Chalerm, Red-Shirts Stand Against Truth For Reconciliation Commission Of Thailand's Report

[Nickymaster]

They waited 6 weeks to clean up the red mess, should have done it after 6 days.

[Buchholz]

Chalerm, Red-Shirts Stand Against Truth For Reconciliation Commission Of Thailand's Report

a related story?

http://www.thaivisa....ental-patients/

Most of the red-shirt supporters in jail are garbage collectors, homeless people, and the mentally ill who cannot seek legal help or find enough money for bail.

The People's Centre for Information (PCI) revealed its initial investigation on the April-May crackdowns yesterday. It collected Information about 169 red-shirt protesters who are now under detention over charges of taking part in illegal gatherings as well as arson or terrorism.

Most of the detainees are garbage collectors, homeless people, and people with mental health problems.

The Nation / 2010-11-19

Edited September 20, 2012 by Buchholz

[jonclark]

Oh you think Ianf was insulting a woman, hence the low class comments. Apologies I thought he was insulting buffaloes, or is that low class too

There is no post that is so stupid that a TV poster can't make an even dumber comment

Wanna bet - Try this

Taksin is an innocent, non vindictive man.

I thank you and gladly accept my prize for dumbest comment ever.

Lighten up JG

Edited September 20, 2012 by jonclark

[phantomfiddler]

From where I was looking, it appeared blatantly obvious that all the violence was instigated by the redshirts, and due to the fact that the police did nothing it was imperative that the army was forced to act against these thugs in order to protect the country. To suggest anything else would be preposterous and incredibly biased. The government excercised far more restraint than any other country would have done in similar circumstances, and in my book the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in Dubai and his hired thugs. Personally I do believe that the redshirts have many valid grievances, but they are going about it in the worst way by allowing themselves to be manipulated by this megalomaniac.

[Pi Sek]

From where I was looking, it appeared blatantly obvious that all the violence was instigated by the redshirts, and due to the fact that the police did nothing it was imperative that the army was forced to act against these thugs in order to protect the country. To suggest anything else would be preposterous and incredibly biased. The government excercised far more restraint than any other country would have done in similar circumstances, and in my book the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in Dubai and his hired thugs. Personally I do believe that the redshirts have many valid grievances, but they are going about it in the worst way by allowing themselves to be manipulated by this megalomaniac.

More nonsense from a pro-army, fascist, dictator, elite who doesn't understand that the peaceful Red Shirt movement was forced into attacking the army by the latter's support of the non-democratically elected government. If you really did understand, you'd be setting up roadblocks, assaulting eilte passers-by and splashing blood on people's houses too. Anyway, the Reds didn't have weapons other than slingshots. And a pistol is not a weapon, it is a tool for self defence - Dr. Weng told me so.

Sorry, I just realised I'm talking out of my bum.

[yoshiwara]

You only have to look at that woman's face to know the kind of kwais you're dealing with ......

Really like this comment ...and the number of poster who "like" it

You really don't need to look at the poster's face to realize the kind of ... you're dealing with

And after that people wonder why TV is considered by a large section of Thai expats as "lo class"

Thida Thavornseth is a former member of the Stalinist Communist Party, so being, looking and acting like a party hack is to be expected. Her role model would no doubt be Rosa Klebb Head of Operations for SMERSH. The likeness is remarkable and instead of working for Blofeld its now Thaksin Shinawatra. So not much change there then.

Edited September 20, 2012 by yoshiwara

[Dap]

Robert Amsterdam...

He also denounced the report as counter-productive and provocative because the victims of the crackdown would refuse to accept anything less than accountability.

Except for those "victims of the crackdown" that did not "refuse" the 7.75 Million Baht taxpayer-funded payoff and agreed not to pursue litigation in the process.

.

