2010 crackdown: NACC gets new evidence

[Robby nz]

massacre justification for the mass killing of demonstrators. There is also significant evidence of PDRC false flag operations conducted to encourage a coup.

As I recall when asked the late renegade general Seh Daeng said "no one saw me".

The fair evidence about the fire at CWT indicated various armed and fighting forces rather than 'army in control'.

To some obviously all activities of those who oppress peaceful and lovable protesters who saw and heard nothing and somehow know nothing as well.

Well, perhaps I do see the world through rose coloured glasses. Others may tend to see the world through yellow tinted shooting glasses.

I am relatively certain that the grenades fired at the MRT roof (one of which missed and killed an innocent bystander), and the grenade that injured the Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergraft, were fired by red shirt supporters. I believe they were the remnants of Seh Deang's little platoon. But when hundreds of thousands are protesting for democracy, and against double standards, and feel they are constantly persecuted and denigrated by unaccountable elites, its not surprising that a few are radicalised. Besides these incidents, I don't know of any other confirmed incidents of red shirt military-like violence.

In contrast, there is ample video and eyewitness accounts of military, PAD and PDRC violence.

Anyway, I guess you have characterised me correctly. I do find the democracy protesters generally peaceful and loveable. Likewise, I find those who seek to oppress them, to deny them basic human rights, the opposite.

You do have it bad.

They were protesting (rioting) against a legally constituted Govt that had was put together in a democratic and constitutional manner as a coalition in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy Govts.

.

Many of the rioters were paid to riot and there was an armed element among them as well as armed reds, a couple of photos once again and plenty more where those came from :armed red.jpg blackshirt1.jpg

The General (now) was killed by a grenade fired from the red crowd there were malicious rumors spread at the time that he had been shot from behind in the back and head but that was proven to be untrue.

If you like peaceful protest for democracy then you must have joined the protests against the amnesty bill which couldn't have been more undemocratic. That's assuming you've ever been to Thailand.

While you are at it you might like to give us your spin on one of your peaceful red shirt leader heroes "burn BKK to the ground"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouQJuhlfBXY

They were protesting (rioting) against a legally constituted Govt that had was put together in a democratic and constitutional manner

well if that is your starting point, ....

Please explain why it was not ?

It was put together as a coalition in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy Govts.

[rubl]

Did I mention someone with that name? Mind you, the 'protests' really started end of February 2010 when a court ruled to confiscate 43 or so billion Baht from said criminal fugitive's ill gotten gains. Would that also be a 'false flag' operation to provoke those poor oppressed into coming to Bangkok ?

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Well, I grant you that there are and more and more so red-shirt factions which do not want or no longer want to fall under the UDD umbrella what with Thaksin still described as the 'de facto' leader of the UDD.

Having said that the UDD had organised the protests, the UDD was pro-Thaksin to say the very least. That makes the protests in name a pro-Thaksin protest. That has nothing to do with all kind of interesting argument people came up with AFTER the events.

So, "new information", but unclear if it's really new in the sense of "pieces of the puzzle not seen before".

[In Town]

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Another one ! Joined yesterday, 4 comments racked up and posting like a pro ! Is there a factory somewhere churning these guys out ?

Yes, there must be a factory! Actually, I think event are driving more and more people to this side of the aisle. I remember after the coup in 2006 I felt like I was all alone, crying in the wilderness. But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

This has also occurred among the Bangkok people, who happily supported oppression of the buffalo ten years ago, and welcomed the killings in 2010, as demonstrators had disrupted their shopping. Now even hardened yellows realise their strategy to regain power on the backs of the military has failed and that they too have been pushed aside. Sometimes it seems the only people left who oppose the Thai people fulfilling their aspiration for self-government are the super rich, the military, and a few posters here on TV. That makes me happy.

[tbthailand]

Well, perhaps I do see the world through rose coloured glasses. Others may tend to see the world through yellow tinted shooting glasses.

I am relatively certain that the grenades fired at the MRT roof (one of which missed and killed an innocent bystander), and the grenade that injured the Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergraft, were fired by red shirt supporters. I believe they were the remnants of Seh Deang's little platoon. But when hundreds of thousands are protesting for democracy, and against double standards, and feel they are constantly persecuted and denigrated by unaccountable elites, its not surprising that a few are radicalised. Besides these incidents, I don't know of any other confirmed incidents of red shirt military-like violence.

In contrast, there is ample video and eyewitness accounts of military, PAD and PDRC violence.

Anyway, I guess you have characterised me correctly. I do find the democracy protesters generally peaceful and loveable. Likewise, I find those who seek to oppress them, to deny them basic human rights, the opposite.

