Inquest Not Conclusive In 2010 Shooting: Bangkok Protests

[Thait Spot]

He was reportedly caught in the crossfire between soldiers and armed protesters on Rama IV Road.

The bullet found in his body is suspected to have been fired from an M-16 assault rifle, but ballistics tests failed to match it with the rifles used by the 40 soldiers. Armed protesters were also using assault rifles with the same type of ammunition.

Come on you red supporters . . . how many of you are still going to insist that the protests were peaceful and that they were not armed?

Come on red supporters . . . where's your dismissal of this latest case? . . . you've all gone very quiet . . . !

They are programmed to suppress the facts

[FarangTalk]

That my friend is dual standards.

All started of course with a failure to deal with the yellow shirts and their airport and Government house takeovers.

The yellows showed the power of militant protest with tacit approval from the military and other influential people. The reds then turned up and did the same but the stakes were raised.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you certainly can't grumble when the winning side uses the same tactics and dual standards you yourself were guilt of using in the first place.

[waza]

That my friend is dual standards.

All started of course with a failure to deal with the yellow shirts and their airport and Government house takeovers.

The yellows showed the power of militant protest with tacit approval from the military and other influential people. The reds then turned up and did the same but the stakes were raised.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you certainly can't grumble when the winning side uses the same tactics and dual standards you yourself were guilt of using in the first place.

How many members of the security forces were killed during the yellowshirt protests? How many civilians were killed? Why wasnt Thaksin the caretaker PM, or one of his PMs charged with murder for the yellowshirt deaths?

If the reds were following the Yellows example, then their protests would have been peacefull too.

Edited January 19, 2013 by waza

[rixalex]

That my friend is dual standards.

All started of course with a failure to deal with the yellow shirts and their airport and Government house takeovers.

The yellows showed the power of militant protest with tacit approval from the military and other influential people. The reds then turned up and did the same but the stakes were raised.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you certainly can't grumble when the winning side uses the same tactics and dual standards you yourself were guilt of using in the first place.

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

[Pimay1]

He was reportedly caught in the crossfire between soldiers and armed protesters on Rama IV Road.

The bullet found in his body is suspected to have been fired from an M-16 assault rifle, but ballistics tests failed to match it with the rifles used by the 40 soldiers. Armed protesters were also using assault rifles with the same type of ammunition.

Come on you red supporters . . . how many of you are still going to insist that the protests were peaceful and that they were not armed?

Come on red supporters . . . where's your dismissal of this latest case? . . . you've all gone very quiet . . . !

They must all be on a visa run.

[jayboy]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

[rixalex]

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.

I find it sad that after all this time, you are still incapable of expressing your view without serving up the obligatory bit of jayboy condescension.

However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.

I think you are wrong, and i think it wasn't only a lot of yellow shirts who were affronted and put off by the airport incidents, it was a lot of ordinary Thais of no particular colour who changed their opinion, from a position of indifference to a position of "enough is enough with this sh1t", after the airport incident. It was a stupid move, and it did lose them a lot of support, both from the inside and the out. The red shirt following on the other hand, seems on the whole a lot more open-minded with regards stupid moves.

I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

I don't think it has ever been a case of picking and choosing, it is a case of having applauded the way they stood up to Thaksin, at a time when few were brave enough to do so, to a feeling that their point had been made, that they had run their course, and that the time was for them to put away their t-shirts, and try and work towards a more united, and less divisive Thailand.

Anyway, your opinion with regards a person affectively either being completely behind the yellows, or not being behind them at all, is an interesting one, considering your own frequently expressed sympathies with the red shirts.

Edited January 19, 2013 by rixalex

[smedly]

I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

I think you are making a wild assumtion that the falangs on this forum that are critical of the current government - Thaksin - redshirts - DSI - etc etc are yellow shirt supporters, I for one have no interest in yellow shirt red shirt and the various other confused factions that attempt to control this country, what I have an interest in is law and order - right and wrong - anti corruption etc etc - I will voice my opinion on anything that I think is wrong here and give reasons for that opinion

This current DSI fiasco is an embarassment to Thailand - there were armed protestors on the streets of bangkok shotting at the security forces - they were told to leave and they didn't, of course inocent people are going to get caught up and possibly killed by either side, the difference here is the authorities were acting within the law to restore peace and normality to the city - the protestors were acting outside the law - they derserve everything they got, just a pity some of them got away

[Tatsujin]

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

Once again, you and others of your ilk seem to be of the opinion that if you are not a "red" supporter, you must then be a "yellow" supporter. Well, I'm not either as I've said many times. It is possible to be a (slightly) interested observer of things whilst not supporting either. I don't pick and choose anything, I see what's right or wrong on both sides of the fence and then form my own opinion. The "yellows" did some bad things, the "reds" seem to have done and continue to do worse in my mind.

