Red shirts reconciled to grim future

[Pridilives]

10 hours ago, than said:

Armed element from red shirts side. April 2010

Nobody deny exist. What is point. That all millions of udd are represent by this photo. Because that not true. Fact that you need to tell this distort lie prove your argument very weak. 

[tomwct]

The real problem in Thailand is the folks selling their votes for money. Until they realize that to have  a real democracy they must vote for the best person not the most money. I'm a Kennedy Republican in America. Kennedy said "Do not ask what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country."

Thai's need to think about this when they prepare to vote and one day they could have a wonderful Democracy!

Edited July 24, 2017 by tomwct

[robblok]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Don't pretend you don't know exactly what happened: the guy who said that was taken off the stage and disaproved by the other people who were on the same stage.

Yes but you can't pretend there was not a lot of applauding and you can't know the reasons why he was taken away.. I think it was purely for public relations.. you say they disprove. I say they knew that this would prove how violent they were and that people like me would use it to point this out. 

 

You just assume they disproved.. no proof.. i prefer to assume they knew it was bad PR. The cheering proved enough for me. That plenty agreed with him.  

[robblok]

7 hours ago, than said:

Element from independent investigation from Human Right  Watch.

 

 "Based on 94 interviews with eyewitnesses, journalists, human rights defenders, parliamentarians, lawyers, government officials, security personnel, and participants in the events, Descent into Chaos provides a detailed account of the violence and human rights abuses committed by all sides. The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Deliberate attacks on the security forces by the so-called “Black Shirts,” armed elements connected with the UDD, also caused deaths and injuries. UDD leaders made inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, encouraging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting."

 

"However, Human Rights Watch’s investigations found that the attacks did not originate with Red Shirt Guards, but with a secretive armed element within the UDD whom protesters and media called the “Black Shirts” or “Men in Black”—though not all were dressed in black."

 

"A journalist, who spent several days together with a group of armed militants at the Ratchaprasong protest camp, described to Human Rights Watch his experience with the Black Shirts: The day I met up with the group, they were near Lumphini Park and the Rama IV [road] junction, living in a tent. I was not allowed to photograph them. I met about 17 or 18 of them, but they said they were part of a group of 30. They had more people helping them, helpers and their own medics. They were all ex-military, and some of them were still on active duty. Some of them were paratroopers, and at least one was from the Navy. They had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s [military assault rifles], but I didn’t see them with M79s [grenade launchers]. They told me that their job was to protect the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the soldiers. [T]hese guys were fearless. They operated mostly at night, but sometimes also during the day. They went out in small teams [to confront the army].… They didn’t use walkie-talkies, just mobile phones and runners [to deliver messages]. I saw no interaction with the Red Shirt leaders. But these guys were contacted by someone, someone recruited them to come, I have no idea who. Someone provided them with weapons…. They rationed their bullets—when they went out they had 30 bullets [each]. They weren’t really “black” shirts—they were sometimes in green military uniforms and others dressed like Red Shirt protesters. They didn’t have any relationship with the Red Guards, and weren’t interested in dealing with the Red Shirt leaders.… They took their work very seriously. The guys I met, they knew how to move and shoot. They also had experience handling explosives.… The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat."

 

"A photographer who was present when Khattiya was shot, and remained in the area afterwards, described how armed Black Shirts soon began firing upon the soldiers: After [the shooting of Maj. Gen. Khattiya], the Black Shirts became extremely angry. They started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn’t fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes, it was very heavy. I tried to hide [from the gunfire] behind the Rama VI statue [in Lumphini Park]. The Black Shirts came into the tents located behind the Rama VI statue. There were five or six black garbage bags hidden behind the tents, and the Black Shirts took those garbage bags. I saw them open one of the garbage bags and it had three or four AK-47 assault rifles in it. They took them out and started shooting immediately towards the security forces at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings. They were extremely angry. The security forces started shooting back. There were many Black Shirts around, they started to move towards the barricades and in other directions.… I stayed around until midnight and there was gunfire until then. After Seh Daeng’s [Khattiya’s] shooting, the area around Rama VI statue became only for the Black Shirts, no more protesters."

 

"The status of government investigations into alleged crimes by the UDD-linked “Black Shirt” militants remains unclear. Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, continue to assert that the UDD had no armed elements at the time of the 2010 events. A number of those accused of deadly attacks against soldiers, police officers, and anti-UDD groups were released on bail."

Yes showed what a voilent bunch they are.. strange there are no pics of yellow doing the same thing.. nor are there incidents of yellow bombing red going to their meeting purely to kill. 

