Bullets May Have Come From Both Sides

[backtonormal]

Lets take it a little further. The authorised killing of innocent people. Granted some may not be but most were no threat to army personnel or precious buildngs

You do realize how stupid that makes you sound, right?

YOu sound like my Prathom daughter...'dad dont be silly' Authorising live fire zones and snipers who between them discharged (or not returned to the armoury) nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammo an authorisation to kill because only a fool could believe all them rounds were fired at red shirts with weapons. Does that make me sound stupid. One word replys not accepted. Please tell me why I appear stupid

[backtonormal]

Sorry Dolly can't make out exactly what words you are trying to put in my mouth......what I will say is please do not make stuff up that I am supposed to be saying, as you appear already to be rather struggling to comprehend what I do actually say.....the protest if you recall was to get the government who did not have a mandate from the electorate, to step down....you think this wasn't achieved....fine up to you.....the detail missing from this scenario is why the government felt the need to cling to power for a few more measley months, and why they employed such excessive measures to achieve this end....any ideas?

They had the support of the majority of MPs (ie the majority of the representatives of the electorate). Why should they step down? They had every right to wait until the election was due.

Cobbled together in an army base under army guidelines with in appropriate inteference from above. Is that the majority of people. Head for a wobble please

[backtonormal]

Lets not these mention the hundreds of video clips and eye witness accounts of the reds shirts carrying, using and proudly displaying these assault weapons.

Bullets may have come from both sides

Why do they keep saying this? Is there really any doubt? Really!

Your quote is the title and what was really said is

However, in the fifth case, the court said it could not determine which side the bullets came from inferring bullets may have come from a different direction. Which does not imply it was redshirts. It could easily have been army snipers.

Yeh, so what.

Are you implying that the redshirts had no weapons and where not shooting at the military at any time during the protests.

I am certain they did not fire 120,000 rounds of live ammo at the army

[whybother]

Sorry Dolly can't make out exactly what words you are trying to put in my mouth......what I will say is please do not make stuff up that I am supposed to be saying, as you appear already to be rather struggling to comprehend what I do actually say.....the protest if you recall was to get the government who did not have a mandate from the electorate, to step down....you think this wasn't achieved....fine up to you.....the detail missing from this scenario is why the government felt the need to cling to power for a few more measley months, and why they employed such excessive measures to achieve this end....any ideas?

They had the support of the majority of MPs (ie the majority of the representatives of the electorate). Why should they step down? They had every right to wait until the election was due.

Let's not go down this off topic route whybother....in my opinion they had no mandate from the electorate, your opinion differs I can accept that......but why did the government of the day feel the need to use the tactics they did when they had the option step down and correctly let the electorate have their say? all this who shot first would have been avoided

The electorate had their say in electing their representatives. First there was a coalition that supported PPP. Later there was a coalition that supported the Democrats. Basically, neither of them had a mandate.

The government of the day chose to use the tactics they did because they didn't want to submit to mob rule. Would you rather a government step down when ever a few thousand protesters start some riots?

[dcutman]

Well not much point in trying to debate with those who cannot accept the government made mistakes....such a shallow pro authoritarian attitude is disconcerting for sure......you want to see who had peaceful intentions....dig this thread out running at the time of the run up to the protests....quite an eye opener the early posts by Tvisa members.......

Bangkok Traffic Police Preparing For A Tough Saturday

Started by webfact, 2010-03-19 07:25

You know as well as I, that there is only one or two TVF members that think that. Getting frustrated because you are not winning the debate is no excuse for a cop-out.

cop-out also cop·out (kpout)

n. Slang

1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.

2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.

3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

BTW you gave a bad link.

[whybother]

Well not much point in trying to debate with those who cannot accept the government made mistakes....such a shallow pro authoritarian attitude is disconcerting for sure......you want to see who had peaceful intentions....dig this thread out running at the time of the run up to the protests....quite an eye opener the early posts by Tvisa members.......

Bangkok Traffic Police Preparing For A Tough Saturday

Started by webfact, 2010-03-19 07:25

Who is not accepting that the government made mistakes?

[whybother]

Sorry Dolly can't make out exactly what words you are trying to put in my mouth......what I will say is please do not make stuff up that I am supposed to be saying, as you appear already to be rather struggling to comprehend what I do actually say.....the protest if you recall was to get the government who did not have a mandate from the electorate, to step down....you think this wasn't achieved....fine up to you.....the detail missing from this scenario is why the government felt the need to cling to power for a few more measley months, and why they employed such excessive measures to achieve this end....any ideas?