Accountability = 7.75 Million Baht (per head)

Edited September 20, 2012 by Dap

[Buchholz]

From where I was looking, it appeared blatantly obvious that all the violence was instigated by the redshirts, and due to the fact that the police did nothing it was imperative that the army was forced to act against these thugs in order to protect the country. To suggest anything else would be preposterous and incredibly biased. The government excercised far more restraint than any other country would have done in similar circumstances, and in my book the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in Dubai and his hired thugs. Personally I do believe that the redshirts have many valid grievances, but they are going about it in the worst way by allowing themselves to be manipulated by this megalomaniac.

Very well said.

Your last sentence particularly reflects the opinions of many posters here, however those sentiments often get distorted by the megalomaniac's fans.

.

[nurofiend]

If they doubt the neutrality of the TRCT and want to reject the report, that's completely up to them.

My issue is the fact that they accept the parts where it says there's wrong doing on the part of Abhisit and the CRES while they dismiss the parts where it says there is also wrongdoing on the parts of the Red Shirts. You can't have it both ways.

i get what you're saying but hypothetically speaking if a report came out about something that involved you and you truly believed that not everything was true it it, you would be foolish not to say anything and just accept those parts because you know the other parts are true.

but i agree with you that if a person says "look this is true because this report tells the truth" and then say "but look this isn't true because this report is false and unnacceptable as being truthful." then it's having their cake and eating it really.

you do have a point there.

however it doesn't mean that nothing in the report is untrue. (obviously)

i'm just interested in what your answer to the below question is, just on a personal level:

.....questioned the TRCT's credibility and its ability to stay neutral, especially since it had been set up by a military-installed government.

as a reasonable person, is this something you would question and be wary about?

[Buchholz]

Initial political reaction to the report was mostly negative.

The strongest response came from the Red Shirt/UDD camp, the core supporters of the exiled Mr. Thaksin who were protesting in 2010.

At the report's launch, Red Shirt activists let loose a barrage of questions that were left unanswered at the close of the event.

Later, their representatives rejected all the recommendations

Wall Street Journal - September 19, 2012

*bold added*

Edited September 20, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

link for above article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578005920721471946.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[473geo]

From where I was looking, it appeared blatantly obvious that all the violence was instigated by the redshirts, and due to the fact that the police did nothing it was imperative that the army was forced to act against these thugs in order to protect the country. To suggest anything else would be preposterous and incredibly biased. The government excercised far more restraint than any other country would have done in similar circumstances, and in my book the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the man in Dubai and his hired thugs. Personally I do believe that the redshirts have many valid grievances, but they are going about it in the worst way by allowing themselves to be manipulated by this megalomaniac.

More nonsense from a pro-army, fascist, dictator, elite who doesn't understand that the peaceful Red Shirt movement was forced into attacking the army by the latter's support of the non-democratically elected government. If you really did understand, you'd be setting up roadblocks, assaulting eilte passers-by and splashing blood on people's houses too. Anyway, the Reds didn't have weapons other than slingshots. And a pistol is not a weapon, it is a tool for self defence - Dr. Weng told me so.

Sorry, I just realised I'm talking out of my bum.

It may well have started 30 posts ago, but pleased you finally noticed

Edited September 20, 2012 by 473geo

[tlansford]

I mentioned 24 deaths and 800 injuries, you appear to think that 5 of the agressors dead somehow makes a difference to the unprovoked "failed" crackdown, Personaly I feel onedeath was too much. But this failed crackdown not only caused deaths and injury but instigated the move into the heart of Bangkok with a very different demeanor from the original protest site at Phan Fah

"5 aggressors"? "unprovoked crackdown"?

Don't you think storming government house, storming Thaicom, confronting soldiers at barracks, and at other places where they were stationed away from the protesters, is aggression and provocation? Every step of the way the red shirts escalated their aggression, and then April 10 their militia turned up.

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

[jeffandgop]

"Chalerm, however, defended Tarit's comment, saying that only the CRES director should be held responsible".