You do have it bad.

They were protesting (rioting) against a legally constituted Govt that had was put together in a democratic and constitutional manner as a coalition in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy Govts.

.

Many of the rioters were paid to riot and there was an armed element among them as well as armed reds, a couple of photos once again and plenty more where those came from :armed red.jpg blackshirt1.jpg

The General (now) was killed by a grenade fired from the red crowd there were malicious rumors spread at the time that he had been shot from behind in the back and head but that was proven to be untrue.

If you like peaceful protest for democracy then you must have joined the protests against the amnesty bill which couldn't have been more undemocratic. That's assuming you've ever been to Thailand.

While you are at it you might like to give us your spin on one of your peaceful red shirt leader heroes "burn BKK to the ground"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouQJuhlfBXY

They were protesting (rioting) against a legally constituted Govt that had was put together in a democratic and constitutional manner

well if that is your starting point, ....

Please explain why it was not ?

It was put together as a coalition in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy Govts.

ah, come on... your other alias isn't "whybother", is it? He couldne't understand the difference either.

Seriously, you're begging me to insult your intelligence if you claim that.

[rubl]

They were protesting (rioting) against a legally constituted Govt that had was put together in a democratic and constitutional manner

well if that is your starting point, ....

Please explain why it was not ?

It was put together as a coalition in exactly the same way as the 2 previous Thaksin proxy Govts.

ah, come on... your other alias isn't "whybother", is it? He couldne't understand the difference either.

Seriously, you're begging me to insult your intelligence if you claim that.

You mean one was influenced by local people and the other by a chap facing multiple charges ?

[ExPratt]

Its a very emotive subject isn't it. I don't think there can be any doubt that many, many innocent people were shot dead by the Army. Yes some were armed counter Revolutionaries, But that imo does not give the Army the Right to open up and accept massive Collateral damage

The more people deny there was wrong doing the more the chance of it happening again. Do they not want to prosecute Yingluck for paying compensation to victims of the shooting and murder. That is a sign how desperate they are to conceal the Truth and their own guilt.

Yes Hawkers have been cleared from the streets, Jet ski operators closed down, Beach chairs removed, streets cleaned , High speed Railways planned , populist policies if ever I've seen them , to keep the "Things have got better" Posse excited about The Junta's work. If nothing happens at the inquiries and Trials about the innocent people Murdered and dismissed or found to be a "lack of evidence" as in the Reuters Journalists Murder , then things are most definitely not getting better

[kimamey]

oh wonder of wonders... new evidence now after all this time... how lucky is that ?

Not so lucky.. quite possible that the evidence was suppressed.. The official PTP party line was that there were no black-shirts.

Though pictures and videos prove they exist and used the same weapons as the army.. so knowing who killed who is kinda hard.

Not like what the PTP did.. hey these are bullets fired with high powered rifles.. its army. (conveniently forgetting the black-shirts)

It would have to have been suppressed by governments on both sides if that were true.

[rubl]

Its a very emotive subject isn't it. I don't think there can be any doubt that many, many innocent people were shot dead by the Army. Yes some were armed counter Revolutionaries, But that imo does not give the Army the Right to open up and accept massive Collateral damage

The more people deny there was wrong doing the more the chance of it happening again. Do they not want to prosecute Yingluck for paying compensation to victims of the shooting and murder. That is a sign how desperate they are to conceal the Truth and their own guilt.

Yes Hawkers have been cleared from the streets, Jet ski operators closed down, Beach chairs removed, streets cleaned , High speed Railways planned , populist policies if ever I've seen them , to keep the "Things have got better" Posse excited about The Junta's work. If nothing happens at the inquiries and Trials about the innocent people Murdered and dismissed or found to be a "lack of evidence" as in the Reuters Journalists Murder , then things are most definitely not getting better

Imagine one of the previous governments even wanted to wipe the slate with a blanket amnesty bill

Edited June 11, 2015 by rubl

[ExPratt]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

[rubl]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

[In Town]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

Do you understand what the word 'mandate' means? In a democracy an elected government has a mandate to govern the country. Referring to the specific, the government of the time thought they could do a deal to get Thaksin included in the amnesty by trading amnesty for Suthep and Abhisit. The first to object were the red shirts, followed closely by the yellows. Abhisit and Co. (surprisingly, I think) jumped not he bandwagon immediately. Thaksin, who generally has pretty good political sense, badly miscalculated this time and tried to walk it back, and the damage was done.

