Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimay1 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... Including yours my friend for sure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh yessss, trying to overthrow the government with military weapons has nothing to do with what happened in 2010! That's an excellent spin! Most people who post here aren't Thais either but cut the bull crap about you not having any political sympathies when all your posts here are obviously written red. All red sympathizers and apologists always claim to be 'neutral' with no political leanings. Riiiiight. Indeed no one tried to overthrow the Government with military weapons; spin? No fact! The twisted rhetoric just gets better and better, now the 2010 protests were actually an attempt to overthrow the Government with military weapons!!! You couldn't make this stuff up... well you it appears can and did!!! Yes of course the usual BS, if you don't agree with me you must be a red sympathiser/ apologist... Yes the crap you spew is all no fact. It's just the standard red propaganda that comes in here day in day out by you red sympathizers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... Including yours my friend for sure. Well actually if you chose to read the posts... a novel idea I know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Let's take a look at what an unbiased international news journal reported on May 5th 2010: "At the start of the seventh week of anti-government demonstrations in the Thai capital of Bangkok, security forces were preparing to dislodge thousands of Red Shirt protesters who were barricading themselves inside the city's main commercial district. The Red Shirts, armed with grenades, assault rifles and other weapons, vowed to go down fighting" ".... And yet on Wednesday evening, Red Shirt leaders refused to send the protesters home. While they said they welcomed the road map, they demanded that Abhisit guarantee a date to dissolve the parliament, then began issuing more demands and launching furious tirades against the Prime Minister. But with their numbers down and their reputation suffering as Bangkok grew weary of the two-month disruption, the feeling around the capital was that the Red Shirts could not hold out much longer. The Thai stock market finished the day up 4.3% on expectations that the protest was drawing to peaceful conclusion. " "...Abhisit appeared to be finished. Calls rose for him to resign and leave the country. But as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency. Two weeks later, grenades were fired at Bangkok's commuter rail line, killing one and injuring dozens." "Just three weeks ago, Abhisit, weak and fumbling, was on the verge of seeing his premiership destroyed and his place in Thai history tarnished forever. Now, gaining strength while exercising restraint, he appears the statesman in this conflict. With his road map to move the country forward, he has given Red Shirt leaders a chance to avoid a violent showdown and an opportunity to declare some sort of victory and save face. Now if only they will take it." http://www.time.com/...1987118,00.html But they didn't take it. A way out was given to them and they chose to ramp up the violence. Why would Abhisit have needed to escalate the conflict? He was winning the PR war. Why would the reds need to do so? For that very same reason. All responsibility for the deaths on both sides lies firmly at the feet of the red leaders, and their ultimate controller. Stunningly impartial selection of quotes, really "unbiased"... well done! Reading the whole article still doesn't put your red buddies in a good light. Well done! So it must be a fair and accurate account then eh? Of course get some sort of red comment in there... your posts just wouldn't be the same without them. To you reds, any article written is only fair and accurate when it portrays you guys in a positive light. Everything else is just fake. Typical reds. You have to respect them for their one mindedness. Haha Edited December 20, 2012 by gl555 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh yessss, trying to overthrow the government with military weapons has nothing to do with what happened in 2010! That's an excellent spin! Most people who post here aren't Thais either but cut the bull crap about you not having any political sympathies when all your posts here are obviously written red. All red sympathizers and apologists always claim to be 'neutral' with no political leanings. Riiiiight. Indeed no one tried to overthrow the Government with military weapons; spin? No fact! The twisted rhetoric just gets better and better, now the 2010 protests were actually an attempt to overthrow the Government with military weapons!!! You couldn't make this stuff up... well you it appears can and did!!! Yes of course the usual BS, if you don't agree with me you must be a red sympathiser/ apologist... Yes the crap you spew is all no fact. It's just the standard red propaganda that comes in here day in day out by you red sympathizers. Another reasoned and reasonable response, thank you; it's great that we can all discuss this like adults without resorting to insults and wild generalisations! Of course you are right, the calls for elections and the resulting victory at the ballot were all a charade... it was actually as you assert, an attempt to overthrow the Government by use of military weapons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... How about addressing posts with facts?, you know, like my previous one were I disproved your non-factual opinion