Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[Nickymaster]

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

Do you ever answer questions from people after you make statements?

You still didn't answer my questions, period.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

Do you ever answer questions from people after you make statements?

You still didn't answer my questions, period.

which question was a serious question? Let me know and I'll be happy to reply. Well, assuming that it is relevant, anyway.

[Nickymaster]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

[Nickymaster]

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

Do you ever answer questions from people after you make statements?

You still didn't answer my questions, period.

which question was a serious question? Let me know and I'll be happy to reply. Well, assuming that it is relevant, anyway.

Don't waste time. Just admit you can't answer my questions instead of making a silly comment.

[Thait Spot]

You have no idea what was discussed behind those closed doors. All you know is that the army provided a safe location. The rest is idle speculation.

Even if the army had persuaded some coalition parties to defect it would not have been illegal.

Blatant denial of the established facts makes you look stupid.

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government." (Newin VS the army)

Personal abuse will just confirm to everyone that you are a thug.

Have you nothing more than abuse and even more idle speculation to support your view?

[Moruya]

You have no idea what was discussed behind those closed doors. All you know is that the army provided a safe location. The rest is idle speculation.

Even if the army had persuaded some coalition parties to defect it would not have been illegal.

Blatant denial of the established facts makes you look stupid.

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government." (Newin VS the army)

Bully boy tactics? Wasted on me.

What is the "fact" you have posted? I see lots of wishy washy words but no "established facts"

[Nickymaster]

The 15th of May, when this event occurred, was after the shooting of the general and the beginning of the military crackdown on the protesters which was to go on for another 4 days.

You'll notice that there is a difference in descriptions of the events between the reports - The AFP quotes the judge as saying :

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri"

And The Nation paraphrases the court for us saying :

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now for me, driving into a restricted area and trying to break through a security checkpoint create vastly different images in my mind. But as the AFP points out,

"The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event."

so I am not surprised that the reporting of the pro-Abhisit media outlet, The Nation, might create one image for it's readers whereas a normal news source without a Thai agenda might create another. I am not drawing conclusions regarding the actual events from either, but I don't blinding accept a rather vivid image of a van bursting through an orderly army checkpoint and the military then opening fire.

As it happens, there is another eyewitness report, extremely vivid, documented, and easily available which is from the very same day and it does provide a full context of the situation for the reader. It shows the chaos that day and describes in detail a series of events, how they began, progressed, and ended specific details.

This is from the same day and the same area as the OP. There are no men in black, no police in this. Just some protesters, some reporter, other civilians, and the army.

I think people who read this account will understand just how dangerous it was on that day - not only for the "regular" protesters, but certainly for anyone who happened to find themselves close to the military operations on that day - like the van, like the gentleman who was shot and killed in the OP.

BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone.

Here is the article from Nick Nostitz, who was in the middle of it all on the 15th -

http://asiapacific.a...e-killing-zone/

(January), April and May, 2010 were very dangerous months indeed, ALSO for the security forces and the general public.

Let's highlight some events building up to the terrible crackdown on May 15, 2010:

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

- the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

- the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers (see Thairath).

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

As you stated correctly Mr. Tlansford:

"BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone".

Unfortunately she is not alone!

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[AleG]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

Putting aside the rather silly notion that the police did a good job...

Let me know if I'm following you, because you jump and skip around issues a lot.

So the SOE was declared irregardless of the violence and lawlessness in the city, i.e. daily bombings or the city center occupied by protesters; you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that Abhisit would have declared a SOE and call in the army no matter even if there were no incidences of violence or law breaking?. Is this what you are trying to convey?

[tlansford]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

[Nickymaster]

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

As you stated above:

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job"

As I asked you before:

Please show me some of those report since there are PLENTY.

[tlansford]

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

Putting aside the rather silly notion that the police did a good job...

Let me know if I'm following you, because you jump and skip around issues a lot.

So the SOE was declared irregardless of the violence and lawlessness in the city, i.e. daily bombings or the city center occupied by protesters; you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that Abhisit would have declared a SOE and call in the army no matter even if there were no incidences of violence or law breaking?. Is this what you are trying to convey?

