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

[KireB]

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?

Well when you take in account that the entire Shinnawatra clan was involved including his wife, kids, sisters, brothers, brother in law, cousins, nephews and nieces, in the red charade by giving speeches, handing out money, you can hardly deny that Thaksin wasn't the engine, the inspirator behind the great red fraud!

Edited August 29, 2012 by KireB

[whybother]

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

Money. What other "irresistible force" would they be worried about?

[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.

Money. What other "irresistible force" would they be worried about?

Backed into a corner faced with the truth and the drivel comes out. Come on be a man and face the truth. Chumpol Silapaarcha stated it clearly enough for you didn't he? What's happened to your AV legitimacy argument now.

[whybother]

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

Money. What other "irresistible force" would they be worried about?

Backed into a corner faced with the truth and the drivel comes out. Come on be a man and face the truth. Chumpol Silapaarcha stated it clearly enough for you didn't he? What's happened to your AV legitimacy argument now.

Truth? What Truth? Silapa-archa said he didn't have a choice. He didn't say why.

My suggestion is that if he didn't he wouldn't have got a place a the pig trough.

Have you got any evidence to suggest otherwise?

[pedro01]

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...

Why did the reds suddenly decide to go there that day?

[birdpooguava]

Truth? What Truth? Silapa-archa said he didn't have a choice. He didn't say why.

My suggestion is that if he didn't he wouldn't have got a place a the pig trough.

Have you got any evidence to suggest otherwise?

"Although Gen Prayuth has assured that soldiers will not get involved in politics, last week's comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight.

Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". He did not elaborate on who this power was." 13/6/11 OtherP

[whybother]

Truth? What Truth? Silapa-archa said he didn't have a choice. He didn't say why.

My suggestion is that if he didn't he wouldn't have got a place a the pig trough.

Have you got any evidence to suggest otherwise?

"Although Gen Prayuth has assured that soldiers will not get involved in politics, last week's comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight.

Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". He did not elaborate on who this power was." 13/6/11 OtherP

Right ... so what IS this "irresistible power"? Money?

What would have happened if he didn't join the coalition? Was his life in danger? What was it?

Leave it up to red shirt supporters imagination to come up with something sinister, when the most obvious reason is that they wouldn't have had a place at the trough.

[tlansford]

"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?

why do you guys have such a hard time imagining Abhisit choosing a path other than SOE, military and live fire / lethal force? Ozmick has been unable to answer that simple point for over a year, and I refuse to do his thinking for him.

BTW, I definitely don't sit on the fence. I have stated time and time again that the gov't should not have used lethal force and that choice alone IMO accounts for a much much higher number of injuries and fatalities in 2010. - And, before the "tvfmob" starts to attack like mad dogs with their imaginary musing over my perspective of the protesters, I have also stated that the protesters should not have used violence - recognizing that while the MIB definitely fought against the military, these elements have not been identified. For that reason and that reason alone, I do not jump to conclusions regarding them and who they were... although it would be very interesting to know, and I do wonder why so little has been discovered about them.

Others here get the events of April 10th so turned around - even with the available information - such that the innocent army was ambushed by the redmob. There was a lot of confusion that day (much of it attributable to the army, BTW) but there are still rational accounts of the major features of the day which don't come from (then) government approved sources... yes, I am skeptical of anything that the government / army claims from this conflict.

The point that is perfectly clear is that those making the real decisions on both sides of the conflict did not care about lives being sacrificed - whether they were the lives of soldiers, protesters, or others such as medics, journalists or monks.

[rubl]

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.

The facts, as some will have it. Note the 'illegitimate', 'truth', 'usurpation'!

[khunken]

"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?

why do you guys have such a hard time imagining Abhisit choosing a path other than SOE, military and live fire / lethal force? Ozmick has been unable to answer that simple point for over a year, and I refuse to do his thinking for him.

BTW, I definitely don't sit on the fence. I have stated time and time again that the gov't should not have used lethal force and that choice alone IMO accounts for a much much higher number of injuries and fatalities in 2010. - And, before the "tvfmob" starts to attack like mad dogs with their imaginary musing over my perspective of the protesters, I have also stated that the protesters should not have used violence - recognizing that while the MIB definitely fought against the military, these elements have not been identified. For that reason and that reason alone, I do not jump to conclusions regarding them and who they were... although it would be very interesting to know, and I do wonder why so little has been discovered about them.