They had the support of the majority of MPs (ie the majority of the representatives of the electorate). Why should they step down? They had every right to wait until the election was due.

Cobbled together in an army base under army guidelines with in appropriate inteference from above. Is that the majority of people. Head for a wobble please

Actually, they voted for it in parliament.

[whybother]

I am certain they did not fire 120,000 rounds of live ammo at the army

So what if they didn't fire 120,000 rounds? They WERE firing rounds. How should the police deal with armed protesters? Just let them continue with what they're doing?

Yay for mob rule.

[473geo]

Well not much point in trying to debate with those who cannot accept the government made mistakes....such a shallow pro authoritarian attitude is disconcerting for sure......you want to see who had peaceful intentions....dig this thread out running at the time of the run up to the protests....quite an eye opener the early posts by Tvisa members.......

Bangkok Traffic Police Preparing For A Tough Saturday

Started by webfact, 2010-03-19 07:25

You know as well as I, that there is only one or two TVF members that think that. Getting frustrated because you are not winning the debate is no excuse for a cop-out.

cop-out also cop·out (kpout)

n. Slang

1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.

2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.

3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

BTW you gave a bad link.

Let me explain, you have failed to refute over 80% of my comments, not saying you agree but there is a certain logic you have ignored but cannot dispute, you have resorted to picking out the occasional point to debate that you think you can win, you have resorted to goading and inflamatory comments......no not cop out...just tired of your nitpicking without you having anything of value to add, I can not increase my knowledge or understanding by continuing exchanges with you.....thanks for nothing..

[473geo]

Well not much point in trying to debate with those who cannot accept the government made mistakes....such a shallow pro authoritarian attitude is disconcerting for sure......you want to see who had peaceful intentions....dig this thread out running at the time of the run up to the protests....quite an eye opener the early posts by Tvisa members.......

Bangkok Traffic Police Preparing For A Tough Saturday

Started by webfact, 2010-03-19 07:25

You know as well as I, that there is only one or two TVF members that think that. Getting frustrated because you are not winning the debate is no excuse for a cop-out.

cop-out also cop·out (kpout)

n. Slang

1. A failure to fulfill a commitment or responsibility or to face a difficulty squarely.

2. A person who fails to fulfill a commitment or responsibility.

3. An excuse for inaction or evasion.

BTW you gave a bad link.

BTW you cannot read I said dig out the thread - it was not a link, try Google......thanks for proving my point

[dcutman]

Lets take it a little further. The authorised killing of innocent people. Granted some may not be but most were no threat to army personnel or precious buildngs

You do realize how stupid that makes you sound, right?

YOu sound like my Prathom daughter...'dad dont be silly' Authorising live fire zones and snipers who between them discharged (or not returned to the armoury) nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammo authorisation to kill because only a fool could believe all them rounds were fired at red shirts with weapons. Does that make me sound stupid. One word replys not accepted. Please tell me why I appear stupid

First, If you would please read through my posts and replies with 473geo, so I don't have to re type everything again for you.

Honestly consider your allegation. The authorised killing of innocent people.

Do you honestly believe that anybody in the AV Govt directly ordered or authorized the killing of an innocent, unarmed person/ persons, Yes or NO

Now how stupid does that sound The authorised killing of innocent people.

[rubl]

Posts in this thread are like the topic title, although with a slight modification

Bullets mays have come from both sides

[Buchholz]

Those responsible and in command will, I hope, eventually be brought to court.

From the top down.

Thaksin Skypes

.

The image above is referring, I assume, to the recent 25 Jan 2013 article in the International Herald Tribune by Thomas Fuller which presently resides behind pay-walls. I referred to it yesterday in another thread http://www.thaivisa....25#entry6054837 The article seems to underscore just how much Thaksin is actively involved today and was it ever so.