Regarding 2010, there is already plenty of evidence of what actually happened, but some people still wear blinders and refuse to acknowledge it.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sheryl
attack on other posters removed by Moderator

[ExPratt]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

If they were elected why not, many people from both "Sides" would been pardoned. Governments around the world do all sorts of strange and unpopular stuff because they can. Thatcher destroyed UKs coal industry because the Union was too strong, Reagan invaded Grenada ? Bush Iraq, Blair Iraq and now we have a Referemdum about leaving the EU to pader to the Tory parties right wing and their supporters evidence

2010 Evidence, Its going to have to be something a bit special to get all those shootings excused , perhaps he is thing of doing a "Gregory Peck" in Twelve Angry men

[rubl]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

If they were elected why not, many people from both "Sides" would been pardoned. Governments around the world do all sorts of strange and unpopular stuff because they can. Thatcher destroyed UKs coal industry because the Union was too strong, Reagan invaded Grenada ? Bush Iraq, Blair Iraq and now we have a Referemdum about leaving the EU to pader to the Tory parties right wing and their supporters evidence

2010 Evidence, Its going to have to be something a bit special to get all those shootings excused , perhaps he is thing of doing a "Gregory Peck" in Twelve Angry men

Why not? Do you really think Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to absolve herself from 'political motivated crimes' ? Did she even perpetrate such crimes?

Anyway,the DSI concentrated on the easy cases first for the inquests. At least that's what Tarit say. Even with those 'easy' cases the Inquest result was mostly not that clear. Certainly a "most likely soldiers shot' will not be enough in a criminal court to get 'soldiers' convicted. What is more of a question is a possible 'abuse of power' as the charge the NACC is currently looking at. Such charge may have a better chance to uncover what happened than the somewhat strange "premeditated murder as private persons"..

[ExPratt]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

If they were elected why not, many people from both "Sides" would been pardoned. Governments around the world do all sorts of strange and unpopular stuff because they can. Thatcher destroyed UKs coal industry because the Union was too strong, Reagan invaded Grenada ? Bush Iraq, Blair Iraq and now we have a Referemdum about leaving the EU to pader to the Tory parties right wing and their supporters evidence

2010 Evidence, Its going to have to be something a bit special to get all those shootings excused , perhaps he is thing of doing a "Gregory Peck" in Twelve Angry men

Why not? Do you really think Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to absolve herself from 'political motivated crimes' ? Did she even perpetrate such crimes?

Anyway,the DSI concentrated on the easy cases first for the inquests. At least that's what Tarit say. Even with those 'easy' cases the Inquest result was mostly not that clear. Certainly a "most likely soldiers shot' will not be enough in a criminal court to get 'soldiers' convicted. What is more of a question is a possible 'abuse of power' as the charge the NACC is currently looking at. Such charge may have a better chance to uncover what happened than the somewhat strange "premeditated murder as private persons"..

Yes would be very difficult to establish how many who were killed were innocent and how many were not. although I think its fair to assume fair percentage of those killed were collateral damage. Who is to blame for those deaths is the question. It must lie with the people who ordered the Army to fir on the armed individuals if that was the order. I recall free fire zones a Free Fire zone closing down the British Embassy

Edited June 11, 2015 by ExPratt

[Nickymaster]

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Another one ! Joined yesterday, 4 comments racked up and posting like a pro ! Is there a factory somewhere churning these guys out ?

Yes, there must be a factory! Actually, I think event are driving more and more people to this side of the aisle. I remember after the coup in 2006 I felt like I was all alone, crying in the wilderness. But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

This has also occurred among the Bangkok people, who happily supported oppression of the buffalo ten years ago, and welcomed the killings in 2010, as demonstrators had disrupted their shopping. Now even hardened yellows realise their strategy to regain power on the backs of the military has failed and that they too have been pushed aside. Sometimes it seems the only people left who oppose the Thai people fulfilling their aspiration for self-government are the super rich, the military, and a few posters here on TV. That makes me happy.

But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

That must be the reason China, Japan and the US is investing in government projects here in Thailand. All arranged by Khun Prayuth and his team. By the way, the PM just got back from Singapore.

You sound like a desperate man. Going to extremes to convince people that the situation is not what they think (and see) it is. Prayuth is popular, the remaining Shins are packing their suitcases as we speak. Perfect! You are trying hard, too hard to even sound a bit convincing. It is very clear what your purpose is here.

Since Thaksin's passports were revoked we see a lot of guys like you here on TV. Interesting.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Nickymaster

[rubl]

Why not? Do you really think Ms. Yingluck had a mandate to absolve herself from 'political motivated crimes' ? Did she even perpetrate such crimes?