Others here get the events of April 10th so turned around - even with the available information - such that the innocent army was ambushed by the redmob. There was a lot of confusion that day (much of it attributable to the army, BTW) but there are still rational accounts of the major features of the day which don't come from (then) government approved sources... yes, I am skeptical of anything that the government / army claims from this conflict.

The point that is perfectly clear is that those making the real decisions on both sides of the conflict did not care about lives being sacrificed - whether they were the lives of soldiers, protesters, or others such as medics, journalists or monks.

This is probably the fairest post that I've seen from you Mr Lansford.but I disagree particularly with your first two paragraphs.

When confronted with (A) a take-over of a major section of Bangkok, ( armed men within the demonstrators & © Thaksin's involvement in instigating & funding the people on the ground, (d) offering them an early election, & (e) the police's refusal to take any action whatsoever, how else was the government supposed to disperse the crowd other than using the army? As seen in many places like N. Ireland, when the army is used shooting is going to occur.

The shooting was not started by the army but when they were allowed to use their weapons, people got shot - some innocent. There is no other way that the red shirts could have been shifted. Thaksin & his red-shirt 'officers' didn't give a shit about any ordinary red-shirt or innocent person being killed or injured.

It is so easy to say that Abhisit shouldn't have done what he did & the red-shirts shouldn't have done what they did. Given what both sides actually did, how would you organise a non-violent way of dispersing the demonstrators? I personally think that Abhisit went out of his way to persuade them to disperse peacefully & had no alternative to allow the army to remove them in a military way.

There has been no real effort by the previous government or the current one to independently investigate the cause, who was behind it, who shot or bombed who & who was responsible for the arson. Only finger-pointing with neither side willing to admit that they did any wrong.

Edited August 29, 2012 by khunken

[khunken]

^^

The 'smiley' is not my doing. apparently left-bracket 'b' produces it.

[animatic]

"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?

why do you guys have such a hard time imagining Abhisit choosing a path other than SOE, military and live fire / lethal force? Ozmick has been unable to answer that simple point for over a year, and I refuse to do his thinking for him.

BTW, I definitely don't sit on the fence. I have stated time and time again that the gov't should not have used lethal force and that choice alone IMO accounts for a much much higher number of injuries and fatalities in 2010. - And, before the "tvfmob" starts to attack like mad dogs with their imaginary musing over my perspective of the protesters, I have also stated that the protesters should not have used violence - recognizing that while the MIB definitely fought against the military, these elements have not been identified. For that reason and that reason alone, I do not jump to conclusions regarding them and who they were... although it would be very interesting to know, and I do wonder why so little has been discovered about them.

Others here get the events of April 10th so turned around - even with the available information - such that the innocent army was ambushed by the redmob. There was a lot of confusion that day (much of it attributable to the army, BTW) but there are still rational accounts of the major features of the day which don't come from (then) government approved sources... yes, I am skeptical of anything that the government / army claims from this conflict.

The point that is perfectly clear is that those making the real decisions on both sides of the conflict did not care about lives being sacrificed - whether they were the lives of soldiers, protesters, or others such as medics, journalists or monks.

This is probably the fairest post that I've seen from you Mr Lansford.but I disagree particularly with your first two paragraphs.

When confronted with (A) a take-over of a major section of Bangkok, ( armed men within the demonstrators & © Thaksin's involvement in instigating & funding the people on the ground, (d) offering them an early election, & (e) the police's refusal to take any action whatsoever, how else was the government supposed to disperse the crowd other than using the army? As seen in many places like N. Ireland, when the army is used shooting is going to occur.

The shooting was not started by the army but when they were allowed to use their weapons, people got shot - some innocent. There is no other way that the red shirts could have been shifted. Thaksin & his red-shirt 'officers' didn't give a shit about any ordinary red-shirt or innocent person being killed or injured.

It is so easy to say that Abhisit shouldn't have done what he did & the red-shirts shouldn't have done what they did. Given what both sides actually did, how would you organise a non-violent way of dispersing the demonstrators? I personally think that Abhisit went out of his way to persuade them to disperse peacefully & had no alternative to allow the army to remove them in a military way.

There has been no real effort by the previous government or the current one to independently investigate the cause, who was behind it, who shot or bombed who & who was responsible for the arson. Only finger-pointing with neither side willing to admit that they did any wrong.