 

Then you got people here saying that its not true that they represent a small element.. in the video i saw old woman cheering for the death of yellow shirts. So much for a small element. I really love camera images and picturesd else those red lovers here would deny it completely. Now they can't they can only say its not as bad as it looks

[Ricardo]

12 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I am not disagreeing with you, but even with that reality, it was still the closest thing to democratic representation that the people here have experienced.

 

 

I do understand the point you're making, but if "Thaksin Thinks, Puah Thai Acts" is the closest Thais have ever been to democratic representation, then they really haven't ever experienced democracy at all, IMHO.

 

One man deciding the policies & selecting the party-leader, then his elected-governments carrying them out, isn't democracy. After all  ...  "democracy is not our aim", as he himself once said.  It was about then that I myself, and I suspect many other farangs, lost faith in someone who had previously been seen as the new/great hope.

[LannaGuy]

Just now, robblok said:

Yes but you can't pretend there was not a lot of applauding and you can't know the reasons why he was taken away.. I think it was purely for public relations.. you say they disprove. I say they knew that this would prove how violent they were and that people like me would use it to point this out. 

 

You just assume they disproved.. no proof.. i prefer to assume they knew it was bad PR. The cheering proved enough for me. That plenty agreed with him.  

If some applauded you cannot extrapolate that to everyone. The reds I know are peaceful and against all violence. He was taken off as he was NOT representative.

[Pridilives]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

I consider the yellows the best of the bad lot.. guess we differ there.

Yellow do not want democracy. This is fact. So your position is red is killer and thief so bad that Thailand cannot have democracy. You cannot say you choose yellow AND democracy. They are mutual exclusive. You are free to have this opinion for yellow and against democracy. But what future will it bring. How will it make life thailand. Today newspaper say junta going to look everybody Facebook and if see photo with alcohol going to give fine 50,000 baht. Democracy is better for life in Thailand. Why you oppose it?

10 hours ago, robblok said:

 

As for Newin, that is NOT a judicial coup but a shifting in alliances and something that can be done. I seen it happen in my country that governments fall and new ones get formed. Nothing illegal about it.

Army make happen. Same never happen your country that army threat politician to change government. So this is untruth by you.

10 hours ago, robblok said:

 

I prefer a normal democratic government but whoever is in charge will go for total control. We seen Thaksin do it countless times.. removing those he did not like removing checks and balances. If they were not like this things would be a lot better but they all want total control and no transparency at all.

If you prefer yellow mean you not prefer democracy. Democracy will never come from yellow. Never. If you truly want democracy you need rethink your preferences. 

If you worry about someone have total control you need focus on opposition. Good opposition is what Thailand need but don't have because instead of earn vote they just rely coup. 

Again another thing you complain total control but not mention government now have total control. More control than thanks in ever have. So why quiet about it. Only reason I think for your quiet about junta total control is you not really support democracy.

[Pridilives]

22 minutes ago, tomwct said:

The real problem in Thailand is the folks selling their votes for money. Until they realize that to have  a real democracy they must vote for the best person not the most money. I'm a Kennedy Republican in America. Kennedy said "Do not ask what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country."

Thai's need to think about this when they prepare to vote and one day they could have a wonderful Democracy!

Wrong 100%

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2013/12/vote-buying-thaksin-and-the-democrats/

[Pridilives]

7 hours ago, than said:

The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers.

I agree with your post 100%

[scorecard]

38 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

Maybe it take 50 years. Maybe not. But millions Thai fighting now for democracy and are making good progress. Expats not try impose anything. They just talk common sense. The clue less are the ones who just repeat junta propaganda about why Thai cannot have democracy.

 

"But millions Thai fighting now for democracy..."

 

Please expand your comment with specific details.

[Pridilives]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes but you can't pretend there was not a lot of applauding and you can't know the reasons why he was taken away.. I think it was purely for public relations.. you say they disprove. I say they knew that this would prove how violent they were and that people like me would use it to point this out. 

 

You just assume they disproved.. no proof.. i prefer to assume they knew it was bad PR. The cheering proved enough for me. That plenty agreed with him.  

Cheering and applauding in the heat of the moment is one thing. printing shirt to hero worship murderer is another. One is spontaneous and unthought one is considerate and though

[robblok]

12 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

If some applauded you cannot extrapolate that to everyone. The reds I know are peaceful and against all violence. He was taken off as he was NOT representative.

