Former Thai Pm Abhisit In Court Over 'red Shirt' Protest Deaths

[whybother]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

The reason for the live fire zones was because the violence had already escalated.

Also, most of the violence was outside the encampment. The red shirts went outside their barricades to attack the army.

Edited September 2, 2012 by whybother

[473geo]

Indeed interesting to have such strong belief in your protest that you do not leave when surrounded by an army knowing it could cost you your life

Validity of belief is not measured by strength of belief, and strength of belief is not measured by how much danger you are prepared to place yourself and others under, otherwise people like suicide bombers would be deemed as having the most valid beliefs of us all. They don't. They are brainwashed fanaticals.

Well thanks for your comment on suicide bombers.......now back on topic.....people who carried a strong belief that the government should step down fair elections should be held

My comment wasn't solely on suicide bombers (as you very well know), it was on the matter of people who put their beliefs before their own lives, and your flawed conclusions about what that means about them.

I think the flawed conclusions are more likely to come from one who creates suicide bombers where there were non.

They came later, and I believe were not linked in any way to the red shirts.

I answer your other ideology above, enjoy....

Edited September 2, 2012 by 473geo

[whybother]

My comment wasn't solely on suicide bombers (as you very well know), it was on the matter of people who put their beliefs before their own lives, and your flawed conclusions about what that means about them.

I think the flawed conclusions are more likely to come from one who creates suicide bombers where there were non.

They came later, and I believe were not linked in any way to the red shirts.

I answer your other ideology above, enjoy....

The point I think Rix is making, which you seem to be missing, is that suicide bombers (not red shirt ones, just suicide bombers in general) have a very strong belief in what they are doing. That in no way validates what they are doing.

Just because the red shirts had a strong belief in their protests doesn't validate what they did.

Edited September 2, 2012 by whybother

[473geo]

My comment wasn't solely on suicide bombers (as you very well know), it was on the matter of people who put their beliefs before their own lives, and your flawed conclusions about what that means about them.

I think the flawed conclusions are more likely to come from one who creates suicide bombers where there were non.

They came later, and I believe were not linked in any way to the red shirts.

I answer your other ideology above, enjoy....

The point I think Rix is making, which you seem to be missing, is that suicide bombers (not red shirt ones, just suicide bombers in general) have a very strong belief in what they are doing. That in no way validates what they are doing.

Just because the red shirts had a strong belief in their protests doesn't validate what they did.

The majority came to occupy for change.......that is what the majority of Red shirts did.....whats to validate.....

[rixalex]

My comment wasn't solely on suicide bombers (as you very well know), it was on the matter of people who put their beliefs before their own lives, and your flawed conclusions about what that means about them.

I think the flawed conclusions are more likely to come from one who creates suicide bombers where there were non.

They came later, and I believe were not linked in any way to the red shirts.

I answer your other ideology above, enjoy....

The point I think Rix is making, which you seem to be missing, is that suicide bombers (not red shirt ones, just suicide bombers in general) have a very strong belief in what they are doing. That in no way validates what they are doing.

Just because the red shirts had a strong belief in their protests doesn't validate what they did.

Precisely what i meant. Thanks.

[whybother]

The majority came to occupy for change.......that is what the majority of Red shirts did.....whats to validate.....

Some did more than "occupy". That needs validation.

[473geo]

The majority came to occupy for change.......that is what the majority of Red shirts did.....whats to validate.....

Some did more than "occupy". That needs validation.

And finally you get my point,.......... "some"................problem is you and rixalex are trying to paint with a broad brush because it suits your rhetoric, but as you so kindly point out "some" a very small percentage "did more than occupy"

Now having already stated (in this thread) that I abhor the violent faction of the protest....what faction of the protestors are you and Rixalex making out I cannot respect for their beliefs and persistence in the face of danger?

Edited September 2, 2012 by 473geo

[rixalex]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.

Violence had already escalated in the weeks prior, and once the shooting began from the military side, resolve did not increase, quite the opposite - the leaders scurried away into bolt holes, off to Cambodia, and the remaining fanaticals fought on for a few more days before setting things on fire and running away too - those who hadn't been injured or killed that is.