Usually the side of causality primeur is deemed the instigator.

The reactant is deemed to have just reacted to a provocation.

If that reaction is not over or greatly above what is needed to stop the agression, then there is not fault.

[smedly]

This thread seems to have run it's course

We have all seen were public disorder on a scale that was seen here in Thailand has done in Egypt Syria and a gost of other middle east countries, I have no doubt that Thaksin did his best (and still is) to try and stir up as much hatred and trouble as he possibly could, so far his actions have failed......I wonder what he's dreaming up next

Ask yourselves this, if Thaksin just went away and stayed out of Thailands business do you honestly think any of what happened in the last two years would have happened - anyone with more than 2x brain cells could figure it out.

I out of this Thread now as it's getting nowhere, lets hope that things start to get better after these tainted investigations get wrapped up.

[KireB]

The shooting was not started by the army but when they were allowed to use their weapons, people got shot - some innocent. There is no other way that the red shirts could have been shifted. Thaksin & his red-shirt 'officers' didn't give a shit about any ordinary red-shirt or innocent person being killed or injured.

Yes they did give a shit, they needed casualties on their side. Perception management at work. Cannot have a 'revolution of the poor' without the evil army violently coming down on them. The army and government were way too careful and just wouldn't bite! That's why the men in black were send in. They chose the perfect location, and set the trap. After the April 10th massacre, bodies were snatched from hospitals by the reds and displayed on their stages. The siege entered its next level!

[rixalex]

BTW, I definitely don't sit on the fence. I have stated time and time again that the gov't should not have used lethal force and that choice alone IMO accounts for a much much higher number of injuries and fatalities in 2010. - And, before the "tvfmob" starts to attack like mad dogs with their imaginary musing over my perspective of the protesters, I have also stated that the protesters should not have used violence - recognizing that while the MIB definitely fought against the military, these elements have not been identified. For that reason and that reason alone, I do not jump to conclusions regarding them and who they were... although it would be very interesting to know, and I do wonder why so little has been discovered about them.

Going down a desperate path with all that the men in black have yet to be identified and therefore we don't know who they were fighting for or who was behind them nonsense. Has the same whiff of ridiculousness as the yellow shirts arguing that they weren't the ones who shut the airport down, they were just the ones sitting there. Or the argument of the red shirts that they weren't the ones responsible for all the fires set coincidentally at the exact time that they began fleeing. Playing this game of, unless you have concrete evidence, i will reserve judgement and refuse to come to any conclusions, no matter how blindly obvious those conclusions are, is a tactic that does nothing for the credibility of your argument or theirs.

If the men in black weren't a part of the red movement, does it not cross your mind, bearing in mind the fact that these armed men were moving around freely and openly in and amongst the red shirts, that someone in there, anyone in there, be it a regular red protester or be it one of the red leaders, might have had cause to say at some point, "now hold on a sec, who the <deleted> are you! and what the <deleted> are you doing with all those weapons! .. we don't know you... you aren't a part of us... get the <deleted> out of here!... we are here to have a peaceful protest, not start a <deleted> war!... do you know there are women, old people and kids here!"

But at no point did any one of the red shirts question the presence of these men. Why? The answer is bloody obvious. They were all part of the same group.

Here it is in black and white from HRW:

Armed elements of the UDD, including heavily armed “Black Shirt” militants, were responsible for deadly attacks on soldiers, police, and civilians.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

[tlansford]

"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?

why do you guys have such a hard time imagining Abhisit choosing a path other than SOE, military and live fire / lethal force? Ozmick has been unable to answer that simple point for over a year, and I refuse to do his thinking for him.

BTW, I definitely don't sit on the fence. I have stated time and time again that the gov't should not have used lethal force and that choice alone IMO accounts for a much much higher number of injuries and fatalities in 2010. - And, before the "tvfmob" starts to attack like mad dogs with their imaginary musing over my perspective of the protesters, I have also stated that the protesters should not have used violence - recognizing that while the MIB definitely fought against the military, these elements have not been identified. For that reason and that reason alone, I do not jump to conclusions regarding them and who they were... although it would be very interesting to know, and I do wonder why so little has been discovered about them.