that nobody was arrested regarding the various bombings that occurred during the Red Shirt protests that you seem to have ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Oh yessss, trying to overthrow the government with military weapons has nothing to do with what happened in 2010! That's an excellent spin! Most people who post here aren't Thais either but cut the bull crap about you not having any political sympathies when all your posts here are obviously written red. All red sympathizers and apologists always claim to be 'neutral' with no political leanings. Riiiiight. Indeed no one tried to overthrow the Government with military weapons; spin? No fact! The twisted rhetoric just gets better and better, now the 2010 protests were actually an attempt to overthrow the Government with military weapons!!! You couldn't make this stuff up... well you it appears can and did!!! Yes of course the usual BS, if you don't agree with me you must be a red sympathiser/ apologist... Yes the crap you spew is all no fact. It's just the standard red propaganda that comes in here day in day out by you red sympathizers. Another reasoned and reasonable response, thank you; it's great that we can all discuss this like adults without resorting to insults and wild generalisations! Of course you are right, the calls for elections and the resulting victory at the ballot were all a charade... it was actually as you assert, an attempt to overthrow the Government by use of military weapons... The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... How about addressing posts with facts?, you know, like my previous one were I disproved your non-factual opinion that nobody was arrested regarding the various bombings that occurred during the Red Shirt protests that you seem to have ignored. Actually it was a specific time frame of events we were discussing at that time, not the entirety of the protests but give yourself a gold star anyway and a few pats on the back for effort! It started with a reply to a source quoted by another which had been selectively used to paint a particular picture... I went on to quote the same article; here's the relevant exert: After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79 grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests The context was the build up to the SOE and whether this was an appropriate response to the events that had happened prior to this... but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant or relevance to the actual topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Interesting to note that the grenades used were military issue and no one was arrested, while it created the perfect excuse for AV to escalate his use of violence and bring out the army. Another remarkable coincidence I'm sure. Abhisit didn't need a made-up excuse to protect Thailand's major city and its residents. The justifications were glaring. An armed occupation in its midst with barricades made from petrol-soaked tires and sharpened bamboo pikes. Several times, prior to the govt's long delayed dynamic response, bands of armed protesters had sallied out of their fortifications to try and cause havoc elsewhere. Once up a hwy to commandeer a petrol station. They needed more petrol to soak tires, and to power their generators so their inciteful speakers could continue to threaten to burn Bangkok down. Another time to harass hospital staff. the final time, to actually set fires to nearby department stores. Before during and after the 2 month protest, police did as little as possible. Their top brass should be busted for dereliction of duty. One would hope that there would be a bit more of a definitive response and overwhelming evidence presented to what was used as justification to declare an SOE and roll in the military using live fire on their own people, in their own capitol. One can only hope for AV's sake he makes a better job of defending himself than you guys are doing. You sound like a wannabe-lawyer on T's payroll - with your profusion of words barely making a single point. Abhisit was justified in declaring a SOE. He did so belatedly The choice to use live fire was most likely a decision made by several authorites, including military brass. Either way, it too was justified, in lieu of circumstances: Protesters using (or harboring those that used) military weapons indiscrimitately, who had scored at least several death hits at that point, including an Army Colonel, his men, and an innocent women on a train platform (killed by grenade). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign. Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above... At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79 grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date. That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE. Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE? Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... How about addressing posts with facts?, you know, like my previous one were I disproved your non-factual opinion that nobody was arrested regarding the various bombings that occurred during the Red Shirt protests that you seem to have ignored. Actually it was a specific time frame of events we were discussing at that time, not the entirety of the protests but give yourself a gold star anyway and a few pats on the back for effort! It started with a reply to a source quoted by another which had been selectively used to paint a particular picture... I went on to quote the same article; here's the relevant exert: After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests The context was the build up to the SOE and whether this was an appropriate response to the events that had happened prior to this... but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant or relevance to the actual topic. Right on the page of the article. The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. But let's not let possible bias get in the way of a good article that sides with your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Interesting to note that the grenades used were military issue and no one was arrested, while it created the perfect excuse for AV to escalate his use of violence and bring out the army. Another remarkable coincidence I'm sure. Abhisit didn't need a made-up excuse to protect Thailand's major city and its residents. The justifications were glaring. An armed occupation in its midst with barricades made from petrol-soaked tires and sharpened bamboo pikes. Several times, prior to the govt's long delayed dynamic response, bands of armed protesters had sallied out of their fortifications to try and cause havoc elsewhere. Once up a hwy to commandeer a petrol station. They needed more petrol to soak tires, and to power their generators so their inciteful speakers could continue to threaten to burn Bangkok down. Another time to harass hospital staff. the final time, to actually set fires to nearby department stores. Before during and after the 2 month protest, police did as little as possible. Their top brass should be busted for dereliction of duty. One would hope that there would be a bit more of a definitive response and overwhelming evidence presented to what was used as justification to declare an SOE and roll in the military using live fire on their own people, in their own capitol. One can only hope for AV's sake he makes a better job of defending himself than you guys are doing. You sound like a wannabe-lawyer on T's payroll - with your profusion of words barely making a single point. Abhisit was justified in declaring a SOE. He did so belatedly The choice to use live fire was most likely a decision made by several authorites, including military brass. Either way, it too was justified, in lieu of circumstances: Protesters using (or harboring those that used) military weapons indiscrimitately, who had scored at least several death hits at that point, including an Army Colonel, his men, and an innocent women on a train platform (killed by grenade). Care to clarify the actual timeline of these events, dates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Right on the page of the article. The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. But let's not let possible bias get in the way of a good article that sides with your argument. I didn't bring this source into the discussion it was first quoted by Tatsujin actually... but of course he's permitted to reference parts that support his views, the same is not permitted if they clash with yours... care to even comment on the time frame of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign. Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above... At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date. That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE. Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE? Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people? Umm he didn't reject it, he ACCEPTED the early elections. But it wasn't early enough for the reds and thus they began their campaign of violence, The SOE came after the reds got violent and started lobbing grenades and killing cops. But even when the SOE was activated, Abhisit still extended the olive branch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign. Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above... At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date. That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE. Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE? Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people? Umm he didn't reject it, he ACCEPTED the early elections. But it wasn't early enough for the reds and thus they began their campaign of violence, The SOE came after the reds got violent and started lobbing grenades and killing cops. But even when the SOE was activated, Abhisit still extended the olive branch. You seem to be getting confused. Abhist had offered early elections prior to the SOE? That is simply not true. Your time frame seems to change to fit your comments, convenient. So now the police were the victims of red shirt aggression prior to the SOE, at the point where earlier it was maintained that they refused to act against the protesters until after the military involvement... and we're full circle back to the original questions I posed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I learned something new here today. 'dozens of grenade attacks' on non-red-shirt related persons and/or objects is not seen as 'violence' as no-one got hurt. Only when the army starts shooting we have violence. Imagine. In February, 2010 we had grenade attacks near Government House and near the Supreme Court. As all here know all this has nothing to do with k. Thaksin either, as seen on February 28th, 2010 "BANGKOK : Thailand tightened security on Sunday after two grenades exploded outside branches of the country's biggest bank in a suspected reaction to a court verdict against deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra." http://www.channelne...1040564/1/.html Now back to the OP. Rather than asking to name all of the possible 700++ cases, it would be good if courts first sort out who can be held accountable and to what level. Mind you, that would probably offend some who 'know for a fact' that the accused are murderers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The calls for early elections were accepted by Abhisit who was being pretty reasonable about the whole thing. It was the red shirts who rejected it and then started their violent campaign. Actually no, if you'd read the previous points you'd see that is a twisted recollection of the events... dates are important! From the same source as above... At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.