Red-shirt leaders probably doomed: Jatuporn

[Eric Loh]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

yes but it was not as one sided as you want it to be.. the blackshirts made sure it happend

 

Both sides were guilty for the violence and both should be condemned. The fact still remained that there were just too many civilian casualties killed, injured or missing and excessive force were used by the military that has not been held accountable even though the courts have ruled that the military were responsible. 

[Shawn0000]

Just now, robblok said:

The PM was in power based on democracy. It was one of Thaksins allies Newin that switched sides and formed an new government with the Democrats that is legal.

 

Now they wanted to overthrow the goverment just like the yellows have done recently.. they were not denied democracy at all. It was a legal switch of government. Go cry me a river if you don't understand that.

 

Then unlike the yellows they used violence to overthrow the goverment and used men in black to shoot at the army. And then the bodies started falling. 

 

Banning a party and forming a coalition from the remainder was "based on democracy", you're right, quite desperate of you to call it that, but factually correct.

 

They wanted an election, nothing like what the yellows have done, who wanted to end the type pf democracy where they keep losing through not having as many voters, the Reds just wanted a normal election, something the people should be able to have in a situation where the ruling party is not the one who won, normally it would have been offered, but it was the yellows who held the power for once and they really didn't want to give up on that, it was the only chance they had, to sneak in and hold on, no chance in a fair election, which is what most people with half a brain base democracy on.

 

And the yellows were the guilty party in the violence, if they accepted democracy they would never have seen the violent protests and the army would not have gone out shooting people, pretty simple stuff even for a simpleton, the yellows caused it by not accepting the will of the majority, but then you don't really have much of a grasp on democracy, do you?

[Shawn0000]

18 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

evidence please.

 

its in the BBC article in the post I was responding to, LOL.

[Shawn0000]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes he claims evidence from everyone articles and so on but makes claims he himself not backs up.. that is why I am done with him.

 

Hilarious, I read the BBC article in the comment above, and that is what it said.  You're done because you don't really know much and so simple can't.

[Ricardo]

16 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The failure of the talks was the failure of the PM to dissolve parliament, just saying he would call an election did not fool anyone, he did not have the legal authority to call an election anyway and when asked to dissolve parliament he questioned whether that would help, even a fool could see though his game, and on him lies all the guilt, the people have the right to democracy, he did not have the right to deny them that, as they showed him with blood.

As a recently-joined but very-prolific poster, you put the case for Thaksin's POV very well,  but you must surely accept that a negotiation ought to be a two-way thing, not just an abject surrender by the democratically-elected government at-that-time.

 

Abhisit was offering an earlier-election, the UDD-leaders appeared to be accepting that, then the phone rang.  Who do you think ordered them to withdraw ?  Doesn't he also bear part of the responsibility for subsequent events ? 

 

And whole thing with pouring pigs-blood at the PM's gates, that was gross & un-Thai, yet you seem to see it as totally justified. Can't you admit that the truth lies somewhere in-between the two extremes ?  Your hard-Red posture looks like propaganda & spin to me.

[ThaiBob]

On 3/22/2017 at 9:18 PM, smedly said:

we will burn down Bangkok - they are terrorists, an armed organisation responsible for bombings - murders - grenade attacks - intimidation and more

Confusion, I thought you were historically referring to those directly responsible for this country's 19 coups. 

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, Ricardo said:

As a recently-joined but very-prolific poster, you put the case for Thaksin's POV very well,  but you must surely accept that a negotiation ought to be a two-way thing, not just an abject surrender by the democratically-elected government at-that-time.

 

Abhisit was offering an earlier-election, the UDD-leaders appeared to be accepting that, then the phone rang.  Who do you think ordered them to withdraw ?  Doesn't he also bear part of the responsibility for subsequent events ? 

 

And whole thing with pouring pigs-blood at the PM's gates, that was gross & un-Thai, yet you seem to see it as totally justified. Can't you admit that the truth lies somewhere in-between the two extremes ?  Your hard-Red posture looks like propaganda & spin to me.

 

Except they were not democratically elected at all, they were the losing party who then got into power by having the winning party banned.

 

Abhisit did not offer to dissolve parliament which was all he could legally offer, he offered a date for an election which was something he could not legally offer.  Perhaps the phone call was their lawyer informing them of this, but yes, whoever it was on the phone bears some responsibility, but what from, preventing them from being tricked?

 

Pouring the blood should have been taken as a stark warning, but instead they sat tight and pushed the people into trying to start a revolution, and then the sent the army to slaughter them, pretty extreme.

[smedly]

16 minutes ago, ThaiBob said:

Confusion, I thought you were historically referring to those directly responsible for this country's 19 coups. 

yes you are confused, have you seen anyone about it

[tominbkk]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

You saw any Blue Shirts? Just Red?

 I'm trying to recall, can only remember red shirts.  That was around the time they were getting protestors to 'bleed themselves' so they could dump a bunch of blood on the streets in front of parliament.  They actually didn't get much blood, so they went out and bought a bunch of pig blood to add to it.  After they dumped it and made a big mess, while the govt. cleaned it up they also tested some of it and found it infected with hepatitis and HIV.  Then the reds protested them testing the blood because they said it was private!  My my those were weird, funny, frightening days.  I'm not Thai so I won't make too many comments, but those reds were a lot of dum dums.

[tominbkk]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Goggle please

Not up to me to provide evidence for your claim.  If you believe in this so much you would be able to prove it.  Otherwise you are no better than Trump.

[candide]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Those later events might never have happened if they had gone away peacefully and an election was held early. You can't just assume nothing would have changed. Fact remained they were offered a early election and it was accepted and later they came back on their word.

Sorry, I was not precise enough. By later events, I mean the 2014 coup. Abhisit wanted elections after the nomination of the army chief, and the red side before. You know who was appointed and its role a few years later, right? So both sides had very good reasons.to disagree.

 

By the way, the comparison between the 2010 case and the 2013/2014 case is instructing. In both case the legitimacy of the government was disputed (was it corresponding to the current preference of the people?). In one case YL dissolved the assembly and organised immediate elections in order to check what was the actual people's will. In the other case the government sent the troop.

.

Edited March 24, 2017 by candide

[candide]

1 hour ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Except they were not democratically elected at all, they were the losing party who then got into power by having the winning party banned.

 

Abhisit did not offer to dissolve parliament which was all he could legally offer, he offered a date for an election which was something he could not legally offer.  Perhaps the phone call was their lawyer informing them of this, but yes, whoever it was on the phone bears some responsibility, but what from, preventing them from being tricked?

 

Pouring the blood should have been taken as a stark warning, but instead they sat tight and pushed the people into trying to start a revolution, and then the sent the army to slaughter them, pretty extreme.

Link provided by courtesy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8659590.stm

"But he said that the Election Commission, not the government, should set out the timeframe for the election."

"We want Abhisit to come back to us with a clear parliamentary dissolution date instead of an election date....."

 

 

[Shawn0000]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Link provided by courtesy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8659590.stm

"But he said that the Election Commission, not the government, should set out the timeframe for the election."

"We want Abhisit to come back to us with a clear parliamentary dissolution date instead of an election date....."

 

 

 

Why have you posted that, just to confirm what I was saying?

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Why have you posted that, just to confirm what I was saying?

Yes. I think it is better when a link is provided. As the Wikipedia page was not precise enough, I googled to check your assertion and found some details. By providing a source, I spare other readers the time to check it themselves.  

[Shawn0000]

 

55 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

Not up to me to provide evidence for your claim.  If you believe in this so much you would be able to prove it.  Otherwise you are no better than Trump.

 

The evidence was on the very post I replied to, it is also on a post above this one, if you cant take the time to read the posts you are responding to then do not ask for evidence, we are not here to spoon feed you.

[robblok]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Both sides were guilty for the violence and both should be condemned. The fact still remained that there were just too many civilian casualties killed, injured or missing and excessive force were used by the military that has not been held accountable even though the courts have ruled that the military were responsible. 

Agreed both sides were guilty, and strange that now you want to hold the military accountable while the blackshirts also were not held accountable. Everytime a Shin is held accountable for something you want others also held accountable but not now.

 

But I agree 100% that both sides were accountable... army was just not trained well enough and when their officers were killed they lost the plot. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Sorry, I was not precise enough. By later events, I mean the 2014 coup. Abhisit wanted elections after the nomination of the army chief, and the red side before. You know who was appointed and its role a few years later, right? So both sides had very good reasons.to disagree.

 

By the way, the comparison between the 2010 case and the 2013/2014 case is instructing. In both case the legitimacy of the government was disputed (was it corresponding to the current preference of the people?). In one case YL dissolved the assembly and organised immediate elections in order to check what was the actual people's will. In the other case the government sent the troop.

.

In one case there was violence already.. and lots more violence by blackshirts.. in the other case there was violence too but aimed at the protesters. Thev violence in both cases came from the Red shirts. Thanks for letting me bring that up.

 

Shows that if your peaceful you get a lot further when when your violent.

[tominbkk]

38 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

 

The evidence was on the very post I replied to, it is also on a post above this one, if you cant take the time to read the posts you are responding to then do not ask for evidence, we are not here to spoon feed you.

There was no link on the post i replied to sweetie.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

In one case there was violence already.. and lots more violence by blackshirts.. in the other case there was violence too but aimed at the protesters. Thev violence in both cases came from the Red shirts. Thanks for letting me bring that up.

 

Shows that if your peaceful you get a lot further when when your violent.

Yes the PDRC protesters peacefully attacked government buildings, peacefully attacked the police, peacefully prevented elections, peacefully threatened media....

 

Additionally they were never opposed by the army, who shot at the red protesters as early as April 2009.

[Shawn0000]

39 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

There was no link on the post i replied to sweetie.

Yet there was on the one that that post was replying to.  Anyway, you got your evidence, I presume you are satisfied.

[Shawn0000]

42 minutes ago, robblok said:

In one case there was violence already.. and lots more violence by blackshirts.. in the other case there was violence too but aimed at the protesters. Thev violence in both cases came from the Red shirts. Thanks for letting me bring that up.

 

Shows that if your peaceful you get a lot further when when your violent.

Also helps if you have the army on your side to do your killing on your behalf.

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, candide said:

Yes the PDRC protesters peacefully attacked government buildings, peacefully attacked the police, peacefully prevented elections, peacefully threatened media....

 

Additionally they were never opposed by the army, who shot at the red protesters as early as April 2009.

If you look at the deaths in the time that led up to the coup you will find little to no redshirts died... so I would say they were peaceful. A big exception of course is the popcorn man. But he only came into play after the protesters were fired upon repeatedly and the CAPO refused to help. Still it was violence and he is doing his time. 

 

But do give me a list of red shirts killed in the anti goverment protests that brought down YL.

[seajae]

we can only hope................

[Shawn0000]

40 minutes ago, robblok said:

If you look at the deaths in the time that led up to the coup you will find little to no redshirts died... so I would say they were peaceful. A big exception of course is the popcorn man. But he only came into play after the protesters were fired upon repeatedly and the CAPO refused to help. Still it was violence and he is doing his time. 

 

But do give me a list of red shirts killed in the anti goverment protests that brought down YL.

 

The popcorn shooter was not an exception, the protest in 2008 that saw the yellow shirts razor wire off parliament resulted in three police men being shot and one stabbed, numerous cars burnt and general mayhem, they did actually start the violence, they also suffered greatly at the hands of the police, and the vowed to get revenge.  Later, as the reds came out to counter protest there was the Porsche driven directly into red shirt protesters before fleeing and the woman who rammed her car into a crowd of red shirt protesters, but of course the main culprits were the army, randomly firing into the red shirt encampment, shooting 800 people and killing 25 and then later shooting 16 people randomly within a crowd of protesters who refused to disperse and then the two beaten and bound bodies of red shirts found in the chao phayha, the point you neglect is that the yellow shirts had the army on their side, they did not need to continue their violence, that was taken care of for them and they got their revenge.

