Commission Says 'men In Black' May Have Got Cooperation From Red Shirts

[whybother]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

[nurofiend]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Edited September 17, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

and just for starters while your thinking of those names...

admitting that the hospital intrusion was a fault on the red shirts part is admitting a share in the guilt is it not?

any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that if they weren't protesting at all then there wouldn't have been the violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it. be it a rather non-active share of the guilt for just being there.

but most importantly to the point - any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that there were small violent elements of the red shirts who engaged in violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it... so there's your answer.

so i put the question back to you, what poster didn't admit any share of blame on any red shirts?

Edited September 17, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

Independent Thai investigation blames both sides for deadly 2010 political violence

BANGKOK - An independent commission investigating deadly political violence that wracked Thailand two years ago issued a final report Monday that blamed both the government then in power and the so-called Red Shirts who were protesting against it.

The report blamed both sides for failing to avoid the use of deadly force.

The commission found that Red Shirt leaders had incited violence in their speeches during the demonstrations and failed to stop protesters from confronting or retaliating against security forces. While the Red Shirts claimed their protests were peaceful and unarmed, the commission said the violence was intensified by the presence of a "Black Shirt" armed group associated with a hardcore wing of the protest leaders.

Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz26k4daKiV

-- (c) Associated Press 2012-09-17

[nurofiend]

The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers.

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz26pxJ1jyw

(just mirroring the snipping style buchlolz)

Edited September 17, 2012 by nurofiend

[hellodolly]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

and just for starters while your thinking of those names...

admitting that the hospital intrusion was a fault on the red shirts part is admitting a share in the guilt is it not?

any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that if they weren't protesting at all then there wouldn't have been the violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it. be it a rather non-active share of the guilt for just being there.

but most importantly to the point - any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that there were small violent elements of the red shirts who engaged in violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it... so there's your answer.

so i put the question back to you, what poster didn't admit any share of blame on any red shirts?

Well you didn't answer the question you just danced around it.

In case you forgot the question I will give it to you again

"I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts."

[nurofiend]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

and just for starters while your thinking of those names...

admitting that the hospital intrusion was a fault on the red shirts part is admitting a share in the guilt is it not?

any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that if they weren't protesting at all then there wouldn't have been the violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it. be it a rather non-active share of the guilt for just being there.

but most importantly to the point - any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that there were small violent elements of the red shirts who engaged in violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it... so there's your answer.

so i put the question back to you, what poster didn't admit any share of blame on any red shirts?

Well you didn't answer the question you just danced around it.

In case you forgot the question I will give it to you again

"I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts."

you didn't ask the question for one, in case you don't realise this.

and for two, i replied and am waiting for a response from whybother.

so talk to him, not me.

[Thaddeus]

Is this carpet bombing of a thread a display of frothing?

[Nickymaster]

The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers.

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz26pxJ1jyw

(just mirroring the snipping style buchlolz)

"The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers"

There you go. Thanks for posting. In other words, police couldn't uphold law and order.

But the big question remains: couldn't or wouldn't the police uphold the rule of law. Result: State of Anarchy. Action to be taken in such a situation: declaring an SOE.

[whybother]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Why would you be saying that they "always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts" if you didn't know who they were?

[KireB]

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Which red shirt leaders or followers were sentenced for attacking soldiers or inciting hatred and escalation? You are either ill informed or talking out of your .....

[FOODLOVER]

"but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts".

Nice to wake up with a giggle and a load of crap.

[nurofiend]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Why would you be saying that they "always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts" if you didn't know who they were?

i know who i'm talking about, i was making the point that 'red supporter' is a term used by you and your ilk, and i wanted you to come out and have the stones to name them.

anyway, did you ignore the point in my follow up post, yeah? yeah i figured.

