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

[nurofiend]

don't worry all evidence of your little hiccups will soon disappear.

[Moruya]

that's what i meant to say yes, so checking for residue on their hands could show that they were involved with the use of guns, therefore armed.

you really don't understand how forensic science could show this?

they can show they were unarmed, by lack of residue on their hands.. oh and no gun is a big tell-tale sign too.

So you are saying that these bodies were swabbed for gunshot residue and it came back negative?

You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?

I believe the first point to be a guess and the second to be inadmissible

"So you are saying that these bodies were swabbed for gunshot residue and it came back negative?"

am i? first i've heard about it.

"You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?"

implies they were unarmed with a gun, yes. i'm also saying those found without weapons implies they were unarmed.

So how do you know they were unarmed?

More guessing?

A bit low on actual facts.

"Unarmed with a gun" is a contradictory statement

Edited September 1, 2012 by Moruya

[nurofiend]

So how do you know they were unarmed?

More guessing?

A bit low on actual facts.

"Unarmed with a gun" is a contradictory statement

"Unarmed with a gun" is a contradictory statement

'Moruya' - always gets to the heart of the debate and keeps the discussion on the more important points...

i think you understood just fine, so stop being so devastatingly tiresome, i beg you.

So how do you know they were unarmed?

More guessing?

A bit low on actual facts.

how do i know who was unarmed?

first can you clarify who exactly i've been saying were unarmed in our conversation?

Edited September 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[Moruya]

So how do you know they were unarmed?

More guessing?

A bit low on actual facts.

"Unarmed with a gun" is a contradictory statement

"Unarmed with a gun" is a contradictory statement

'Moruya' - always gets to the heart of the debate and keeps the discussion on the more important points...

i think you understood just fine, so stop being so devastatingly tiresome, i beg you.

So how do you know they were unarmed?

More guessing?

A bit low on actual facts.

how do i know who was unarmed?

first can you clarify who exactly i've been saying were unarmed in our conversation?

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

[nurofiend]

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

actually mister uya, you asked "What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?"

i told you what kind of forensic science could show this.

i didn't say whether anyone was armed or not, i simply answered your silly question.

and if you're talking knives and bamboo's then your in a different league if you consider them of deserving to be shot dead.

i think you were referring to guys armed with guns, just as much as i was... definitely.

and you can throw in the 'grenade argument' all you want, but i suggest that any guys who had grenades in all probabilty would be armed with some sort of gun.

[Moruya]

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

actually mister uya, you asked "What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?"

i told you what kind of forensic science could show this.

i didn't say whether anyone was armed or not, i simply answered your silly question.

and if you're talking knives and bamboo's then your in a different league if you consider them of deserving to be shot dead.

i think you were referring to guys armed with guns, just as much as i was... definitely.

and you can throw in the 'grenade argument' all you want, but i suggest that any guys who had grenades in all probabilty would be armed with some sort of gun.

Context is everything.

In this case there was clearly a preceding direct object in the discussion that you now choose to ignore.

[nurofiend]

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

actually mister uya, you asked "What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?"

i told you what kind of forensic science could show this.

i didn't say whether anyone was armed or not, i simply answered your silly question.

and if you're talking knives and bamboo's then your in a different league if you consider them of deserving to be shot dead.

i think you were referring to guys armed with guns, just as much as i was... definitely.

and you can throw in the 'grenade argument' all you want, but i suggest that any guys who had grenades in all probabilty would be armed with some sort of gun.

Context is everything.

In this case there was clearly a preceding direct object in the discussion that you now choose to ignore.

do you even know what you mean there?

i've looked back over the thread but i ain't seeing it.

*cue avoidance of answering via elusive nonsensical slur*

[Moruya]

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

actually mister uya, you asked "What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?"

i told you what kind of forensic science could show this.

i didn't say whether anyone was armed or not, i simply answered your silly question.

and if you're talking knives and bamboo's then your in a different league if you consider them of deserving to be shot dead.

i think you were referring to guys armed with guns, just as much as i was... definitely.

and you can throw in the 'grenade argument' all you want, but i suggest that any guys who had grenades in all probabilty would be armed with some sort of gun.

Context is everything.

In this case there was clearly a preceding direct object in the discussion that you now choose to ignore.

do you even know what you mean there?

i've looked back over the thread but i ain't seeing it.

*cue avoidance of answering via elusive nonsensical slur*

Put your other monocle in

[Moruya]

The "unarmed" red shirts who had been shot. PPD and I were discussing it when you introduced yourself to the conversation.