Sounds like a case of (& borrowing a comment made by Chalerm concerning the TRCT findings), "opinions of a (Chalerm) that had no legal binding."

LOL

[KireB]

I mentioned 24 deaths and 800 injuries, you appear to think that 5 of the agressors dead somehow makes a difference to the unprovoked "failed" crackdown, Personaly I feel onedeath was too much. But this failed crackdown not only caused deaths and injury but instigated the move into the heart of Bangkok with a very different demeanor from the original protest site at Phan Fah

"5 aggressors"? "unprovoked crackdown"?

Don't you think storming government house, storming Thaicom, confronting soldiers at barracks, and at other places where they were stationed away from the protesters, is aggression and provocation? Every step of the way the red shirts escalated their aggression, and then April 10 their militia turned up.

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

Do you understand their tv stations was broadcasting, what was being said and what where this would lead to? The red tv stations were dangerous and Rwandan style!

[Moruya]

TV is like a Thai soap opera at times. Same old red shirt apologist actors, same old replies for the past several months like the texts from a tired old script that gets played over and over by people who ought to be doing something useful.

The TRCT report confirms very clearly what a number of independent and non-Thai organisations and journalists have been reporting for more than 2 years. This includes the UN.

Personally I would like to see an independent tribunal handle this case as there are too many Thai parties with vested interests for it to be dealt with on these shores

[Buchholz]

I mentioned 24 deaths and 800 injuries, you appear to think that 5 of the agressors dead somehow makes a difference to the unprovoked "failed" crackdown, Personaly I feel onedeath was too much. But this failed crackdown not only caused deaths and injury but instigated the move into the heart of Bangkok with a very different demeanor from the original protest site at Phan Fah

"5 aggressors"? "unprovoked crackdown"?

Don't you think storming government house, storming Thaicom, confronting soldiers at barracks, and at other places where they were stationed away from the protesters, is aggression and provocation? Every step of the way the red shirts escalated their aggression, and then April 10 their militia turned up.

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

Do you understand their tv stations was broadcasting, what was being said and what where this would lead to?

Clearly, he doesn't.

He seems to think that shouting FIRE in crowded theater when there is no fire is a protected human right.

He also seems to think that unlicensed radio and tv stations don't need to comply with any of the same regulations that licensed stations do. A free-for-all on the airwaves where any one has the protected human right to say any dam_n thing they want to say, no matter the consequences.

You know, the same as it is in all other countries.

.

[AleG]

I mentioned 24 deaths and 800 injuries, you appear to think that 5 of the agressors dead somehow makes a difference to the unprovoked "failed" crackdown, Personaly I feel onedeath was too much. But this failed crackdown not only caused deaths and injury but instigated the move into the heart of Bangkok with a very different demeanor from the original protest site at Phan Fah

"5 aggressors"? "unprovoked crackdown"?

Don't you think storming government house, storming Thaicom, confronting soldiers at barracks, and at other places where they were stationed away from the protesters, is aggression and provocation? Every step of the way the red shirts escalated their aggression, and then April 10 their militia turned up.

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

After they had violently broken in... funny you forgot that part.

[whybother]

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/04/07/red-shirt-protesters-storm-thailand%E2%80%99s-parliament-house/

If the TV or Radio station is inciting violence and broadcasting fake video/audio, then I don't think it should be online.

[tlansford]

I mentioned 24 deaths and 800 injuries, you appear to think that 5 of the agressors dead somehow makes a difference to the unprovoked "failed" crackdown, Personaly I feel onedeath was too much. But this failed crackdown not only caused deaths and injury but instigated the move into the heart of Bangkok with a very different demeanor from the original protest site at Phan Fah

"5 aggressors"? "unprovoked crackdown"?

Don't you think storming government house, storming Thaicom, confronting soldiers at barracks, and at other places where they were stationed away from the protesters, is aggression and provocation? Every step of the way the red shirts escalated their aggression, and then April 10 their militia turned up.

what is this storming of the government house that you mention so often?

don't you think a government with it's own control of TV and Radio censoring / shutting down your TV station is provocative? Didn't the protesters leave peacefully after it started operating again only to be shut down by the government once they left?

have you really studied the events or only the dogma?

Do you understand their tv stations was broadcasting, what was being said and what where this would lead to? The red tv stations were dangerous and Rwandan style!

we are talking about what was provocative. The point is that it was not "just" the protesters who were provoking the other side...

Did you not notice that the event ended with the protesters leaving (peacefully) and then the government just shut down the station again?

Suthep labeled the protesters "terrorists" before the first one came to BKK. The government had firm control of their TV & radio. Government controlled TV showed sports & documentaries on the evening of Apr 10th.

It would appear that you have an issue with free speech. And please spare me the whining about red free speech just because you do not agree with. And yes, I understand the difference between free speech and hate speech. Your analogy to Rwanda indicates that you are already well over the edge...

Both sides pushed the other side and this is just one example.

[Pi Sek]

If the TV or Radio station is inciting violence and broadcasting fake video/audio, then I don't think it should be online.

I agree entirely. Informative media have the freedom to interpret facts as they see fit, but they have a responsibility not produce and disseminate lies, especially after it has been scientifically proven that the lie is a lie. (I'm specifically referring to the false Abhisit "ฆ่ามันหมด" voice clip.)

[AleG]

we are talking about what was provocative. The point is that it was not "just" the protesters who were provoking the other side...

Did you not notice that the event ended with the protesters leaving (peacefully) and then the government just shut down the station again?

Again, you forgot to mention they violently stormed the premises in the first place.

Suthep labeled the protesters "terrorists" before the first one came to BKK. The government had firm control of their TV & radio. Government controlled TV showed sports & documentaries on the evening of Apr 10th.

...

Perhaps because before they came to Bangkok they were already engaging in using terror as part of their toolbox? Or threatening to turn the capital into a sea of fire was a way of making people feel safe?

They also had a track record of using violence and deadly threats against their enemies.

From Voice of Taksin, September 16-30, 2009

The headlines on the cover read: 3 years of the coup of the influential - Bomb the aristocrats - DESTROY [slay] aristocrats [a grenade is in front of the seal of the Democrat Party]

But hey, free speech, right?

[edwinchester]

Robert Amsterdam, who now works as legal counsel for the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD), slammed the TRCT for suggesting in its report that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra end his political activities.

Does Robert Amsterdam have a work permit, if he does not, than he should be arrested and punished. In accordance with the labor law.

Since when has living and working out of London required a Thai work permit?

[tlansford]

we are talking about what was provocative. The point is that it was not "just" the protesters who were provoking the other side...

Did you not notice that the event ended with the protesters leaving (peacefully) and then the government just shut down the station again?

Again, you forgot to mention they violently stormed the premises in the first place.

Suthep labeled the protesters "terrorists" before the first one came to BKK. The government had firm control of their TV & radio. Government controlled TV showed sports & documentaries on the evening of Apr 10th.

...

Perhaps because before they came to Bangkok they were already engaging in using terror as part of their toolbox? Or threatening to turn the capital into a sea of fire was a way of making people feel safe?

They also had a track record of using violence and deadly threats against their enemies.

From Voice of Taksin, September 16-30, 2009

The headlines on the cover read: 3 years of the coup of the influential - Bomb the aristocrats - DESTROY [slay] aristocrats [a grenade is in front of the seal of the Democrat Party]

But hey, free speech, right?

"Again, you forgot to mention they violently stormed the premises in the first place."

I didn't forget it, that is what we were discussing.

"Perhaps because before they came to Bangkok they were already engaging in using terror as part of their toolbox? Or threatening to turn the capital into a sea of fire was a way of making people feel safe?"

