U N Human Rights Commissioner Says Thailand Should Try Those Responsible For 2010 Deaths

[rixalex]

Let us take a look at the post you responded to

"Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum...."

Can you point out which part of this post is relevant to you, given your subsequent revelations?

No? Then why did you respond, and then you turn this around as though it is a personal affront?.....as you appear to enjoy posting can you explain why you would take this rather bizzare route?

Actually it would appear there maybe are couple of words in there that are applicable.....

I guess i must be one of those mentally challenged folks you mention as i really can't understand what it is you are trying to say here... something about me not being relevant, me responding when shouldn't have, somebody being affronted, me enjoying posting, me taking a bizarre route, and a couple of words that are applicable?

Anyway, please don't dumb it down on my behalf, as i'm guessing that is not going to make it any more riveting than it is. I think i get the gist of your position already anyway.

[rixalex]

Your second paragraph sounds like you are trying to say what the red shirts think - but who are you to say the reds don't care about democracy?

Who am i to say the reds don't care about democracy? I am someone who has observed their actions for the last however many years. You are an advocate of free speech are you not?

I judge people by what they do, how they behave, not by the banners they stand in front of, or the things they say.

[tlansford]

Your second paragraph sounds like you are trying to say what the red shirts think - but who are you to say the reds don't care about democracy?

Who am i to say the reds don't care about democracy? I am someone who has observed their actions for the last however many years. You are an advocate of free speech are you not?

I judge people by what they do, how they behave, not by the banners they stand in front of, or the things they say.

right - btw - I don't mean you can't voice your opinion, what I mean is how can you know what "the red shirts" think?

What they do - well, they are a segment of Thai society which has become politically active. That is certain and that is also a new thing. They are formed from many different groups in a grass roots fashion. That is also new, and btw a huge organizational difference to the PAD. The have a consistent message and I don't mean the perverted crap that is applied on TVF, but the message that elections count.

It is not a monolithic organization and so there is also not 100% consistency through the UDD - that doesn't surprise me but it seems to be something many posters here don't grasp. But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

[rixalex]

Clearly, proximity to any particular event is not relevant to understanding and comprehension. Good information is.

Good information tends to come when it is in its rawest state, not when it has been regurgitated a hundred different times by different people around the world, as is the norm in this day and age of the internet. Of course bad information can still be found in close proximity to an event, but usually those in that area, recognise it for the bad information that it is, as they either witnessed things them self or have friends, neighbours and relatives who did and they pass on what they saw to everyone else. Bad information tends to be more successfully accepted in areas further away, where first hand experiences that contradict that bad information, can not be called upon by anyone, as nobody was there.

[rixalex]

But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

Anyone who advocates democracy would not be able to advocate Thaksin, nor the things he did whilst in power, nor the things he has done trying to get back in power.

[tlansford]

But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

Anyone who advocates democracy would not be able to advocate Thaksin, nor the things he did whilst in power, nor the things he has done trying to get back in power.

That is your opinion. I do not personally want to see Thaksin in power, I think he proved himself to be no friend of democracy and human rights.

None the less,

It is still possible to recognize that many people may view the military's act of overthrowing an elected government as non-democratic. It is possible to recognize that many people may view the dissolution of the PPP and the rise of Abhisit's government as the second time the military countered the will of the electorate. And then it is possible to recognize that people who feel like this may chose to protest against the resulting government which they see as imposed upon Thailand by the traditional elite rather than selected by the people.

The point being that this is how the protesters viewed the situation (not you and me) which makes it perfectly reasonable that they would protest in 2009 and in 2010. It makes it clear why many did not just "go home" in 2010 when the government said they must. Why would they listen to a government which in their eyes is illegitimate?

[rixalex]

That is your opinion. I do not personally want to see Thaksin in power, I think he proved himself to be no friend of democracy and human rights.