[5] After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. In April, protesters shifted to Ratchaprasong intersection. A state of emergency was declared in Bangkok on 8 April, banning political assemblies of more than five people. On 10 April, troops unsuccessfully cracked down at Phan Fah, resulting in 24 deaths, including one Japanese journalist and five soldiers, and more than 800 injuries. The Thai media called the crackdown "Cruel April" (Thai: เมษาโหด).[6][7] Further negotiations failed to set an election date. That's really the crux of it isn't it when did the violence in BKK actually really kick off, before or after AV had rejected the notion of early elections and declared an SOE. Here's a really simple one for you, did AV offered early elections prior to declaring an SOE? Or did he actually offer them much later, after the SOE and after the military started killing people? Umm he didn't reject it, he ACCEPTED the early elections. But it wasn't early enough for the reds and thus they began their campaign of violence, The SOE came after the reds got violent and started lobbing grenades and killing cops. But even when the SOE was activated, Abhisit still extended the olive branch. You seem to be getting confused. Abhist had offered early elections prior to the SOE? That is simply not true. Your time frame seems to change to fit your comments, convenient. So now the police were the victims of red shirt aggression prior to the SOE, at the point where earlier it was maintained that they refused to act against the protesters until after the military involvement... and we're full circle back to the original questions I posed. As I recall, a couple of policemen were shot dead priot to the SOE. But the army were given authority after the miraculous escape of the red leaders from the hotel. So yes, perhaps my timeline is a little off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post smedly Posted December 20, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I don't see the point in going over this stuff again and again we have established some facts and voiced opinions based on those facts I think the general consensis here is that the reds turned violent - had lethal weapons and used them - the army were fully justified in taking the offensive to protect themselves protect life and property and restore law and order to BKK The charges against AV are rediculous and the DSI should be investigated and shut down I think that about sums it up here Edited December 20, 2012 by smedly 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gl555 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't see the point in going over this stuff again and again we have established some facts and voiced opinions based on those facts I think the general consensis here is that the reds turned violent - had lethal weapons and used them - the army were fully justified in taking the offensive to themselves protect life and property and restore law and order to BKK The charges against AV are rediculous and the DSI should be investigated and shut down I think that about sums it up here I agree, but I refuse to let the red losers get the last word. Hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Actually it was a specific time frame of events we were discussing at that time, not the entirety of the protests but give yourself a gold star anyway and a few pats on the back for effort! It started with a reply to a source quoted by another which had been selectively used to paint a particular picture... I went on to quote the same article; here's the relevant exert: After initial UDD unilateral demands of an early election were unsuccessful, dozens of M79grenade attacks occurred far from Phan Fah, but there were no injuries and no arrests. http://en.wikipedia....itical_protests The context was the build up to the SOE and whether this was an appropriate response to the events that had happened prior to this... but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good rant or relevance to the actual topic. So you are saying that the nearly daily bombings are not part of the context that led to the SOE? Hard to follow your arguments... there were grenade attacks, but nobody was caught... well nobody was caught regarding some unspecified bombing in an unspecified location.. you lost me. Try again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshbags Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) I can't speak for anyone else here, but as I've said many times I'm not on any "team". I'm neither a supporter of the reds or the yellows and I think that both/all are as bad as each other. I do dislike it when people talk crap however whilst either ignoring or misunderstanding the blatantly obvious. By any stretch of the imagination, it was not a peaceful protest. It caused untold problems and chaos and damage and went on far too long. Thaksin initiated this, Arisman promoted it including inciting his followers to riot