At the end of the day, I know my thoughts and opinions won't have much effect on the way things are done here so I have very little to gain from supporting one side or the other. They are all as bad as each other it seems to me. I do hate hypocrisy however.

The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

Seriously? Do you guys not open your eyes and see the "real" world? Racism? Criminality? Reactionary Politics? Sounds more like a description of Thaksin and his Govt to me.

[AleG]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

As opposed to Red Shirt supporters that stick their fingers firmly up their ear canals and shout LALALAPEACEFULPROTESTERSLALALALA! and ignore all the rest, from outright terrorism down, that they have done and stand for.

[scorecard]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

As opposed to Red Shirt supporters that stick their fingers firmly up their ear canals and shout LALALAPEACEFULPROTESTERSLALALALA! and ignore all the rest, from outright terrorism down, that they have done and stand for.

Cut from jayboy:

"....certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics. ..."

So jayboy, what's wrong with people saying 'I suppport this part of the yellow shirts ideas but I reject that part of the yellow shirt ideas'. Rather than a blanket support for everything they have said & done? In fact this is my personal stand, I believe they did their cause more harm than good by the airport event.

Surely selective support for some of their platform but not all is more rational and more honest. I totally reject your notion that this is 'childlike simplicity'.

I've said before, as have others, I strongly believe there is severe injustice in this wonderful country which is morally wrong, and the gap between the rich and the poor is way way too big and desperately needs addressing, but I centainly don't support the tactics of the current red shirt leaders and their movement who are nothing more than a smokescreen over the antics of a highly corrupt immoral convicted criminal who leads a gang of thieves currently raping this country.

And before you say it, yes big corruption has been here for many decades and every party has been involved.

Edited January 19, 2013 by scorecard

[waza]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

As opposed to Red Shirt supporters that stick their fingers firmly up their ear canals and shout LALALAPEACEFULPROTESTERSLALALALA! and ignore all the rest, from outright terrorism down, that they have done and stand for.

Cut from jayboy:

"....certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics. ..."

So jayboy, what's wrong with people saying 'I suppport this part of the yellow shirts ideas but I reject that part of the yellow shirt ideas'. Rather than a blanket support for everything they have said & done? In fact this is my personal stand, I believe they did their cause more harm than good by the airport event.

Surely selective support for some of their platform but not all is more rational and more honest. I totally reject your notion that this is 'childlike simplicity'.

I've said before, as have others, I strongly believe there is severe injustice in this wonderful country which is morally wrong, and the gap between the rich and the poor is way way too big and desperately needs addressing, but I centainly don't support the tactics of the current red shirt leaders and their movement who are nothing more than a smokescreen over the antics of a highly corrupt immoral convicted criminal who leads a gang of thieves currently raping this country.

And before you say it, yes big corruption has been here for many decades and every party has been involved.

All very true, but in all fairness we have to accept that the airport occupation was a strategy forced on them by the constant granade attacks by the redshirt thugs. The yellows could have stayed at Gov house if the security forces had protected their camp from the constant redshirt attacks, but they did little. The yellows were forced to find an area where they could continue their protest and provide safety for their participants. If it wasnt for the red thugs a yellow guard wouldn't have been needed and the airport seige may not have happened.

Edited January 19, 2013 by waza

[whybother]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

So, do you endorse all of the red shirt platform or none of it?

[jayboy]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

So, do you endorse all of the red shirt platform or none of it?

There is no comparison.The redshirts may have their issues but they are are not supporters whether through fear,ignorance or commitment of a neo fascist movement.The same cannot be said of the yellow shirts,the dinosaurs leading them or any of the clone organisations sharing the same beliefs.

It's also characteristic of the armchair reactionaries that some even argue the redshirts effectively were responsible for the criminal seizure of the airports.

Others argue they should be able to support the yellow thugs but disassociate themselves from their crimes.Reminds me of those buffoons who praised Hitler for his social policies but conceded he may have gone over the top in one or two other areas.Sorry guys if you endorse evil you are going to end up tainted.