None the less,

It is still possible to recognize that many people may view the military's act of overthrowing an elected government as non-democratic. It is possible to recognize that many people may view the dissolution of the PPP and the rise of Abhisit's government as the second time the military countered the will of the electorate. And then it is possible to recognize that people who feel like this may chose to protest against the resulting government which they see as imposed upon Thailand by the traditional elite rather than selected by the people.

The point being that this is how the protesters viewed the situation (not you and me) which makes it perfectly reasonable that they would protest in 2009 and in 2010. It makes it clear why many did not just "go home" in 2010 when the government said they must. Why would they listen to a government which in their eyes is illegitimate?

It's only reasonable to act in a certain way based on beliefs, if those beliefs are well founded. Saying that simply believing in something is sufficient to make acting on those beliefs understandable/reasonable, opens the doors for all kinds of fruitcakes doing whatever they wish because that is what they believe, and that makes it ok. It doesn't.

[candid]

But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

Anyone who advocates democracy would not be able to advocate Thaksin, nor the things he did whilst in power, nor the things he has done trying to get back in power.

That is your opinion. I do not personally want to see Thaksin in power, I think he proved himself to be no friend of democracy and human rights.

None the less,

It is still possible to recognize that many people may view the military's act of overthrowing an elected government as non-democratic. It is possible to recognize that many people may view the dissolution of the PPP and the rise of Abhisit's government as the second time the military countered the will of the electorate. And then it is possible to recognize that people who feel like this may chose to protest against the resulting government which they see as imposed upon Thailand by the traditional elite rather than selected by the people.

The point being that this is how the protesters viewed the situation (not you and me) which makes it perfectly reasonable that they would protest in 2009 and in 2010. It makes it clear why many did not just "go home" in 2010 when the government said they must. Why would they listen to a government which in their eyes is illegitimate?

Thanks for a really clear explanation behind your rational in supporting the reds and their supporters since 2010. I cannot find fault with it at all. However, most of us in TV are Westerners and have problems trying to fathom out what is what in all this situation. We are used to protests in our countries but very few of us are used to armed protests. You may say that the protesters carried weapons as they would have been faced with armed resistance, whether by police (who were pretty well missing), or the Army, who cetainly were not missing. Protest is a democratic right and most of would take that thought with us to the grave, However, as far as I am aware it is not a right to carry arms against the organs of the state in any country in the world. People should know that, in any society, the army and the police are there to ensure that the status quo remains just that. Taking arms with you is just asking for trouble, Setting yourself up with nightly security checks by a sympathetic Army General was at least one noticeable stage in non-peaceful protest. It looked to many as the first stage of a counter coup. This protest had gone on for just too long. . Violence had to happen. There were too many inflammatory speeches, too many different outbursts of violence. The inevitable happened

[AleG]

But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

Anyone who advocates democracy would not be able to advocate Thaksin, nor the things he did whilst in power, nor the things he has done trying to get back in power.

That is your opinion. I do not personally want to see Thaksin in power, I think he proved himself to be no friend of democracy and human rights.

...

I hate to break it out to you, but your beloved Red Shirts would love nothing more in the world than having their Dear Leader back in power.

You may extrapolate from that their democratic credibility... or not.

[473geo]

But if you look at where the UDD stands as a group on the big issues, then it is really, really hard to say that they don't advocate democracy.

Anyone who advocates democracy would not be able to advocate Thaksin, nor the things he did whilst in power, nor the things he has done trying to get back in power.

That is your opinion. I do not personally want to see Thaksin in power, I think he proved himself to be no friend of democracy and human rights.

None the less,

It is still possible to recognize that many people may view the military's act of overthrowing an elected government as non-democratic. It is possible to recognize that many people may view the dissolution of the PPP and the rise of Abhisit's government as the second time the military countered the will of the electorate. And then it is possible to recognize that people who feel like this may chose to protest against the resulting government which they see as imposed upon Thailand by the traditional elite rather than selected by the people.