Others here get the events of April 10th so turned around - even with the available information - such that the innocent army was ambushed by the redmob. There was a lot of confusion that day (much of it attributable to the army, BTW) but there are still rational accounts of the major features of the day which don't come from (then) government approved sources... yes, I am skeptical of anything that the government / army claims from this conflict.

The point that is perfectly clear is that those making the real decisions on both sides of the conflict did not care about lives being sacrificed - whether they were the lives of soldiers, protesters, or others such as medics, journalists or monks.

This is probably the fairest post that I've seen from you Mr Lansford.but I disagree particularly with your first two paragraphs.

When confronted with (A) a take-over of a major section of Bangkok, ( armed men within the demonstrators & © Thaksin's involvement in instigating & funding the people on the ground, (d) offering them an early election, & (e) the police's refusal to take any action whatsoever, how else was the government supposed to disperse the crowd other than using the army? As seen in many places like N. Ireland, when the army is used shooting is going to occur.

The shooting was not started by the army but when they were allowed to use their weapons, people got shot - some innocent. There is no other way that the red shirts could have been shifted. Thaksin & his red-shirt 'officers' didn't give a shit about any ordinary red-shirt or innocent person being killed or injured.

It is so easy to say that Abhisit shouldn't have done what he did & the red-shirts shouldn't have done what they did. Given what both sides actually did, how would you organise a non-violent way of dispersing the demonstrators? I personally think that Abhisit went out of his way to persuade them to disperse peacefully & had no alternative to allow the army to remove them in a military way.

There has been no real effort by the previous government or the current one to independently investigate the cause, who was behind it, who shot or bombed who & who was responsible for the arson. Only finger-pointing with neither side willing to admit that they did any wrong.

Nice of you to think that was the fairest of my posts. However, since that is a comparative term, I recognize that it still may not be considered a "fair" post.

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

What was Thaksin's involvement? Do you have information on that or is it just based on "common knowledge"?

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force. Given the historical setting for 2010, it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government - and unfortunately, the government obliged. This is one of the reasons I am so hard on the government in this conflict, because the government was the only organization that had a rational decision making hierarchy (in theory, at least, but with "Mr. Blue Shirts" Suthep around... ) and hence would have been in a position to not use lethal force. But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests. So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation. This can be seen concretely in Abhisit declaring a State of Emergency well before there was a need to do so.

As far as what the government could have done or should have done, there are so many other possible options which were not followed, that it is a futile exercise to follow that line here. But people should be able to see multiple options for themselves. And in any case, the level of incompetence in the dispersal attempt of April 10th is well documented. Naturally, one of the first alternatives would have been for the military to have not screwed that up the way that they did...

[OzMick]

why do you guys have such a hard time imagining Abhisit choosing a path other than SOE, military and live fire / lethal force? Ozmick has been unable to answer that simple point for over a year, and I refuse to do his thinking for him.

Or to put it more accurately, you have no other solution to armed militants.

[rixalex]

What was Thaksin's involvement? Do you have information on that or is it just based on "common knowledge"?

This is another one of those feigning stupidity moments. Everyone knows how deeply involved Thaksin and his family have been in all this. It's hardly as if it has been kept a secret. The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively. You are more than happy to come to other conclusions without concrete evidence. Take your comment below:

So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation.

You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts. A lot of pointers in that direction, i agree, but what happened to the i demand concrete evidence or reserve opinion ethos? Seems to have conveniently disappeared.

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Anyone who watched the supposed attempted apprehension of Arisman by the police would understand why they are perceived by many as being hopelessly unprofessional and all too keen to step back the moment actual law-enforcement is required of them.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force.

Soldiers are trained to use lethal force to protect the nation; that is their job, and part of their job obviously involves the carrying of lethal weapons. None of this means they were right to act in the way that they did, but it does mean there is a debate to be had about whether they were or whether they weren't. Protesters walking about the streets in public with lethal weapons on the other hand, does not require any debate. There is no argument in which they were right to be where they were with arms. No argument whatsoever.

[whybother]

Nice of you to think that was the fairest of my posts. However, since that is a comparative term, I recognize that it still may not be considered a "fair" post.

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

What was Thaksin's involvement? Do you have information on that or is it just based on "common knowledge"?

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force. Given the historical setting for 2010, it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government - and unfortunately, the government obliged. This is one of the reasons I am so hard on the government in this conflict, because the government was the only organization that had a rational decision making hierarchy (in theory, at least, but with "Mr. Blue Shirts" Suthep around... ) and hence would have been in a position to not use lethal force. But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests. So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation. This can be seen concretely in Abhisit declaring a State of Emergency well before there was a need to do so.

