Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit

[Tatsujin]

- Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

- were there any of the red shirts armed with lethal weapons Yes

- did the protestors use lethal weapons against the police or army Yes

- were protestors paid money to be there - if yes give a brief description of where you think the money came from Yes - indirectly or directly it came from Thaksin

- were there threats of violence made by protest leaders from the stage Yes

- were the protestors violent Yes after a certain point, later in March

- was Thaksin S involved Yes

- were the protestors breaking the law Yes

- Should the army have cleared the protestors Yes

- should a government give in to violent mobs and rioting No

That's MY opinion and is not backed up by any facts simply what I saw and heard and was reported at the time.

[Tatsujin]

@smedly - Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

We're getting there as evidenced by the ramblings of some people here.

[AleG]

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

Sarcasm, look it up.

[OzMick]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[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). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

The RPG attack on the Emerald Buddha (30 March) may have influenced the decision to declare an SoE. Not the sort of thing normally used in a peaceful protest.

[Ferangled]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[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). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

Yes, those innocent Red Shirts would never plan for violence to further their agenda.

Is that a yes it's a fair account of the events or a no, only useful when we pick and choose what suits our own position? You do realise that I am quoting a source provided by another, not venturing any new information?

Are you going to list your actual questions or not?

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

[Tatsujin]

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

[Ferangled]

At the beginning, protests were mostly peaceful. The protests were initially centered at Phan Fah bridge. Most protesters came from outside Bangkok.^[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). Further negotiations failed to set an election date.

In stark contrast to what you have maintained, it appears, from the very source you quoted to make these assertions, that actually the protest started out peacefully. Demands for an early election were unsuccessful which appears to have started the turn from peaceful to aggressive - grenade attacks occurred as a result but with no injuries or loss of life or any arrest of the perpetrators.

This has been used conveniently as an excuse for the SOE declaration, the ensuing crackdown at Phan Fah which results in the first significant violence and loss of life - 24 deaths and more than 800 injuries. Still no election dates and from there we see the levels of violence escalate.

Do you believe that is a fair account or is your source biased with regard to events that don't suit your own views?

The RPG attack on the Emerald Buddha (30 March) may have influenced the decision to declare an SoE. Not the sort of thing normally used in a peaceful protest.

Are you suggesting that this was part of the BKK Protests? Do you have any evidence to suggest this or is this just more speculation?

I take it you realise that the SOE was declared some 8 days after this events, how do you draw the conclusion that they two were related? I thought the military grade grenades might have had more of an impact... bit more direct cause & effect can be drawn here given the time frame.

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.

[Ferangled]

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Ferangled

[Tatsujin]

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

I kept my second post simple without explanation in the hope that it didn't confuse you. It appears I failed.

The Police did NOT perform as was expected of them at the beginning of the protests but later did do so (mostly) as shown in the pics you referred to. This was only AFTER however some arse's got kicked and the Military got involved. Simple enough for you Ferangled?

[Ferangled]

I have, repeatedly. Are you actually going to attempt to answer them or indeed answer any of the replies made to you, such as the one above, made directly in reply to your own post and using your own quoted source? That would seem a reasonable place to start dialogue no?

I'm still waiting for you to list your actual questions in a simple form as smedly has done instead of mixed in amongst your diatribe. I repeat . . . list and ask your questions, I'll answer them.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not in the business of reposting purely to satisfy the deliberately blind or lazy. Do yourself a favour and read the thread from the start; you'll see a whole lot of unanswered points and questions, hidden amongst a whole lot more baseless speculation and childish insults made in reply. Might give you a better sense of perspective... miracles never cease.

Edit:

It appears you actually tried once...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? Initially yes, but very reticently, hence the later military involvement as they weren't doing their jobs.

But then changed your mind a few posts later...

Did the Thai police refuse to carry out their duties during the Red shirt protests Yes

With that in mind it seems pretty pointless asking you anything... your response seems to change with the wind.

I kept my second post simple without explanation in the hope that it didn't confuse you. It appears I failed.

The Police did NOT perform as was expected of them at the beginning of the protests but later did do so (mostly) as shown in the pics you referred to. This was only AFTER however some arse's got kicked and the Military got involved. Simple enough for you Ferangled?

If you only voice your ever changing views for my benefit you really are missing the point. No but yes but no but, crystal clear Tatsujin.

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.

[gl555]

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.

You keep telling yourself that. You reds just want to believe that you're all innocent victims of the big bad army of Royalist elites. Riiiiiight!

I feel bad for the dead on both sides, I really do. But when you intend to overthrow the government with guns, you get the Army on your ass. And when open fire on soldiers, they're going to what they're trained to do, not ask you nice to disarm. That's a fact.

[yoshiwara]

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?

[Ferangled]

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.

You keep telling yourself that. You reds just want to believe that you're all innocent victims of the big bad army of Royalist elites. Riiiiiight!

I feel bad for the dead on both sides, I really do. But when you intend to overthrow the government with guns, you get the Army on your ass. And when open fire on soldiers, they're going to what they're trained to do, not ask you nice to disarm. That's a fact.

Perhaps but it bears no relation to what actually happened in Bangkok in 2010. Save your colourful branding for those that actually have an allegiance here. As much as you guys like to pigeon hole people it may surprise you to know that I'm neither Thai nor have any political sympathies in Thailand. I am an observer and I comment on what I observe.