The point being that this is how the protesters viewed the situation (not you and me) which makes it perfectly reasonable that they would protest in 2009 and in 2010. It makes it clear why many did not just "go home" in 2010 when the government said they must. Why would they listen to a government which in their eyes is illegitimate?

Thanks for a really clear explanation behind your rational in supporting the reds and their supporters since 2010. I cannot find fault with it at all. However, most of us in TV are Westerners and have problems trying to fathom out what is what in all this situation. We are used to protests in our countries but very few of us are used to armed protests. You may say that the protesters carried weapons as they would have been faced with armed resistance, whether by police (who were pretty well missing), or the Army, who cetainly were not missing. Protest is a democratic right and most of would take that thought with us to the grave, However, as far as I am aware it is not a right to carry arms against the organs of the state in any country in the world. People should know that, in any society, the army and the police are there to ensure that the status quo remains just that. Taking arms with you is just asking for trouble, Setting yourself up with nightly security checks by a sympathetic Army General was at least one noticeable stage in non-peaceful protest. It looked to many as the first stage of a counter coup. This protest had gone on for just too long. . Violence had to happen. There were too many inflammatory speeches, too many different outbursts of violence. The inevitable happened

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

[AleG]

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

You forgot to mention the heavily armed MiB shooting at the soldiers.

Oh, no wait.

You didn't forget, you just want to peddle a biased, self serving version of the events.

[whybother]

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

When did they "move in with live ammunition"? Most of what I saw from various videos was the army there with riot gear, and then retreating in a fire fight.

[jayboy]

Clearly, proximity to any particular event is not relevant to understanding and comprehension. Good information is.

Good information tends to come when it is in its rawest state, not when it has been regurgitated a hundred different times by different people around the world, as is the norm in this day and age of the internet. Of course bad information can still be found in close proximity to an event, but usually those in that area, recognise it for the bad information that it is, as they either witnessed things them self or have friends, neighbours and relatives who did and they pass on what they saw to everyone else. Bad information tends to be more successfully accepted in areas further away, where first hand experiences that contradict that bad information, can not be called upon by anyone, as nobody was there.

Odd that highly educated and well informed foreign correspondents from the famous international outlets (BBC, CNN etc) who spent every day on the barricades talking to redshirts and military representatives were roundly abused by the usual suspects for not understanding Thailand and for being taken in by Thaksin's propaganda.Yet when a few resident foreigners (never clear exactly why they are in Thailand, what their credentials are, what is their level of education or local knowledge) say they were first hand witnesses we are supposed to bow down and genuflect.

Edited September 23, 2012 by jayboy

[473geo]

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

When did they "move in with live ammunition"? Most of what I saw from various videos was the army there with riot gear, and then retreating in a fire fight.

Perhaps if you read a few on the ground reports, I don't know if I can mention UK newspapers here but there was informative write ups in one of the more respectable papers

[candid]

I have often wondered what would have happened if the order had been given to clear the protesters barricades and structures, after proper warning, using bulldozers or the likes. Many people would have either, (a) ran away, or (b)tried to become martyrs and fight to the end. In any case, there would have been a lot of blood shed. What we eventually saw were people at the end of their tether. On BOTH sides

What would have been the actions of the governments of neighbouring countries such as Myanmar (we know the answer already), Cambodia, Laos, or Malaysia? 3 out of these 4 have got "strange" governments, according to our Western norms.

As for some commission to want to try people who were in there at the death(no pun intended) with no reference to what had gone on in the weeks before, is beyond belief.

[473geo]

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

You forgot to mention the heavily armed MiB shooting at the soldiers.

Oh, no wait.

You didn't forget, you just want to peddle a biased, self serving version of the events.

