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

[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!

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.

So does that make the war crimes of your red friends right? What about your intelligence again?

[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!

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.

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

[rubl]

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

Although lots of people from the Dutch countryside are wondering what the heck they're doing in Amsterdam, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Especially after you wrote in another topic about half an hour ago

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

Of course you might mean that Dutch people are entilted to address Dutch problems in a Dutch way ?

[gemini81]

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.

We have 3 guys on here reinventing the time and events and when they occured. We already had red shirts shooting molotovs, grenade launchers, soldier deaths, the vids of red shirts beating and stealing weapons from observing soldiers and all of these things before months later, a firing zone was opened up. Those retarded enough to enter it and fight soldiers simple got what they asked for and what they deserved. No one leader the world over could be as patient as Abhisit was to wait this out. I respect his patience, and actually, think he took far too long to force these mongrols and fools off of the roads.

He's been transparent, honest, come forward, flexible...why any foreigner, especially with an education beyond grade two could not notice these obvious facts must be trolling, really ignorant, or not even have been here but instead relied on selected social media via their bar girl mate.

[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.

So does that make the war crimes of your red friends right? What about your intelligence again?

What war crimes ??

And your comment about my intelligence, again please ???'

[philw]

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

Although lots of people from the Dutch countryside are wondering what the heck they're doing in Amsterdam, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Especially after you wrote in another topic about half an hour ago

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

Of course you might mean that Dutch people are entilted to address Dutch problems in a Dutch way ?

Nice evasion.

10/10

Now answer the question, please.

[philw]

Particularly like post #245, good old gemini, especially the bar girl mate bit.

Seriously erudite.

[473geo]

Particularly like post #245, good old gemini, especially the bar girl mate bit.

Seriously erudite.

Twice

[rubl]

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

Although lots of people from the Dutch countryside are wondering what the heck they're doing in Amsterdam, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Especially after you wrote in another topic about half an hour ago

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

Of course you might mean that Dutch people are entilted to address Dutch problems in a Dutch way ?

Nice evasion.

10/10

Now answer the question, please.

Although as your local Dutch uncle I'm always willing and able to provide free and unwanted advise and opinions, I did write "I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand". Having written that I thought it might suggest to those with a smattering knowledge of the English language I would not answer a question I didn't think related even though I must admit the inclusion of 'catapults' did tempt me

Edited September 2, 2012 by rubl

[philw]

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

Although lots of people from the Dutch countryside are wondering what the heck they're doing in Amsterdam, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Especially after you wrote in another topic about half an hour ago

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

Of course you might mean that Dutch people are entilted to address Dutch problems in a Dutch way ?

Nice evasion.

10/10

Now answer the question, please.

Although as your local Dutch uncle I'm always willing and able to provide free and unwanted advise and opinions, I did write "I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand". Having written that I thought it might suggest to those with a smattering knowledge of the English language I would not answer a question I didn't think related even though I must admit the inclusion of 'catapults' did tempt me

Well put, but I thought my comments were mattering and that it was splatapults.( from the impacts.......)

10/10 for evasion again.

To the class of the top, go.

Edited September 2, 2012 by philw

[rubl]

(quote name='philw' timestamp='1346595804' post='5628835')

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???(/quote)

Although lots of people from the Dutch countryside are wondering what the heck they're doing in Amsterdam, I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Especially after you wrote in another topic about half an hour ago

"Thai people were addressing Thai problems in a Thai way."

Of course you might mean that Dutch people are entilted to address Dutch problems in a Dutch way ?

Nice evasion.

10/10

Now answer the question, please.

Although as your local Dutch uncle I'm always willing and able to provide free and unwanted advise and opinions, I did write "I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand". Having written that I thought it might suggest to those with a smattering knowledge of the English language I would not answer a question I didn't think related even though I must admit the inclusion of 'catapults' did tempt me

Well put, but I thought my comments were mattering and that it was splatapults.( from the impacts.......)

10/10 for evasion again.

To the class of the top, go.

All bold and capitals and colourful is against forum rules. Maybe this will help to bring the message across:

N o , I w i l l n o t a n s w e r a b a i t i n g q u e s t i o n f u l l o f a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h a r e p u t t h e r e t o s u g g e s t a p o s s i b l e a n s w e r !

[whybother]

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!!!

The "innocent people" that the army "caught" weren't the ones that were using hand clappers at Ratchaprasong. They were the ones outside the barricades attacking the army.

[rubl]

begin removed, baiting question ...