[whybother]

The majority came to occupy for change.......that is what the majority of Red shirts did.....whats to validate.....

Some did more than "occupy". That needs validation.

And finally you get my point,.......... "some"................problem is you and rixalex are trying to paint with a broad brush because it suits your rhetoric, but as you so kindly point out "some" a very small percentage "did more than occupy"

Now having already stated (in this thread) that I abhor the violent faction of the protest....what faction of the protestors are you and Rixalex making out I cannot respect for their beliefs and persistence in the face of danger?

Yes ... "some" were violent. The others just sat around and supported them.

[473geo]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.

Violence had already escalated in the weeks prior, and once the shooting began from the military side, resolve did not increase, quite the opposite - the leaders scurried away into bolt holes, off to Cambodia, and the remaining fanaticals fought on for a few more days before setting things on fire and running away too - those who hadn't been injured or killed that is.

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.

Violence had already escalated in the weeks prior, and once the shooting began from the military side, resolve did not increase, quite the opposite - the leaders scurried away into bolt holes, off to Cambodia, and the remaining fanaticals fought on for a few more days before setting things on fire and running away too - those who hadn't been injured or killed that is.

I think you are a little confused as to when the RTA entered the proceedings.....

[473geo]

The majority came to occupy for change.......that is what the majority of Red shirts did.....whats to validate.....

Some did more than "occupy". That needs validation.

And finally you get my point,.......... "some"................problem is you and rixalex are trying to paint with a broad brush because it suits your rhetoric, but as you so kindly point out "some" a very small percentage "did more than occupy"

Now having already stated (in this thread) that I abhor the violent faction of the protest....what faction of the protestors are you and Rixalex making out I cannot respect for their beliefs and persistence in the face of danger?

Yes ... "some" were violent. The others just sat around and supported them.

Or.....the others continued their peaceful protest....

[whybother]

Or.....the others continued their peaceful protest....

And how many of those were killed or injured?

[phiphidon]

Oh dear, Where's the "shaking ones head in quiet disbelief" smiley when you need one..........................................

You know where it is, it's right next to the "disingenuous arse kissing" smiley.

Is it possible for any of you guys to express an opinion without using profanities?

[phiphidon]

Indeed interesting to have such strong belief in your protest that you do not leave when surrounded by an army knowing it could cost you your life

Validity of belief is not measured by strength of belief, and strength of belief is not measured by how much danger you are prepared to place yourself and others under, otherwise people like suicide bombers would be deemed as having the most valid beliefs of us all. They don't. They are brainwashed fanaticals.

Nor can its veracity be decided by you but it doesn't stop you from telling the forum that they were wrong, does it?

[rixalex]

I think you are a little confused as to when the RTA entered the proceedings.....

When the RTA entered the proceedings is a different question.

You were talking about the government setting up live fire zones and the effect that had on the protesters. By the time the government set up live fire zones the violence had already escalated.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

"Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

http://cpj.org/repor...-under-fire.php

So. what line are we going for here guys; they wore black, they didn't wear black, they wore black on alternate days; depended on their skin tone....

Interested a man with a doctorate in the red "protest" such as yourself never viewed the videos of black shirts firing and carrying weapons inside the buffalo camp, just search it on youtube.

"inside the buffalo camp"

Oh dear, Where's the "shaking ones head in quiet disbelief" smiley when you need one..........................................

dehumanization is required to rationalize killing other people ...

[phiphidon]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

The reason for the live fire zones was because the violence had already escalated.

Also, most of the violence was outside the encampment. The red shirts went outside their barricades to attack the army.

So what did the live fire zones actually achieve apart from unnecessary deaths and an empty stretch of road? Why do you think no other country has ever used a live fire zone (as used in Bangkok) as a legitimate tactic?

[tlansford]

browser burp, double post.