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The popcorn shooter was not an exception, the protest in 2008 that saw the yellow shirts razor wire off parliament resulted in three police men being shot and one stabbed, numerous cars burnt and general mayhem, they did actually start the violence, they also suffered greatly at the hands of the police, and the vowed to get revenge.  Later, as the reds came out to counter protest there was the Porsche driven directly into red shirt protesters before fleeing and the woman who rammed her car into a crowd of red shirt protesters, but of course the main culprits were the army, randomly firing into the red shirt encampment, shooting 800 people and killing 25 and then later shooting 16 people randomly within a crowd of protesters who refused to disperse and then the two beaten and bound bodies of red shirts found in the chao phayha, the point you neglect is that the yellow shirts had the army on their side, they did not need to continue their violence, that was taken care of for them and they got their revenge.

Oh dear.. unfounded rumors that the army listens to the yellow shirts. I would like to see an article on that proving those rumors.

Also I was asking about 2010 and onward.. your now counting army casualties and I was asking about the yellows. You can't just count those together as there is no proof there is some secret agreement that the army does killing for the yellows. The army is a separate entity quite a few yellows don't like them at all and to even suggest that the yellows can tell the army what to do.. 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

If you look at the deaths in the time that led up to the coup you will find little to no redshirts died... so I would say they were peaceful. A big exception of course is the popcorn man. But he only came into play after the protesters were fired upon repeatedly and the CAPO refused to help. Still it was violence and he is doing his time. 

 

But do give me a list of red shirts killed in the anti goverment protests that brought down YL.

Come on Robblok. Peaceful is a long stretch of imagination. Top of my head and broadcast live was the gun battle when the PDRC clashed at the Thai-Japanese stadium. I clearly remembered a policeman shot in the chest and died later. 2 fatalities . Then there was the pitched battle at Pang Fah and 5 fatalities. Broadcast live also. Do you need to be fact checked everytime?

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Come on Robblok. Peaceful is a long stretch of imagination. Top of my head and broadcast live was the gun battle when the PDRC clashed at the Thai-Japanese stadium. I clearly remembered a policeman shot in the chest and died later. 2 fatalities . Then there was the pitched battle at Pang Fah and 5 fatalities. Broadcast live also. Do you need to be fact checked everytime?

Do give me some links to those articles.. i don't recall them and I dont really believe the top of your head. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

If you look at the deaths in the time that led up to the coup you will find little to no redshirts died... so I would say they were peaceful. A big exception of course is the popcorn man. But he only came into play after the protesters were fired upon repeatedly and the CAPO refused to help. Still it was violence and he is doing his time. 

 

But do give me a list of red shirts killed in the anti goverment protests that brought down YL.

You miss the point. In 2009/2010 It was the red shirts against the government. In 2013/2014 it was the yellow shirts (or similar) against the government. The yellows directed their actions to the government, not the red shirts who were only marginally involved. Untill they organised their big protest in May but they remained in the suburbs to avoid direct clash with Suthep's mob.

By the way, the people fired at by the popcorn man and the others wanted to cast a vote.

[JAG]

You miss the point. In 2009/2010 It was the red shirts against the government. In 2013/2014 it was the yellow shirts (or similar) against the government. The yellows directed their actions to the government, not the red shirts who were only marginally involved. Untill they organised their big protest in May but they remained in the suburbs to avoid direct clash with Suthep's mob.
By the way, the people fired at by the popcorn man and the others wanted to cast a vote.

Oh don't expect any sympathy for people attempting to vote ...

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

You miss the point. In 2009/2010 It was the red shirts against the government. In 2013/2014 it was the yellow shirts (or similar) against the government. The yellows directed their actions to the government, not the red shirts who were only marginally involved. Untill they organised their big protest in May but they remained in the suburbs to avoid direct clash with Suthep's mob.

By the way, the people fired at by the popcorn man and the others wanted to cast a vote.

So what.. they wanted to vote.. that makes it OK to shoot at people.. nice sense of right and wrong you have. No wonder you support the reds. Besides this was way before the voting was blocked so your remarks are nuill and void.

 

The red shirts not involved.. who do you think did all the killing of the protesters...