Bangkok: 10+ Dead, Hundreds Hurt In Bangkok Clashes

[LuckyLew]

Blurting out and accepting off the cuff definitions of terrorism is just what certain elements in power and media want the general public to do - it has the desired effect to greater or lesser extent on public opinion - - I'm sorry these are threats reported by the media in ways that let them insert or use the word terrorism - To understand what is happening one needs to uderstand at least a little bit about the language of media and spin.

In fact these actions if we choose to label them with this meaningless and emotive word would make a lot of "freedom fighters" in history terrorists too.

to accept the use of this word in almost ANY circumstances - especially with regards to the current situation in Thailand would be very gullible and naive.

I hope that most posters would see through this unsubtle ploy.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it is a duck

If it acts like a terrorist, is armed like a terrorist and shots off guns

and grenades like a terrorist ... it is a terrorist

Kindly remove your head from where ever it is lodged and get back to reality

[way2muchcoffee]

Civilian and/or rogue military forces using grenades and assault rifles on security forces is terrorism. Threatening to derail the BTS is terrorism. Public calls to burn government buildings is terrorism. Threats to the government leaders, their homes, and their families is terrorism. Assassination of military leaders is terrorism. Attempted assassination of government leaders is terrorism. Kidnapping and taking soldiers hostage is terrorism.

What would you call it? Armed insurrection? Civil war?

Blurting out and accepting off the cuff definitions of terrorism is just what certain elements in power and media want the general public to do - it has the desired effect to greater or lesser extent on public opinion - - I'm sorry these are threats reported by the media in ways that let them insert or use the word terrorism - To understand what is happening one needs to uderstand at least a little bit about the language of media and spin.

In fact these actions if we choose to label them with this meaningless and emotive word would make a lot of "freedom fighters" in history terrorists too.

to accept the use of this word in almost ANY circumstances - especially with regards to the current situation in Thailand would be very gullible and naive.

I hope that most posters would see through this unsubtle ploy.

So you disagree that the things mentioned in my should rightfully be construed as terrorism. That's fine. What would you call it then?

Edited April 15, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[britmaveric]

^military are terrorists now?

[jcon]

^ "senior" members are trolling now?

[grandpops]

Was at cowboy today and saw a guy in a red shirt get the sh t kicked out of him, Don't know how it started, and doin't know who was at fault but he was kicked by a few people before they took him out.

So brave of your new found friends, and how brave of you to intervene. We are happy that you are happy now.

Well done, brave warriors.

[grandpops]

Blurting out and accepting off the cuff definitions of terrorism is just what certain elements in power and media want the general public to do - it has the desired effect to greater or lesser extent on public opinion - - I'm sorry these are threats reported by the media in ways that let them insert or use the word terrorism - To understand what is happening one needs to uderstand at least a little bit about the language of media and spin.

In fact these actions if we choose to label them with this meaningless and emotive word would make a lot of "freedom fighters" in history terrorists too.

to accept the use of this word in almost ANY circumstances - especially with regards to the current situation in Thailand would be very gullible and naive.

I hope that most posters would see through this unsubtle ploy.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it is a duck

If it acts like a terrorist, is armed like a terrorist and shots off guns

and grenades like a terrorist ... it is a terrorist

Kindly remove your head from where ever it is lodged and get back to reality

Nobody else who matters believes they were terrorists.

Sorry you Bangkok falangs won't be able to wander the malls this weekend.

Imagine, no malls, no businesses, no well paying jobs, and you might just be starting to imagine the life of Thais outside of the Bangkok elites. I don't mean Bangkok as it is full of servants, virtual slaves, maids, sold women from the north. All of whom will be mighty glad to see some kind of power returned to the people.

Rest of the country seems to be functioning ok outside the Malls of Bangkok!!! Maybe Bangkok is not that important at all, other than to the rich who make it their home.

[commons]

Blurting out and accepting off the cuff definitions of terrorism is just what certain elements in power and media want the general public to do - it has the desired effect to greater or lesser extent on public opinion - - I'm sorry these are threats reported by the media in ways that let them insert or use the word terrorism - To understand what is happening one needs to uderstand at least a little bit about the language of media and spin.

In fact these actions if we choose to label them with this meaningless and emotive word would make a lot of "freedom fighters" in history terrorists too.

to accept the use of this word in almost ANY circumstances - especially with regards to the current situation in Thailand would be very gullible and naive.

I hope that most posters would see through this unsubtle ploy.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... it is a duck

If it acts like a terrorist, is armed like a terrorist and shots off guns

and grenades like a terrorist ... it is a terrorist

Kindly remove your head from where ever it is lodged and get back to reality

Nobody else who matters believes they were terrorists.

Sorry you Bangkok falangs won't be able to wander the malls this weekend.

Imagine, no malls, no businesses, no well paying jobs, and you might just be starting to imagine the life of Thais outside of the Bangkok elites. I don't mean Bangkok as it is full of servants, virtual slaves, maids, sold women from the north. All of whom will be mighty glad to see some kind of power returned to the people.

Rest of the country seems to be functioning ok outside the Malls of Bangkok!!! Maybe Bangkok is not that important at all, other than to the rich who make it their home.

chai, grandpops -

as Arisman claimed, "let's burn BKK".

do it grandpops - let's "return power to the people": everyone who has an IQ higher than 70, everyone who's enrolled in university [cough], everyone who takes charge of one's own life - maybe even benefiting own heart/mind, family, local community -

as you state, _all of these people_ are deemed to go to hel_l, according to your interpretation of democracy, freedom-of-speech, equal-distribution-of-wealth, right?

tss tss - why not burn down all globalized metropolises all at once? that'll level field - & _your_ preferred bullying mafia-clan can take over ;-)

*

i'm glad i met another one who's eager to rule 21st-century. what if i disagree?

[tgw]

^military are terrorists now?

Some Taharn Phran elements wearing black shirts, paid & mandated by the wealthy men backing the red movement & connected through "Sae Daeng" Khattiya, are the terrorists.

Explain the guys with the AK47s.

Edited April 15, 2010 by tgw

[koosdeboer]

^military are terrorists now?

Some Taharn Phran elements wearing black shirts, paid & mandated by the wealthy men backing the red movement & connected through "Sae Daeng" Khattiya, are the terrorists.

Explain the guys with the AK47s.

Yes terrorists with the reds. They (sae deng and others) promised violence and they provided.

Read this from the economist please:

The rogue firepower appeared to come from black-clad men armed with assault rifles and explosives. Similar agents provocateurs have played walk-on roles in previous political showdowns in Bangkok. Your correspondent watched a gunman step into the street where red shirts had taken cover and calmly direct a burst of fire towards the army lines. On a parallel street, protesters overran a column of armoured personnel carriers, whose captured crewmen were later paraded on the rally stage, along with the corpses of two protesters.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?...itics_this_week

[Deeral]

THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful,

I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically.

[commons]

THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful,

I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically.

1) you say, "THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful"

1.a) nope guy! don't even compare it to Gandhi & ML King: both would cry in their grave for post-modern power-struggles claiming their names.

1. nope guy! redshirts _publicly_ called for "burning down bangkok", "war against government" - definitely _not_ rhetorics or mind of gandhi or ml king! _definitely not_!

*

2) the word "terrorism" had been introduced into public discourse after apr10th events. pics, tweets, videos show evidence army was attacked - while operating a containment-operation: details had been discussed.

2.a) for sure, it's legitimate to call instigators of violence & mayhem "terrorists" - if it would happen in _your_ fine reality, i guess you'd immediately call them so.

2. nonetheless, you even claim that attacks on an army can be - some-how - aligned to the doctrine&discipline of the likes of Gandhi & ML King, chai mai?

*

3) you say, "I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically."

you're very welcome. where may i sign up for the latest re-education concentration camp according to your limited inclinations?