Anyway,the DSI concentrated on the easy cases first for the inquests. At least that's what Tarit say. Even with those 'easy' cases the Inquest result was mostly not that clear. Certainly a "most likely soldiers shot' will not be enough in a criminal court to get 'soldiers' convicted. What is more of a question is a possible 'abuse of power' as the charge the NACC is currently looking at. Such charge may have a better chance to uncover what happened than the somewhat strange "premeditated murder as private persons"..

Yes would be very difficult to establish how many who were killed were innocent and how many were not. although I think its fair to assume fair percentage of those killed were collateral damage. Who is to blame for those deaths is the question. It must lie with the people who ordered the Army to fir on the armed individuals if that was the order. I recall free fire zones a Free Fire zone closing down the British Embassy

"Live Fire Zone" which is somewhat different from "Free Fire Zone". Mind you, instated in areas where the army had the most violent and deadly opposition from the peaceful protesters.

The British Embassy was not in such zone, but close enough to justify it's closure. Also the Netherlands and the USA embassies were closed for a while if I remember correctly.

IT seems very clear that the government (i.e. PM Abhisit / Dept. PM Suthep) gave the army permission to use force where deemed necessary. This may be 'unclear' enough to cover almost anything. There were armed elements amongst the mostly peaceful protesters. The armed elements were 'not seen' by the peaceful protesters. Still armed elements shot at and dropped grenades on the army (like even on the very last day).

I don't want to distract, but even in the West we have similar situations were government/army/police were seen to be in their right.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/shot-ira-unit-fired-first-at-sas-28689002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flavius

[ExPratt]

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Another one ! Joined yesterday, 4 comments racked up and posting like a pro ! Is there a factory somewhere churning these guys out ?

Yes, there must be a factory! Actually, I think event are driving more and more people to this side of the aisle. I remember after the coup in 2006 I felt like I was all alone, crying in the wilderness. But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

This has also occurred among the Bangkok people, who happily supported oppression of the buffalo ten years ago, and welcomed the killings in 2010, as demonstrators had disrupted their shopping. Now even hardened yellows realise their strategy to regain power on the backs of the military has failed and that they too have been pushed aside. Sometimes it seems the only people left who oppose the Thai people fulfilling their aspiration for self-government are the super rich, the military, and a few posters here on TV. That makes me happy.

But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

That must be the reason China, Japan and the US is investing in government projects here in Thailand. All arranged by Khun Prayuth and his team. By the way, the PM just got back from Singapore.

You sound like a desperate man. Going to extremes to convince people that the situation is not what they think (and see) it is. Prayuth is popular, the remaining Shins are packing their suitcases as we speak. Perfect! You are trying hard, too hard to even sound a bit convincing. It is very clear what your purpose is here.

Since Thaksin's passports were revoked we see a lot of guys like you here on TV. Interesting.

What are the Us investing in ?

[In Town]

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Another one ! Joined yesterday, 4 comments racked up and posting like a pro ! Is there a factory somewhere churning these guys out ?

Yes, there must be a factory! Actually, I think event are driving more and more people to this side of the aisle. I remember after the coup in 2006 I felt like I was all alone, crying in the wilderness. But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

This has also occurred among the Bangkok people, who happily supported oppression of the buffalo ten years ago, and welcomed the killings in 2010, as demonstrators had disrupted their shopping. Now even hardened yellows realise their strategy to regain power on the backs of the military has failed and that they too have been pushed aside. Sometimes it seems the only people left who oppose the Thai people fulfilling their aspiration for self-government are the super rich, the military, and a few posters here on TV. That makes me happy.

But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

That must be the reason China, Japan and the US is investing in government projects here in Thailand. All arranged by Khun Prayuth and his team. By the way, the PM just got back from Singapore.

You sound like a desperate man. Going to extremes to convince people that the situation is not what they think (and see) it is. Prayuth is popular, the remaining Shins are packing their suitcases as we speak. Perfect! You are trying hard, too hard to even sound a bit convincing. It is very clear what your purpose is here.

Since Thaksin's passports were revoked we see a lot of guys like you here on TV. Interesting.

Not into conspiracy much, are you? Perhaps you are seeing more guys like me because there are more guys like me. Scary, huh?

Sorry about inward investment. everyone knows the economy is in the tank. But I did hear North Korea may be interested in Thailand. And its possible they are already providing technical assistance to the junta for those polls you think show the peoples love for the generals.