You are entitled to think that would excuse the failure....... in the process of a forced dispersal with tanks and live amnunition the protectors of the largely peaceful demostrators fired back

Personaly I feel it was piss poor planning and execution.....but what do I know.....I wasn't there

[whybother]

Perhaps if you read a few on the ground reports, I don't know if I can mention UK newspapers here but there was informative write ups in one of the more respectable papers

There is no problem with linking to or quoting UK newspapers.

[473geo]

Perhaps if you read a few on the ground reports, I don't know if I can mention UK newspapers here but there was informative write ups in one of the more respectable papers

There is no problem with linking to or quoting UK newspapers.

Excellent, then when you have looked around and identified the articles that will improve your knowledge and understanding, perhaps you could link them for those who appear handicapped by lack of effort to research

[whybother]

Perhaps if you read a few on the ground reports, I don't know if I can mention UK newspapers here but there was informative write ups in one of the more respectable papers

There is no problem with linking to or quoting UK newspapers.

Excellent, then when you have looked around and identified the articles that will improve your knowledge and understanding, perhaps you could link them for those who appear handicapped by lack of effort to research

[AleG]

The inevitable happened at Phan Fah, the troops moved in with live ammnunition to break up a camp of protestors who had intiated little or no violence from within the camp

This dispersal failed.....loss of life 24 injured 800

The invitable happened again........

and you think the government forces are in no way culpable for the abysmal failure that cost more unecessary deaths

You forgot to mention the heavily armed MiB shooting at the soldiers.

Oh, no wait.

You didn't forget, you just want to peddle a biased, self serving version of the events.

You are entitled to think that would excuse the failure....... in the process of a forced dispersal with tanks and live amnunition the protectors of the largely peaceful demostrators fired back

Personaly I feel it was piss poor planning and execution.....but what do I know.....I wasn't there

Goebbels, for the win!

[Buchholz]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum.....

Does strike me as odd the way that those who tend to advocate NN writings as having extra validity as he was here, as he experienced it, are the same people quick to dismiss any value in members here who haven't just read things from the net, but also lived through them

the vaunted Redmob Double Standards at play....

.

[jayboy]

The usual suspects loathe NN and find every opportunity to libel him.It's laughable that they feel aggrieved that the widespread admiration for his perception,intelligence and talent is not extended to every foreigner who happened to be wandering round central Bangkok.If they published their observations of the time with a tenth of NN's quality they too would be taken seriously.

[whybother]

The usual suspects loathe NN and find every opportunity to libel him.It's laughable that they feel aggrieved that the widespread admiration for his perception,intelligence and talent is not extended to every foreigner who happened to be wandering round central Bangkok.If they published their observations of the time with a tenth of NN's quality they too would be taken seriously.

And there I was thinking that I was a member of "the usual suspects". Nice to know that I'm not.

[nicknostitz]

Does strike me as odd the way that those who tend to advocate NN writings as having extra validity as he was here, as he experienced it, are the same people quick to dismiss any value in members here who haven't just read things from the net, but also lived through them, albeit in not quite the front-line position that NN's work led him to.

As for ridiculing NN, i hope i have never been guilty of that. I have often complimented him on how well informed he is. I just happen to disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches. Hope that is ok.

No problem with reaching different conclusions.

But just to clarify how i reach my conclusions: my conclusions are based on several factors. Factors such as what i see on actual events, additional information i gather by people who have seen these same events from different perspectives. Other information i am given, and then i try to confirm that information from several different sources, if possible also from neutral sources and sources from different security agencies. I also gather information from the opposing sides, and not just from one side.

I have also my own personal rankings for my different sources, based on track records of accuracy of information. That ranges from highly trustworthy to take it with a grain of salt up to completely useless <deleted>, avoided at all costs.

A problem i have run into here at ThaiVisa (other than being regularly insulted, libeled, and generally just hated and despised by the majority ) is that on occasion claims are made here by posters that could be credible, but when i approach those posters for a meeting to detail what they have posted - i run into a brick wall. I have been accused of quite a lot here - being a vulture, or supposedly having an agenda other than the truth were just the nicer ones....

