majority would not have taken it lying down either.

Carry on but, like all the red-shirt supporters, don't answer the question.

You're right, there wouldn't have been a coup in the likes of the UK, but neither would the likes of Thaksin have been 'elected'. The sort of corruption practised by TRT would never have been tolerated. Yes, corruption occurs in western countries, but no electorate would stand for the open & blatant corruption of Thaksin, his family & cronies.

The thread is about Suthep, so, again, how would you have dealt with the occupation of Rachaprasong?

[rixalex]

What certainly 'would set a dangerous president precedent that no democratic society could endure' would be the opposition to a democratically elected government of the people being in cahoots with the military, elite and judiciary to manipulate its way into power.

PTP are now showing they are as happy as the Dems to jump into bed with the military, but when PTP does it, your description of the relationship switches from being in cahoots, to maintaining an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power.

A Thai government simply can't exist without a working relationship with the army. PT & RTA maintain an uneasy peace to retain their shares of the power. Not confusing at all.

A government having a relationship with the army is normal & essential.....the opposition having a secret relationship with the military is unacceptable

If you think this government is being transparent in its relationship with the army, you are being VERY naive.

[birdpooguava]

Carry on but, like all the red-shirt supporters, don't answer the question.

You're right, there wouldn't have been a coup in the likes of the UK, but neither would the likes of Thaksin have been 'elected'. The sort of corruption practised by TRT would never have been tolerated. Yes, corruption occurs in western countries, but no electorate would stand for the open & blatant corruption of Thaksin, his family & cronies.

The thread is about Suthep, so, again, how would you have dealt with the occupation of Rachaprasong?

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

[whybother]

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

They were a legitimate government, brought together through some shady deals in some back rooms - pretty much like all other coalition governments in Thailand (and elsewhere).

They didn't have to call elections for another 18 months. Why should they call elections just because a mob threatens to protest?

[rixalex]

Carry on but, like all the red-shirt supporters, don't answer the question.

You're right, there wouldn't have been a coup in the likes of the UK, but neither would the likes of Thaksin have been 'elected'. The sort of corruption practised by TRT would never have been tolerated. Yes, corruption occurs in western countries, but no electorate would stand for the open & blatant corruption of Thaksin, his family & cronies.

The thread is about Suthep, so, again, how would you have dealt with the occupation of Rachaprasong?

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

They had a weak mandate and i agree that it would have been better had they called elections, but they were not illegitimate, they had precisely the same legitimacy as Somchai, and it was their decision whether to call elections or not, not the decision of the reds. To believe it was the reds right to demand elections, and use violence in the process, is to not believe in democracy - or at the least, to believe in it selectively and when it suits.

[GentlemanJim]

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

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.

birdpoo

any chance you could start checking your facts as requested and try acting as a grown up?

[khunken]

Carry on but, like all the red-shirt supporters, don't answer the question.

You're right, there wouldn't have been a coup in the likes of the UK, but neither would the likes of Thaksin have been 'elected'. The sort of corruption practised by TRT would never have been tolerated. Yes, corruption occurs in western countries, but no electorate would stand for the open & blatant corruption of Thaksin, his family & cronies.

The thread is about Suthep, so, again, how would you have dealt with the occupation of Rachaprasong?

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

That doesn't answer any of the questions &, frankly, is a silly response.

You have posted a number of times on this thread (& others) about Suthep & Abhisit & what they are supposed to have done in response to the red shirt occupation, instigated by Thaksin to retrieve his confiscated ill-gotten gains. So why not give your opinion on how partially-armed demonstrators should be dispersed.

Red lollipops?

[birdpooguava]

The only reason they were in power was because of an 'irresistible force' not a functioning democratic system as you lot try to claim.

[birdpooguava]

Carry on but, like all the red-shirt supporters, don't answer the question.

You're right, there wouldn't have been a coup in the likes of the UK, but neither would the likes of Thaksin have been 'elected'. The sort of corruption practised by TRT would never have been tolerated. Yes, corruption occurs in western countries, but no electorate would stand for the open & blatant corruption of Thaksin, his family & cronies.

The thread is about Suthep, so, again, how would you have dealt with the occupation of Rachaprasong?

The illegitimate government should have called elections before the reds came to Bangkok.

That doesn't answer any of the questions &, frankly, is a silly response.

You have posted a number of times on this thread (& others) about Suthep & Abhisit & what they are supposed to have done in response to the red shirt occupation, instigated by Thaksin to retrieve his confiscated ill-gotten gains. So why not give your opinion on how partially-armed demonstrators should be dispersed.

Red lollipops?

Any involvement apart from phone ins by TS in the red protest is pure speculation. Don't you recall the frozen bank accounts and flow chart?