That is what you are saying,... i clearly saws old woman cheering too for the killing of yellows. You can think what you want and I can think what i want I see it as representative. It is a pattern, just look at the burning of BKK and the hate violent speeches at that point. It shows they clearly accept violence and want their supporters to commit violence. They were their leaders who incited them.. who told them to take fuel with them to burn BKK. You can't deny that combine that with what i see here.. its a pattern of violence of reds going after yellows even if they are minding their own business far away from them (Trad). 

 

That you know some red supporters that are peaceful that does not mean they all are. The reds are clearly far more violent than the yellows. Prove me wrong give me some examples where yellows went out of their ways to kill reds like the reds do. Not talking about clashes between them but attacks on... like the bombings.. and like Trad.. I dare you to find something similar. 

 

I don't think ALL reds are violent, i just think they are a lot more violent than yellow and have proof to back it up. 

 

I walked in both protests.. yellow and red as i live in BKK.. i can tell you there was a large difference in how safe i felt and how violent it looked. When i was at the yellow protest sites i only felt danger from the chance some reds would bomb us. When i walked between the reds I had a totally different feeling.

 

I guess its easy for you as you don't live in BKK so its all ok if they fight for you far away.. but its different if it happens where you live and influences your life. Wonder how the comments would be from the red supporters here if the reds closed down Chang Mai and created chaos there. 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what you are saying,... i clearly saws old woman cheering too for the killing of yellows. You can think what you want and I can think what i want I see it as representative. It is a pattern, just look at the burning of BKK and the hate violent speeches at that point. It shows they clearly accept violence and want their supporters to commit violence. They were their leaders who incited them.. who told them to take fuel with them to burn BKK. You can't deny that combine that with what i see here.. its a pattern of violence of reds going after yellows even if they are minding their own business far away from them (Trad). 

 

That you know some red supporters that are peaceful that does not mean they all are. The reds are clearly far more violent than the yellows. Prove me wrong give me some examples where yellows went out of their ways to kill reds like the reds do. Not talking about clashes between them but attacks on... like the bombings.. and like Trad.. I dare you to find something similar. 

 

I don't think ALL reds are violent, i just think they are a lot more violent than yellow and have proof to back it up. 

 

I walked in both protests.. yellow and red as i live in BKK.. i can tell you there was a large difference in how safe i felt and how violent it looked. When i was at the yellow protest sites i only felt danger from the chance some reds would bomb us. When i walked between the reds I had a totally different feeling.

 

I guess its easy for you as you don't live in BKK so its all ok if they fight for you far away.. but its different if it happens where you live and influences your life. Wonder how the comments would be from the red supporters here if the reds closed down Chang Mai and created chaos there. 

You are saying all Germans were Nazis a ridiculous generalization. I never hear you against the tremendous violence of the yellow shirts, the murder of many people by the government, yellows driving cars into peaceful protesters.  Shooting into a Buddhist temple.

Edited July 24, 2017 by LannaGuy

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

You are saying all Germans were Nazis a ridiculous generalization. I never hear you against the tremendous violence of the yellow shirts, the murder of many people by the government, yellows driving cars into peaceful protesters.  Shooting into a Buddhist temple.

Sorry mate you missed a part 

 

 

I don't think ALL reds are violent, i just think they are a lot more violent than yellow and have proof to back it up. 

 

Could you show me where yellow shirts (not army) were shooting into a temple ?

As for the car incident, there were many the other way around.. i am more interested in the things i outlined.. going out of their way to kill innocents bombing them.. looking them up and shooting them. I guess you can't because it did not happen. 

[Pridilives]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what you are saying,... i clearly saws old woman cheering too for the killing of yellows. You can think what you want and I can think what i want I see it as representative. It is a pattern, just look at the burning of BKK and the hate violent speeches at that point. It shows they clearly accept violence and want their supporters to commit violence. They were their leaders who incited them.. who told them to take fuel with them to burn BKK. You can't deny that combine that with what i see here.. its a pattern of violence of reds going after yellows even if they are minding their own business far away from them (Trad). 

 

That you know some red supporters that are peaceful that does not mean they all are. The reds are clearly far more violent than the yellows. Prove me wrong give me some examples where yellows went out of their ways to kill reds like the reds do. Not talking about clashes between them but attacks on... like the bombings.. and like Trad.. I dare you to find something similar. 

 

I don't think ALL reds are violent, i just think they are a lot more violent than yellow and have proof to back it up. 

 

I walked in both protests.. yellow and red as i live in BKK.. i can tell you there was a large difference in how safe i felt and how violent it looked. When i was at the yellow protest sites i only felt danger from the chance some reds would bomb us. When i walked between the reds I had a totally different feeling.