and burn. Which they did. The criticism I have of Abhisit is that he let it go too far for too long. In any other western country, things would have been stopped far quicker before they escalated and got entrenched. For those that don't remember or choose to ignore, the rioters burned buildings, burned cars, threatened people, prevented businesses and a huge section of central Bangkok to operate normally, they stormed buildings, the list goes on. Apologies for any mis-spellings, the keyboard is rather small, it auto-corrects badly sometimes and I have big fingers. A nice summing up Ts of the critical period ect.prior to the army having to move in....finally. I agree entirely with you as will many others re Abhisit waiting to long before taking the necessary action to prevent things going totally out of control. In the first instance as I see it and have mentioned in other comments on the related threads, the police should have done their job in a professional way, That is, put the countries security and interests ect. as their number one priority and gone about stopping the march of the red shirt mob via checkpoints long before the majority of them even reached the outskirts of Bangkok. They must have been well aware what was about to be unleashed once they reached their pre planned destination. ( Long before this procession even started IMHO and were well rewarded to serve his objectives. ) Most certainly well aware of their aggressive demeanour and witnessing it getting well and truly out of control and far beyond the limits of safety enroute, yet even after seeing this at the multiple stop offs / cities they passed / went though on their way to Bangkok. They refused to police them as their primary duty demands of there many supposed roles in relation to not only calming them down ect. but phoning ahead and making arrangements further along the routes preventative non violent measures to stop them going onward. They could easily have have done this had the will kicked in and they not been following orders and instructions of the criminal in exile who by their own admittance was well favoured and his sole wishes. It became abundantly clear, as it stil does, who came before the national interests, it,s lawful foundations and the safety of the innocent citizens who were about to be engulfed in violence and destruction along with hate beyond my human comprehension. Especially when you consider it was supposedly for democracy objectives and principles ect. ect it doesn,t bare well for the future of Thailand and it,s decent law abiding citizens, nor tragically for the younger generations / members of this beloved country. Democracy red style in this instance is sadly a camouflage for the sole purpose of dictatorial governance and the returning of Thaksin their evil leader to be re instated to the office of Premier to carry on were he left off before. They do of course expect to be rewarded big time for their support, but the majority of course, should it ever come to pass will eventually realise the fools errand they have been on along with mega hardship at the cost of the chosen few. marshbags Edited December 20, 2012 by marshbags 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't see the point in going over this stuff again and again we have established some facts and voiced opinions based on those facts I think the general consensis here is that the reds turned violent - had lethal weapons and used them - the army were fully justified in taking the offensive to protect themselves protect life and property and restore law and order to BKK The charges against AV are rediculous and the DSI should be investigated and shut down I think that about sums it up here It's all rather tedious isn't it? As if Red Shirt violence was only manifested in 2010, no previous acts of violence, rioting and civil unrest. Nope... context, poor abused word. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ballpoint Posted December 20, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted December 20, 2012 Let's take a look at what an unbiased international news journal reported on May 5th 2010: "At the start of the seventh week of anti-government demonstrations in the Thai capital of Bangkok, security forces were preparing to dislodge thousands of Red Shirt protesters who were barricading themselves inside the city's main commercial district. The Red Shirts, armed with grenades, assault rifles and other weapons, vowed to go down fighting" ".... And yet on Wednesday evening, Red Shirt leaders refused to send the protesters home. While they said they welcomed the road map, they demanded that Abhisit guarantee a date to dissolve the parliament, then began issuing more demands and launching furious tirades against the Prime Minister. But with their numbers down and their reputation suffering as Bangkok grew weary of the two-month disruption, the feeling around the capital was that the Red Shirts could not hold out much longer. The Thai stock market finished the day up 4.3% on expectations that the protest was drawing to peaceful conclusion. " "...Abhisit appeared to be finished. Calls rose for him to resign and leave the country. But as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency. Two weeks later, grenades were fired at Bangkok's commuter rail line, killing one and injuring dozens." "Just three weeks ago, Abhisit, weak and fumbling, was on the verge of seeing his premiership destroyed and his place in Thai history tarnished forever. Now, gaining strength while exercising restraint, he appears the statesman in this conflict. With