Or perhaps because if you can convince the public that the "other side" are terrorists, you can more easily justify human rights abuses.

"They also had a track record of using violence and deadly threats against their enemies."

Funny, so did the government of the day...

[tlansford]

If the TV or Radio station is inciting violence and broadcasting fake video/audio, then I don't think it should be online.

I agree entirely. Informative media have the freedom to interpret facts as they see fit, but they have a responsibility not produce and disseminate lies, especially after it has been scientifically proven that the lie is a lie. (I'm specifically referring to the false Abhisit "ฆ่ามันหมด" voice clip.)

when you refer to the faked Abhisit clip, do you mean the one released in August of 2009?

[Mosha]

Title of this thread is too long. It should read

Chalerm, Red-Shirts Stand Against Truth

[AleG]

"Again, you forgot to mention they violently stormed the premises in the first place."

I didn't forget it, that is what we were discussing.

Right, you didn't forget, you just want to sweep it under the rug.

"Perhaps because before they came to Bangkok they were already engaging in using terror as part of their toolbox? Or threatening to turn the capital into a sea of fire was a way of making people feel safe?"

Or perhaps because if you can convince the public that the "other side" are terrorists, you can more easily justify human rights abuses.

It's easy to convince people that a group is engaging in terrorism when that group has engaged in terrorism as a matter of fact. For example, threatening to blow up a gas tanker in the middle of a neighbourhood ("The red shirts opened the valves of the gas containers and prepared to set the tanker alight, Mr Tanawat said. They also parked a bus near the tanker, apparently to use it to feed the planned fire") or their "security" leader threatening with a grenade attack to the Army chief... whose office was soon after hit by a grenade attack amd who also was boasting of creating a "People's Army" to fight against the government.

"They also had a track record of using violence and deadly threats against their enemies."

Funny, so did the government of the day...

Care to show a cite on the threats from the government?

[metisdead]

A bit of a clean up has been done to remove derogatory references to Thais. Instead of replying to these kind of posts, please report them and they will be dealt with accordingly. Thank you.

[tlansford]

"Again, you forgot to mention they violently stormed the premises in the first place."

I didn't forget it, that is what we were discussing.

Right, you didn't forget, you just want to sweep it under the rug.

"Perhaps because before they came to Bangkok they were already engaging in using terror as part of their toolbox? Or threatening to turn the capital into a sea of fire was a way of making people feel safe?"

Or perhaps because if you can convince the public that the "other side" are terrorists, you can more easily justify human rights abuses.

It's easy to convince people that a group is engaging in terrorism when that group has engaged in terrorism as a matter of fact. For example, threatening to blow up a gas tanker in the middle of a neighbourhood ("The red shirts opened the valves of the gas containers and prepared to set the tanker alight, Mr Tanawat said. They also parked a bus near the tanker, apparently to use it to feed the planned fire") or their "security" leader threatening with a grenade attack to the Army chief... whose office was soon after hit by a grenade attack amd who also was boasting of creating a "People's Army" to fight against the government.

"They also had a track record of using violence and deadly threats against their enemies."

Funny, so did the government of the day...

Care to show a cite on the threats from the government?

Discussing is sweeping under the rug - your logic is just stellar.

Violence by the gov't : try 2009's events. Do your recall Suthep's brainchild of the blue shirts or that the government used live rounds against the protesters then as well?

2010 did not happen in a vacuum.

[thaicbr]

Robert Amsterdam, who now works as legal counsel for the red-shirt Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD), slammed the TRCT for suggesting in its report that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra end his political activities.

Does Robert Amsterdam have a work permit, if he does not, than he should be arrested and punished. In accordance with the labor law.

Since when has living and working out of London required a Thai work permit?

He would officially need one if he made any televised statements or held any meetings here on Thai soil. Cos then its working in Thailand. There are 14 day work permits available for just these circumstances.

sent from my Wellcom A90+