 

I guess its easy for you as you don't live in BKK so its all ok if they fight for you far away.. but its different if it happens where you live and influences your life. Wonder how the comments would be from the red supporters here if the reds closed down Chang Mai and created chaos there. 

I live Bangkok my whole life. By far more inconvenience from yellow because they come street too many time. Red just one time.

 

As for your safety- not unusual to feel safe when surround people you agree with and unsafe when surround people not agree with. 

 

who throw grenade at police and blow up leg when police try kick away?  Thaksin do it?

 

obsess hatred red just use as disguise for hide true feeling about democracy. I suspect you somebody vote conservative politic. Because liberal politic win every election you don't want democracy because lose. Instead be honest and try improve conservative political party for win election just repeat repeat repeat false reason why Thailand cannot have democracy.

 

99.9% red not violent. 99.9% yellow not violent.

 

99.9% red hate corruption. 99.9% yellow hate corruption.

 

99.9% red want democracy. 99.9% yellow not want democracy.

 

choice not about violent or corruption. Choice between red and yellow is choice about democracy.

 

you choose yellow. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sweatalot]

15 hours ago, Pridilives said:

 

Very scary power hungry intolerant thugs indeed

you say it

Edited July 24, 2017 by sweatalot

[ChidlomDweller]

@Robblok: The yellows and army were in cahoots -- remember the PDRC military-theme party in Thonglor hosted by the Singha heiress, days after the coup.  Perfect symbolism.  Suthep himself bragged about having it all planned since two years with Prayuth.  

 

So to me it's splitting hairs what color the shooter is wearing, green or yellow.  I believe the yellows to be every bit as bloodthirsty, witness the popcorn jokes on PDRC stages (also withdrawn when they realized it was bad PR), and Suthep's "humor" that the 90 innocents (your word) who were shot by the army in 2010 "ran into bullets".  They just get the army to do it for them and can then proclaim the higher moral ground.  

 

So for me on that score they're completely a draw, but one side wants to preserve the feudalist system that benefits a tiny elite and a larger minority that benefits from the patronage network.  The other side feels disenfranchised and demand change.  

 

I could actually be in favor of a coup if I believed the intentions were there to create a more just society.  I have to work today so I'm not going to write an encyclopedia comparing the early PAP / LKY years in Singapore with Prayuth's first 3 years.  Singapore is an interesting example though if how to get a grip on out-of-control corruption.  Let's just say that there has never been a more intransparent government in Thailand than what we have now.  A real anti-corruption drive would start with transparency everywhere.  

 

Another poster mentioned "clueless Westerners".  Well, I guess just accepting a repressive, exploitative feudalism makes you world-wise then.  

[Pridilives]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

 

I do understand the point you're making, but if "Thaksin Thinks, Puah Thai Acts" is the closest Thais have ever been to democratic representation, then they really haven't ever experienced democracy at all, IMHO.

 

One man deciding the policies & selecting the party-leader, then his elected-governments carrying them out, isn't democracy. After all  ...  "democracy is not our aim", as he himself once said.  It was about then that I myself, and I suspect many other farangs, lost faith in someone who had previously been seen as the new/great hope.

For the first time Thai people saw that there vote counts. They saw they could choose government and that government would then enact policies that improve there life. The Thai experience of democracy after the 1997 constitution was liked very much that is why still fight so hard for bring it back. Look like you and everyone like you like to cherry pick reason for not have democracy but never give reason why not democracy is better. Can you give reason why not have democracy in Thailand is better than have? Try say something positive for no democracy instead just say cherry pick negative for democracy.

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Sorry mate you missed a part 

 

 

I don't think ALL reds are violent, i just think they are a lot more violent than yellow and have proof to back it up. 

 

Could you show me where yellow shirts (not army) were shooting into a temple ?

As for the car incident, there were many the other way around.. i am more interested in the things i outlined.. going out of their way to kill innocents bombing them.. looking them up and shooting them. I guess you can't because it did not happen. 

Yellow shirts + Army = same same

[robblok]

Just now, LannaGuy said:

Yellow shirts + Army = same same

Ah but they yellows are not the same as the army. That is something you need to understand. They might have similar views ( a few) but not all and are certainly not the same. I know you like to lump them together for the sake of the argument but they are not the same. 

 

Reds are just far more violent than yellow there is no way around it. You havent brought up a single shred of evidence to counter that. 

