Lak Si violence echoes 2010, points to hypocrisy on both sides

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Lak Si violence echoes 2010, points to hypocrisy on both sides
Atthayuth Butrsriphoom

BANGKOK: -- On the morning of April 10, 2010, troops deployed in Bangkok under the state of emergency advanced their positions to tighten security around the rally sites of the red-shirt protesters, who were demonstrating in several spots including the Ratchaprasong and Phan Fah areas.

Violence flared. Troops began the crackdown by firing teargas against protesters. Clashes erupted on all sides, and the violence peaked that night, with war weapons being used by both sides, causing both to sustain casualties. Several troops were also killed by grenades.

After the dust settled, witnesses and evidence - including photos and video clips - emerged. The evidence confirmed that both sides used war weapons. Most importantly of all, video clips showed that there were "men in black" standing among the red-shirt demonstrators, who cheered when the men fired back at the troops.

During the rallies, the red-shirt leaders tried to distance themselves from the men in black, and even denied that they existed. But in a slip of the tongue, several red-shirt leaders thanked the men in black for coming out to help the demonstrators. In several instances, red-shirt leaders even praised the men in black as heroes.

Of course, the other side cursed the red-shirt leaders, saying they had tacitly admitted that they were on the same side as the men in black. The red-shirt leaders, the other side said, supported violence by these men, who were described as "terrorists". The red-shirt rallies were therefore not peaceful as claimed by the group's leaders, the red-shirts' opponents said.

Nearly four years later, a similar incident happened on February 1, on the eve of the election. Luangpu Buddha Issara led protesters of the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) to block the Lak Si district office to prevent the delivery of ballots and ballot boxes. Then, a group of red-shirt protesters led by Wutthipong "Ko Tee" Kotchathammakhun, rushed to confront the PDRC demonstrators.

A clash occurred at the Lak Si intersection. The PDRC claimed that Wutthipong's side fired at the PDRC demonstrators first. The two sides then exchanged gunfire and the firing stopped at dusk.

After the dust settled, witnesses and evidence emerged, including photos and video clips. Evidence showed that PDRC protesters carried and fired pistols and revolvers against the other side. There were also video clips that showed a man in black firing an assault rifle, which was partially concealed with a fertiliser bag, at the red shirts.

The photos and video clips were disseminated worldwide, proving that the PDRC rallies were not peaceful as claimed. The use of guns was also denounced by the international community.

Since the evidence was clear, all eyes turned to PDRC secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban for an explanation. As expected, Suthep claimed that the men in black did not belong to the PDRC. But what was unexpected was that Suthep thanked the men in black for coming out to defend the people by firing against the other side.

His statement was greeted with cheers from the protesters, who praised the men in black - even though these same people had condemned the men in black in 2010.

Many of them even called for armed demonstrations and expressed satisfaction that their side had used violence. They acted as if they had forgotten that they once cursed the use of violence by red shirts.

And the red shirts turned to curse the men in black as if they had forgotten that they once admired such figures.

What happened shows that neither side cares about peace and adherence to non-violence in demonstrations. They simply sought justification for their own actions, although their deeds were entirely unacceptable.


-- The Nation 2014-02-07

[whybother]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

[djjamie]

In 2010 the terrorists were firing against soldiers that were trying to restore peace.

In 2014 the terrorists were firing against protestors that were trying to restore democracy.

I notice one common thread in both of these deadly gun fights. Red shirts.

Edited February 7, 2014 by djjamie

[uty6543]

There is one thing that is the same as 2010 and that is the Red Shirts are the instigators of the violence again.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

I sincerely dislike the revisionist history which seems to have become mainstream in the media. The 2010 protests were an armed uprising against the government. I worked in a firezone. We had to close our office for 2 weeks because of the violence. It was unfortunate the uprising had to be put down by violent means and that meant loss of lives, but I'm really not sure how else that could have ended without the destruction of the Thai nation-state. Any government is within its rights to defend itself against violence directed at it from within.