Edited January 20, 2013 by jayboy

[whybother]

So, do you endorse all of the red shirt platform or none of it?

There is no comparison.The redshirts may have their issues but they are are not supporters whether through fear,ignorance or commitment of a neo fascist movement.The same cannot be said of the yellow shirts,the dinosaurs leading them or any of the clone organisations sharing the same beliefs.

So now you're picking and choosing which groups that it is ok to like only part of their platform.

[Locationthailand]

If those who were killed were not there, they would not have died. A case of Som Num Na.

With the exception of course of those who had no choice being there, like soldiers, medics, etc

Probably a valid point.

Yes a very valid point and more so the soldiers who were killed in the line of duty, where as the armed reds had every choice including who they killed i.e. fellow Thai's.

[waza]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

So, do you endorse all of the red shirt platform or none of it?

There is no comparison.The redshirts may have their issues but they are are not supporters whether through fear,ignorance or commitment of a neo fascist movement.The same cannot be said of the yellow shirts,the dinosaurs leading them or any of the clone organisations sharing the same beliefs.

It's also characteristic of the armchair reactionaries that some even argue the redshirts effectively were responsible for the criminal seizure of the airports.

Others argue they should be able to support the yellow thugs but disassociate themselves from their crimes.Reminds me of those buffoons who praised Hitler for his social policies but conceded he may have gone over the top in one or two other areas.Sorry guys if you endorse evil you are going to end up tainted.

Your post is so very wrong, for reason you dont seem to grasp.........

"The redshirts may have their issues but they are are not supporters whether through fear,ignorance or commitment of a neo fascist movement".

Well yes they are, "neo fascist movement" mean new fascist movement, and that is exactly what the Thaksin cult are. Like you they support it through ignorance.

The old fascist movement, or as you call them, "dinosaurs", supporter are against change to the present democratic system, or against a neo system.

However, when one considers the sins of Thaksin, mass murder, crimes against humanity, gross corruption, nepotism ect ect, like you it...."Reminds me of those buffoons who praised Hitler for his social policies but conceded he may have gone over the top in one or two other areas". Thaksin/ PTP/ UDD are all about one criminal, not about Thai society. Remember a fascist party that hides behind the word democracy is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Edited January 20, 2013 by waza

[animatic]

2010 POLITICAL MAYHEM

Inconclusive inquest not affect murder charges against Abhisit : DSI

The Nation

File photo : Tharit

BANGKOK: -- The inconclusive inquest into the death of a man killed during the 2010 political unrest will not affect murder charges against the previous government, the chief of the Department of Special Investigation said Thursday.

Tarit Pengdit said the inquest into the case of Boonmee Rermsuk would not affect earlier cases, for which former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and former deputy PM Suthep Thaugsuban are now facing murder charges.

Boonmee was the fifth victim killed during the 2010 redshirt protests and for whom the Criminal Court is conducting inquests in an attempt to find out who killed each of them.

In the four previous inquests, the court ruled that the victims were killed by troops' bullets but in the case of Boonmee, the court said there was not enough evidence to establish who fired the fatal shot.

The DSI has filed murder charges against Abhisit and Suthep in the four previous cases on the grounds that they were responsible for the establishment and controlling the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

"Since the inquest is inconclusive, the DSI will not file charges against Abhisit and Suthep in this case," Tarit said.

"But this case will not affect other cases because the court has made a ruling for each specific case."

Tarit said that since the court had ruled there was not enough evidence to establish who shot Boonmee, the DSI would look for more information.

If further evidence pointed to Boonmee being shot by one of the "men in black" or "unknown armed fighters", the DSI would not charge the redshirt leaders because there was no evidence showing from whom they had received orders.

-- The Nation 2013-01-17

Spin big time.

The inquest clearly states the protesters were 'armed with similar assault rifles.'

Which means the army had every reason to fear for their safety,

and that they were not going up against an unarmed force when trying to remove the protestors.

Major, very major points in the case against Abhisit and Suthep.

DSI has shot it's own foot attempting to disassociate the cases from the over all situation.

.

Edited January 20, 2013 by animatic

[animatic]

That my friend is dual standards.

All started of course with a failure to deal with the yellow shirts and their airport and Government house takeovers.

The yellows showed the power of militant protest with tacit approval from the military and other influential people. The reds then turned up and did the same but the stakes were raised.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you certainly can't grumble when the winning side uses the same tactics and dual standards you yourself were guilt of using in the first place.