[rubl]

... and in the mean time we still don't know more about the 'new evidence' deposited. Mind you, we also don't know about the urgent business Ms. Yingluck had to conduct. Maybe we're just a wee bit too impatient

[ExPratt]

... and in the mean time we still don't know more about the 'new evidence' deposited. Mind you, we also don't know about the urgent business Ms. Yingluck had to conduct. Maybe we're just a wee bit too impatient

Lets see mate , could be like the old Perry Mason cases, Surprise witness announced to gasps from a packed court room

[Nickymaster]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

Do you understand what the word 'mandate' means? In a democracy an elected government has a mandate to govern the country. Referring to the specific, the government of the time thought they could do a deal to get Thaksin included in the amnesty by trading amnesty for Suthep and Abhisit. The first to object were the red shirts, followed closely by the yellows. Abhisit and Co. (surprisingly, I think) jumped not he bandwagon immediately. Thaksin, who generally has pretty good political sense, badly miscalculated this time and tried to walk it back, and the damage was done.

Regarding 2010, there is already plenty of evidence of what actually happened, but some people still wear blinders and refuse to acknowledge it.

The first to object were the red shirts, followed closely by the yellows. Abhisit and Co. (surprisingly, I think) jumped not he bandwagon immediately.

From the very first day Abhisit and Suthep were summoned by Tharit and the DSI for what happened in 2010 they gave a press conference where they stated that this was politically motivated and part of a plan for them to eventually having to agree to an amnesty. They made very clear that they would never support such a move.

Now let's focus a little more on what happened in 2010. Since that is the topic..

IMO the one to blame for all the deaths and destruction is the preson (people) who managed and ordered the blackshirts to fire at security forces (if you need some images to proof this let me know).

Why would you want heavily armed men to shoot at security forces is the question. IMO to create a situation that the army would shoot back and then you can say: trigger happy army shoots innocent/peaceful protesters. Thaksin's propaganda puppet Robert Amsterdam loves to use this lie. He has been preaching it all over the world. With little success I must say because everybody knows that Thaksin's red shirts employed armed terrorists to create mayhem. That is the reason the international community has never gotten involved with what happened in 2010. But as long as Thaksin is desperate, he will keep paying Amsterdam to keep on trying to convince “the world” that Thaksin and the red shirts are innocent. And as long as they do that there will always be people who have to proof them wrong.

This is my take on 2010. What's yours?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Nickymaster

[In Town]

More or less the opposite of yours. The soldiers arrive ready to kill; some with automatic weapons, some with shotguns and bandoliers of double ought buckshot (you could easily see the shot because the cases were transparent). They set up a "life fire zone" because they were ready to take life. In a normal country police deal with demonstrators in a respectful and responsible way.

People always talk about the blackshirts opening fire on the soldiers, but if they did, they were not much of a threat, as they didn't shoot anybody. The soldiers, on the other hand, were very effective in shooting nurses. I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were--but I saw thousands on the soldiers side, and none among the hundreds of thousands of democracy demonstrators. Someone mentioned the multicolour shirts (yellow shirts on laundry day). I remember they used to come down and taunt the demonstrators, calling them stupid buffalo, and trying to spark a fight. I remember the fear among the crowd whenever soldiers were sighted on tall buildings; justifiable fear as it turned out. I remember the barricades, tires and bamboo, manned by young (and some not so young) toughs armed with bottle rockets, sticks and slingshots, standing tall in the face of soldiers with war weapons. I guess that is my take.

[Baerboxer]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh my. Do you really think the purpose of the amnesty bill was to promote the concept of "forgive and forget"?

I know your're a decent genuine guy who posts what he thinks and feels. But to see the Shins as anything but a very wealthy elite clan, totally without morals, out for their own interests by manipulating situations to their own advantage is unreal. You surely don't fall for their constant, and proven lies?

I really wish there was a genuine political party here that represented the poor majority and would try to reform the feudal hierarchy patronage based system that pervades everything Thai.

But the Shins, their mates and thugs like Jat and Nut will never ever do that. Thaksin has been caught out on many occasions, so have various siblings and relatives. The amnesty bill was designed to get Thaksin back a free man, and create a massive blanket amnesty for a great many misdeeds for the chosen ones. Including Abhisit and Suthep was designed to get it through without their opposition. A massive miscalculation by Thaksin.

Thaksin has shown before he's not someone who forgives and forgets. If he ever does manage to get back, or get another proxy in place, I hope you'll speak out when his revenge and retribution starts.

[Nickymaster]

More or less the opposite of yours. The soldiers arrive ready to kill; some with automatic weapons, some with shotguns and bandoliers of double ought buckshot (you could easily see the shot because the cases were transparent). They set up a "life fire zone" because they were ready to take life. In a normal country police deal with demonstrators in a respectful and responsible way.