[Moruya]

TRCT FINAL REPORT

Both sides blamed for violence

TRCT formally releases report

September 17, 2012 6:50 pm

The Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) formally released its report Monday which blamed both sides for what happened over the more than ninety death and two thousand injuries in April and May 2010 red shirt protests

http://www.nationmul...t-30190578.html

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

Here's one leopard painting some new spots

[nurofiend]

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Which red shirt leaders or followers were sentenced for attacking soldiers or inciting hatred and escalation? You are either ill informed or talking out of your .....

you forgot about option three, that you're just not perceptive enough to realise that i was quoting the same article as buchholz?

sorry to spoil your pathetic attempt of a dig at me but i don't write for the montreal gazzette...

thanks for reading and your views are always welcome.

Edited September 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

"but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts".

Nice to wake up with a giggle and a load of crap.

you like waking up with a load of crap?

odd.

Edited September 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

TRCT FINAL REPORT

Both sides blamed for violence

TRCT formally releases report

September 17, 2012 6:50 pm

The Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) formally released its report Monday which blamed both sides for what happened over the more than ninety death and two thousand injuries in April and May 2010 red shirt protests

http://www.nationmul...t-30190578.html

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

Here's one leopard painting some new spots

here's a cut and paste from my own earlier post

any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that there were small violent elements of the red shirts who engaged in violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it... so there's your answer.

can you show me a poster who doesn't acknowledge this?

thanks for reading and your views are always welcome.

[Buchholz]

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Which red shirt leaders or followers were sentenced for attacking soldiers or inciting hatred and escalation? You are either ill informed or talking out of your .....

None of the Red Shirt Leaders have been convicted of anything... only the discarded rank and file cannon fodder Red Shirts have been convicted.

.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Why would you be saying that they "always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts" if you didn't know who they were?

but... but... but....

,

[nurofiend]

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Which red shirt leaders or followers were sentenced for attacking soldiers or inciting hatred and escalation? You are either ill informed or talking out of your .....

None of the Red Shirt Leaders have been convicted of anything... only the discarded rank and file cannon fodder Red Shirts have been convicted.

.

but the word was 'charged' too, not just convicted.....

Edited September 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[FOODLOVER]

"but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts".

Nice to wake up with a giggle and a load of crap.

you like waking up with a load of crap?

odd.

Fiber.

[nurofiend]

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Why would you be saying that they "always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts" if you didn't know who they were?

but... but... but....

,

now that's just plain weird.

[Buchholz]

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Which red shirt leaders or followers were sentenced for attacking soldiers or inciting hatred and escalation? You are either ill informed or talking out of your .....

None of the Red Shirt Leaders have been convicted of anything... only the discarded rank and file cannon fodder Red Shirts have been convicted.

.

but the word was 'charged' too, not just convicted.....

Yes, it was.

Just clarifying the ambiguous statement.

.

[Buchholz]

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

Why would you be saying that they "always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts" if you didn't know who they were?

but... but... but....

,

now that's just plain weird.

Nothing weird about your dancing about.

It's a common occurrence and humorous to watch.

.

[nurofiend]

Nothing weird about your dancing about.

It's a common occurrence and humorous to watch.

.

are you also ignoring this?

any poster i'm aware of acknowledges that there were small violent elements of the red shirts who engaged in violence, so yes that is admitting a share in it... so there's your answer.

can you show me a poster who doesn't acknowledge this?

i think it proves my point just fine.

[somtumlion]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

I wouldn't call them red supporters. Now red apologists...that seems to fit better.

[nurofiend]

so now people should admit this, seems to me like it was all down to the red shirts according to the way most posters have gone on here.

but those deemed as 'red supporters' always admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

I'd like you to show me one post where a 'red supporter' has admitted a share of blame on the red shirts.

name me the red supporters first because that's something you and your buds call people, not me.

and then i'll do some searching.

why i'll bother i don't know, but i will.

I wouldn't call them red supporters. Now red apologists...that seems to fit better.

apologist - to me, says making excuses for everything even when you don't really believe it.

a sympathiser - to me, says that you sympathise with their cause but you don't have to agree with all their actions.

i would put myself in the latter category if i had to choose but i prefer not to pigeonhole myself.

[jayboy]

The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further.

[philw]

The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further.

Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings.

In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers.

Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ?

[AleG]

The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further.

Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings.

In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers.

Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ?

Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas?