Demonstrators Told To Confront Police

[Nickymaster]

Especially when you consider that they were arrested within 2 hours from the start of the rally.

A show of force to intimidate other protestors…

Yeeah let's congratulate the Thai police for selective law enforcement. Give me a break!

Of course cutting through barbed wire barriers and attacking the police had nothing to do with it. Better to have waited a few days, let it get really violent and then bring in the snipers in the army?

A few days? A few weeks (months) you mean. Because the police was basically none-existing in 2010, the army had to be brought in to end the out-of-control mess. Interesting. I agree.

So to simplify the whole thing, would the police have been as active in 2010 as they were 2 days ago, all the terror, death and destruction would have been MUCH less.

I think the last week has taught us a lot about what happened in 2010.

I'm not sure what exactly we have learned about 2010 from this. I guess we could take from it that the authorities did a much better job of containing this protest than they did in 2010. That would be a pretty simplistic view given the completely different scale, intent and motivation of the two protests; one was calling for elections, the other a coup... it's pretty disingenuous to compare the two really. One had considerable public (national and international) sympathy with their cause, the other not...

Thankfully no one died during this protest and given the emotionally charged backdrop I think that's a resounding success for both the police and the current administration. They seem to have been much better prepared and actually had an action plan in place and enforced it. I agree, we saw the complete opposite in 2010 and many people lost their lives as a result.

So on balance looking at the way the respective Governments handled these situations, which was an unmitigated disaster and which a resounding success?

"I'm not sure what exactly we have learned about 2010 from this" Really?

So you don't know that the Police force only works for the Shin clan? It has been like this for many many years now. Anyhow, never mind if you don't see it.

Just leave it here. No need to talk to a guy that doesn't know Thai history.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Nickymaster

[whybother]

I'm not sure what exactly we have learned about 2010 from this. I guess we could take from it that the authorities did a much better job of containing this protest than they did in 2010. That would be a pretty simplistic view given the completely different scale, intent and motivation of the two protests; one was calling for elections, the other a coup... it's pretty disingenuous to compare the two really. One had considerable public (national and international) sympathy with their cause, the other not...

Thankfully no one died during this protest and given the emotionally charged backdrop I think that's a resounding success for both the police and the current administration. They seem to have been much better prepared and actually had an action plan in place and enforced it. I agree, we saw the complete opposite in 2010 and many people lost their lives as a result.

So on balance looking at the way the respective Governments handled these situations, which was an unmitigated disaster and which a resounding success?

One thing the protesters learnt from 2010 was not to bring guns and grenades, and then there is less chance of being shot at.

[Ajaan]

What a nice picture for our friend Buscholtz who were asking yesterday if we had any proof that it was actually the protestors who were responsible for the violence during the demonstration.

Looks like threatening bunch to me! Those shields and helmets the police have would be scant protection against the likes of them! That threatening guy up front with the glasses and khaki shirt is obviously the mastermind behind it all, glad I don't have to confront him!

The word is police riot, it means there was no riot until the police started it.

Looks like it's people with brains vs people without brains. Reminds of the recent elections in another country.

I know all you right-wing, racist, yellow-shirt supporters have a great deal of trouble WRITING intelligent, thoughtful, grammatical English, but perhaps you can manage to actually read it? Here, try this. Try not to hurt yourselves:

http://asiapacific.a...-in-the-morning

Edited November 27, 2012 by Ajaan

[Ferangled]

"I'm not sure what exactly we have learned about 2010 from this" Really?

So you don't know neither that the Police force only works for the Shin clan? It has been like this for many years now. Anyhow, never mind if you don't see it.

Just leave it here. No need to talk to a guy that doesn't know Thai history.

Didn't you get past the first sentence of my post Nicky?

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

The fact is that the police managed to control and suppress this protest without loss of life. In 2010 the army used live ammunition on Thai citizens and many people died as a result. That's the big difference for me, a democratically elected Government & police force that showed restraint faced with a protest calling for a coup as opposed to a sham Government & army that turned the capitol city into a war zone and opened fire on it's own citizens who were calling for elections...

Please don't skip over that point Nicky, one group were calling for elections, calling for their votes to be counted and their voices heard, the other were calling for a military coup, an undemocratic ousting of the Government... not an election, a coup.

[whybother]

Didn't you get past the first sentence of my post Nicky?

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

The fact is that the police managed to control and suppress this protest without loss of life. In 2010 the army used live ammunition on Thai citizens and many people died as a result. That's the big difference for me, a democratically elected Government & police force that showed restraint faced with a protest calling for a coup as opposed to a sham Government & army that turned the capitol city into a war zone and opened fire on it's own citizens who were calling for elections...

Please don't skip over that point Nicky, one group were calling for elections, calling for their votes to be counted and their voices heard, the other were calling for a military coup, an undemocratic ousting of the Government... not an election, a coup.

In 2010, the army used live ammunition after the red shirts had stormed parliament and stormed Thaicom using molotov cocktails. They pushed through barricades and riot police who had used tear gas and water cannons.

One of the reasons that "many people died as a result" is because there were protesters that were armed with guns and grenades.

"Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!" - Given that both sides of politics have been subject to military coups, where does the military's loyalties lie?

[Nickymaster]

"I'm not sure what exactly we have learned about 2010 from this" Really?

So you don't know neither that the Police force only works for the Shin clan? It has been like this for many years now. Anyhow, never mind if you don't see it.

Just leave it here. No need to talk to a guy that doesn't know Thai history.

Didn't you get past the first sentence of my post Nicky?

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

The fact is that the police managed to control and suppress this protest without loss of life. In 2010 the army used live ammunition on Thai citizens and many people died as a result. That's the big difference for me, a democratically elected Government & police force that showed restraint faced with a protest calling for a coup as opposed to a sham Government & army that turned the capitol city into a war zone and opened fire on it's own citizens who were calling for elections...

Please don't skip over that point Nicky, one group were calling for elections, calling for their votes to be counted and their voices heard, the other were calling for a military coup, an undemocratic ousting of the Government... not an election, a coup.

Fact is that in 2010 the Dems tried very hard to make the police control the crowd but instead the police left the crowd to do whatever they wanted. ALL PART OF THE MASTERPLAN. This resulted in total anarchy. The military was brought in after many weeks to clean up the mess. To give innocent people their life and job BACK. I live in the area I have seen it, day in and out for many weeks.

No need to talk about elections here. It seems to be a common practice by many to throw it in: "Yes but they won elections...democratic government.. Completely irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing the role of the police during protest. Isn’t it?

Why do you call me Nicky?

Edited November 27, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Ferangled]

No need to talk about elections here. It seems to be a common practice by many to throw it in: "Yes but they won elections...democratic govenrment.. Completely irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing the role of the police during protest. Isn’t it?

That pretty much says it all Nicky. Yes, the democratic rights of the people to elect their own Government are totally irrelevant and have no bearing on the protests, the police response or the political landscape.

[Nickymaster]

No need to talk about elections here. It seems to be a common practice by many to throw it in: "Yes but they won elections...democratic govenrment.. Completely irrelevant to the topic. We are discussing the role of the police during protest. Isn’t it?

That pretty much says it all Nicky. Yes, the democratic rights of the people to elect their own Government are totally irrelevant and have no bearing on the protests, the police response or the political landscape.

Almost angle.

We are discussing the role of the police during protest. Isn’t it?

Edited November 27, 2012 by Nickymaster

[OzMick]

Didn't you get past the first sentence of my post Nicky?

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

The fact is that the police managed to control and suppress this protest without loss of life. In 2010 the army used live ammunition on Thai citizens and many people died as a result. That's the big difference for me, a democratically elected Government & police force that showed restraint faced with a protest calling for a coup as opposed to a sham Government & army that turned the capitol city into a war zone and opened fire on it's own citizens who were calling for elections...

Please don't skip over that point Nicky, one group were calling for elections, calling for their votes to be counted and their voices heard, the other were calling for a military coup, an undemocratic ousting of the Government... not an election, a coup.

In 2010, the army used live ammunition after the red shirts had stormed parliament and stormed Thaicom using molotov cocktails. They pushed through barricades and riot police who had used tear gas and water cannons.

One of the reasons that "many people died as a result" is because there were protesters that were armed with guns and grenades.

"Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!" - Given that both sides of politics have been subject to military coups, where does the military's loyalties lie?

Quite let's shift the focus firmly back to 2010 eh?! Is your name now Nicky or is he not capable of answering himself?

As we have seen both protests had a violent element but IMHO the main reason that so many people died in 2010 is that the army were authorised to use live fire on their own people and did so with impunity. The handling of the situation was a sham.

Within hours this protest turned violent, much quicker than in 2010, and a clear action plan and appropriate counter measures ensured that the protest was dispersed and the violent element removed with no loss of life.

Completely disregarding that the police were doing their job as far as restricting weapons at this rally. Had they done so in 2010, there would have been no need for the army to be called out, and even if they were the toll would have been much lower.

In 2010 the protesters came prepared for war, why does it surprise you that they got it?

[whybother]

Quite let's shift the focus firmly back to 2010 eh?! Is your name now Nicky or is he not capable of answering himself?

As we have seen both protests had a violent element but IMHO the main reason that so many people died in 2010 is that the army were authorised to use live fire on their own people and did so with impunity. The handling of the situation was a sham.

Within hours this protest turned violent, much quicker than in 2010, and a clear action plan and appropriate counter measures ensured that the protest was dispersed and the violent element removed with no loss of life.

You are the one bringing 2010 into the discussion and comparing it to the weekend's protests. I am just correcting a few issues.

In 2010, the army initially didn't block the protesters from going anywhere. Therefore they had no need to try to push through any blockades.

When the red shirts got violent when they were stopped from going into parliament and when they were stopped from going into Thaicom. At Thaicom, the red shirts used molotov cocktails.

If the Pitak Siam protesters had been there for 4 weeks, and if they had broken through riot police lines using molotov cocktails and stormed parliament ... and (once again) if they were using guns and grenades, then there probably would have been protester deaths.

[whybother]

Completely disregarding that the police were doing their job as far as restricting weapons at this rally. Had they done so in 2010, there would have been no need for the army to be called out, and even if they were the toll would have been much lower.

In 2010 the protesters came prepared for war, why does it surprise you that they got it?

Given the leadership of the country at the time, no the response wasn't that surprising but proved pretty damning to that administration.

In 2010 the protesters came prepared to do what what was necessary to ensure that their voice was heard and that general elections were called. They had a valid cause and ultimately they achieved their goal. The proof as they say, is in the pudding.

Was it necessary that they die to ensure there voice was heard? It seems that they got what they wanted.

[Ferangled]

You are the one bringing 2010 into the discussion and comparing it to the weekend's protests.

Err actually no I'm not... please check the posts on the first page of this thread. 2010 was mentioned quite a few times before I even started posting on this thread... Buchholz even started referencing 2007!

In 2010, the army initially didn't block the protesters from going anywhere. Therefore they had no need to try to push through any blockades.

Yes, I agree disastrous action plan from the Government at that time, why didn't they take any action to limit their movement? It's like they were totally unprepared and handled the entire incident negligently.

It's all ifs and buts isn't it but history is there to teach us a lesson and it seems that this Government learnt a few from the disastrous inaction and then overreaction from the Dems in 2010. Thankfully this protest was handled considerably better and no one lost their life as a result.

Exactly how do you think the Government could have handled this protest better and retrospectively what lessons could the previous Dem Government have learned from the handling of this situation?

[Nickymaster]

You are the one bringing 2010 into the discussion and comparing it to the weekend's protests.

Err actually no I'm not... please check the posts on the first page of this thread. 2010 was mentioned quite a few times before I even started posting on this thread... Buchholz even started referencing 2007!

In 2010, the army initially didn't block the protesters from going anywhere. Therefore they had no need to try to push through any blockades.

Yes, I agree disastrous action plan from the Government at that time, why didn't they take any action to limit their movement? It's like they were totally unprepared and handled the entire incident negligently.

It's all ifs and buts isn't it but history is there to teach us a lesson and it seems that this Government learnt a few from the disastrous inaction and then overreaction from the Dems in 2010. Thankfully this protest was handled considerably better and no one lost their life as a result.

Exactly how do you think the Government could have handled this protest better and retrospectively what lessons could the previous Dem Government have learned from the handling of this situation?

"Yes, I agree disastrous action plan from the Government at that time, why didn't they take any action to limit their movement? It's like they were totally unprepared and handled the entire incident negligently."

TIT. The police supports PT, the army supports Dems. I think bad handling is not the case. I know you prefer to blame it on the Dems but I prefer to blame it on the system.

[Ferangled]

Completely disregarding that the police were doing their job as far as restricting weapons at this rally. Had they done so in 2010, there would have been no need for the army to be called out, and even if they were the toll would have been much lower.

In 2010 the protesters came prepared for war, why does it surprise you that they got it?

Given the leadership of the country at the time, no the response wasn't that surprising but proved pretty damning to that administration.

In 2010 the protesters came prepared to do what what was necessary to ensure that their voice was heard and that general elections were called. They had a valid cause and ultimately they achieved their goal. The proof as they say, is in the pudding.

Was it necessary that they die to ensure there voice was heard? It seems that they got what they wanted.

No clearly if the Government of that time were listening to start with it wouldn't have had to run that far... how long did Abhisit need to realise that his people felt marginalised and ignored before he took action?

In virtually every democratic country the world over, democracy has been born out of violence. Look to the French, the English, I'm afraid it's a common theme of democracy; those that feel they don't have it are often willing to die to obtain it. In many countries those that have fought for it are revered as heroes, sadly in Thailand they are labelled thugs and terrorists...

[whybother]

No clearly if the Government of that time were listening to start with it wouldn't have had to run that far... how long did Abhisit need to realise that his people felt marginalised and ignored before he took action?

In virtually every democratic country the world over, democracy has been born out of violence. Look to the French, the English, I'm afraid it's a common theme of democracy; those that feel they don't have it are often willing to die to obtain it. In many countries those that have fought for it are revered as heroes, sadly in Thailand they are labelled thugs and terrorists...

Do you think governments should just submit to mob rule? Get a hundred thousand protesters out there and the government should just step down?

[rubl]

Avoiding the issue of Abhisit's people who felt marginalized, I'd like to return to the OP of 'demonstrators told to confront police.

Mind you maybe that was an on topic remark

[Ferangled]

No clearly if the Government of that time were listening to start with it wouldn't have had to run that far... how long did Abhisit need to realise that his people felt marginalised and ignored before he took action?

In virtually every democratic country the world over, democracy has been born out of violence. Look to the French, the English, I'm afraid it's a common theme of democracy; those that feel they don't have it are often willing to die to obtain it. In many countries those that have fought for it are revered as heroes, sadly in Thailand they are labelled thugs and terrorists...

Do you think governments should just submit to mob rule? Get a hundred thousand protesters out there and the government should just step down?

No, allowing them to actually vote and choose their own Government seems to do the trick.

[Nickymaster]

[Err actually no I'm not... please check the posts on the first page of this thread. 2010 was mentioned quite a few times before I even started posting on this thread... Buchholz even started referencing 2007!

In 2010, the army initially didn't block the protesters from going anywhere. Therefore they had no need to try to push through any blockades.

Yes, I agree disastrous action plan from the Government at that time, why didn't they take any action to limit their movement? It's like they were totally unprepared and handled the entire incident negligently.

It's all ifs and buts isn't it but history is there to teach us a lesson and it seems that this Government learnt a few from the disastrous inaction and then overreaction from the Dems in 2010. Thankfully this protest was handled considerably better and no one lost their life as a result.

Exactly how do you think the Government could have handled this protest better and retrospectively what lessons could the previous Dem Government have learned from the handling of this situation?

"Yes, I agree disastrous action plan from the Government at that time, why didn't they take any action to limit their movement? It's like they were totally unprepared and handled the entire incident negligently."

TIT. The police supports PT, the army supports Dems. I think bad handling is not the case. I know you prefer to blame it on the Dems but I prefer to blame it on the system.

Yes, I think there is truth in what both of us are maintaining. There certainly are many split loyalties in this kingdom. That said one party seems to be realistic and takes action while the other puts it's head in the sand and relies on reaction... or as we saw in 2010, gross overreaction.

gross overreaction is the result of gross underreaction

[rubl]

The topic here is "demonstrators told to confront police". Although there is political motivation, the demonstration was organised by a "political pressure group". This time Pitak Siam.

Well, whatever, but one thing should be clear to all "Thai are not ferang led".

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Thai at Heart]

No clearly if the Government of that time were listening to start with it wouldn't have had to run that far... how long did Abhisit need to realise that his people felt marginalised and ignored before he took action?

In virtually every democratic country the world over, democracy has been born out of violence. Look to the French, the English, I'm afraid it's a common theme of democracy; those that feel they don't have it are often willing to die to obtain it. In many countries those that have fought for it are revered as heroes, sadly in Thailand they are labelled thugs and terrorists...

Do you think governments should just submit to mob rule? Get a hundred thousand protesters out there and the government should just step down?

There is a very simple way to solve this one.

Tighten up the rules for being a party leader, and make any coalition members of a party sign up to have to support whichever side of the line they sit on for 3 years.

Bingo, if, the party that is the defacto government loses its majority, it sparks an election, not a back room deal to change the government.

Or any variation on a process, that a sitting government can only be hoofed out at 3 years of its tenure and this must bring an election. Any suggestions welcome.....

Abhisit got to be pm, but when it involves back room crappy deals with schisters with newin and the such, it obviously isn't the right way to create a new government.

[Emptyset]

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

[Thai at Heart]

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

You think some army general in a camp a couple of hundred kilometres just ups and offs because he gets a phone call from bangkok for a coup.

If we know anything about Thailand it it's all about the money. He doesn't move one inch until his cash is safely in his Swiss account. How do you think they can even get a unified response to actually shoot their own countrymen?

So, believing this is all about saving the country from anything is absolute bu******t. Anyone genuinely think they want the hassle of leaving camp, their cushy existence and doing something for free?

Don't delude yourselves people, orders are extremely negotiable in Thailand when it comes to coups.

[rubl]

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

"We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army."

Did we really see this ? MiB part of an opposing army faction, nothing to do at all with 'peaceful protesters' ? Are we in the same or a parallel universe ?

Edited November 27, 2012 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

I suggest you read up on Thai history yourself, try to keep your tone civil and refrain from getting personal. There's a far greater divide within the police than there is within the army. Countless military coups have taught us exactly where the military's loyalties lie!

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

"We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army."

Did we really see this ? MiB part of an opposing army faction, nothing to do at all with 'peaceful protesters' ? Are we in the same or a parallel universe ?

Well, they were with saeu daeng as their leader. Not quite sure they were jockeying for position with the army, but odds are they were at one time part of the army, who were available for hire, presumably because they got paid rather well and sympathised enough.

He's not wrong, the army is definitely not some unified monolith, but so far they haven't split asunder. But don't believe it isn't possible.

The top brass jockey for promotion just like management in any business.

[rubl]

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

"We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army."

Did we really see this ? MiB part of an opposing army faction, nothing to do at all with 'peaceful protesters' ? Are we in the same or a parallel universe ?

Well, they were with saeu daeng as their leader. Not quite sure they were jockeying for position with the army, but odds are they were at one time part of the army, who were available for hire, presumably because they got paid rather well and sympathised enough.

He's not wrong, the army is definitely not some unified monolith, but so far they haven't split asunder. But don't believe it isn't possible.

The top brass jockey for promotion just like management in any business.

This is drifting somewhat off topic. Let's just say that when some like to call the demonstrators of this topic close to army, thugs, terrorists, it seems that the renegade general Seh Daeng can be called a mutineer (suspended, but still member of the service). The same goes for the MiB 'if' they were army forces (mutineers if still in army, plain terrorists if already discharged). Seh Daeng was the military advisor of the UDD, whos leaders relied on him. That makes those leaders similar to terrorists (none in army, so no mutineers). Maybe I should say, duped misled sorry figures, not to be held responsable because they didn't know?

Bringing up 'involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army' seems just aimed at framing the Pitak Siam protesters with terrorism using UDD 'non-terrorism' as assumption to blame others.

So, back to 'demonstrators told to confront police'

Edited November 27, 2012 by rubl

[Thai at Heart]

Well, the history of coups is a pretty complex one. My reading is that it'd be a mistaken to see the military as a single monolithic bloc of likeminded people that act collectively. There are often massive splits and divisions, usually due to people jockeying for prominence. We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army.