The 2013-14 protests have been relatively peaceful. The violence has occurred when the anti-government groups have come in contact with pro-government groups, or "men in black", whoever they may be. There might have been some army involvement in the Laksi incident, but, if there was, the force was used in an attempt to restore peace.

[noitom]

How about the hypocrisy in all the decades of previous Thai violence and killing? How about the hypocrisy of a closed international airport for a week and the disruption of international security for a few weeks in 2008?

[djjamie]

How about the hypocrisy in all the decades of previous Thai violence and killing? How about the hypocrisy of a closed international airport for a week and the disruption of international security for a few weeks in 2008?

This article has no reference to that. It is referring to the comparisons and similarities from the journalists point of view of the protests in 2010 and the protests in 2013/14.

If we open ourselves up to discussion on every aspect of Thai politics then the articles in question become immaterial which is not the drive this forum is aiming at.

You have raised a great point though and I do look forward to an article touching on the whole political situations over a broader timeframe so we can promote healthy debate on what you have raised.

[yourauntbob]

In 2010 the terrorists were firing against soldiers that were trying to restore peace.

In 2014 the terrorists were firing against protestors that were trying to restore democracy.

I notice one common thread in both of these deadly gun fights. Red shirts.

TV members keeping the blindfolds on

[yourauntbob]

I sincerely dislike the revisionist history which seems to have become mainstream in the media. The 2010 protests were an armed uprising against the government. I worked in a firezone. We had to close our office for 2 weeks because of the violence. It was unfortunate the uprising had to be put down by violent means and that meant loss of lives, but I'm really not sure how else that could have ended without the destruction of the Thai nation-state. Any government is within its rights to defend itself against violence directed at it from within.

The 2013-14 protests have been relatively peaceful. The violence has occurred when the anti-government groups have come in contact with pro-government groups, or "men in black", whoever they may be. There might have been some army involvement in the Laksi incident, but, if there was, the force was used in an attempt to restore peace.

it could have ended with elections. that simple.

[yourauntbob]

why does everyone think that violance from their side is justified but the other side is not justified. do you not realize that takes away all credibility to your arguements. i know i will be incorrectly labeled a "red shirt supporter" for these posts, but the audacity of the posts that come after artiles like this really make me shake my head.

[londonthai]

The 2010 protests were about democratic elections, the 2013/14 are in a big part about the same. The rullig's class response is the same - violence against the population, intimidation

[fleeing]

The 2010 protests were about democratic elections, the 2013/14 are in a big part about the same. The rullig's class response is the same - violence against the population, intimidation

The 2010 protests were about Thaksin's UDD being mobilised because his previous backers did a switch in parliament and formed a coalition government with the Democrats.

The 2013/14 protests were about the contentious amnesty bill, but have developed into a protest at the very nature of the Thaksin sponsored government.

In 2010 new elections were offered but rejected, on the orders of Thaksin, leading to military action.

Let's see what happens if the present government resigns and makes way for reforms.

[Gweiloman]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

In 2010 the terrorists were firing against soldiers that were trying to restore peace.

In 2014 the terrorists were firing against protestors that were trying to restore democracy.

I notice one common thread in both of these deadly gun fights. Red shirts.

In 2014, the govt had learned that sending in armed forces will merely result in needless and wasteful loss of life.

[djjamie]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

In 2010 the terrorists were firing against soldiers that were trying to restore peace.

In 2014 the terrorists were firing against protestors that were trying to restore democracy.

I notice one common thread in both of these deadly gun fights. Red shirts.

In 2014, the govt had learned that sending in armed forces will merely result in needless and wasteful loss of life.

Rest assured that if the PDRC threatening to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and using children as human shields you can be assured the govt would send the army in.

Edited February 7, 2014 by djjamie

[Rich teacher]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

& may I ask, how could the shootings possibly be between PDRC & the army, considering the army's tacit support of the PDRC and every yellow uprising that has preceded it?

[Rich teacher]

Rest assured that if the PDRC threatening to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and using children as human shields you can be assured the govt would send the army in.