People always talk about the blackshirts opening fire on the soldiers, but if they did, they were not much of a threat, as they didn't shoot anybody. The soldiers, on the other hand, were very effective in shooting nurses. I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were--but I saw thousands on the soldiers side, and none among the hundreds of thousands of democracy demonstrators. Someone mentioned the multicolour shirts (yellow shirts on laundry day). I remember they used to come down and taunt the demonstrators, calling them stupid buffalo, and trying to spark a fight. I remember the fear among the crowd whenever soldiers were sighted on tall buildings; justifiable fear as it turned out. I remember the barricades, tires and bamboo, manned by young (and some not so young) toughs armed with bottle rockets, sticks and slingshots, standing tall in the face of soldiers with war weapons. I guess that is my take.

Fact is that the protestors where armed with war weapons. That's where it all started. They weren't peaceful protestors but terrorists if you want to get technical. They had no problem with setting a dozen buildings on fire neither. I have images to proof that too. After months of negations (many found that too long) the army came in with weapons too. The army had no choice. Simple as that really.

By the way, tomorrow I will attach a few images where you can see that the blackshirts were shooting at security forces. Just to kill your funny story that the blackshirts had weapons but didn't shoot at anybody... But to be fair, we are getting somewhere. First you guys claimed there were no blackshirts, then there were blackshirts but they didn't have war weapons, now you agree that they had weapons and now the story is that they didn't shoot at anyone.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Nickymaster

[Baerboxer]

More or less the opposite of yours. The soldiers arrive ready to kill; some with automatic weapons, some with shotguns and bandoliers of double ought buckshot (you could easily see the shot because the cases were transparent). They set up a "life fire zone" because they were ready to take life. In a normal country police deal with demonstrators in a respectful and responsible way.

People always talk about the blackshirts opening fire on the soldiers, but if they did, they were not much of a threat, as they didn't shoot anybody. The soldiers, on the other hand, were very effective in shooting nurses. I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were--but I saw thousands on the soldiers side, and none among the hundreds of thousands of democracy demonstrators. Someone mentioned the multicolour shirts (yellow shirts on laundry day). I remember they used to come down and taunt the demonstrators, calling them stupid buffalo, and trying to spark a fight. I remember the fear among the crowd whenever soldiers were sighted on tall buildings; justifiable fear as it turned out. I remember the barricades, tires and bamboo, manned by young (and some not so young) toughs armed with bottle rockets, sticks and slingshots, standing tall in the face of soldiers with war weapons. I guess that is my take.

The 2010 insurgents were protesting against the legal government of the time. Why didn't they protest between 2006 and 2010?

Armed black shirts were caught on camera and video. Why does PTP especially Chalerm insist they did not exist?

The red shirt leaders agreed to disperse when new elections were agreed. Why did they suddenly change their mind and increase the violence instead?

The were given adequate warnings before the violence erupted and led to tragic loss of life.

Compare this with 2013/4. Protesters were largely peaceful. They were warned to go home as the police couldn't guarantee to protect them. From whom?

Yingluck requested they be allowed to protest freely, with no violence against them. Her handpicked head of CAPO predicted they'd get attacked, probably by his often quoted "mysterious third hand". Sure enough they were attacked. Bombed, shot at and murdered. And Chalerm, Tarit, and the RTP never managed to arrest and prosecute anyone, not one. Even those who fell into police hands somehow walked away with no charges. Why do you think that was?

[Nickymaster]

The decision by the courts to confiscate Thaksins assets was made on the 27th February. A small group of red shirts (Red Siam) stayed outside of the court to show support for Thaksin. The protests against the government started on the 14th March. Your attempt to link the two events as though the UDD leapt to the bidding of Thaksin as reaction to his assets being confiscated is simplistic at best.

You may wish to read this, Naruemon and McCargo's "Thai Redshirts Revisited" and learn something about the disparate groups (and their aims/attitudes) that made up the UDD at that time. For example,

Overall, the redshirt movement was an extremely pragmatic alliance among groups ranging from idealistic post-leftists to others of a rather thuggish disposition: elements from the two sides that had fought one another in the 1970s were now collaborating. The ambiguous relationship between the self-exiled Thaksin and the redshirt leaders was a complicating factor in understanding the movement’s decision-making process because it was unclear how far the hard-liners really represented the former prime minister’s own stance. Yet, a focus on the leadership reveals relatively little about the movement itself, given the lack of direct connection between many of the UDD’s leading figures and their grassroots supporters.

and why were they protesting? Because Thaksins assets were confiscated? Oh, please...................

Ultimately, the redshirt protests were concerned with politics rather than the economy or culture. Redshirt frustrations with the system centered on their

sense of inequality, but their sense of inequality primarily concerned access to political resources. Our 57 interview informants were not revolutionaries, and were not seeking to overthrow or even radically to overhaul the prevailing political order. Rather, these urbanized villagers aspired to social mobility

under the existing system. Our informants were primarily demanding political justice, a problem for those who sought to reduce redshirt concerns to a

set of socioeconomic grievances.

Another one ! Joined yesterday, 4 comments racked up and posting like a pro ! Is there a factory somewhere churning these guys out ?

Yes, there must be a factory! Actually, I think event are driving more and more people to this side of the aisle. I remember after the coup in 2006 I felt like I was all alone, crying in the wilderness. But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

This has also occurred among the Bangkok people, who happily supported oppression of the buffalo ten years ago, and welcomed the killings in 2010, as demonstrators had disrupted their shopping. Now even hardened yellows realise their strategy to regain power on the backs of the military has failed and that they too have been pushed aside. Sometimes it seems the only people left who oppose the Thai people fulfilling their aspiration for self-government are the super rich, the military, and a few posters here on TV. That makes me happy.

But a decade later the international community understands Thailand much better than it did then, and from being a tiny minority among expats in 2006 that opposed the military coup the situation has reversed, and now it is only a tiny minority that supports the latest coup.

That must be the reason China, Japan and the US is investing in government projects here in Thailand. All arranged by Khun Prayuth and his team. By the way, the PM just got back from Singapore.

You sound like a desperate man. Going to extremes to convince people that the situation is not what they think (and see) it is. Prayuth is popular, the remaining Shins are packing their suitcases as we speak. Perfect! You are trying hard, too hard to even sound a bit convincing. It is very clear what your purpose is here.

Since Thaksin's passports were revoked we see a lot of guys like you here on TV. Interesting.

What are the Us investing in ?

I read last week that they are interested in helping to develop Utapao airport. I am still trying to find where I read it. It was part of an announcement when the government gave the green light for the project to start. I will keep searching.

[scorecard]

As I recall, the death of Colonel Romklao was attributed at the time to friendly fire, and DSI found no evidence of red shirt involvement. Seh Deang, a braggart and self-promoter, who was trying to gin up an actual militia for the red shirts from disaffected soldiers, intimated he was responsible for the death, and thus sealed his own fate. There are so many false flag operations in Thailand that it is difficult at any given point to know who did what, but there is fair evidence that the fires set at Central in 2010 were done by agent provocateurs aiming to provide some post-massacre justification for the mass killing of demonstrators. There is also significant evidence of PDRC false flag operations conducted to encourage a coup.

As I recall when asked the late renegade general Seh Daeng said "no one saw me".

The fair evidence about the fire at CWT indicated various armed and fighting forces rather than 'army in control'.

To some obviously all activities of those who oppress peaceful and lovable protesters who saw and heard nothing and somehow know nothing as well.

Well, perhaps I do see the world through rose coloured glasses. Others may tend to see the world through yellow tinted shooting glasses.

I am relatively certain that the grenades fired at the MRT roof (one of which missed and killed an innocent bystander), and the grenade that injured the Canadian reporter Chandler Vandergraft, were fired by red shirt supporters. I believe they were the remnants of Seh Deang's little platoon. But when hundreds of thousands are protesting for democracy, and against double standards, and feel they are constantly persecuted and denigrated by unaccountable elites, its not surprising that a few are radicalised. Besides these incidents, I don't know of any other confirmed incidents of red shirt military-like violence.

In contrast, there is ample video and eyewitness accounts of military, PAD and PDRC violence.

Anyway, I guess you have characterised me correctly. I do find the democracy protesters generally peaceful and loveable. Likewise, I find those who seek to oppress them, to deny them basic human rights, the opposite.

Please expand on what you mean by "...democracy protesters..."

[tbthailand]

Yes but they were given the mandate to do so when they won an election

At least they were prepared to forgive and forget and get on. The other lot have too much personal hatred of the poor and their leaders

Oh boy, a mandate.

As if that explains a blanket amnesty bill covering 'political motivated' crimes and a coverage period from 2004 to 2013-08-09.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence, but till know unknown if new in the sense of different or in addition to what was seen before.

Let's just stick to the topic of 2010 with new evidence

says the super troll who brought up amnesty all by his little self...