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

That really cuts to the point.

And let's not forget what pushed the Yellows over the line was the nightly grenade attacks on their camp at GH. That was obviously to make them leave, but instead caused them to radicalize.

Obviously also it was The Red side, likely Sae-Daengs group, was doing the grenade attacks,

no one lese had motive, or stated they would do something, Sae-Daeng had and did,

so clearly the airport incident was caused at it's roots by Red attacks on the Yellows.

Yes much support left the Yellows because of the airport,

but to ignore WHY they became radicalized enough to

take the airports would be to deny the reality of the situation.

Edited January 20, 2013 by animatic

[rixalex]

That really cuts to the point.

And let's not forget what pushed the Yellows over the line was the nightly grenade attacks on their camp at GH.

That was obviously to make them leave, but instead caused them to radicalize.

Obviously also it was The Red side, likely Sae-Daengs group, was doing the grenade attacks,

no one lese had motive, or stated they would do something, Sae-Daeng did and had,

so clearly the airport incident was caused at it's roots by Red attacks on the Yellows.

Yes much support left the Yellows because of the airport,

but to ignore WHY they became radicalized enough to

take the airports would be to deny the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the reasons why they moved to the airport and don't have a problem with that decision in itself, but when they realised that their actions were going to cause the airport to have to shut down - which i don't believe was what they particularly went there set on achieving - they should have come to some sort of agreement with AOT whereby they could continue with the protest, without creating a safety issue. And if that wasn't possible, they should have moved somewhere else. They might not have made such an impact, but they wouldn't have lost as much support as they did.

[scorecard]

All the people i know who supported the yellows, supported them all the while they protested in a reasonable and civilised fashion, but then ceased supporting them when started doing things like taking over airports.

All the people i know who support the reds, have continued their support right the way through street battles, molotov cocktails, speeches preaching burning, arson attacks, rocket launchers, gas tanker explosion threats, hospital invasions.... and all this support in spite of having been totally against the less extreme tactics employed by the yellows.

If you are looking for hypocrisy and double standards, try starting your search a bit closer to home.

I'm afraid this doesn't make a great deal of sense.There is a kind of child like simplicity in some of the less analytical type of expatriate who cannot see beyond a cartoon level of colour politics.The support for the yellowshirts certainly at the initial stage benefited from those middle class elements who were genuinely outraged by Thaksin's overbearing behaviour and lack of moral scruples.However I don't think the majority of yellowshirts were particularly affronted by the airport incidents.I certainly have noticed that many yellowshirt/PAD sympathisers on this forum feel free to pick and choose which bits of the platform they reject or endorse.I'm not sure this is really possible in the way that being a little bit pregnant isn't possible.The fact is that the yellowshirts - admittedly some being just useful idiots albeit well meaning - were led by a particularly unsavoury type of leadership immersed in racism,criminality and reactionary politics.

So, do you endorse all of the red shirt platform or none of it?

There is no comparison.The redshirts may have their issues but they are are not supporters whether through fear,ignorance or commitment of a neo fascist movement.The same cannot be said of the yellow shirts,the dinosaurs leading them or any of the clone organisations sharing the same beliefs.

It's also characteristic of the armchair reactionaries that some even argue the redshirts effectively were responsible for the criminal seizure of the airports.

Others argue they should be able to support the yellow thugs but disassociate themselves from their crimes.Reminds me of those buffoons who praised Hitler for his social policies but conceded he may have gone over the top in one or two other areas.Sorry guys if you endorse evil you are going to end up tainted.

'Neo fascist' is just your opinion jayboy, which you are perfectly entitled to.

However I doubt many would agree with you, I certainly don't.

[scorecard]

That really cuts to the point.

And let's not forget what pushed the Yellows over the line was the nightly grenade attacks on their camp at GH.

That was obviously to make them leave, but instead caused them to radicalize.

Obviously also it was The Red side, likely Sae-Daengs group, was doing the grenade attacks,

no one lese had motive, or stated they would do something, Sae-Daeng did and had,

so clearly the airport incident was caused at it's roots by Red attacks on the Yellows.

Yes much support left the Yellows because of the airport,

but to ignore WHY they became radicalized enough to

take the airports would be to deny the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the reasons why they moved to the airport and don't have a problem with that decision in itself, but when they realised that their actions were going to cause the airport to have to shut down - which i don't believe was what they particularly went there set on achieving - they should have come to some sort of agreement with AOT whereby they could continue with the protest, without creating a safety issue. And if that wasn't possible, they should have moved somewhere else. They might not have made such an impact, but they wouldn't have lost as much support as they did.