Regards

The full article is now available as a new thread:

How Thaksin Rules Thailand With Skype And Instant Messenger

http://www.thaivisa....tant-messenger/

[473geo]

Well it will be a telling time at the next election, because if PTP are voted back into government the electorate of Thailand clearly think the Yingluck Thaksin partnership is the way forward for Thailand....will be a bitter pill to swallow for others with aspirations for sure, but then wasn't the Democrat campaign at the last election "a vote for PTP is a vote for Thaksin"

[hellodolly]

Sure there were occasions where shots were fired from both sides, the majority of prolonged exchanges took place outside the protest camp, the questions being raised here surround the exchanges where fire was not returned on a scale which merited actions taken by the mlitary. The strange thing here is the clamour to blame Thaksin for all the mayhem.....when in reality the government committed the major gaff, the government understimated, lost control, tried to disperse at Phan Fah used live ammunition, failed, exacerbated the situation, lost control again, and subsequently used live ammunition on their fellow Thai in an attempt to rectify their incompetent handling of the whole situation.

..

Just curios what did the red shirts get out of paying of to the detail other than 90 dead. Well some of them got a ton of money. But other than that what?

Are you saying that the red shirts were in the wrong until the temple incident. If it hadn't been for that you would be anti Thaksin?

Sorry Dolly can't make out exactly what words you are trying to put in my mouth......what I will say is please do not make stuff up that I am supposed to be saying, as you appear already to be rather struggling to comprehend what I do actually say.....the protest if you recall was to get the government who did not have a mandate from the electorate, to step down....you think this wasn't achieved....fine up to you.....the detail missing from this scenario is why the government felt the need to cling to power for a few more measley months, and why they employed such excessive measures to achieve this end....any ideas?

sorry about leaving you confused you had mentioned paying attention to detail and my question was what good did it do the red shirts. 90 dead might seem like no big deal to you but some people think it is. The protest was not against the Democrats you say it was against a system that allowed them to be the ruling party.

You lost the protest but you did successfully get over 90 dead an about 6 month early election you were very successful at turning down town Bangkok into a pig sty. I guess that was just like home for you never bothered to clean it up afterwords. You did successfully deprive a lot of honest hard working Thais of a honest living. You managed to do some damage with fire a drop in the bucket compared to what your leaders said they wanted you to do.

You say the Government did not pay attention to details well they got what they set out to get that which as the legally elected government of the country they were expected to do. What did the red shirts get out of it. If they were paying attention to detail was 90 dead the best they could do. I admit the government did a sloppy job of it. The army should have dispersed the red shirts the minute they crossed over from a peaceful protest to an armed attack against Thailand. but they didn't. I guess you could call it a sloppy victory for the rule of law. By the way it was at that point when I formed my opinion of Thaksin and his horde of red shirts. At the start of the protest I was for him but a blind man could see what he was leading up to and in fact did. I then became a Democrat supporter even though I am not fond of Abhist I could see he was the best man for the job,

Why has the PT not changed the system now that they are in power? Maybe you red shirts should go back to red shirt school and learn more about Democracy. Or is this all there is to it. a minority of people telling the majority what to do. I guess that is what red shirt school teaches as we all know there is no mention of fixing the system they were supposedly fighting.

As for me I don't believe a word of your hog wash they were fighting for control legal had nothing to do with it. They were and still are under the control of a criminal who believes he is innocent of any wrong doing.

Just to clarify when I say you I am referring to the red shirts who you seem to support at every opportunity you get. I can not understand any one who is not a red shirt being so adamant in defending them.

Edited January 27, 2013 by hellodolly

[hellodolly]

Lets take it a little further. The authorised killing of innocent people. Granted some may not be but most were no threat to army personnel or precious buildngs

You do realize how stupid that makes you sound, right?

YOu sound like my Prathom daughter...'dad dont be silly' Authorising live fire zones and snipers who between them discharged (or not returned to the armoury) nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammo authorisation to kill because only a fool could believe all them rounds were fired at red shirts with weapons. Does that make me sound stupid. One word replys not accepted. Please tell me why I appear stupid

First, If you would please read through my posts and replies with 473geo, so I don't have to re type everything again for you.

Honestly consider your allegation. The authorised killing of innocent people.

Do you honestly believe that anybody in the AV Govt directly ordered or authorized the killing of an innocent, unarmed person/ persons, Yes or NO

Now how stupid does that sound The authorised killing of innocent people.

Par for the course from a red shirt.

[473geo]

Thanks for your explanation Dolly, so why did the Abhisit government not just step down and avoid any escalation, is there a vilid reason that justifies 90 deaths, Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill in this detail. Also who made this decision not to step down? because I believe (but I may be wrong) I believe Abhisit would have stepped down and called an election to avoid violence and death.