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

I'm not sure about shooting a nun in a church in Amsterdam, but having the red light district next to the church is no problem

Hope this makes you happy and enables you to sleep peacefully rather than toss around in your bed wondering why someone in top of class doesn't answer your innocent questions

[tlansford]

Particularly like post #245, good old gemini, especially the bar girl mate bit.

Seriously erudite.

Personally, I would say there are a lot more than 3 people rewriting history.

But of course the people got what they deserved... ie: a bullet... always a quality retort, that one.

IMO, no one deserved to die. There were people on both sides who did not really care about human life. On the UDD side, we don't know who made what decisions, but one can speculate. On the other hand, the angelic Abhisit - based on his choices as PM - was certainly one of those who did not care about the lives of his fellow citizens.

To plagiarize a fellow poster, anyone, especially "with an education beyond grade two could not notice these obvious facts must be trolling, really ignorant, or not even have been here but instead relied on selected social media via their bar girl mate."

OK, technically, that is not plagiarism.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Nice evasion.

10/10

Now answer the question, please.

Although as your local Dutch uncle I'm always willing and able to provide free and unwanted advise and opinions, I did write "I fail to see how this relates to the topic at hand". Having written that I thought it might suggest to those with a smattering knowledge of the English language I would not answer a question I didn't think related even though I must admit the inclusion of 'catapults' did tempt me

Well put, but I thought my comments were mattering and that it was splatapults.( from the impacts.......)

10/10 for evasion again.

To the class of the top, go.

All bold and capitals and colourful is against forum rules. Maybe this will help to bring the message across:

N o , I w i l l n o t a n s w e r a b a i t i n g q u e s t i o n f u l l o f a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h a r e p u t t h e r e t o s u g g e s t a p o s s i b l e a n s w e r !

Your characterization of the question is subjective.

Baiting / leading / trolling questions are SOP for those of the "right" political persuasion.

Phil's question puts the Bangkok situation into perspective.

In Paris, a long time ago, student protesters were shot - the French did not think that was right. In the USA a long time ago, student protesters were shot, the Americans did not think that was right. Here on TVF, those people shot in 2010 "got what they deserved" (how many times have I read that??)

IMO, PhilW's point is valid and the question is not baiting - but it might take effort to respond to... such as just saying that maybe shooting monks in a Wat is not such a good idea and maybe this was a result of decisions made by the government...

[GentlemanJim]

But in Paris and the USA the student protestors did not threaten to burn down the city, nor did they threaten to kill soldiers, nor did they set up unauthorised check points and search civilians at gun point, neither did they build barracades from sharpened bamboo poles and invade hospitals. They also did not dash all hope of peaceful solutions by reneging on previously set and agreed to goals and negotiations. They did not fire lethal weapons and throw explosives at the French or US population and military.

Apart from all that and a bit more, I guess the situations are almost identical.

[carra]

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!!!

The "innocent people" that the army "caught" weren't the ones that were using hand clappers at Ratchaprasong. They were the ones outside the barricades attacking the army.

or seeking refuge in a temple, or being medically trained staff helping the injured in a temple, or being a photographer or a journalist, or even being one of their own rank whilst going to help them on Viphawadi Road managed to get one soldier shot and killed by another soldier, who just happened to be totally in control and fully aware of what was going on and not just shooting at random people not presenting any immediate danger

[rubl]

Your characterization of the question is subjective.

Baiting / leading / trolling questions are SOP for those of the "right" political persuasion.

Phil's question puts the Bangkok situation into perspective.

In Paris, a long time ago, student protesters were shot - the French did not think that was right. In the USA a long time ago, student protesters were shot, the Americans did not think that was right. Here on TVF, those people shot in 2010 "got what they deserved" (how many times have I read that??)

IMO, PhilW's point is valid and the question is not baiting - but it might take effort to respond to... such as just saying that maybe shooting monks in a Wat is not such a good idea and maybe this was a result of decisions made by the government...

Even when asked in this topic as a stand alone question with ridiculous assumptions and no background I classify this question as leading, baiting.

"So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework"

Now if the guy on the left had a joint instead of a catapult I would have been appalled at ony a single shot, this being about the Netherlands, Amsterdam and the army that is

Edited September 3, 2012 by rubl

[KireB]

IMO, PhilW's point is valid and the question is not baiting - but it might take effort to respond to... such as just saying that maybe shooting monks in a Wat is not such a good idea and maybe this was a result of decisions made by the government...

I didn't know it has been determined who actually shot the people at the Wat, but you seem to aware of the culprits. Please be responsible, go to your local police station and get your wisdom on record. I fully agree that those responsible for these killings must be prosecuted, but it is you and your red buddies always immediately pointing fingers at 'the evil Abhisit' or 'the army' while at the same time you ask others to have a more balanced view! Only two word comes to mind: red hypocracy!