Yet again the fingers only seem to come out to point on one side here, as do the childish irrelevancies... to the casual observer these factors start to add up and those that can debate without resorting to these tactics come across more sincere and less zealous, IMHO.

[Ferangled]

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?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Ferangled

[gl555]

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.

You keep telling yourself that. You reds just want to believe that you're all innocent victims of the big bad army of Royalist elites. Riiiiiight!

I feel bad for the dead on both sides, I really do. But when you intend to overthrow the government with guns, you get the Army on your ass. And when open fire on soldiers, they're going to what they're trained to do, not ask you nice to disarm. That's a fact.

Perhaps but it bears no relation to what actually happened in Bangkok in 2010. Save your colourful branding for those that actually have an allegiance here. As much as you guys like to pigeon hole people it may surprise you to know that I'm neither Thai nor have any political sympathies in Thailand. I am an observer and I comment on what I observe.

Yet again the fingers only seem to come out to point on one side here, as do the childish irrelevancies... to the casual observer these factors start to add up and those that can debate without resorting to these tactics come across more sincere and less zealous, IMHO.

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.

[yoshiwara]

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?

What we have at least dragged out of you is the admission that some reds (even according to you) were armed with rifles and grenade launchers).

Would that vast majority you refer to be the ones politely clapping Arisman's exhortations to bring bottles to Bangkok to burn it down? That would make it slightly unlikely that they were going for a peaceful walk in the town centre.

[ballpoint]

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/time/world/article/0,8599,1987118,00.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.

[Tatsujin]

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.

You are really amazing Ferangled, you criticise my postings but now you've gone from saying it was a peaceful protest to saying that "some" had assault rifles and grenades. So it wasn't a peaceful, lawful protest after all?

You wanted to know "why" the SoE was put in place . . . precisely for that reason . . . guns, grenades, attacks on police and army, and generally putting the (majority) of the civilian population at risk.

People had a choice to leave the area peacefully at any point during these "protests", both before and after the SoE was put into effect. They chose not to do so.

Edited December 20, 2012 by metisdead
: 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[AleG]

Are you suggesting that this was part of the BKK Protests? Do you have any evidence to suggest this or is this just more speculation?

I take it you realise that the SOE was declared some 8 days after this events, how do you draw the conclusion that they two were related? I thought the military grade grenades might have had more of an impact... bit more direct cause & effect can be drawn here given the time frame.

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.

No, what is interesting to note is how Red Shirt apologist continue to spread falsehoods.

Thailand: 2 red-shirt security guards confess to bombing Bhum Jai Thai.

Thai terror suspect confesses to attacking Bangkok hotel

Police arrest 5 suspects in grenade attacks in Chiang Mai, Bangkok

Suspect in Thai explosion linked to ‘Red Shirt’ anti-government protest group

Man arrested for allegedly lobbing grenade at Bangkok Bank HQ

Now, is this because you have a thin grasp of what actually went on or because it doesn't fit with the Red Shirt narrative and therefore must perpetuate this... let's be charitable with the term... myth?

In any case I hope you will consider yourself educated on the facts and will refrain from stating things like "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." because, as I just demonstrated it's simply not true.

[Skywalker69]

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.

You keep telling yourself that. You reds just want to believe that you're all innocent victims of the big bad army of Royalist elites. Riiiiiight!

I feel bad for the dead on both sides, I really do. But when you intend to overthrow the government with guns, you get the Army on your ass. And when open fire on soldiers, they're going to what they're trained to do, not ask you nice to disarm. That's a fact.

Perhaps but it bears no relation to what actually happened in Bangkok in 2010. Save your colourful branding for those that actually have an allegiance here. As much as you guys like to pigeon hole people it may surprise you to know that I'm neither Thai nor have any political sympathies in Thailand. I am an observer and I comment on what I observe.

Yet again the fingers only seem to come out to point on one side here, as do the childish irrelevancies... to the casual observer these factors start to add up and those that can debate without resorting to these tactics come across more sincere and less zealous, IMHO.

Save your colourful branding.

Yea you sure as he*l is´nt saving yours.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post and reply have been removed.

A post in which the poster replied to the questions inside the quoted post with different colored has been removed. Copy and paste the content into your post then reply to the questions:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[masaomi]

Preposterous

Not at all!! Lee Kuan Yew style! The Singapore's ruling Tyrant! Same style different country!

[Nickymaster]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/20/c_13700035.htm

"Tharit said Manop took part in the seizure of a large number of weapons from soldiers during the clash at the Khok Wua intersection on Ratchadamnoen avenue on April 10 last year. The weapons were later shown on the "red-shirt" stage and then distributed to other "red-shirt" guards for use against soldiers"

And now Tharit is going after AV because he gave the soldiers the right to use the weapons (they were carrying)

So how trigger happy can soldiers be who let Red Shirts take their weapons away??

[Skywalker69]

IMHO I think Thaksin and PTP has infiltrated TV.

[Thaddeus]

IMHO I think Thaksin and PTP has infiltrated TV.

Nah, the English is for the most part understandable.

[Insight]

It was reliably reported that Thai Amy snipers that shot the people in the Temple.

... by the DSI?

[Ferangled]

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!

[gl555]

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!

Edited December 20, 2012 by gl555

[Ferangled]

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...

Edited December 20, 2012 by Ferangled

[Ferangled]

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.