Just recently a quite vocal anti-Red Shirt poster here made claims over armed militants in the Red Shirts which sounded credible to me. I have sent a PM, promising him anonymity, and asked for a meeting with him, and i never got any response.

I am willing to listen to all sides, but i cannot consider any claim on a web forum made anonymously.

I can only repeat my offer: If anyone has seen something of significance, especially during the 2010 events, i am more than willing to listen. I promise absolute confidentiality, i do not care what side one supports as this is completely irrelevant to me when it comes down to hard facts. Hard facts are always useful, from whatever side they come. Of course i have to try to siphon out incomplete evidence, misunderstandings, or at times even attempts to mislead me by purpose. That is why we have to get confirmation from different sources.

What though i have no time and mental space to listen to are opinions. Even my own opinions i try to leave out as much as i can in my work on this mess.

[whybother]

<snip>

A problem i have run into here at ThaiVisa (other than being regularly insulted, libeled, and generally just hated and despised by the majority )

<snip>

I didn't realise that there were only 30-40 posters on Thaivisa.

[Nickymaster]

Just lock up those time wasting red criminals and we will have peace. Simple as that.

[djlest]

I wish these people would pull their heads in - it is nothing to do with them, and why would they think they can solve anything by stirring the pot? As already stated - Reds started it, Army/Govt finished it, Reds fired first, Govt retaliated - people got killed whilst the "Police" stood by and watched/supported the Reds. Man oh man this is so screwed up!

You have no idea what you are talking about

Brian read post #26 and you will know what happened. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

djlest gave a account of the whole thing from a ring side seat.

He was an on site eye witness. Not one of those who went down and watched for a hour and then claimed to be experts.

so his clearly biased, filled with a venemous hate of red shirt people ("animals"), word is gospel, whereas when nick nostitz posts....

god ye guy's are great.

i do genuinely feel sorry that this guy's business was affected by the protests though... obviously it would add a big factor to anyones dislike of the reds.

its got nothing to do with my venomous hate towards the reds - my partner fully supports the reds as do all her family, but im not one to follow a heard of sheep just because.

The facts are these:

the majority of the reds are very uneducated.

the majority of the reds are from poor rural areas and will do ANYTHING to make some money.

Taksin uses this to manipulate them into believing anything, and that is exactly what happened during the riots.

it had nothing to do with democracy, the majority of reds don't even comprehend what that actually is, and will never even care, as long as they get a piece of the pie.

What i witnessed was a herding of thousands of uneducated souls, painting them red and handing out free food and 500 baht vouchers to BLOCK the city and cause havoc, then from dusk til dawn winding them up and up into a frenzy, telling them how downtrodden they all are and the reason they are poor is because the yellows stole everything from them, lol.

Then come sunset the lao khao would be flowing and the weapons/blackshirts/brownshirts whoever wanted to, came out to play while the rest of us had to stay home because of a curfew.

Absolutely none of the above had anything to do with:

(freedom for democracy)

(a peaceful protest)

(fighting againts corruption)

If i thought it was ever a genuine plea for any of the above, then i would have put on a red shirt too, but as it stands - it was one mans attempt to get money and power back,

and it looks like he got what he wanted, with his sister in the driving seat.

And now 1 year later we can all see just how amazing that turned out, with well over 300 people dead!

Do the reds think its worth it now? - as the floods come in for yet second time and the country is billions of baht less better off,

So who will be paying those taxes exactly?

Who payed back for the financial destruction of the city during the red riots? it wasn't the reds thats for sure.

Chuwit is being conveniently pushed out of the picture, all the enemies/threats are being culled for the final curtain puppeteers return.