[robblok]

35 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

@Robblok: The yellows and army were in cahoots -- remember the PDRC military-theme party in Thonglor hosted by the Singha heiress, days after the coup.  Perfect symbolism.  Suthep himself bragged about having it all planned since two years with Prayuth.  

 

So to me it's splitting hairs what color the shooter is wearing, green or yellow.  I believe the yellows to be every bit as bloodthirsty, witness the popcorn jokes on PDRC stages (also withdrawn when they realized it was bad PR), and Suthep's "humor" that the 90 innocents (your word) who were shot by the army in 2010 "ran into bullets".  They just get the army to do it for them and can then proclaim the higher moral ground.  

 

So for me on that score they're completely a draw, but one side wants to preserve the feudalist system that benefits a tiny elite and a larger minority that benefits from the patronage network.  The other side feels disenfranchised and demand change.  

 

I could actually be in favor of a coup if I believed the intentions were there to create a more just society.  I have to work today so I'm not going to write an encyclopedia comparing the early PAP / LKY years in Singapore with Prayuth's first 3 years.  Singapore is an interesting example though if how to get a grip on out-of-control corruption.  Let's just say that there has never been a more intransparent government in Thailand than what we have now.  A real anti-corruption drive would start with transparency everywhere.  

 

Another poster mentioned "clueless Westerners".  Well, I guess just accepting a repressive, exploitative feudalism makes you world-wise then.  

I disagree, its not splitting hairs.. i would probably go for the same defense if i was on your side.. its all you can to do make it look less bad for your side. 

 

As for the popcorn man, he was turned over to the police.. reds never turn over their bombers and thugs. Also the popcorn man was a response to the constant bombings and shootings of protesters in that area. Sure he made his victim during election but he was brought in long before that time to protect the yellows. As for the pop corn man, he was at a voting station trying to block voting at that time when reds came shooting at them. He fired back and hit an innocent person, IMHO the reds who came there were also to blame. Had they stayed away then nothing would have happened. The yellows were there first. I see a  theme here, the reds always engage the yellows. I don't see the yellows going after the reds ever.

 

As for Suthep, anyone supporting him is a fool, he is a bad piece of work and I don't like him one bit. He is as bad as Thaksin. 

 

We all have different views here and I believe there was never a democracy in Thailand, the moment someone gets in power they replace all the checks and balances and make it impossible for the opposition to do their job. That is not democracy. You could see that clearly during Thaksin his reign and later also during YL her reign. If they would not do that and let the opposition do their job and listen to them Then you got a democracy just getting voted in is one part of a democracy but when you don't abide by the other rules of a democracy its all a big sham. 

 

YL lost her credibility to me when she supported the Thaksin amnesty, something that brought out all the protesters, there would not have been a coup (or at least no pretext for it or so widely supported if she had not chosen family over the good of Thailand). Now again Thaksin shows that his party has to be lead by family showing its not about the good of Thailand but about his interests. I don't call that a democracy. 

[Pridilives]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree, its not splitting hairs.. i would probably go for the same defense if i was on your side.. its all you can to do make it look less bad for your side. 

 

As for the popcorn man, he was turned over to the police.. reds never turn over their bombers and thugs. Also the popcorn man was a response to the constant bombings and shootings of protesters in that area. Sure he made his victim during election but he was brought in long before that time to protect the yellows. As for the pop corn man, he was at a voting station trying to block voting at that time when reds came shooting at them. He fired back and hit an innocent person, IMHO the reds who came there were also to blame. Had they stayed away then nothing would have happened. The yellows were there first. I see a  theme here, the reds always engage the yellows. I don't see the yellows going after the reds ever.

 

As for Suthep, anyone supporting him is a fool, he is a bad piece of work and I don't like him one bit. He is as bad as Thaksin. 

 

We all have different views here and I believe there was never a democracy in Thailand, the moment someone gets in power they replace all the checks and balances and make it impossible for the opposition to do their job. That is not democracy. You could see that clearly during Thaksin his reign and later also during YL her reign. If they would not do that and let the opposition do their job and listen to them Then you got a democracy just getting voted in is one part of a democracy but when you don't abide by the other rules of a democracy its all a big sham. 

 

YL lost her credibility to me when she supported the Thaksin amnesty, something that brought out all the protesters, there would not have been a coup (or at least no pretext for it or so widely supported if she had not chosen family over the good of Thailand). Now again Thaksin shows that his party has to be lead by family showing its not about the good of Thailand but about his interests. I don't call that a democracy. 