You stated that it could be proven that they were unarmed by the absence of "gun residue".

Back in the groove Mister Fiend?

actually mister uya, you asked "What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?"

i told you what kind of forensic science could show this.

i didn't say whether anyone was armed or not, i simply answered your silly question.

and if you're talking knives and bamboo's then your in a different league if you consider them of deserving to be shot dead.

i think you were referring to guys armed with guns, just as much as i was... definitely.

and you can throw in the 'grenade argument' all you want, but i suggest that any guys who had grenades in all probabilty would be armed with some sort of gun.

Context is everything.

In this case there was clearly a preceding direct object in the discussion that you now choose to ignore.

do you even know what you mean there?

i've looked back over the thread but i ain't seeing it.

*cue avoidance of answering via elusive nonsensical slur*

1. See the reply I made to Bird Poo

2. If you didn't know what dead bodies were being discussed you should have scrolled back.

3. If you couldn't be bothered to scroll back then you should have refrained from joining the discussion

4. When we are clearly discussing people being shot, introducing bamboo and knives into the discussion is an unwarranted obfuscation.

5. A preceding direct object is where the use of a pronoun such as the plural "they" refers back to a previously referenced noun "dead red shirts" from earlier in the dialogue

Edited September 1, 2012 by Moruya

[phiphidon]

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

my point isn't to defend any armed people who used the crowd to hide because i don't defend them one bit, my point is that the tactics the military used when faced with this difficult situation obviously failed, as we have lots of dead civilians and how many dead anti-government militia?

unless of course their objective was dispersal by any means necessary, which obviously that's what it became in the final days.

In military terms the operation achieved it's aim: dispersal.

BTW if the objective was 'dispersal by any means' it's unlikely that's what it became as you seem to assume that was it already. Also 'dispersal by any means' doesn't address 'only killing' anti-government militia. I understand that even that is seen as an unfriendly act

But they didn't "only kill anti government militia" that is the point, rubl. Journalists, nurses, innocents all seemed to be fair game to the RTA. So I think it's fair to say that they "dispersed by any means" which is not an "unfriendly act" , it is a cowardly disgusting act.

Why do you downplay the death of civilians so much, rubl?

[rubl]

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

my point isn't to defend any armed people who used the crowd to hide because i don't defend them one bit, my point is that the tactics the military used when faced with this difficult situation obviously failed, as we have lots of dead civilians and how many dead anti-government militia?

unless of course their objective was dispersal by any means necessary, which obviously that's what it became in the final days.

In military terms the operation achieved it's aim: dispersal.

BTW if the objective was 'dispersal by any means' it's unlikely that's what it became as you seem to assume that was it already. Also 'dispersal by any means' doesn't address 'only killing' anti-government militia. I understand that even that is seen as an unfriendly act

But they didn't "only kill anti government militia" that is the point, rubl. Journalists, nurses, innocents all seemed to be fair game to the RTA. So I think it's fair to say that they "dispersed by any means" which is not an "unfriendly act" , it is a cowardly disgusting act.

Why do you downplay the death of civilians so much, rubl?

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

[phiphidon]

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

I just happen to believe that not all is black and white in these cases. I do not automatically assume for example that a grenade that has been lobbed on to a journalist and a couple of soldiers is the work of the red shirts as you do. I also do not constantly allude in a sarcastic manner to the "peace loving red shirt supporters". However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts.

But after 2 years of BS on this forum and from official media please do not be affronted if I find some of the allegations against the red shirts as risible - and anything that Sakern or Prayuth or Suthep utters as contemptible......................

[rubl]

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

I just happen to believe that not all is black and white in these cases. I do not automatically assume for example that a grenade that has been lobbed on to a journalist and a couple of soldiers is the work of the red shirts as you do. I also do not constantly allude in a sarcastic manner to the "peace loving red shirt supporters". However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts.

But after 2 years of BS on this forum and from official media please do not be affronted if I find some of the allegations against the red shirts as risible - and anything that Sakern or Prayuth or Suthep utters as contemptible......................

"However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts."

Well, that's swell, really nice of you to contemplate a scathing. I might have missed the occasions you got to do that scathing, In the mean time I will continue to talk about 'peaceful red-shirt protesters' as there is no prove is seems they were not just that

[nurofiend]

1. See the reply I made to Bird Poo

2. If you didn't know what dead bodies were being discussed you should have scrolled back.

3. If you couldn't be bothered to scroll back then you should have refrained from joining the discussion

4. When we are clearly discussing people being shot, introducing bamboo and knives into the discussion is an unwarranted obfuscation.