[hellodolly]

Thanks for your explanation Dolly, so why did the Abhisit government not just step down and avoid any escalation, is there a vilid reason that justifies 90 deaths, Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill in this detail. Also who made this decision not to step down? because I believe (but I may be wrong) I believe Abhisit would have stepped down and called an election to avoid violence and death.

You are right he could have. It would be saying that the rule of law means nothing in Thailand. The government will bow to the rule of the gun.

Lucky for Thailand he got his education at another place than red shirt school for Democracy.

what do you want for details on 90 plus dead they got shot and they died easy enough to understand.

Maybe they could have got quicker medical help but they invaded a hospital and scared away the intimidate help.

Red shirt logic I guess not mine. In fact my morals would not even have allowed the invasion of a hospital. But of course I did not go to red shirt school of Democracy so I missed that.

[dcutman]

Lets take it a little further. The authorised killing of innocent people. Granted some may not be but most were no threat to army personnel or precious buildngs

You do realize how stupid that makes you sound, right?

YOu sound like my Prathom daughter...'dad dont be silly' Authorising live fire zones and snipers who between them discharged (or not returned to the armoury) nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammo authorisation to kill because only a fool could believe all them rounds were fired at red shirts with weapons. Does that make me sound stupid. One word replys not accepted. Please tell me why I appear stupid

First, If you would please read through my posts and replies with 473geo, so I don't have to re type everything again for you.

Honestly consider your allegation. The authorised killing of innocent people.

Do you honestly believe that anybody in the AV Govt directly ordered or authorized the killing of an innocent, unarmed person/ persons, Yes or NO

Now how stupid does that sound The authorised killing of innocent people.

Par for the course from a red shirt.

I dont know Dolly, I am starting to get convinced, it is that "certain(red?) logic" I dont understand.

[473geo]

Thanks for your explanation Dolly, so why did the Abhisit government not just step down and avoid any escalation, is there a vilid reason that justifies 90 deaths, Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill in this detail. Also who made this decision not to step down? because I believe (but I may be wrong) I believe Abhisit would have stepped down and called an election to avoid violence and death.

You are right he could have. It would be saying that the rule of law means nothing in Thailand. The government will bow to the rule of the gun.

Lucky for Thailand he got his education at another place than red shirt school for Democracy.

what do you want for details on 90 plus dead they got shot and they died easy enough to understand.

Maybe they could have got quicker medical help but they invaded a hospital and scared away the intimidate help.

Red shirt logic I guess not mine. In fact my morals would not even have allowed the invasion of a hospital. But of course I did not go to red shirt school of Democracy so I missed that.

I've sent you a PM Dolly we are getting way off Topic here.....it's a polite PM also I've never been one to play to the gallery

[A_Traveller]

473Geo - Glad to see the sense of humour by-pass operation was a success.

Understanding what really created the astroturf movement will allow you to understand why it was so predisposed to violence. Look more closely in to the relationship of the underground money systems, to use the economics term. Work out who would suffer from the focus in early 2010 in the creation of an alternative "legal system" which tried to address this issue, with more than a modicum of success..

No efflorescence of political will, just grubby money politics [local and national] in play.

No not the sole reason but this one is studiously ignored by the chatters because it doesn't play into the "big picture" they want to sell/market/write books about. Academia is a market like any other after all, and journalistic promotions don't come from short selling the "brave campaigners for democracy", except it's not that simplistic..

So know the roots, [TRT's as well, back in the mid 90's] understand what really drove the timing and some things become clearer.

[473geo]

473Geo - Glad to see the sense of humour by-pass operation was a success.

Understanding what really created the astroturf movement will allow you to understand why it was so predisposed to violence. Look more closely in to the relationship of the underground money systems, to use the economics term. Work out who would suffer from the focus in early 2010 in the creation of an alternative "legal system" which tried to address this issue, with more than a modicum of success..

No efflorescence of political will, just grubby money politics [local and national] in play.

No not the sole reason but this one is studiously ignored by the chatters because it doesn't play into the "big picture" they want to sell/market/write books about. Academia is a market like any other after all, and journalistic promotions don't come from short selling the "brave campaigners for democracy", except it's not that simplistic..

So know the roots, [TRT's as well, back in the mid 90's] understand what really drove the timing and some things become clearer.

Not really very bright to start off a response with an attempted slight, then expect a serious response, however I will humour you, Thaksin is about 16 places off the top of the rich list in Thailand, and 'new' money too, that is an awful lot of sway above him!! Don't you think?