[tbthailand]

More or less the opposite of yours. The soldiers arrive ready to kill; some with automatic weapons, some with shotguns and bandoliers of double ought buckshot (you could easily see the shot because the cases were transparent). They set up a "life fire zone" because they were ready to take life. In a normal country police deal with demonstrators in a respectful and responsible way.

People always talk about the blackshirts opening fire on the soldiers, but if they did, they were not much of a threat, as they didn't shoot anybody. The soldiers, on the other hand, were very effective in shooting nurses. I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were--but I saw thousands on the soldiers side, and none among the hundreds of thousands of democracy demonstrators. Someone mentioned the multicolour shirts (yellow shirts on laundry day). I remember they used to come down and taunt the demonstrators, calling them stupid buffalo, and trying to spark a fight. I remember the fear among the crowd whenever soldiers were sighted on tall buildings; justifiable fear as it turned out. I remember the barricades, tires and bamboo, manned by young (and some not so young) toughs armed with bottle rockets, sticks and slingshots, standing tall in the face of soldiers with war weapons. I guess that is my take.

The 2010 insurgents were protesting against the legal government of the time. Why didn't they protest between 2006 and 2010?

Armed black shirts were caught on camera and video. Why does PTP especially Chalerm insist they did not exist?

The red shirt leaders agreed to disperse when new elections were agreed. Why did they suddenly change their mind and increase the violence instead?

The were given adequate warnings before the violence erupted and led to tragic loss of life.

Compare this with 2013/4. Protesters were largely peaceful. They were warned to go home as the police couldn't guarantee to protect them. From whom?

Yingluck requested they be allowed to protest freely, with no violence against them. Her handpicked head of CAPO predicted they'd get attacked, probably by his often quoted "mysterious third hand". Sure enough they were attacked. Bombed, shot at and murdered. And Chalerm, Tarit, and the RTP never managed to arrest and prosecute anyone, not one. Even those who fell into police hands somehow walked away with no charges. Why do you think that was?

what a (self-censored) post...

The 2010 insurgents were protesting against the legal government of the time.

following a judicial coup and installed by the army - which everyone in Thailand except a few posters here understands...

Why didn't they protest between 2006 and 2010?

did you miss 2006 post-coup? Did you miss 2009 post judicial coup? Of course you did...

Why does PTP especially Chalerm insist they did not exist?

1) who really cares, and 2) can't you guess that for yourself.

more interesting would be to understand who they were and why they were really there... but that would be a lively discussion beyond the scope and, possibly, rules of this forum...

The red shirt leaders agreed to disperse when new elections were agreed. Why did they suddenly change their mind and increase the violence instead?

The answers as to why the rejection of the agreement are out there for those who care to look. It also points out that the red shirt movement is not the monolithic Thaksin drones that they are made out to be on this forum.

As for the increase in violence, you might recall that it was immediately after the discussions on the elections that a sniper shot the rebel general and the military "cleansing" operation began... so you'll forgive me for pointing out that it was not the protesters who "suddenly increased the violence"...

The were given adequate warnings before the violence erupted and led to tragic loss of life.

The old "if they had only gone home, the the army would not have been obliged to kill them" argument... What a complete and total load of horse manure.

Compare this with 2013/4.

OK, let's do that...

Police killed by protesters with guns and grenade launchers

The laksi gunfight

protester violence to prevent voting

blocking the rice program loans to pay the farmers

what is missing is the military coming in with their snipers, live-fire zones and attacks on unarmed protesters and journalists...

[scorecard]

More or less the opposite of yours. The soldiers arrive ready to kill; some with automatic weapons, some with shotguns and bandoliers of double ought buckshot (you could easily see the shot because the cases were transparent). They set up a "life fire zone" because they were ready to take life. In a normal country police deal with demonstrators in a respectful and responsible way.

People always talk about the blackshirts opening fire on the soldiers, but if they did, they were not much of a threat, as they didn't shoot anybody. The soldiers, on the other hand, were very effective in shooting nurses. I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were--but I saw thousands on the soldiers side, and none among the hundreds of thousands of democracy demonstrators. Someone mentioned the multicolour shirts (yellow shirts on laundry day). I remember they used to come down and taunt the demonstrators, calling them stupid buffalo, and trying to spark a fight. I remember the fear among the crowd whenever soldiers were sighted on tall buildings; justifiable fear as it turned out. I remember the barricades, tires and bamboo, manned by young (and some not so young) toughs armed with bottle rockets, sticks and slingshots, standing tall in the face of soldiers with war weapons. I guess that is my take.

"...democracy demonstrators..."

Please explain what that means.