5. A preceding direct object is where the use of a pronoun such as the plural "they" refers back to a previously referenced noun "dead red shirts" from earlier in the dialogue

haha absolutely ridiculous.

i knew who was being talked about, my point that you're so clearly missing as usual, is that I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact, i was just answering your silly question in a straightforward manner.

I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns when people are armed so that you wouldn't use the silly argument of how could it show that they didn't have knives, bamboo etc.

context is everything, and your failure to understand anything never ceases to amaze me.

Edited September 1, 2012 by nurofiend

[rubl]

haha absolutely ridiculous.

i knew who was being talked about, my point that you're so clearly missing as usual, is that I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact, i was just answering your silly question in a straightforward manner.

I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns when people are armed so that you wouldn't use the silly argument of how could it show that they didn't have knives, bamboo etc.

context is everything, and your failure to understand anything never ceases to amaze me.

"I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact," with "I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns"

Interesting, normally it seems one needs to watch for what you 'do not' say, but through imaginative sentence construction seem to imply if one doesn't study the sentence for a while.

Anyway, let me re-read all 193 posts in this thread, maybe I will find a single piece of information which is really new and valid. Most 'facts' and 'truths' I've seen on TV almost with a two-months regularity

[Moruya]

1. See the reply I made to Bird Poo

2. If you didn't know what dead bodies were being discussed you should have scrolled back.

3. If you couldn't be bothered to scroll back then you should have refrained from joining the discussion

4. When we are clearly discussing people being shot, introducing bamboo and knives into the discussion is an unwarranted obfuscation.

5. A preceding direct object is where the use of a pronoun such as the plural "they" refers back to a previously referenced noun "dead red shirts" from earlier in the dialogue

haha absolutely ridiculous.

i knew who was being talked about, my point that you're so clearly missing as usual, is that I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact, i was just answering your silly question in a straightforward manner.

I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns when people are armed so that you wouldn't use the silly argument of how could it show that they didn't have knives, bamboo etc.

context is everything, and your failure to understand anything never ceases to amaze me.

Your performance is like a drunk inserting himself into a bar conversation based on a couple of sentences. Maladroit, coarse and unintelligible

[tlansford]

- deleted -

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

my point isn't to defend any armed people who used the crowd to hide because i don't defend them one bit, my point is that the tactics the military used when faced with this difficult situation obviously failed, as we have lots of dead civilians and how many dead anti-government militia?

unless of course their objective was dispersal by any means necessary, which obviously that's what it became in the final days.

In military terms the operation achieved it's aim: dispersal.

BTW if the objective was 'dispersal by any means' it's unlikely that's what it became as you seem to assume that was it already. Also 'dispersal by any means' doesn't address 'only killing' anti-government militia. I understand that even that is seen as an unfriendly act

But they didn't "only kill anti government militia" that is the point, rubl. Journalists, nurses, innocents all seemed to be fair game to the RTA. So I think it's fair to say that they "dispersed by any means" which is not an "unfriendly act" , it is a cowardly disgusting act.

Why do you downplay the death of civilians so much, rubl?

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

"if only the police had done it's job" ...

There we go again. Where did the police not do their job?

See, when an SOE is declared, the military is put in charge, not the police. And Abhisit declared that 3 days prior to the first dispersal attempt in April.

As for the UDD & militant violence vs the government and army lethal force, I've already commented on that a couple of times.

[philw]

[Thaddeus]

You've posted this clip twice now, and I would expect that you focused on the "this clearly shows" part, when in fact it clearly shows nothing at all, apart from it clearly shows a CNN reporter who was nowhere near the scene trotting out sound bites for the general public.

[nurofiend]

haha absolutely ridiculous.

i knew who was being talked about, my point that you're so clearly missing as usual, is that I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact, i was just answering your silly question in a straightforward manner.

I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns when people are armed so that you wouldn't use the silly argument of how could it show that they didn't have knives, bamboo etc.

context is everything, and your failure to understand anything never ceases to amaze me.

"I wasn't saying in particular who was armed or unarmed as a fact," with "I very intentionally made the point that we were talking about guns"

Interesting, normally it seems one needs to watch for what you 'do not' say, but through imaginative sentence construction seem to imply if one doesn't study the sentence for a while.