[Buchholz]

Lets take it a little further. The authorised killing of innocent people. Granted some may not be but most were no threat to army personnel or precious buildngs

You do realize how stupid that makes you sound, right?

YOu sound like my Prathom daughter...'dad dont be silly' Authorising live fire zones and snipers who between them discharged (or not returned to the armoury) nearly 120,000 rounds of live ammo authorisation to kill because only a fool could believe all them rounds were fired at red shirts with weapons. Does that make me sound stupid. One word replys not accepted. Please tell me why I appear stupid

First, If you would please read through my posts and replies with 473geo, so I don't have to re type everything again for you.

Honestly consider your allegation. The authorised killing of innocent people.

Do you honestly believe that anybody in the AV Govt directly ordered or authorized the killing of an innocent, unarmed person/ persons, Yes or NO

Now how stupid does that sound The authorised killing of innocent people.

That's the conclusion that the Red Shirts who listened to and believed in the doctored audio tape came to.

.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Thaksin is about 16 places off the top of the rich list in Thailand, and 'new' money too, that is an awful lot of sway above him!! Don't you think?

The validity and reliability of those top rich lists in Thailand hover just below that of ABAC opinion polls.

.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Buchholz

[siampolee]

Thanks for your explanation Dolly, so why did the Abhisit government not just step down and avoid any escalation, is there a vilid reason that justifies 90 deaths, Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill in this detail. Also who made this decision not to step down? because I believe (but I may be wrong) I believe Abhisit would have stepped down and called an election to avoid violence and death.

With all due respect 437geo you have stated that you are basically only resident in Thailand for short periods of time in one of your posts some time back, therefore is your understanding of matters first hand or from your successful rice farming wife ?

Were you actually here at the time of the civil disorder, ?

I was and it was indeed a very unpleasant experience dealing with the self appointed Red Shirt guards and commissars along with the Red Shirt commission agents who extracted tolls from me and others to so as we could proceed lo our places of work.

The expression '' Anarchy'' springs to mind casting my mind back to those actions along with the calls for the then administration to resign.

I call upon you 473geo to resign from this thread as your views go against the mainstream posts.

Let's follow the logic and dogma of the Red Shirt movement you support shall we ?

No double standards, crying democracy yet in reality the Red Shirt leaderships aim was and still is to destroy democracy and return a political megalomaniac to absolute power.

Those who died were playing with fire either for a belief in the cause or more likely a daily stipend from those who led from the back and in Dubai. ., . ..

[whybother]

Thanks for your explanation Dolly, so why did the Abhisit government not just step down and avoid any escalation, is there a vilid reason that justifies 90 deaths, Perhaps you would be so kind as to fill in this detail. Also who made this decision not to step down? because I believe (but I may be wrong) I believe Abhisit would have stepped down and called an election to avoid violence and death.

Why didn't the red shirts just go home and stop their escalation? Did they have any reasons to justify 90 deaths?

[Mosha]

Innocent protestors should have left the area when the orders started to be issued by the government side. Unless of course they were being prevented by the paymaster general's side.

[seajae]

Som num na, they got what they deserved. No city in the world would have been as tolerant as long as this one was, before finally having to relieve Bangkok of these people. First negotiation, offers of settlement (which were ignored), then requests to disperse, then demands to vacate, and finally military - what did they expect? Try laying siege to any western country and see what the police will do. No sympathy from me that's for sure.

They would be using RUBBER bullets and TEAR Gas, NOT live ammunition. For goodness sake, which western country would turn their army loose on civillian protesters with live ammunition. That is criminal respective of how long the protests had been running. Surely somebody has to answer for this bastardly order.

Sorry but thats wrong, when I was in the Australian army we were trained to be used when the unions blocked the wharves and nothing was getting into the country. We were trained to use live ammunition, not rubber, admittedly it was in the 70's but it hasnt changed. You answer live fire with live fire, not pretend bullets.

[lannarebirth]

Has the investigation determined yet if the Army fired grenades into its own command post , taking out the leadership, as a premise for the unwarranted and indiscriminate murder of unarmed , peaceful citizens?

[Pimay1]

Has the investigation determined yet if the Army fired grenades into its own command post , taking out the leadership, as a premise for the unwarranted and indiscriminate murder of unarmed , peaceful citizens?

That would be about as credible as any of the nonsense they have come up with so far.