"We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army."

Did we really see this ? MiB part of an opposing army faction, nothing to do at all with 'peaceful protesters' ? Are we in the same or a parallel universe ?

Well, they were with saeu daeng as their leader. Not quite sure they were jockeying for position with the army, but odds are they were at one time part of the army, who were available for hire, presumably because they got paid rather well and sympathised enough.

He's not wrong, the army is definitely not some unified monolith, but so far they haven't split asunder. But don't believe it isn't possible.

The top brass jockey for promotion just like management in any business.

This is drifting somewhat off topic. Let's just say that when some like to call the demonstrators of this topic close to army, thugs, terrorists, it seems that the renegade general Seh Daeng can be called a mutineer (suspended, but still member of the service). The same goes for the MiB 'if' they were army forces (mutineers if still in army, plain terrorists if already discharged). Seh Daeng was the military advisor of the UDD, whos leaders relied on him. That makes those leaders similar to terrorists (none in army, so no mutineers). Maybe I should say, duped misled sorry figures, not to be held responsable because they didn't know?

Bringing up 'involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army' seems just aimed at framing the Pitak Siam protesters with terrorism using UDD 'non-terrorism' as assumption to blame others.

So, back to 'demonstrators told to confront police'

Not sure whether they planned it or not, but kicking it off at 8.30 on the first morning for no real apparent reason did appear quite contrived.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

So, back to 'demonstrators told to confront police'

Not sure whether they planned it or not, but kicking it off at 8.30 on the first morning for no real apparent reason did appear quite contrived.

I assume we're back on topic.

Posted 2012-11-24 09:47:40

Police fire tear gas at protesters

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Police on Saturday fired tear gas at protesters gathering at Makawan Rangsan Bridge at about 9am.

Police claimed that some protesters wanted to break barricades to join other protesters already inside, so the police had to fire the tear gas to stop the attempt.

[Emptyset]

"We saw some of this in 2010, the involvement of the men in black was related to competition between different factions in the army."

Did we really see this ? MiB part of an opposing army faction, nothing to do at all with 'peaceful protesters' ? Are we in the same or a parallel universe ?

In fact, I already documented on here - almost two years ago now - the involvement of serving military officers, including senior class 10 generals in the conflict. I suspected that they were secretly directing the protests. Whilst Prin was heavily involved with strategy, it would've taken someone who actually had experience in directing special forces around that ran the MiB, hence I suspected Panlop. The involvement of these people is partly due to long-term association with Thaksin (hence the class 10 involvement) and also due to the ascendency of the Burapha Phayak faction and Prayuth over the Wong Thewan faction. Prin for instance, was in line to be army commander before the coup. They just used Seh Daeng as a decoy, it was convenient for him to be involved because it detracted attention away from them. But he wasn't commanding anything, apart from a few street toughs who admired him.

Anyway, my assertions about their involvement were later confirmed in this article by John Cole and Steve Sciacchitano in Asia Times online: "The same senior military sources say that three potential senior team leaders have already been recruited to join the war room, all of them Class 10 classmates of Thaksin and all veterans of the 2010 red-shirt secret command. They include General (retired) Phonchai Kranloet, Lieutenant General (retired) Manas Paorik, and Lieutenant General Prin Suwanathat, the cousin of new minister of defense Sukamphon." (See the article entitled: 'Thailand's Thaksin Prepares for War').

Edited November 27, 2012 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

You think some army general in a camp a couple of hundred kilometres just ups and offs because he gets a phone call from bangkok for a coup.

If we know anything about Thailand it it's all about the money. He doesn't move one inch until his cash is safely in his Swiss account. How do you think they can even get a unified response to actually shoot their own countrymen?

So, believing this is all about saving the country from anything is absolute bu******t. Anyone genuinely think they want the hassle of leaving camp, their cushy existence and doing something for free?

Don't delude yourselves people, orders are extremely negotiable in Thailand when it comes to coups.

I don't think it is all about the money. Ideology and prestige are factors too. Ummm, you seem quite knowledgable so I'm actually surprised you've made this claim... I think things are far more complicated than that and can't simply be reduced to material factors.