[philw]

Your characterization of the question is subjective.

Baiting / leading / trolling questions are SOP for those of the "right" political persuasion.

Phil's question puts the Bangkok situation into perspective.

In Paris, a long time ago, student protesters were shot - the French did not think that was right. In the USA a long time ago, student protesters were shot, the Americans did not think that was right. Here on TVF, those people shot in 2010 "got what they deserved" (how many times have I read that??)

IMO, PhilW's point is valid and the question is not baiting - but it might take effort to respond to... such as just saying that maybe shooting monks in a Wat is not such a good idea and maybe this was a result of decisions made by the government...

Even when asked in this topic as a stand alone question with ridiculous assumptions and no background I classify this question as leading, baiting.

"So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework"

Now if the guy on the left had a joint instead of a catapult I would have been appalled at ony a single shot, this being about the Netherlands, Amsterdam and the army that is

Interesting response rubl and my apologies if you take it as "baiting".

No offence intended on my part.

However, change the wording of my question a little and I think that several posters here have already expressed their agreement.

As an example post #190 in the thread " only rubber bullets "

Partial quote below.

..........................."The assault on the RTA local headquarters which effectively decapitated the dispersal operation was obviously well planned well in advance and equates to an act of war. Any repercussions from that were justified. "

My case rests.

Edited September 3, 2012 by philw

[rubl]

Even when asked in this topic as a stand alone question with ridiculous assumptions and no background I classify this question as leading, baiting.

"So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework"

Now if the guy on the left had a joint instead of a catapult I would have been appalled at ony a single shot, this being about the Netherlands, Amsterdam and the army that is

Interesting response rubl and my apologies if you take it as "baiting".

No offence intended on my part.

However, change the wording of my question a little and I think that several posters here have already expressed their agreement.

As an example post #190 in the thread " only rubber bullets "

Partial quote below.

..........................."The assault on the RTA local headquarters which effectively decapitated the dispersal operation was obviously well planned well in advance and equates to an act of war. Any repercussions from that were justified. "

My case rests.

"However, change the wording of my question a little and I think that several posters here have already expressed their agreement."

Correct at least tlansford seems to agree. Now since you only suggest, but do not change the wording I who was asked the question still deem it leading. Assumptions set to make it clear even to a moron like me what the answer is I'm expected to give.

Objection, your honor

[rubl]

Too many topics with the same usual suspects and idiots like me, answering.

I wrote this which also could have been used here

"philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ...

EDIT: ADD:

2010-04-18

"Army tanks would roll down the streets of Bangkok to defend the protesters rallying at Rajprasong intersection if the government decided to use lethal means to dislodge them, a red-shirt leader warned on Friday evening."

[Thait Spot]

So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework ???

Acceptable in Amsterdam to shoot a nurse in a church ???

I would expect any nation's forces to have several snipers in place when dealing with dangerous, heavily armed people. It would be negligent not to do so in order to minimise the potential loss of life.

[phiphidon]

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.

"live fire zone were because of red shirt gunmen in the buildings in the area"

"live fire zone was to attempt to keep innocents out of harms way."

So according to you red shirts were in buildings in the area and shooting at troops and the live fire zones were set up to protect innocents from getting shot.

The government’s Rules of Engagement, as articulated by its Center for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) on 14 May, state that live rounds may only be used as warning shots fired into the air, in self-defense, or when forces can clearly see those the security forces consider as “terrorists”. On 16 May, CRES declared several areas just adjacent to the protest site as “live fire zones”.

Several eye-witnesses told Amnesty International that they witnessed soldiers shooting into the area using long-range rifles–at a distance from which the victims were not likely to present any danger.

CRES Spokesperson Col. Sansern Kaewkamnerd said on 14 May that troops would keep a distance from the protesters, and would use live ammunition to stop people from coming closer. When shooting to stop protesters, troops would aim below the knee and fire only one bullet at a time.

“This is unacceptable under international law and standards, which provide that firearms may be used only as a last resort, when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others, and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. Outside of clear situations of self-defence, riot control should be performed by trained police using non-lethal equipment, not by soldiers using live ammunition,” said Zawacki.

BP: Well, when you open your eyes (beyond what CRES shows and claims), there are plenty of videos showing unarmed people being shot and killed.

Now, of course, this does not mean what many of the protesters have done is also not unlawful, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, the wrong of killing unarmed civilians is much greater than firing a slingshot.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/32511/amnesty-international-military-must-halt-reckless-use-of-lethal-force/

[phiphidon]

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.