But the PDRC has blown up several things, launched grenade attacks, stormed parliament, stormed TV stations, taken police hostage (in fact almost beating to death), destroyed untold public property, brought children to dangerous rally sites.

On top of this they have committed the most brazen, daylight armed assault in the history of Thailand.

But don't worry the army still won't be sent in.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Rich teacher

[Gweiloman]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

In 2010 the terrorists were firing against soldiers that were trying to restore peace.

In 2014 the terrorists were firing against protestors that were trying to restore democracy.

I notice one common thread in both of these deadly gun fights. Red shirts.

In 2014, the govt had learned that sending in armed forces will merely result in needless and wasteful loss of life.

Rest assured that if the PDRC threatening to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and using children as human shields you can be assured the govt would send the army in.

Rich teacher has responded better than I could have ever done

[englishoak]

The gov dosnt have the power to send the army in anywhere, the army is a separate entity here and a law unto its own.

Do not be fooled into thinking Thailands forces has a similar structure as others in regards of obedience to a government here, they dont. a gov can only ask for the army help and cannot order them to do anything.

[rubl]

There is one VERY big difference between the 2010 and 2014 clashes.

In 2010, the shootings were between red shirts and authorities.

In 2014, the shootings were between PDRC and red shirts.

Sent from my phone ...

& may I ask, how could the shootings possibly be between PDRC & the army, considering the army's tacit support of the PDRC and every yellow uprising that has preceded it?

A rich teacher should not only read, but try to understand before posting, maybe?

2010 red shirt - authorities

2014 pdrc and red shirts

The important part is that where in 2010 we had a crackdown by the authorities, now it seems the red-shirts try to crack down somehow.

That has nothing to do with a suggestive question of army versus PDRC or not.

[rubl]

The gov dosnt have the power to send the army in anywhere, the army is a separate entity here and a law unto its own.

Do not be fooled into thinking Thailands forces has a similar structure as others in regards of obedience to a government here, they dont. a gov can only ask for the army help and cannot order them to do anything.

but .. but ... the police is doing a wonderfull job. Why would the government need to involve the Army ?

I always though that some posters here were strictly and truly against involving the Army when there is a fully functional police force available ?

[Rich teacher]

A rich teacher should not only read, but try to understand before posting, maybe?

2010 red shirt - authorities

2014 pdrc and red shirts

The important part is that where in 2010 we had a crackdown by the authorities, now it seems the red-shirts try to crack down somehow.

That has nothing to do with a suggestive question of army versus PDRC or not.

Perhaps Rubi should brush up on his comprehension skills before telling others to.

The important part is. Double standards! A certain dominant faction of the army are extremely pro-yellow and will crack down on the reds with a drop of a hat, while refusing to get involved with the PDRC even after blatant terrorist actions.

[rubl]

Rest assured that if the PDRC threatening to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and using children as human shields you can be assured the govt would send the army in.

But the PDRC has blown up several things, launched grenade attacks, stormed parliament, stormed TV stations, taken police hostage (in fact almost beating to death), destroyed untold public property, brought children to dangerous rally sites.

On top of this they have committed the most brazen, daylight armed assault in the history of Thailand.

But don't worry the army still won't be sent in.

The PDRC did that? PDRC blew things up, PDRC threw grenades?, PDRC stormed parliament? Take police hostage and beat clearly uniformed police officers? Took children to peacefull protest sites? Etc., etc.

My memory probably fails me, I don't remember all of that. I do remember that non-uniformed policemen were beaten and rescued by PDRC people. I remember that 'unknowns' throw grenades and other explosives on a near daily base maing sites verry dangerous for protesters and their already present children.

Daily armed attacks against PDRC which the police seems unable to stop forcing the PDRC to have some armed group themselves.

And still people suggesting that this is all the PDRC's fault. They should go home and all would be happy. Especially the Pheu Thai I guess.

How wonderful this democratic demonising basicly peaceful protesters. Clue for Dr. weng to start about eradication democrats again.

[rubl]

A rich teacher should not only read, but try to understand before posting, maybe?