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

[AleG]

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

Protesters sealing off the city center with barricades for weeks, protesters breaking into parliament, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc... is this your idea of a job well done by the police?

The mind boggles.

Edit to add, is that what you consider the protesters being " became the least bit difficult."?

More boggling.

You seem incapable of understanding that Police upholding Law and Order = No need to have the army on the streets, therefore no street battles with "difficult" protesters.

Edited September 18, 2012 by AleG

[philw]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

Abhisit was upholding democracy under the laws of Thailand.

The reds were attempting a violent coup.

Abhisit was upholding democracy by shooting unarmed dissenters in the head.

Sure, way to go.

[Nickymaster]

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

Putting aside the rather silly notion that the police did a good job...

Let me know if I'm following you, because you jump and skip around issues a lot.

So the SOE was declared irregardless of the violence and lawlessness in the city, i.e. daily bombings or the city center occupied by protesters; you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that Abhisit would have declared a SOE and call in the army no matter even if there were no incidences of violence or law breaking?. Is this what you are trying to convey?

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

And the situation Thaksin had been dreaming of happened: a deadly confrontation with the army. Even before any protestors were sadly killed, Thaksin was already telling the foreign media that AV killed innocent protestors.

Yes I can and will proof what I wrote. Just give me some time to find the applicable interviews.

ps. don't forget to read post # 127

[Nickymaster]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

Abhisit was upholding democracy under the laws of Thailand.

The reds were attempting a violent coup.

Abhisit was upholding democracy by shooting unarmed dissenters in the head.

Sure, way to go.

Take a deep breath, control yourself and read post # nr 127

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[AleG]

Abhisit was upholding democracy by shooting unarmed dissenters in the head.

Sure, way to go.

When there's nothing left, troll away.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

As you stated above:

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job"

As I asked you before:

Please show me some of those report since there are PLENTY.

Well, there is a fair request. And since I don't have a photobucket at hand with all the links and images that I've seen, I'll dig around again and see what is available during my breaks.

Would you care to reciprocate with some kind of a report that shows the police refusing to do their job? That would be appreciated.

[KireB]

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

[KireB]

Abhisit was upholding democracy by shooting unarmed dissenters in the head.

Sure, way to go.

LOL. How do you make this up? You really think Abhisit was out there taking protesters out? Maybe Thaksin has a drone aircraft flying through the streets of Bangkok and shot his own 'pi nongs' while his wife and kids were shopping in Paris.

[KireB]

Well, there is a fair request. And since I don't have a photobucket at hand with all the links and images that I've seen, I'll dig around again and see what is available during my breaks.

Would you care to reciprocate with some kind of a report that shows the police refusing to do their job? That would be appreciated.

Maybe you have time during your breaks? Are you working right now? Freudian slip I hope?

Here, the Thai police at work:

[tlansford]

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

Protesters sealing off the city center with barricades for weeks, protesters breaking into parliament, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc... is this your idea of a job well done by the police?

The mind boggles.

Edit to add, is that what you consider the protesters being " became the least bit difficult."?

More boggling.

You seem incapable of understanding that Police upholding Law and Order = No need to have the army on the streets, therefore no street battles with "difficult" protesters.

Again - that same argument that the police are responsible for the military shooting and killing people is absurd.

You seem incapable to read the news from that time and recall that Abhisit had already invoked the ISA in March and had the military deployed throughout the city, protest sites, and government buildings from the very beginning of the demonstrations, much less the further step of calling an SOE in April.

I do not understand the TVF obsession with making the police the scapegoat for the military killing people.

[tlansford]

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

yes, 2010 was all the fault of the protesters.

Bingo - should have seen that before.

[Nickymaster]

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

yes, 2010 was all the fault of the protesters.

Bingo - should have seen that before.

Please don't go to that level. You are smarter than that.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[AleG]

Again - that same argument that the police are responsible for the military shooting and killing people is absurd.