No, in Thailand armed insurgents are based in the south and specialise in terrorising the local populace by shooting teachers, blowing up soldiers and decapitating innocents.

[Thait Spot]

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!!!

The "innocent people" that the army "caught" weren't the ones that were using hand clappers at Ratchaprasong. They were the ones outside the barricades attacking the army.

or seeking refuge in a temple, or being medically trained staff helping the injured in a temple, or being a photographer or a journalist, or even being one of their own rank whilst going to help them on Viphawadi Road managed to get one soldier shot and killed by another soldier, who just happened to be totally in control and fully aware of what was going on and not just shooting at random people not presenting any immediate danger

If the Thai Police had been a professional outfit and had sealed the crime scene correctly and retrieved bullets for forensic examination then set about gathering army and red shirt weapons for comparison then maybe we would know for a fact what happened as well as identifying the likely culprit .....

[Thait Spot]

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.

No, in Thailand armed insurgents are based in the south and specialise in terrorising the local populace by shooting teachers, blowing up soldiers and decapitating innocents.

What are the key differences?

Topologically they appear to me to Be the same

[rubl]

Now, of course, this does not mean what many of the protesters have done is also not unlawful, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, the wrong of killing unarmed civilians is much greater than firing a slingshot.

http://asiancorrespo...f-lethal-force/

Of course the right of lobbing grenades ... ...

I'm really getting bored with all this obfuscation, apart from not really reading anything but rehashed 'facts', 'truths' and other titbits out of the 'well of wisdom'

[jayboy]

But in Paris and the USA the student protestors did not threaten to burn down the city, nor did they threaten to kill soldiers, nor did they set up unauthorised check points and search civilians at gun point, neither did they build barracades from sharpened bamboo poles and invade hospitals. They also did not dash all hope of peaceful solutions by reneging on previously set and agreed to goals and negotiations. They did not fire lethal weapons and throw explosives at the French or US population and military.

Apart from all that and a bit more, I guess the situations are almost identical.

Can only speak for the "events" of 1968 in Paris which I am familiar with.Actually the students/workers involved though beginning with demands for university reform ended up with more more radical demands than the redshirts who in essence wanted an end to the unelected elite's grasp on power and fair elections.In France the radicals wanted to overthrow the state itself with a Marxist revolution.The movement failed but violence was endemic, and despite failure it resulted in the demise of General de Gaulle.

" France entered a period of stability in the 1960s. The French empire was abolished, the economy improved, and President Charles de Gaulle was a popular ruler. Discontent lay just beneath the surface, however, especially among young students, who were critical of France's outdated university system and the scarcity of employment opportunity for university graduates. Sporadic student demonstrations for education reform began in 1968, and on May 3 a protest at the Sorbonne (the most celebrated college of the University of Paris) was broken up by police. Several hundred students were arrested and dozens were injured.

In the aftermath of the incident, courses at the Sorbonne were suspended, and students took to the streets of the Latin Quarter (the university district of Paris) to continue their protests. On May 6, battles between the police and students in the Latin Quarter led to hundreds of injuries. On the night of May 10, students set up barricades and rioted in the Latin Quarter. Nearly 400 people were hospitalized, more than half of them police. Leftist students began calling for radical economic and political change in France, and union leaders planned strikes in support of the students. In an effort to defuse the crisis by returning the students to school, Prime Minister Georges Pompidou announced that the Sorbonne would be reopened on May 13.

On that day, students occupied the Sorbonne buildings, converting it into a commune, and striking workers and students protested in the Paris streets. During the next few days, the unrest spread to other French universities, and labor strikes rolled across the country, eventually involving several million workers and paralyzing France. On the evening of May 24, the worst fighting of the May crisis occurred in Paris. Revolutionary students temporarily seized the Bourse (Paris Stock Exchange), raised a communist red flag over the building, and then tried to set it on fire. One policeman was killed in the night's violence."

Edited September 3, 2012 by jayboy

[tlansford]

But in Paris and the USA the student protestors did not threaten to burn down the city, nor did they threaten to kill soldiers, nor did they set up unauthorised check points and search civilians at gun point, neither did they build barracades from sharpened bamboo poles and invade hospitals. They also did not dash all hope of peaceful solutions by reneging on previously set and agreed to goals and negotiations. They did not fire lethal weapons and throw explosives at the French or US population and military.

Apart from all that and a bit more, I guess the situations are almost identical.

so, the only thing missing from your non-answer is

"those people shot in 2010 "got what they deserved""