2010 red shirt - authorities

2014 pdrc and red shirts

The important part is that where in 2010 we had a crackdown by the authorities, now it seems the red-shirts try to crack down somehow.

That has nothing to do with a suggestive question of army versus PDRC or not.

Perhaps Rubi should brush up on his comprehension skills before telling others to.

The important part is. Double standards! A certain dominant faction of the army are extremely pro-yellow and will crack down on the reds with a drop of a hat, while refusing to get involved with the PDRC even after blatant terrorist actions.

Double standards? My dear chap, you cannot accuse the previous government of using the army and belabour that the army will not help the new government. That's double standards.

[Rich teacher]

Double standards? My dear chap, you cannot accuse the previous government of using the army and belabour that the army will not help the new government. That's double standards.

Dear chappie...the point is...the ability to use them...not that this government would be stupid enough to do that even if they could (which of course they can't)

[rubl]

Double standards? My dear chap, you cannot accuse the previous government of using the army and belabour that the army will not help the new government. That's double standards.

Dear chappie...the point is...the ability to use them...not that this government would be stupid enough to do that even if they could (which of course they can't)

Oh, a hypothetical question.

Terribly sorry, old chap. I was busy with an actual situation.

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to a Thai language site has been removed. This is the English language side of the forum, Thai language sites here are irrelevant.

[Rich teacher]

A post containing a link to a Thai language site has been removed. This is the English language side of the forum, Thai language sites here are irrelevant.

youtube is a Thai language site?

[metisdead]

A post containing a link to a Thai language site has been removed. This is the English language side of the forum, Thai language sites here are irrelevant.

youtube is a Thai language site?

The video is in Thai language, this is the English language side of the forum.

[englishoak]

The gov dosnt have the power to send the army in anywhere, the army is a separate entity here and a law unto its own.

Do not be fooled into thinking Thailands forces has a similar structure as others in regards of obedience to a government here, they dont. a gov can only ask for the army help and cannot order them to do anything.

but .. but ... the police is doing a wonderfull job. Why would the government need to involve the Army ?

I always though that some posters here were strictly and truly against involving the Army when there is a fully functional police force available ?

You know better than that rubi, the police have been explicitly warned and told they are not allowed to do their job by the Army. Effectively the Army is telling the police what they can and cannot do and warning them about ignoring that advice.

There isnt a fully functioning Police force available, thats just it, they have been effectively stood down since the new year.

There is a difference between now and 2010, this time around the army is not allowing the police to function, there isnt another "democratic" country and i use the term loosely that has the army telling the police what to do or isnt under the control of the government.

TIT and if i had to describe what here is it would be an army junta/ royalist cooperative within a partial democratic system that is there purely to legitimise and appease the world whilst really maintaining at all costs that continuing and long standing partnership of both the afore mentioned to keep the power and influence where it has always been.

It's not my country but im not under the illusion this is a true democracy either, which is why I suspect so many do not seem to mind about losing what little it actually has.

[casualbiker]

Rest assured that if the PDRC threatening to blow up LPG truck, grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacking Thai charity with grenades, attacking NPP and TPI buildings with grenades, storming parliament, storming police hospital, storming TV station, bombing electricity pylons, taking 2 police hostage, burning fire engines, destroying CCTV cameras, dumping tyres on sky train tracks and using children as human shields you can be assured the govt would send the army in.

But the PDRC has blown up several things, launched grenade attacks, stormed parliament, stormed TV stations, taken police hostage (in fact almost beating to death), destroyed untold public property, brought children to dangerous rally sites.

On top of this they have committed the most brazen, daylight armed assault in the history of Thailand.

But don't worry the army still won't be sent in.

The most brazen armed assault in the history of Thailand ... yes. I agree. At this moment with the evidence at hand. I'm not 100% sure it was PCAD that the Guy in black with the Tavor belonged to..mainly because of how brazen it was.. they seemed to ENSURE that they were in front of camera's ... but I don't think we will EVER know!

Sent from my XT1032 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app