IMHO all of the above posts make good points.

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

Edited January 20, 2013 by scorecard

[Pimay1]

That really cuts to the point.

And let's not forget what pushed the Yellows over the line was the nightly grenade attacks on their camp at GH.

That was obviously to make them leave, but instead caused them to radicalize.

Obviously also it was The Red side, likely Sae-Daengs group, was doing the grenade attacks,

no one lese had motive, or stated they would do something, Sae-Daeng did and had,

so clearly the airport incident was caused at it's roots by Red attacks on the Yellows.

Yes much support left the Yellows because of the airport,

but to ignore WHY they became radicalized enough to

take the airports would be to deny the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the reasons why they moved to the airport and don't have a problem with that decision in itself, but when they realised that their actions were going to cause the airport to have to shut down - which i don't believe was what they particularly went there set on achieving - they should have come to some sort of agreement with AOT whereby they could continue with the protest, without creating a safety issue. And if that wasn't possible, they should have moved somewhere else. They might not have made such an impact, but they wouldn't have lost as much support as they did.

IMHO all of the above posts make good points.

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

I'm quite sure you are correct.

[rixalex]

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

Closing the airport did ratchet up and escalate tension a lot and i can see how doing that could of potentially been beneficial to a number of people, who may have "helped" the AOT come to their decision, but no evidence of this has ever come to light as far as i am aware, so i think we have to take the AOT at their word and accept that the safety concerns were valid and reason enough for the decision they took.

[jayboy]

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

Closing the airport did ratchet up and escalate tension a lot and i can see how doing that could of potentially been beneficial to a number of people, who may have "helped" the AOT come to their decision, but no evidence of this has ever come to light as far as i am aware, so i think we have to take the AOT at their word and accept that the safety concerns were valid and reason enough for the decision they took.

Thank you.I respect people who are quite clear what is nonsense even when expressed by people who in broad terms share ones political views.I tried to do this recently with the shoddy treatment of ASTV by the military - though you have skewered the old AOT responsibility chestnut with particular politeness and effectiveness.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed as well as the replies. Keep it up and posting suspensions will follow.

[animatic]

That really cuts to the point.

And let's not forget what pushed the Yellows over the line was the nightly grenade attacks on their camp at GH.

That was obviously to make them leave, but instead caused them to radicalize.

Obviously also it was The Red side, likely Sae-Daengs group, was doing the grenade attacks,

no one lese had motive, or stated they would do something, Sae-Daeng did and had,

so clearly the airport incident was caused at it's roots by Red attacks on the Yellows.

Yes much support left the Yellows because of the airport,

but to ignore WHY they became radicalized enough to

take the airports would be to deny the reality of the situation.

I appreciate the reasons why they moved to the airport and don't have a problem with that decision in itself, but when they realised that their actions were going to cause the airport to have to shut down - which i don't believe was what they particularly went there set on achieving - they should have come to some sort of agreement with AOT whereby they could continue with the protest, without creating a safety issue. And if that wasn't possible, they should have moved somewhere else. They might not have made such an impact, but they wouldn't have lost as much support as they did.

IMHO all of the above posts make good points.

In terms of negotiating an agreement with AOT, it's been reported before that AOT went ahead full speed with their own decision to shut the airport.

That is also how I remember it.

AOT may have been given the word to close down,

to create just the international embarrassment issue, that some

might have hoped to turn the tide against PAD. In the long run that

may have worked,but this was actually a smaller story that week with the Mumbai attack.

On the world stage it was dwarfed in both violence and noticeability.

And also put in perspective the lack of general violence happening at Swampy all week.

Sure there were incidents, mostly from red frustrations that their couldn't be rid of PAD,

no matter what ill conceived plans they'd hatched in their darkened covens.

Edited January 21, 2013 by animatic

[philw]

Love the "darkened covens" bit.

Ever thought of being a poet ??

Poetic licence and all that...............

[Hugo6]

so i m losing track of the investigations - which day was this killing?

was it from may 15th

[rubl]

Love the "darkened covens" bit.

Ever thought of being a poet ??

Poetic licence and all that...............

Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the Dogs of War

Poetic license and all that, or as the late renegade general Seh Daeng said 'no one saw me'