You seem incapable to read the news from that time and recall that Abhisit had already invoked the ISA in March and had the military deployed throughout the city, protest sites, and government buildings from the very beginning of the demonstrations, much less the further step of calling an SOE in April.

I do not understand the TVF obsession with making the police the scapegoat for the military killing people.

Let's keep it simple, because you are not grasping the point of the argument. Did the police maintain Law and Order (as it's their job) during the Red Shirt protests, yes or no?

[Nickymaster]

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

Protesters sealing off the city center with barricades for weeks, protesters breaking into parliament, daily bombings throughout the city, etc, etc... is this your idea of a job well done by the police?

The mind boggles.

Edit to add, is that what you consider the protesters being " became the least bit difficult."?

More boggling.

You seem incapable of understanding that Police upholding Law and Order = No need to have the army on the streets, therefore no street battles with "difficult" protesters.

Again - that same argument that the police are responsible for the military shooting and killing people is absurd.

You seem incapable to read the news from that time and recall that Abhisit had already invoked the ISA in March and had the military deployed throughout the city, protest sites, and government buildings from the very beginning of the demonstrations, much less the further step of calling an SOE in April.

I do not understand the TVF obsession with making the police the scapegoat for the military killing people.

Providing law and order IS the duty of the police. It's not my fault. Those are the rules.

[tlansford]

Well, there is a fair request. And since I don't have a photobucket at hand with all the links and images that I've seen, I'll dig around again and see what is available during my breaks.

Would you care to reciprocate with some kind of a report that shows the police refusing to do their job? That would be appreciated.

Maybe you have time during your breaks? Are you working right now? Freudian slip I hope?

Here, the Thai police at work:

what is freudian in your mind?

What is the point of your video? None, apparently.

There is nothing here to show that the police failed to do their job at all relative to Abhisit, crowd control, etc, and yes, I do need to get back to work - it is much more productive that arguing a stupid point about the police being the reason the army killed people.

[tlansford]

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

yes, 2010 was all the fault of the protesters.

Bingo - should have seen that before.

Please don't go to that level. You are smarter than that.

yes, but this forum is not.

The protesters made a lot of mistakes and they have the blame for that which they did. The army has their own responsibilities. The police as well - but they weren't the ones out shooting the protesters, were they? The other argument is just as boring as it is stupid.

When a poster like KireB implies that the entire thing is the fault of the protesters - as he did above - then a healthy dose of sarcasm is merited.

[tlansford]

Again - that same argument that the police are responsible for the military shooting and killing people is absurd.

You seem incapable to read the news from that time and recall that Abhisit had already invoked the ISA in March and had the military deployed throughout the city, protest sites, and government buildings from the very beginning of the demonstrations, much less the further step of calling an SOE in April.

I do not understand the TVF obsession with making the police the scapegoat for the military killing people.

Let's keep it simple, because you are not grasping the point of the argument. Did the police maintain Law and Order (as it's their job) during the Red Shirt protests, yes or no?

let's keep it simple - did the military shoot and kill the man or did they not?

[AleG]

Let's keep it simple, because you are not grasping the point of the argument. Did the police maintain Law and Order (as it's their job) during the Red Shirt protests, yes or no?

let's keep it simple - did the military shoot and kill the man or did they not?

Funny, that's neither Yes or No regarding the question.

Anyway, done here, obviously you are beyond arguments.

By the by, yes, the Army shot the man to which the OP refers to. See? it's so easy to answer questions honestly.

[Nickymaster]

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

yes, 2010 was all the fault of the protesters.

Bingo - should have seen that before.

Please don't go to that level. You are smarter than that.

yes, but this forum is not.

The protesters made a lot of mistakes and they have the blame for that which they did. The army has their own responsibilities. The police as well - but they weren't the ones out shooting the protesters, were they? The other argument is just as boring as it is stupid.

When a poster like KireB implies that the entire thing is the fault of the protesters - as he did above - then a healthy dose of sarcasm is merited.

After reading my post #127 you might agree that the protestors indeed did terrible things. Not many countries in the world would have tollerated that for 6 weeks before taking action. Have the red shirt leaders ever shown any remorse?

Be fair man.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster