2010 crackdown: NACC gets new evidence

[wolfmanjack]

"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."

February 27 and March 14 is only 2 weeks. It is more logical to think the protests were linked to an event that happened 2 weeks prior than something that happened 3 - 4 years prior.

If I wanted to be a peaceful protester as soon as the speakers on stage started shooting their mouths off about burning bangkok to the ground I would have went home. If i remember correctly one of the red shirt leaders that did not agree with the violent speeches did just that. In my opinion anyone that stayed at the protests after that point were no longer innocent except for maybe the nurses. This is even more true after the black shirts started waving M16's around. After all your chances of getting shot standing next to someone holding an M16 confronting the army has just increased a thousand fold and anyone with half a brain should realize that. if you don't want to risk getting shot then get as far away from the guns as possible. common sense as far as i am concerned.

As for claiming the people confronting the army with rocks and sling shots being brave? In many cases there is a fine line between being brave and being stupid. I personally think they were on the wrong side of that line.

[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.

correction: negations should be negotiations of course

Edited June 12, 2015 by Nickymaster

[ExPratt]

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.

correction: negations should be negotiations of course

So everyone Who died was a Terrorist and they all were carrying weapons of War, Right Oh

[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.

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.

correction: negations should be negotiations of course

I do think it was clearly established last year that the blackshirts are PDRC.

But to your other points, thank you for correcting me. I remember now. The red shirt terrorists were armed with tavors and m-16s and rocket launchers and shotguns and tanks, and ruthlessly killed almost 100 soldiers, and seriously wounded or crippled for life hundreds of others, while suffering no casualties themselves. Yes, I guess that is how it was.

[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.

correction: negations should be negotiations of course

I do think it was clearly established last year that the blackshirts are PDRC.

But to your other points, thank you for correcting me. I remember now. The red shirt terrorists were armed with tavors and m-16s and rocket launchers and shotguns and tanks, and ruthlessly killed almost 100 soldiers, and seriously wounded or crippled for life hundreds of others, while suffering no casualties themselves. Yes, I guess that is how it was.

Around 20 security officers were killed by red/blackshirts in 2010.

The protestors had rocket launchers, hand grenades. M-16's, AK47's, shot guns, hand guns, knifes, long sharp sticks and home made bombs to name a few. They also tried to violently steal a tank from soldiers. I realize that I owe you some images. Please be patient you will get them when I'm behind a pc.

[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?

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...

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

[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.

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...

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

Hilarious. Its almost like Godwin's law. No matter what the topic, someone sooner or later (and typically sooner) will bring up Thaksin. When that happens, there should be a rule that the person that brought up Thaksin (unless of course he is relevant to the discussion) has automatically lost the argument. So the only question that remains is, is Thaksin relevant to this discussion? I vote no.

[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.

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.

correction: negations should be negotiations of course

So everyone Who died was a Terrorist and they all were carrying weapons of War, Right Oh

Nope. Some were protesters - paid or otherwise; some were security service personnel; some were foreign journalists; some were possibly terrorists and some were innocent bystanders.

Ask yourself in whose interests it was to stir things up at that time? Who has tried to make the most from all this?

Now compare it with 2013/4. The PM at that time said people should have the right to protest, but sadly they were attacked, shot at, bombed and murdered while her police appeared unable to prevent or capture those responsible - not one arrest and prosecution. Were all those killed in 2013/4 terrorists?

[graft]

"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."

February 27 and March 14 is only 2 weeks. It is more logical to think the protests were linked to an event that happened 2 weeks prior than something that happened 3 - 4 years prior.

If I wanted to be a peaceful protester as soon as the speakers on stage started shooting their mouths off about burning bangkok to the ground I would have went home. If i remember correctly one of the red shirt leaders that did not agree with the violent speeches did just that. In my opinion anyone that stayed at the protests after that point were no longer innocent except for maybe the nurses. This is even more true after the black shirts started waving M16's around. After all your chances of getting shot standing next to someone holding an M16 confronting the army has just increased a thousand fold and anyone with half a brain should realize that. if you don't want to risk getting shot then get as far away from the guns as possible. common sense as far as i am concerned.

As for claiming the people confronting the army with rocks and sling shots being brave? In many cases there is a fine line between being brave and being stupid. I personally think they were on the wrong side of that line.

Try reading the link (Narueman and McCargo) I provided and then think again about your version of logic linking a response to the long term erosion of the political representation of the UDD members and Thaksin having his assets confiscated.

Nattawuts' so called "call to burn" speech, and I quote,

"If they seize power, we'll start fires throughout the whole country. Burn them all, my fellow friends and brothers. I will assume the sole responsibility. If they want to find fault with someone, come and get me. If they seize power, just burn it."

was a call for a response to yet another coup, should it happen. You may note that that speech was made on January 27th 2010.

Or do you you mean Arisman's speech? Again I quote

"We'll have an appointment next time. If they are going to crack down on us, we don't need to prepare anything much. Just bring along your cups or bottles, which you can fill up with at least one litre of gasoline. If one million of us come to Bangkok, we'll have one million litres of gasoline. I can assure you that Bangkok will turn into a sea of fire."

That speech was made on January 29th 2010.

So hardly contemporaneous. What speeches on stage about burning Bangkok to the ground do you mean? At what point was it that (in your mind at least) that protesters now became "non innocents" , and by extension, were responsible for being killed if they stayed?

[graft]

Around 20 security officers were killed by red/blackshirts in 2010.

The protestors had rocket launchers, hand grenades. M-16's, AK47's, shot guns, hand guns, knifes, long sharp sticks and home made bombs to name a few. They also tried to violently steal a tank from soldiers. I realize that I owe you some images. Please be patient you will get them when I'm behind a pc.

Whilst all casualties are to be abhorred it doesn't help to bandy around figures that bear no resemblance to reality. In total 9 "security officers" were killed, one of those deaths being the result of a "blue on blue" incident i.e shot and killed by his fellow troops.

[Baerboxer]

Hilarious. Its almost like Godwin's law. No matter what the topic, someone sooner or later (and typically sooner) will bring up Thaksin. When that happens, there should be a rule that the person that brought up Thaksin (unless of course he is relevant to the discussion) has automatically lost the argument. So the only question that remains is, is Thaksin relevant to this discussion? I vote no.

Outstanding. Let's pretend Thaksin was not relevant on any discussions about the 2010 insurgency.

Did he make videos and incite the rioters? Did he promise to be with them "shoulder to shoulder" when the firing starts (another lie as usual - Shin promises are as valuable as used toilet paper).

Any discussion that might get awkward because some actually remember the facts - we'll try and stop any mention of Thaksin.

They threatened people with arrest if the clicked "like" on any posts that spoke out against Thaksin's government, let alone actually making a comment. Now they only want to discuss others - keep Thaksin and crew out of it.

Desperate times for them. The propaganda doesn't seem to work anymore - to many facts are known and remembered. The CNN interview was much more acceptable - Thaksin said he and his little sister never ever did or do anything wrong, ever. And of course you believe him.

[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...

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

In town hit the nail on the head already, but for the record, you mention "thaksin + shin" at least 8 times in your reply to my post which mentioned Thaksin exactly, ... hmmm, ... zero times.

See, guy, the problem with the Thaksin-haters on this forum is that they (and you) don't even recognize that other posters aren't talking about Thaksin.....

BTW, you shamelessly claim my post ignores the facts... your post was completely full of errors and huge holes as I pointed out and your only retort is to claim that I ignore facts (rather than present them, as I did, ... oops), and then to go on a Thaksin-rant.

well goodie for you.

[rubl]

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.

"I never saw a gun in the demo site; not to say there were not any there, there probably were"

Well, what you know, you were there?

Anyway, a few journo's told about interesting people who told them not to make any pictures or they might meet an untimely end. Even Nick bumped into some in the night and thought it better to comply.

Surely having a few terrorists freely running around shooting at non-red-shirts or lobbing a few grenades on them justifies some measures to stop them. I also remember the multi-shirts on Silom 'taunting' the 'peaceful protesters' behind their bamboo-tire wall. Well, they paid for it with their blood as some 'unknowns' dropped a few grenades to democratically show their 'displeasure' and the 'peaceful protester cheering'

[rubl]

Goh, for a moment I thought I read that what the others did in 2013/2014 was sufficient justification for the red-shirts to do the same ... in 2010.

[Baerboxer]

In town hit the nail on the head already, but for the record, you mention "thaksin + shin" at least 8 times in your reply to my post which mentioned Thaksin exactly, ... hmmm, ... zero times.

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

See, guy, the problem with the Thaksin-haters on this forum is that they (and you) don't even recognize that other posters aren't talking about Thaksin.....

BTW, you shamelessly claim my post ignores the facts... your post was completely full of errors and huge holes as I pointed out and your only retort is to claim that I ignore facts (rather than present them, as I did, ... oops), and then to go on a Thaksin-rant.

well goodie for you.

Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin - there you are 3 more times for you.

The latest Shin boy fan club tactic - divert from arguing against the real facts by keep suggesting it's all nothing to do with Thaksin. He just happens to own, pays for and dictates to PTP and his handpicked red shirt leaders.

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him, which as more facts are more widely known just possible anymore. So best you try and pretend he's not involved, never ever did or does anything wrong, and suppress any discussion where his factual past might be discussed.

The problem with the Thaksin lovers on this forum is few buy into their bs anymore. So they've few tactics left other than diversion.

So genius my post was full of errors - please enlighten us all to the correct version as you see it. Should be fun.

[tbthailand]

In town hit the nail on the head already, but for the record, you mention "thaksin + shin" at least 8 times in your reply to my post which mentioned Thaksin exactly, ... hmmm, ... zero times.

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

See, guy, the problem with the Thaksin-haters on this forum is that they (and you) don't even recognize that other posters aren't talking about Thaksin.....

BTW, you shamelessly claim my post ignores the facts... your post was completely full of errors and huge holes as I pointed out and your only retort is to claim that I ignore facts (rather than present them, as I did, ... oops), and then to go on a Thaksin-rant.

well goodie for you.

Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin - there you are 3 more times for you.

The latest Shin boy fan club tactic - divert from arguing against the real facts by keep suggesting it's all nothing to do with Thaksin. He just happens to own, pays for and dictates to PTP and his handpicked red shirt leaders.

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him, which as more facts are more widely known just possible anymore. So best you try and pretend he's not involved, never ever did or does anything wrong, and suppress any discussion where his factual past might be discussed.

The problem with the Thaksin lovers on this forum is few buy into their bs anymore. So they've few tactics left other than diversion.

So genius my post was full of errors - please enlighten us all to the correct version as you see it. Should be fun.

you are a real piece of work. You make a post full of errors, have them pointed out to you and then ask for me to do the same thing again. Have you got two cells to rub together up there?

You and your Thaksin obsession...

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him,

go ahead and point out anything that I have written above where I defend Thaksin... You are seriously deluded...

And I am anything but a "shin boy fan', but you and a few other posters not only don't understand that other people are not as obsessed with Thaksin as you are, ...

but you also have no ability to imagine how someone who believes in democracy for the Thai people, dislikes violence of all sorts, despises the fact that the military is the most violent organization in Thailand, and has little patience and zero support for the current military "government" might also not give a hoot about Thaksin.

[In Town]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

[rubl]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

Obviously, nothing new here, just the old mantra. I would almost get an honest tear in my eye.

Thaksin the saviour and Yingluck the beauty. Single handedly lifted Thailand out of the Middle Ages.

Oh by the way, this is about the 2010 crackdown and new evidence. Somehow I don't think it contains sufficient info to apply for sainthood for someone.

[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.

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...

Goh, did I? Let's see. Yes indeed I did, a bit earlier already, you might have missed that.

I wrote

"Anyway, no new information, just the old obfuscation I've read here so many times. One would almost wish the Blanket Amnesty Bill had been allowed to become law. Nothing about 2010 would have been relevant anymore".

Here I wrote in response to exPrat and a mandate. With a few posters trying to convince me the UDD and red-shirt were innocent, provoked, had democratic rights (to lob grenades) it should be obvious to all that Ms. Yingluck's government was actually doing some who needed amnesty a favour, like Abhisit, Suthep and the army. Obviously that's why her Pheu Thai party list UDD MPs threatened to step done and urge their red-shirts to protest. Obviously that why Ms. Yingluck dropped the blanket amnesty bill. The rumour that the blanket amnesty bill would obviously not cover Abhisit and Suthep was just a false flag operation by yellow fascist lovers.

Anyway, back from red-roze dreamland to the cruel reality of some Dutch uncle mentioning a blanket amnesty bill which others would rather leave buried six deep. At times I got the feeling some wouldn't shed a tear if I was laying there as well.

So, new evidence, but not known what. Mind you with all attempts to put the blame on the army and 'justifying' possible minor defence by peaceful red-shirts, it would seem some fear the evidence might be damning.

Edited June 12, 2015 by rubl

[tbthailand]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

bull, red cloak, your post.

[Baerboxer]

In town hit the nail on the head already, but for the record, you mention "thaksin + shin" at least 8 times in your reply to my post which mentioned Thaksin exactly, ... hmmm, ... zero times.

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

See, guy, the problem with the Thaksin-haters on this forum is that they (and you) don't even recognize that other posters aren't talking about Thaksin.....

BTW, you shamelessly claim my post ignores the facts... your post was completely full of errors and huge holes as I pointed out and your only retort is to claim that I ignore facts (rather than present them, as I did, ... oops), and then to go on a Thaksin-rant.

well goodie for you.

Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin - there you are 3 more times for you.

The latest Shin boy fan club tactic - divert from arguing against the real facts by keep suggesting it's all nothing to do with Thaksin. He just happens to own, pays for and dictates to PTP and his handpicked red shirt leaders.

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him, which as more facts are more widely known just possible anymore. So best you try and pretend he's not involved, never ever did or does anything wrong, and suppress any discussion where his factual past might be discussed.

The problem with the Thaksin lovers on this forum is few buy into their bs anymore. So they've few tactics left other than diversion.

So genius my post was full of errors - please enlighten us all to the correct version as you see it. Should be fun.

you are a real piece of work. You make a post full of errors, have them pointed out to you and then ask for me to do the same thing again. Have you got two cells to rub together up there?

You and your Thaksin obsession...

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him,

go ahead and point out anything that I have written above where I defend Thaksin... You are seriously deluded...

And I am anything but a "shin boy fan', but you and a few other posters not only don't understand that other people are not as obsessed with Thaksin as you are, ...

but you also have no ability to imagine how someone who believes in democracy for the Thai people, dislikes violence of all sorts, despises the fact that the military is the most violent organization in Thailand, and has little patience and zero support for the current military "government" might also not give a hoot about Thaksin.

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Baerboxer

[tbthailand]

In town hit the nail on the head already, but for the record, you mention "thaksin + shin" at least 8 times in your reply to my post which mentioned Thaksin exactly, ... hmmm, ... zero times.

Your usual one sided biased nonsense, mixed with the so often seen Shin supporter's insults, and ignorance of facts and reality.

You don't think Thaksin appoints the red shirt leaders? Who does then, Mickey Mouse? You don't think Thaksin pays them a salary like he did to all the PTP ministers and MP's.

You want to pretend that Thaksin never dissolved parliament, resigned the caretaker PM role and then took it back without any legal authority?

You want to pretend Thaksin and various of his cronies didn't break laws? Or you want to suggest their law breaking should be ignored?

You want to pretend the attacks on anti-amnesty for Thaksin and anti-PTP protesters were nothing to do with those who owned PTP?

You want to pretend the police really couldn't arrest and prosecute those responsible?

Dream on - must nice in your little pretend Shin dream world.

You don't care a PTP senior minister, one time deputy PM and head of CAPO repeatedly told lies? Guess you'll fit right in with the Shin worldview.

See, guy, the problem with the Thaksin-haters on this forum is that they (and you) don't even recognize that other posters aren't talking about Thaksin.....

BTW, you shamelessly claim my post ignores the facts... your post was completely full of errors and huge holes as I pointed out and your only retort is to claim that I ignore facts (rather than present them, as I did, ... oops), and then to go on a Thaksin-rant.

well goodie for you.

Thaksin, Thaksin, Thaksin - there you are 3 more times for you.

The latest Shin boy fan club tactic - divert from arguing against the real facts by keep suggesting it's all nothing to do with Thaksin. He just happens to own, pays for and dictates to PTP and his handpicked red shirt leaders.

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him, which as more facts are more widely known just possible anymore. So best you try and pretend he's not involved, never ever did or does anything wrong, and suppress any discussion where his factual past might be discussed.

The problem with the Thaksin lovers on this forum is few buy into their bs anymore. So they've few tactics left other than diversion.

So genius my post was full of errors - please enlighten us all to the correct version as you see it. Should be fun.

you are a real piece of work. You make a post full of errors, have them pointed out to you and then ask for me to do the same thing again. Have you got two cells to rub together up there?

You and your Thaksin obsession...

But hey ho - you guys want to defend him,

go ahead and point out anything that I have written above where I defend Thaksin... You are seriously deluded...

And I am anything but a "shin boy fan', but you and a few other posters not only don't understand that other people are not as obsessed with Thaksin as you are, ...

but you also have no ability to imagine how someone who believes in democracy for the Thai people, dislikes violence of all sorts, despises the fact that the military is the most violent organization in Thailand, and has little patience and zero support for the current military "government" might also not give a hoot about Thaksin.

Sticks and stones Jimmie, sticks and stones.

All your baiting and insulting insinuations. You have no clue about me. I have no obsession with Thaksin or his clan. But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

Actually it's usually those who try to cloud or ignore the reality around Thasksin and his various puppet governments that usually accuse anyone who writes anything against them, especially when true of being right wing fascist Junta anti- democracy supporters. As if trying to fuel their myths that Thaksin is some sort of pro-democracy socialist - he ain't, nowhere near. His quest for personal power and control has pushed the development of democracy backwards in Thailand creating the environment where others can suppress it for their own ends. No country in the world would tolerate a criminal fugitive paying a salary to it's MPs and Ministers and calling all the shots - that isn't democracy.

You still choose not to correct the errors in my previous post. Trotting out the usual Shin history re-write is not correcting my errors btw.

1) no obsession with Thaksin, your posting indicates otherwise

2) sticks and stones, if you would stop claiming that I am writing things which are only going on in your own little head, then I would think you were so dim. Example,

But, I do object when people keep posting the same old lies claiming he's the most innocent misunderstood honest politician - he ain't, nowhere near.

which of course is not anything that I wrote about or even got close to talking about. Really, get with it. Stick to what people write, not what you think they write...

As I said already, I pointed out the errors in your first post, please go back and read it. maybe you'll understand that there were protests in 2006, and in 2009, or maybe you'll understand that the escalated violence after the election agreement broke down was from the military. And maybe you'll understand that the mostly peaceful PDRC protests were more than violent in their own right and that they did everything possible to derail democracy and justify an "intervention" - of course they succeeded...

Nah, you'll never understand that. You just make up what ever you want, including what you think I/others write.

(edit: nor did I accuse you of being a junta-hugger in this last exchange ... also not a topic touched on until you made it up for yourself... )

Edited June 12, 2015 by tbthailand

[In Town]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

bull, red cloak, your post.

You got it. Just having a bit oh fun.

[In Town]

Thaksin the saviour and Yingluck the beauty. Single handedly lifted Thailand out of the Middle Ages.

Yes, I agree. Good post mate!

[Ricardo]

Thaksin the saviour and Yingluck the beauty. Single handedly lifted Thailand out of the Middle Ages.

Yes, I agree. Good post mate!

"She's a Witch !"

Sadly I fear that Thailand is still quite feudal, at least politically, so might be thought by some observers to still be in the Middle Ages ?

[rubl]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

bull, red cloak, your post.

You got it. Just having a bit oh fun.

There was no need to say that, that was obvious my dear chap. Mind you, you can sleep soundly, I don't think tbthailand will accuse you of trolling.

[Nickymaster]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

LOL Beauty and the Beast!

[Nickymaster]

The Shin lovers do have a point. Why keep mentioning Thaksin when the guy will never come back to Thailand. Soon Yingluck will do a Thaksin and she will be gone too. Only thing we have to keep doing is kill stories created by their paid propaganda puppets like Robert Amsterdam.

But I also agree that we should never forget the damage Thaksin has done to Thailand.

Difficult one in fact.

[Nickymaster]

Around 20 security officers were killed by red/blackshirts in 2010.

The protestors had rocket launchers, hand grenades. M-16's, AK47's, shot guns, hand guns, knifes, long sharp sticks and home made bombs to name a few. They also tried to violently steal a tank from soldiers. I realize that I owe you some images. Please be patient you will get them when I'm behind a pc.

Whilst all casualties are to be abhorred it doesn't help to bandy around figures that bear no resemblance to reality. In total 9 "security officers" were killed, one of those deaths being the result of a "blue on blue" incident i.e shot and killed by his fellow troops.

Thank you for confirming that troops were killed by red/black shirts. Now the circle is complete. Your figures are wrong but we can leave it there.

Killed by fellow troops? Yeah that would never happen with those well trained armed protestors.. They know exactly what they are shooting at...

Edited June 13, 2015 by Nickymaster

[tbthailand]

Thaksin - no doubt the most democratic and effective leader Thailand has ever had. Brought heath care and prosperity for the poor, while improving the economy for everyone. Thaksin's sister Yingluck - Second best PM ever, but best looking, and probably a tad bit more politically savvy than her brother. Much much smarter than Abhisit, and nicer.

Cheerio, mate!

bull, red cloak, your post.

You got it. Just having a bit oh fun.

There was no need to say that, that was obvious my dear chap. Mind you, you can sleep soundly, I don't think tbthailand will accuse you of trolling.

it's baiting , not trolling...

I'm surprised you don't see the difference.