As far as what the government could have done or should have done, there are so many other possible options which were not followed, that it is a futile exercise to follow that line here. But people should be able to see multiple options for themselves. And in any case, the level of incompetence in the dispersal attempt of April 10th is well documented. Naturally, one of the first alternatives would have been for the military to have not screwed that up the way that they did...

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

But you seem pretty intent on saying that the army started shooting first.

But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests.

Wasn't it the red shirts, with their "bring a bottle" speeches that set the stage for a violent conflict?

Would there have been any deaths on April 10 if the red shirts didn't have their heavily armed militia?

[OzMick]

Nice of you to think that was the fairest of my posts. However, since that is a comparative term, I recognize that it still may not be considered a "fair" post.

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

What was Thaksin's involvement? Do you have information on that or is it just based on "common knowledge"?

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force. Given the historical setting for 2010, it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government - and unfortunately, the government obliged. This is one of the reasons I am so hard on the government in this conflict, because the government was the only organization that had a rational decision making hierarchy (in theory, at least, but with "Mr. Blue Shirts" Suthep around... ) and hence would have been in a position to not use lethal force. But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests. So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation. This can be seen concretely in Abhisit declaring a State of Emergency well before there was a need to do so.

As far as what the government could have done or should have done, there are so many other possible options which were not followed, that it is a futile exercise to follow that line here. But people should be able to see multiple options for themselves. And in any case, the level of incompetence in the dispersal attempt of April 10th is well documented. Naturally, one of the first alternatives would have been for the military to have not screwed that up the way that they did...

".... it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government........"

Well they obviously didn't have enough weapons to resist the RTA, so it was rather stupid to be armed at all. Unless of course defence was not the reason to have weapons.

How many peaceful protests, anywhere in the world, see the protesters arrived armed to defend themselves against security forces? Did the Mahatma ever have a squad of stormtroopers?

[rubl]

".... it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government........"

Well they obviously didn't have enough weapons to resist the RTA, so it was rather stupid to be armed at all. Unless of course defence was not the reason to have weapons.

How many peaceful protests, anywhere in the world, see the protesters arrived armed to defend themselves against security forces? Did the Mahatma ever have a squad of stormtroopers?

To be fair, k. Thaksin warned them, November 2009 that is

http://www.cablegate...d=09BANGKOK3009

[tlansford]

- deleted quote -

This is another one of those feigning stupidity moments. Everyone knows how deeply involved Thaksin and his family have been in all this. It's hardly as if it has been kept a secret. The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively. You are more than happy to come to other conclusions without concrete evidence. Take your comment below:

So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation.

You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts. A lot of pointers in that direction, i agree, but what happened to the i demand concrete evidence or reserve opinion ethos? Seems to have conveniently disappeared.

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Anyone who watched the supposed attempted apprehension of Arisman by the police would understand why they are perceived by many as being hopelessly unprofessional and all too keen to step back the moment actual law-enforcement is required of them.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force.

Soldiers are trained to use lethal force to protect the nation; that is their job, and part of their job obviously involves the carrying of lethal weapons. None of this means they were right to act in the way that they did, but it does mean there is a debate to be had about whether they were or whether they weren't. Protesters walking about the streets in public with lethal weapons on the other hand, does not require any debate. There is no argument in which they were right to be where they were with arms. No argument whatsoever.

well, congratulations - you made a post which is completely wrong - I commend you.

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

But for TVF, that may not count as proof... allow me to take more liberties...

Regarding the police - the sole event, an urban legend in itself, was not before April 10th and has nothing to do with the police doing their job as part of the crowd control operations in March and the beginning of April, yet posters here make (absolutely stupid) statements like "the police did not do their job / were worthless / etc, etc, so Abhisit had no choice but to call in the military... " that is a bogus argument based on, as far as the available facts show, nothing.

Then your final point about the military being trained to kill (I purposely rephrase your statement to make a point) is true, but not in crowd control situations. That is the first point, but the second : neither side refers of course to the protesters and also to the government - it was the Abhisit government's choice to use the military, invoke an SOE, and authorize live fire and lethal force. That is where the choice was made.