Anyway, let me re-read all 193 posts in this thread, maybe I will find a single piece of information which is really new and valid. Most 'facts' and 'truths' I've seen on TV almost with a two-months regularity

yes rubl,

that guy asked if forensic science could show whether someone was armed.

i said it could, and then made it clear i was talking about guns.

not so hard to understand for most people, but ye guys are just frothing at the mouth for an argument and tried to spin what i was saying, as usual.

[rubl]

yes rubl,

that guy asked if forensic science could show whether someone was armed.

i said it could, and then made it clear i was talking about guns.

not so hard to understand for most people, but ye guys are just frothing at the mouth for an argument and tried to spin what i was saying, as usual.

My dear, dear fiend, once more terribly sorry I'm late at responding. For the first time in two months I went out for a beer, some pool and googling (?) the girls. Assuming you're male surely you understand that ?

Forensic science can show residues of gunpowder, but only under certain circumstances. Bodies having been cremated are a tough one, bodies having been abducted from hospitals as well.

People frothing at the mouth for an argument might even agree on that, by Jove maybe even you ?

BTW yes I'm aware you couldn't care a bloody f... where I've been or what I've done. I just mention that to indicate that I wasn't frothing at the mouth, or at least not because of what was happening here. Would your opinion of me diminish somewhat if I'd tell you I had a good time in Soi Cowboy ? Even if I'd just drank beer, talked with a few other farang and annoyed the girls by ignoring them

Edited September 1, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

I wonder how Abhisit knew the armed groups inside the protest wanted to cause a civil war? Did he have a chat with them or was he just projecting these intentions on them - you know like people do with their pets, ...

[whybother]

I just happen to believe that not all is black and white in these cases. I do not automatically assume for example that a grenade that has been lobbed on to a journalist and a couple of soldiers is the work of the red shirts as you do. I also do not constantly allude in a sarcastic manner to the "peace loving red shirt supporters". However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts.

But after 2 years of BS on this forum and from official media please do not be affronted if I find some of the allegations against the red shirts as risible - and anything that Sakern or Prayuth or Suthep utters as contemptible......................

Who else would have lobbed that grenade if not the red shirts?

Were the army lobbing grenades? Maybe the journalists were?

Like birdpoo, you seem to want irrefutable evidence that the red shirts have done something bad, but quite accept even a suggestion that the army or government have done wrong.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[phiphidon]

I just happen to believe that not all is black and white in these cases. I do not automatically assume for example that a grenade that has been lobbed on to a journalist and a couple of soldiers is the work of the red shirts as you do. I also do not constantly allude in a sarcastic manner to the "peace loving red shirt supporters". However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts.

But after 2 years of BS on this forum and from official media please do not be affronted if I find some of the allegations against the red shirts as risible - and anything that Sakern or Prayuth or Suthep utters as contemptible......................

Who else would have lobbed that grenade if not the red shirts?

Were the army lobbing grenades? Maybe the journalists were?

Like birdpoo, you seem to want irrefutable evidence that the red shirts have done something bad, but quite accept even a suggestion that the army or government have done wrong.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Errrrr, Men in Black perhaps?

(Were the army lobbing grenades? - well there's an interesting question if you wish for an excuse to raise an emergency decree which in turn indemnifies you from any responsibilities for deaths and injuries - curious that all of those grenades being launched up until the 10th April seemed to be inaccurate with very few injuries, and then on the 10th the accuracy immediately improved..........)

[whybother]

I just happen to believe that not all is black and white in these cases. I do not automatically assume for example that a grenade that has been lobbed on to a journalist and a couple of soldiers is the work of the red shirts as you do. I also do not constantly allude in a sarcastic manner to the "peace loving red shirt supporters". However when I am convinced of red shirt involvement in the deaths or wounding of anybody I will be suitably scathing of those acts.

But after 2 years of BS on this forum and from official media please do not be affronted if I find some of the allegations against the red shirts as risible - and anything that Sakern or Prayuth or Suthep utters as contemptible......................

Who else would have lobbed that grenade if not the red shirts?

Were the army lobbing grenades? Maybe the journalists were?

Like birdpoo, you seem to want irrefutable evidence that the red shirts have done something bad, but quite accept even a suggestion that the army or government have done wrong.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Errrrr, Men in Black perhaps?

(Were the army lobbing grenades? - well there's an interesting question if you wish for an excuse to raise an emergency decree which in turn indemnifies you from any responsibilities for deaths and injuries - curious that all of those grenades being launched up until the 10th April seemed to be inaccurate with very few injuries, and then on the 10th the accuracy immediately improved..........)