his road map to move the country forward, he has given Red Shirt leaders a chance to avoid a violent showdown and an opportunity to declare some sort of victory and save face. Now if only they will take it." http://www.time.com/...1987118,00.html But they didn't take it. A way out was given to them and they chose to ramp up the violence. Why would Abhisit have needed to escalate the conflict? He was winning the PR war. Why would the reds need to do so? For that very same reason. All responsibility for the deaths on both sides lies firmly at the feet of the red leaders, and their ultimate controller. Stunningly impartial selection of quotes, really "unbiased"... well done! Yes, you always did claim that anyone telling the truth was biased against the reds, and now Time Magazine becomes a Democrat supporter?. Please tell me what's untrue in any of those quotes? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimay1 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts... Yes, that does seem to be the ongoing trend on here... Including yours my friend for sure. Well actually if you chose to read the posts... a novel idea I know! Reading your post is like listening to a record that the needle is stuck in one place. Same thing over and over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai at Heart Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Was there ever a court order deeming the protest illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 IMHO I think Thaksin and PTP has infiltrated TV. Nah, the English is for the most part understandable. There must be someone that knows english more than the PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thait Spot Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just wild generalisations, try sticking to the facts. The vast majority of protesters actually had no assault rifles, no grenade launchers and actually comprised many women and children. They were about as aggressive as most people's grandmothers are. There was a small minority violent element who the military apparently missed completely, choosing to shoot people that were neither armed, or in some cases even involved in the protests. So (this will be interesting) how many of the reds did have assault rifles and grenade launchers according to your estimates? The vast minority as all the actual evidence suggests. From yes and no answers with no discussion permitted to citing specific numbers in an incident involving 100s of 1000s of people... do you also wantt gps coordinates for these armed elements and perhaps names and addresses? How many would you venture based on actual evidence Yoshiwara or is the onus of proof one sided much like the insults? The "vast minority"!!!!!!! That must be the funniest thing I've read this year! Hahahahahaha Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just wild generalisations, try sticking to the facts. The vast majority of protesters actually had no assault rifles, no grenade launchers and actually comprised many women and children. They were about as aggressive as most people's grandmothers are. There was a small minority violent element who the military apparently missed completely, choosing to shoot people that were neither armed, or in some cases even involved in the protests. So (this will be interesting) how many of the reds did have assault rifles and grenade launchers according to your estimates? The vast minority as all the actual evidence suggests. From yes and no answers with no discussion permitted to citing specific numbers in an incident involving 100s of 1000s of people... do you also wantt gps coordinates for these armed elements and perhaps names and addresses? How many would you venture based on actual evidence Yoshiwara or is the onus of proof one sided much like the insults? The "vast minority"!!!!!!! That must be the funniest thing I've read this year! Hahahahahaha Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App Something approaching 49% then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ferangled Posted December 20, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted December 20, 2012 My recollections have been sufficiently bludgeoned into submission and I believe are now in line with the common understanding on TV... The protests were actually an armed uprising, the vast majority of participants, thugs the lot of them, 100,000 or so of the vicious blighters, were armed to the teeth with rocket launchers, assault rifles and all manner of military grade weaponry. Their aim? To overthrow the Government through force of arms. The Government of the time, unassisted by the police who had been paid off, had no choice but to bring in the military and use live fire to suppress the paid mercenary insurgents that the red shirts comprised. The use of force was entirely justifiable and not excessive or inaccurate in it's implementation. Abhisit has absolutely no case to answer, no responsibility for any bloodshed and neither do the military. The 91 deaths, 700 odd grievous injuries and 100s of other minor injuries were all justifiable collateral damage bar of course any that died as a result of the crazed red shirt mob of armed to the teeth insurgents... in fact given it was a vicious armed rebellion the responsibilities for all deaths should lie well and truly with the reds alone. Election talk was purely incidental or a ploy to cover the real motivation, overthrowing the Government through force of arms... One question if I may, have I been enlightened or brainwashed? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now