Have a good night

[tlansford]

Nice of you to think that was the fairest of my posts. However, since that is a comparative term, I recognize that it still may not be considered a "fair" post.

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

What was Thaksin's involvement? Do you have information on that or is it just based on "common knowledge"?

Where is the information that the police refused to do anything? I know that the police are a favorite target of derision on TVF, but I searched through reports of the protests prior to April 10 (at which time the SOE had already been declared which put the Army in charge) and the police were reported and pictured as normal elements of the crowd control effort at that time. It seems to me that "the police refused to do their job" is part of the TVF urban myth of 2010.

Of course it is easy to say that neither side should have used lethal force. Given the historical setting for 2010, it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government - and unfortunately, the government obliged. This is one of the reasons I am so hard on the government in this conflict, because the government was the only organization that had a rational decision making hierarchy (in theory, at least, but with "Mr. Blue Shirts" Suthep around... ) and hence would have been in a position to not use lethal force. But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests. So clearly, the government which had given birth to the Blue Shirts in Pattaya was not about to try to diffuse the situation but rather was well prepared to escalate the situation. This can be seen concretely in Abhisit declaring a State of Emergency well before there was a need to do so.

As far as what the government could have done or should have done, there are so many other possible options which were not followed, that it is a futile exercise to follow that line here. But people should be able to see multiple options for themselves. And in any case, the level of incompetence in the dispersal attempt of April 10th is well documented. Naturally, one of the first alternatives would have been for the military to have not screwed that up the way that they did...

For my part, I am wondering where you get some of your facts. The shooting was not started by the army, for example. I have not seen anything to back that up except a statement from Suthep - who can hardly be considered a reliable reference in this case. I have not seen an independent reference that indicates how the shooting in the conflict really began.

But you seem pretty intent on saying that the army started shooting first.

But instead of that, the government was setting the stage for an armed conflict before the first protesters even arrived in Bangkok - calling them terrorists, predicting bomb attacks, and violence before the first day of protests.

Wasn't it the red shirts, with their "bring a bottle" speeches that set the stage for a violent conflict?

Would there have been any deaths on April 10 if the red shirts didn't have their heavily armed militia?

Regarding April 10th:

I explicitly do not say the army started shooting first.

I explicitly do not say that the red shirts started shooting first

I have read the report that the first person killed that day was a red shirt and that person was shot by a sniper (not identified).

Beyond that I have no information regarding who shot first and AFAIK, neither do you

As for setting the stage for violence, I was explicit in stating that the UDD were prepared for violence and that the government obviously obliged. You're comment would seem to indicate that this was a one-sided desire for a conflict, which is clearly - based on documented comments from Abhisit and Suthep before the protests - not the case. But you - and you are not alone - make comments like this to state that it was all the fault of the red shirts.

The same is true of your last comment as well - and, given that the first fatality was a red shirt protester, I am inclined to say that, yes, there would have been people killed even if there had not been a military-level trained counter-force to the army on April 10th. And yes, I think that there would have been far fewer deaths if the government had not declared the SOE, authorized lethal force, and permitted the military to do what (as Rixalex describes) they are "trained" to do...

[phiphidon]

Suthep insists that the Army did not shoot during the day on the 10th April, apparently. It would appear from various reporters for differing agencies beg to differ. Here is a set of twitter exchanges collated during the day

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

3:50PM Saturday afternoon in Bangkok, TNN reporter noting gunfire near Makkawan, can hear shots in background……..

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

3:55PM Saturday afternoon April 11th in Bangkok: ThaiPBS Reporter at scene states that soldiers at firing guns into the air (from video though the guns are horizontal)………..

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Report from viewer on Thai TV live coverage about 4PM Bangkok Saturday afternoon:

You can see on Thai tv that the soldiers are shooting at redshirts. I feel sick. Why do they have to shoot?

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:18 PM

4:05PM Bangkok Saturday April 10th

Report that troops pushed out of Makkawan by reds.

Reds massed and pushed troops out of Makkawan 4 minutes ago.

Reds protecting troops as troops retreat 2 minutes ago out of Makkawan.

Reds are protecting troops as they leave.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM

4:20 PM April 10 Bangkok:

According to TPBS reporter, it looks like at least some soldiers have real bullets, not rubber ones.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:34 PM

4:20 PM Bangkok Saturday April 11th:

Report foreign journalist reportedly hit by bullet at Makkawan Bridge site.