Edited September 2, 2012 by tlansford

[rixalex]

Indeed interesting to have such strong belief in your protest that you do not leave when surrounded by an army knowing it could cost you your life

Validity of belief is not measured by strength of belief, and strength of belief is not measured by how much danger you are prepared to place yourself and others under, otherwise people like suicide bombers would be deemed as having the most valid beliefs of us all. They don't. They are brainwashed fanaticals.

Nor can its veracity be decided by you but it doesn't stop you from telling the forum that they were wrong, does it?

I make up my own mind concerning their veracity, and nobody is stopping you from doing the same.

[whybother]

So what did the live fire zones actually achieve apart from unnecessary deaths and an empty stretch of road? Why do you think no other country has ever used a live fire zone (as used in Bangkok) as a legitimate tactic?

The reasons for the live fire zone were because of red shirt gunmen in the buildings in the area. The army were being shot at and to protect themselves they needed to shoot back. Setting up the live fire zones was to attempt to keep innocents out of harms way.

Other countries don't have armed protesters shooting back, so it's a bit hard to compare to other countries.

[rixalex]

Other countries don't have armed protesters shooting back, so it's a bit hard to compare to other countries.

They have them but they call them what they are: armed insurgents.

[Skywalker69]

dehumanization is required to rationalize killing other people ..

Your right, Thaksins war on drogs included? +2500 dead.

[OzMick]

dehumanization is required to rationalize killing other people ...

.......and it helps if it has an element of truth. The term "amart" is now used to describe anybody with sufficient integrity/intelligence/education/wealth (you choose), while anybody of any political affiliation that doesn't accept "red thought" is a yellow.

[KireB]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

Good try, but also you know that the life firing zones were established after the violence already escalated and not because of the army! Keep twisting and turning and spreading half lies and half truths! I just wonder why you do this and why you keep lying about peaceful protesters. The reds have a history of violence that go back to at least 2006!

[473geo]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

Good try, but also you know that the life firing zones were established after the violence already escalated and not because of the army! Keep twisting and turning and spreading half lies and half truths! I just wonder why you do this and why you keep lying about peaceful protesters. The reds have a history of violence that go back to at least 2006!

How many incidents of violence occured in the camp before the RTA turned up, if as I suspect, in the camp there were only isolated incidents if many at all, then this was up until that stage a peaceful protest by the majority of the red shirts, yes I have accepted there was sporadic skirmishes outside the camp, but what many cannot comprehend, and it is not difficult, is the fact that by far the majority of red shirts were occupying in peaceful protest........You see as usual the predictions that when the somtam runs out they will go home proved to be bourne out of ignorance....

People from Ireland killed and maimed UK citizens for years...I do not think all Irish people are murdering thugs..should I? My own brother was threatened with kneecapping unless he left a project he was working on In Ireland, and yet still, I believe these attacks were carried out by extremists...I actually have Irish friends. Do I have it wrong, are all the Irish murdering thugs......supported by donations from the USA......

Maybe I am just capable of a more balanced view than you, and some others here....thank god!!

Edited September 2, 2012 by 473geo

[whybother]

How many incidents of violence occured in the camp before the RTA turned up, if as I suspect, in the camp there were only isolated incidents if many at all, then this was up until that stage a peaceful protest by the majority of the red shirts, yes I have accepted there was sporadic skirmishes outside the camp, but what many cannot comprehend, and it is not difficult, is the fact that by far the majority of red shirts were occupying in peaceful protest........You see as usual the predictions that when the somtam runs out they will go home proved to be bourne out of ignorance....

People from Ireland killed and maimed UK citizens for years...I do not think all Irish people are murdering thugs..should I? My own brother was threatened with kneecapping unless he left a project he was working on In Ireland, and yet still, I believe these attacks were carried by extremists...I actually have Irish friends. Do I have it wrong, are all the Irish murdering thugs......supported by donations from the USA......

Maybe I am just capable of a more balanced view than you, and some others here....thank god!!

Should we ignore the violence of the red shirts because the people in Ratchaprasong were peaceful? The central camp was not where the violence was happening. That happened at, or most often outside, the red shirt barricades, where red shirts went out to attack the army. That doesn't mean all red shirts were violent, but very few of them, especially the leaders, have acknowledged the violent protesters amongst them.