Yes, most likely the militia arm of the red shirts.

[Nickymaster]

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

"if only the police had done it's job" ...

There we go again. Where did the police not do their job?

See, when an SOE is declared, the military is put in charge, not the police. And Abhisit declared that 3 days prior to the first dispersal attempt in April.

As for the UDD & militant violence vs the government and army lethal force, I've already commented on that a couple of times.

The police vanished when the Reds starting terrorizing down-town Bangkok. All part of the game to make the army come in and look bad. I live in the area and have seen it with my own eyes. A guy like you who seems to have nothing else to do but spend time on TV should know this. You have enough time to find out the truth (but I doubt you would ever admit it).

In general, you need to have big balls to give the Thai Police Farce the benefit of the doubt.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nickymaster

[callofduty]

How many unarmed men and women needed to be killed by the army before some of the posters here would drop their resistance to this enquiry? 1000? 5000?

It's a shame when people are so heavily invested in their position justice has no importance for them

For God's sake wake up people!

[Nickymaster]

How many unarmed men and women needed to be killed by the army before some of the posters here would drop their resistance to this enquiry? 1000? 5000?

It's a shame when people are so heavily invested in their position justice has no importance for them

For God's sake wake up people!

How many unarmed men and women needed to be killed by the army before some of the posters here would drop their resistance to this enquiry? You should ask Thaksin, Jatuporn, Nathawut, Arisman, Thida or maybe Weng this question. It was part of their game.

Which department is in charge of maintaining law and order? If that department would have done its job, things would not have gone out of hand. But if the department in charge of law and order is in fact supporting the Reds, things become tricky to understand for the average poster. Simple as that.

Yes wake up man!

Edited September 5, 2012 by Nickymaster

[phiphidon]

"if only the police had done it's job" ...

There we go again. Where did the police not do their job?

See, when an SOE is declared, the military is put in charge, not the police. And Abhisit declared that 3 days prior to the first dispersal attempt in April.

As for the UDD & militant violence vs the government and army lethal force, I've already commented on that a couple of times.

The police vanished when the Reds starting terrorizing down-town Bangkok. All part of the game to make the army come in and look bad. I live in the area and have seen it with my own eyes. A guy like you who seems to have nothing else to do but spend time on TV should know this. You have enough time to find out the truth (but I doubt you would ever admit it).

In general, you need to have big balls to give the Thai Police Farce the benefit of the doubt.

So would you say you would give the army the benefit of the doubt rather than the police with respect to the events in April / May?

[tlansford]

Yep, totally correct, the army when in full swing and really into it used some excessive force. Mind you those armed militants who shot and lobbed grenades weren't too friendly either.

I don't think I downplay civilian deaths, I just try to emphasize that lots of deaths could have been prevented if only the police had done it's job, if red-shirts had refrained from allowing militant elements in their midst, etc., etc. So why do you tend to downplay red-shirt involvement, dear phiphidon?

"if only the police had done it's job" ...

There we go again. Where did the police not do their job?

See, when an SOE is declared, the military is put in charge, not the police. And Abhisit declared that 3 days prior to the first dispersal attempt in April.

As for the UDD & militant violence vs the government and army lethal force, I've already commented on that a couple of times.

The police vanished when the Reds starting terrorizing down-town Bangkok. All part of the game to make the army come in and look bad. I live in the area and have seen it with my own eyes. A guy like you who seems to have nothing else to do but spend time on TV should know this. You have enough time to find out the truth (but I doubt you would ever admit it).

In general, you need to have big balls to give the Thai Police Farce the benefit of the doubt.

"In general, you need to have big balls to give the Thai Police Farce the benefit of the doubt."

I just don't lampoon them without reason.

EVERY report I have read - from all sources, government, government supporting, and more independent have never pointed to the police not performing their duties. To the contrary, the police were an active part of the crowd control force.

After the SOE, the military was put in charge - that could explain why police "vanished" as you put it...

If you have other reports showing the police did not do their job and that is why the government was "forced" to call in the military, then I would be interested to see that. AFAIK, that was never the case.

Unlike some posters, I was only in BKK at the start of the protest, not the start of the hostilities, so I did not have the occasion to witness something with my own eyes and jump to conclusions as to why it happened. I've been forced to find various sources with different perspectives to piece it together. And so far, none of the sources except TVF posters have implicated the police in this way for not performing their duties.