Another report that Redshirt leaders claiming 4 protesters have been shot and are in hospital.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:39 PM

4:30PM Saturday April 10th Bangkok:

Report that Prime Minister Abhisit has postponed tv appearance.

All of the government controlled TV stations have switched away from their live news coverage of the crackdown. NBT is doing sports, TNN & Thai PBS are showing documentaries. Same with all stations on air!

Combined with the reports of the troops retreating at Makkawan Bridge, this would appear to be an attempt to block all negative information flow and news in regard to any troops/police retreating.

But with so many distribution channels and so many witnesses and so many mobile phones, digital cameras and video cameras, it is not possible to totally block the information flow in such a gigantic city as Bangkok with so many elements of modern technology present.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:48 PM

4:30PM Bangkok Saturday afternoon April 10th:

Report that reporter shot with live bullet at Phanfah site is American citizen.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Pro-government newspaper The Nation reports that the Saturday afternoon April 10th crackdown in Bangkok was ordered by Vice Prime Minister Sutthep. Government spokesman Col. Sansern claims crackdown will be completed before sunset Saturday evening or by about 7PM. (It is now 5PM in Bangkok and the battle appears to be no where near decided………..)

Sansern confirms Suthep ordered crackdown

Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd, the spokesman of the Emergency Operations Command, confirmed that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban Saturday ordered the crackdowns on protesters.

The crackdown began the 1st Army Area head office and continued to the Phan Fa rally site.

Sansern said 234 companies of troops were deployed to carry out the operation to break up the demonstration.

Sansern said the crackdown was necessary as protesters would not obey the emergency decree, which prohibited demonstrations.

He said the dispersing of the demonstrators would be completed before evening falls.

anthapan

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Now PTV showing reds at Pan Fa having seized a massive amount of weapons (rifles, bullets, and what was described as bombs/”rabert” but didn’t catch which kind)

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:17 PM

5PM Saturday afternoon in Bangkok:

Military Spokesman Col. Sansern claims “Rumours have it troops used real bullets. That is untrue.”

With photos of red demonstrators showing bullet wounds coming out of many news/media outlets around the world, it would appear that Col. Sansern is either mis-informed or in a state of denial.

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

[tlansford]

Suthep insists that the Army did not shoot during the day on the 10th April, apparently. It would appear from various reporters for differing agencies beg to differ. Here is a set of twitter exchanges collated during the day

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:55 PM

3:50PM Saturday afternoon in Bangkok, TNN reporter noting gunfire near Makkawan, can hear shots in background……..

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

3:55PM Saturday afternoon April 11th in Bangkok: ThaiPBS Reporter at scene states that soldiers at firing guns into the air (from video though the guns are horizontal)………..

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Report from viewer on Thai TV live coverage about 4PM Bangkok Saturday afternoon:

You can see on Thai tv that the soldiers are shooting at redshirts. I feel sick. Why do they have to shoot?

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:18 PM

4:05PM Bangkok Saturday April 10th

Report that troops pushed out of Makkawan by reds.

Reds massed and pushed troops out of Makkawan 4 minutes ago.

Reds protecting troops as troops retreat 2 minutes ago out of Makkawan.

Reds are protecting troops as they leave.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:24 PM

4:20 PM April 10 Bangkok:

According to TPBS reporter, it looks like at least some soldiers have real bullets, not rubber ones.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:34 PM

4:20 PM Bangkok Saturday April 11th:

Report foreign journalist reportedly hit by bullet at Makkawan Bridge site.

Another report that Redshirt leaders claiming 4 protesters have been shot and are in hospital.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:39 PM

4:30PM Saturday April 10th Bangkok:

Report that Prime Minister Abhisit has postponed tv appearance.

All of the government controlled TV stations have switched away from their live news coverage of the crackdown. NBT is doing sports, TNN & Thai PBS are showing documentaries. Same with all stations on air!

Combined with the reports of the troops retreating at Makkawan Bridge, this would appear to be an attempt to block all negative information flow and news in regard to any troops/police retreating.

But with so many distribution channels and so many witnesses and so many mobile phones, digital cameras and video cameras, it is not possible to totally block the information flow in such a gigantic city as Bangkok with so many elements of modern technology present.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:48 PM

4:30PM Bangkok Saturday afternoon April 10th:

Report that reporter shot with live bullet at Phanfah site is American citizen.