[KireB]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

Good try, but also you know that the life firing zones were established after the violence already escalated and not because of the army! Keep twisting and turning and spreading half lies and half truths! I just wonder why you do this and why you keep lying about peaceful protesters. The reds have a history of violence that go back to at least 2006!

How many incidents of violence occured in the camp before the RTA turned up, if as I suspect, in the camp there were only isolated incidents if many at all, then this was up until that stage a peaceful protest by the majority of the red shirts, yes I have accepted there was sporadic skirmishes outside the camp, but what many cannot comprehend, and it is not difficult, is the fact that by far the majority of red shirts were occupying in peaceful protest........You see as usual the predictions that when the somtam runs out they will go home proved to be bourne out of ignorance....

I don't think we are talking about the majority. It takes 1 idiot to do a lot of damage! Of course it was a minority of thugs that nearly took Bangkok to its knees. But the majority of som tam eating red shirts (to use your own words) did openly support these terrorists among them. The fed them, they sheltered them and their leaders financed them. How you dare compare the struggle of the Irish people with the red shirts, shows us how intelligent you are! Have another martini!

[rubl]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

Good try, but also you know that the life firing zones were established after the violence already escalated and not because of the army! Keep twisting and turning and spreading half lies and half truths! I just wonder why you do this and why you keep lying about peaceful protesters. The reds have a history of violence that go back to at least 2006!

How many incidents of violence occured in the camp before the RTA turned up, if as I suspect, in the camp there were only isolated incidents if many at all, then this was up until that stage a peaceful protest by the majority of the red shirts, yes I have accepted there was sporadic skirmishes outside the camp, but what many cannot comprehend, and it is not difficult, is the fact that by far the majority of red shirts were occupying in peaceful protest........You see as usual the predictions that when the somtam runs out they will go home proved to be bourne out of ignorance....

... Irish Question removed, totally irrelevant to the topic ...

Maybe I am just capable of a more balanced view than you, and some others here....thank god!!

Balanced is also recognizing that when peaceful protesters start dropping grenades on non-red-shirts, when the army gets into gunbattles with unarmed peaceful protesters, it's just sidetracking to say 'most were peaceful' and 'only isolated incidents in the camp'. Indeed most were peaceful, fully agree. Also deaf, dumb and blind for listening to PTV shoutcasts 24*7, not realising armed elements in their midst might become their undoing and not seeing heavily armed red-shirt militants.

After the first grenade attacks in March, the 10th of April, BTS Saladaeng later in April with more grenades, the real escalation was when after finally loosing patience the army ordered to cleanup, and those peaceful protesters started complaining the army shot at them unfairly, because only some amongst them were really armed.

[473geo]

You know guys I really do not understand what you are about, bored, need an outlet for your anger, I really cannot see why you keep on and on, there were peaceful demonstrators, there was an armed faction of extremists, I do not condone the violence and have said so.........

And now amid 3 replies we finaly have the admission that the majority of red shirts were not violent......which is what I said all along and was accused of telling half truths......but unfortunately the action of the government sending in the army caught innocent people.....but you guys cannot handle that....as they say up to you....

Oh and we have one person who thinks blowing innocent people up in one country is just fine but not in another.....and he questions my intelligence!!!

Edited September 2, 2012 by 473geo

[philw]

Unfortunately history has shown that when a government decides to start shooting at their own people, creating live fire zones, violence escalates, and resolve appears to increase, perhaps deaths and injury to fellow protestors serve to remove a little of the perfect world ideology you offer above.You see up until the RTA surrounded the encampment there was isolated, sporadic violence, mostly outside the encampment where the peaceful protestors were located.

Good try, but also you know that the life firing zones were established after the violence already escalated and not because of the army! Keep twisting and turning and spreading half lies and half truths! I just wonder why you do this and why you keep lying about peaceful protesters. The reds have a history of violence that go back to at least 2006!

The RTA, and their propensity for murder and injury, inflicted on Thai citizens goes back a little bit further than 2006..........

Quite a long, little bit.

Edited September 2, 2012 by philw