Thaksin win election 2005. When have problem thaksin dissolve parliament and have election again 2006. Yingluck win election 2011. When have problem yingluck dissolve parliament and call election. How you can complain about that. Both time they return power to people to choose government. This prove your claim false.

 

again you just complain why have democracy is bad. Why you cannot explain why no democracy is good.

 

you cannot give any positive reason for support your position.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Pridilives

[Pridilives]

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

you say it

Have two photo show different thing one show old lady one show red have machete. Thailand Have about 15 million red shirt. My question to you is  of the 15 million how many first photo how many second photo?

 

[Eric Loh]

10 hours ago, bangrak said:

Oh, please, don't categorise Thida as some 'usefull fool', ignoring the quantity of leathal venom that woman holds in her glands, far more than her co-Drs husband Weng, IMO! They both have let many of their dye-hard communist followers in dire straits, jailed, tortured, deported, some killed, while they both had negotiated their way out of it, renegging on all they pretended to believe in, and had infected many thousands of gullible, deprived, Thais with.

How anecdotical, it might me: do you know why the red-shirts wear ...red shirts? Well, it has all to do with Drs Thida and Weng! I explain: at the time Thaksin was creating(!) a popular movement to serve his(!) aims, he tried to gather as many people he could, from all possible 'horizons', walks-of-life, whatever 'tainted' that might be.

Among them the Drs and what 'following' they still had, their treason of their communist fellows aside, as the oath they had pledged to abandon all and every political activity, to buy-off their own freedom.

Well, that negotiation didn't go easy, one of the reasons of being they demanded(!), as a conditio-si-nequa-non, that the colour of the movement, and the one worn by its adherents would be... red. And its only in a last stage, when they stubbornly kept to that condition, and it could have become a no-go, that Thaksin, in the end gave in.

That's why the red-shirts are red! 

I highly recommend that you read articles by independent foreign journalists which are in public domain and get an understanding of the formation of the DAAD and subsequently UDD. You will be educated by the fact that the DAAD wore yellow in the beginning and that not all UDD support Thaksin. They did opposed his amnesty; a convenient oversight by you. Be educated and don't be held hostage by your prejudice my friend.

[than]

3 hours ago, Pridilives said:

I agree with your post 100%

Don't forget all elements....... you always quote only one side of the true

 

committed by all sides.

 

"Deliberate attacks on the security forces by the so-called “Black Shirts,” armed elements connected with the UDD, also caused deaths and injuries. UDD leaders made inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, encouraging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting."

 

 

Yes I forget  the official line of red terrorrists: 

"Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, continue to assert that the UDD had no armed elements at the time of the 2010 events."

[Pridilives]

14 minutes ago, than said:

Don't forget all elements....... you always quote only one side of the true

 

committed by all sides.

 

"Deliberate attacks on the security forces by the so-called “Black Shirts,” armed elements connected with the UDD, also caused deaths and injuries. UDD leaders made inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, encouraging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting."

 

 

Yes I forget  the official line of red terrorrists: 

"Despite clear photographic and other evidence, the UDD leadership and its supporters, including those holding positions in the government and the parliament, continue to assert that the UDD had no armed elements at the time of the 2010 events."

Yeah SOME violence from red but MOST violence from who??? 

[Baerboxer]

On 7/23/2017 at 5:25 AM, ChidlomDweller said:

Are they really that violent, given the level of injustice in this country?  

 

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Killing innocent children and then celebrating it publicly at a political rally. Just about the depths.

[Baerboxer]

17 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

If you are going quote source you can't just pick choose bit you like and ignore rest. HRW report clearly blame military for MOST violence through excessive and unnecessary use of force.

 

red violence happen, but mostly incidentals. Most red damage to property not to human.

 

if election respected. This whole sad incident never happen. If you want lay blame must lay blame at root cause. Everything happen just one root cause. Yellow not accept democracy. Just

 

Ah, yes. You did claim before that only 1% of red shirts were violent. Then you said less than 1% when challenged for a source for your claims.

 

We are still waiting your source. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

50 minutes ago, Pridilives said:

Yeah SOME violence from red but MOST violence from who??? 

 

Many posters on here have been here a long time, and lived through the events, and saw and read things at that time. 

 

Were you here then? 

 

Because your somewhat one sided view suggests otherwise.

[ChidlomDweller]

This thread is starting to be a dead horse being flogged, so I'm outta here.

 

Robblok, you did give me a good chuckle with your portrayal of the popcorn man, making him sound like a righteous bloke who was only blocking an election, like it's the most normal thing to do.