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Pro-government newspaper The Nation reports that the Saturday afternoon April 10th crackdown in Bangkok was ordered by Vice Prime Minister Sutthep. Government spokesman Col. Sansern claims crackdown will be completed before sunset Saturday evening or by about 7PM. (It is now 5PM in Bangkok and the battle appears to be no where near decided………..)

Sansern confirms Suthep ordered crackdown

Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd, the spokesman of the Emergency Operations Command, confirmed that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban Saturday ordered the crackdowns on protesters.

The crackdown began the 1st Army Area head office and continued to the Phan Fa rally site.

Sansern said 234 companies of troops were deployed to carry out the operation to break up the demonstration.

Sansern said the crackdown was necessary as protesters would not obey the emergency decree, which prohibited demonstrations.

He said the dispersing of the demonstrators would be completed before evening falls.

anthapan

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Now PTV showing reds at Pan Fa having seized a massive amount of weapons (rifles, bullets, and what was described as bombs/”rabert” but didn’t catch which kind)

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 9:17 PM

5PM Saturday afternoon in Bangkok:

Military Spokesman Col. Sansern claims “Rumours have it troops used real bullets. That is untrue.”

With photos of red demonstrators showing bullet wounds coming out of many news/media outlets around the world, it would appear that Col. Sansern is either mis-informed or in a state of denial.

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

yes, but according to Suthep, sunset was at 14:30 on Apr 10, 2010...

personnally, I like this one

"4:30PM Saturday April 10th Bangkok: Report that Prime Minister Abhisit has postponed tv appearance. All of the government controlled TV stations have switched away from their live news coverage of the crackdown. NBT is doing sports, TNN & Thai PBS are showing documentaries. Same with all stations on air! Combined with the reports of the troops retreating at Makkawan Bridge, this would appear to be an attempt to block all negative information flow and news in regard to any troops/police retreating.

But with so many distribution channels and so many witnesses and so many mobile phones, digital cameras and video cameras, it is not possible to totally block the information flow in such a gigantic city as Bangkok with so many elements of modern technology present."

sports & documentaries...

[Moruya]

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

The irresistible force of righteousness against the dark forces if fascism

[Buchholz]

".... it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government........"

Well they obviously didn't have enough weapons to resist the RTA, so it was rather stupid to be armed at all. Unless of course defence was not the reason to have weapons.

How many peaceful protests, anywhere in the world, see the protesters arrived armed to defend themselves against security forces? Did the Mahatma ever have a squad of stormtroopers?

To be fair, k. Thaksin warned them, November 2009 that is

http://www.cablegate...d=09BANGKOK3009

Thanks for that.

Really goes to show Thaksin's control of the Red Shirts.

. Leaving little doubt who calls the shots for the red-shirt movement, Thaksin called UDD leaders

.

[rixalex]

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

[tlansford]

".... it would have been very difficult to have had a situation where the protesters were not prepared for violence from the government........"

Well they obviously didn't have enough weapons to resist the RTA, so it was rather stupid to be armed at all. Unless of course defence was not the reason to have weapons.

How many peaceful protests, anywhere in the world, see the protesters arrived armed to defend themselves against security forces? Did the Mahatma ever have a squad of stormtroopers?

To be fair, k. Thaksin warned them, November 2009 that is

http://www.cablegate...d=09BANGKOK3009

Rubl - so when you say "To be fair, k. Thaksin warned them" - which statements in this cable were you referring to? I might have missed the part where Thaksin warned someone about something...

Fortunately, we have on TVF itself a first-hand account from one of the participants regarding that cable and one that provides an important insight to the balanced nature of this cable's author and the leak.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/556164-bangkok-huge-turnout-expected-at-red-shirt-rally-today/page__view__findpost__p__5331694

[tlansford]

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

I believe that you are the one struggling with the idea of "evidence".

re: Thaksin, I made my statement regarding what I think and I'm not inclined to get repetitive. Your comment "until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay" is just another attempt to put words in my mouth which I never said.

But now you have turned to the usual "you-me" perspective which I have no desire to continue.

Blue shirts were a creation of the government and that is documented.

The UDD had reason to expect violence from the government in 2010 and that is documented.

It was the government's choice to use lethal force against the protesters and that is documented.

That said, there are plenty of things that are not publicly known yet.