Isn't everything great!

first time vehicle owners can now get 100k baht discount of their first (brand new vehicle), provided they dont sell it for 5 years. Forget about second hand cars we don't care about them, we want everyone in Debt for 6 years! With Rice schemes and tablet pcs, credit cards for taxi drivers and a myriad of other distractions to make everyone think - wow they really do care!

no offense but if that isnt a shameful attempt at vote buying i dont know what is, but to many superficial folk without much aptitude for morality, perhaps that's all they need,

Edited September 25, 2012 by djlest

[philw]

Good isn't it.

The economy is growing, Thailand is not on a war footing with the neighbours, there is a higher minimum wage, students have opportunity to learn with computers, a social security system that seems to work, the stock market is up, there is high Japanese investor confidence, there is huge Thai investment in Burma, there are still no casinos ( other than those operated by the police ) and there is an acceptable approval rating from the public.

Contrast that with the previous 5 years.

[djlest]

By deploying snipers and cordoning off parts of the city into ironically named Live Firing ranges the government and its military backers set a precedent and upped the ante for crowd control.

I don't think they upped the ante just for the fun of it. I think they upped the ante in reaction to two things - one was the protesters increasing use of lethal weapons, and two, the capital city was effectively closed down all the time this went on, and the pressure on them to bring this to an end increased every day. Ironically, it was often those from the red side putting most pressure on authorities to take action, with all the goading of look, see, the authorities are useless, Abhisit can't handle it, do something or stand down.They knew what doing something would entail. That didn't bother them, well not the red leaders anyway. It was win win for them. Government backs down, we win. Government stands up, people die, government gets completely discredited here and abroad. We win.

Well, they miscalculated. They didn't win. Not that battle anyway. 90 odd people died for what? Elections were coming anyway.

One thing they did successfully achieve though, is coming out of it portrayed as the victim. Amsterdam has been a driving force for that spin. His work is echoed here by some. (not directed at you - welcome to the forum by the way!)

Well it looks to me that the major problem for the government and the military is that they over reacted. More and more use of lethal weapons? That doesn't seem to be born out by the number of military deaths between the introduction of military snipers and the final crackdown - yet the number of civilian deaths went up?

As more and more inquests are concluded it appears that more and more the army is going to be implicated in unnecessary deaths. There's only been one result so far and look at the fallout from that. The unfortunate who was killed appears to be an innocent party but that doesn't stop some posters on here from leaping to the defence of the army.

What do you (I don't mean this as literally you, anybody could answer but it's rhetorical anyway) think is going to happen when the inquest results come out for the foreign photographers - that's going to stir something up internationally. And then there's the deaths of Kate, the other medic and other protesters in the Wat. It's not Amsterdam making these people victims - Surely you can see they are genuine victims?

As someone who was actually there, like right in the silom area live fire zone from start to finish, i can tell you it was a mess.

During the day soldiers would stand and guard the part of the city that the reds had not taken over, and guard shops and business from risk of looting or attack we all know went on in the red occupied areas.

so: they were doing a noble thing for those of us who needed protection, against the red looters who many just hate anyone from Bangkok.

Then at night the reds would come out and try to occupy other areas of the city to expand and cause more problems to the gov, making them look weak.

Taking over a territory is what armies do, its not what peaceful protesters do!!!

The army had 2 choices

1. Stand back and let the reds do what they want

2. Try and push them back

With FACE being the center every Thai motive, the reds will never leave the business district because they would loose face, and they would rather Die than loose face, its not about standing up for a cause and fighting to the bitter end because they truly belived in the cause. It was about loosing FACE. Live here a few years and you will realize Thais have very little just cause, its just Face!

[djlest]

Good isn't it.

The economy is growing, Thailand is not on a war footing with the neighbours, there is a higher minimum wage, students have opportunity to learn with computers, a social security system that seems to work, the stock market is up, there is high Japanese investor confidence, there is huge Thai investment in Burma, there are still no casinos ( other than those operated by the police ) and there is an acceptable approval rating from the public.

Contrast that with the previous 5 years.

sounds perfect - maybe exactly what we are all supposed to believe, now the aggressors are in charge.