[Deeral]

I kind of expected that someone would reply this way - I'm sorry but I don't believe you a capable of holding a genuine reasoned argument on the subject - in fact I'm not convinced you even know what the subject is.....

experience suggests that engaging in a debate with someone who writes a response like yours is a waste of time, so no takers on this one I'm afraid to say.

PS - However I'd like to hear your definition of post-modern - why not PM me - if only for a laugh.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Deeral

[yoshiwara]

THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful,

I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically.

Gandhi plus petrol bombs??

I don't think so.

Maybe the forum red think tank can come up with something less preposterous.

Next thing you will be telling us is that Thaksin is a combination of Mother Theresa and Marilyn Monroe.

You must be the official Thaksin supporters' resident comedian.

[Deeral]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

[yoshiwara]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

Please do continue with your obfuscation.

You must be one of the shyer Thaksin apologists.

Pushing the 'peaceful reds' agenda.

Trying to hide in the Thaksin shadows

Not very impressive.

[animatic]

THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful,

I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically.

1) you say, "THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful"

1.a) nope guy! don't even compare it to Gandhi & ML King: both would cry in their grave for post-modern power-struggles claiming their names.

1. nope guy! redshirts _publicly_ called for "burning down bangkok", "war against government" - definitely _not_ rhetorics or mind of gandhi or ml king! _definitely not_!

*

2) the word "terrorism" had been introduced into public discourse after apr10th events. pics, tweets, videos show evidence army was attacked - while operating a containment-operation: details had been discussed.

2.a) for sure, it's legitimate to call instigators of violence & mayhem "terrorists" - if it would happen in _your_ fine reality, i guess you'd immediately call them so.

2. nonetheless, you even claim that attacks on an army can be - some-how - aligned to the doctrine&discipline of the likes of Gandhi & ML King, chai mai?

*

3) you say, "I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically."

you're very welcome. where may i sign up for the latest re-education concentration camp according to your limited inclinations?

Gandhi and MLK... you MUST be kidding or on glue... deer in the headlights

There is NOTHING to compare... Apples and rotten grapes at best.

100% agree with commons here.

If I could agree more I would....

[Deeral]

Sorry I'm wasting my time as you too have clearly shown you have no grasp of my argument. To discuss with you would just be a pointless round of gainsaying on subjects at best tangentially related to the argument in hand.

As you consider my proposition "obfuscation", it puzzles me you bother to take a contrary position to something you admit you find unclear

[Deeral]

Sorry I'm wasting my time as you too have clearly shown you have no grasp of my argument. To discuss with you would just be a pointless round of gainsaying on subjects at best tangentially related to the argument in hand.

As you consider my proposition "obfuscation", it puzzles me you bother to take a contrary position to something you admit you find unclear

[TAWP]

Sorry I'm wasting my time as you too have clearly shown you have no grasp of my argument. To discuss with you would just be a pointless round of gainsaying on subjects at best tangentially related to the argument in hand.

As you consider my proposition "obfuscation", it puzzles me you bother to take a contrary position to something you admit you find unclear

My dear Deeral, I think you should look up the words you are retorting as you seem to be confused about their meaning.

The poster did not say that your point was unclear. It is very clear to most of us. He was merely stating that it, rightfully, was to obfuscate the truth.

There is a very wide difference.

[Deeral]

I think it was the other my dear! otherwise his comments wouldn't make sense.....how is anything I've said an attempt at unclarity? Quite the opposite I would suggest as it is clear that some posters have the wrong end of the stick on more then just my post - I would say their understanding of the situation is a best tenuous

Edited April 20, 2010 by Deeral

[chadintheusa]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

If Ghandi were leading the reds he would instruct them to resist non violently. His followers would take beatings from the army but would not strike back. This is not the case with the reds. History will not speak kindly of the red leaders and the tactics they have used. Martin Luther King never urged his followers to go to Washington and burn it down.

[madi]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

If Ghandi were leading the reds he would instruct them to resist non violently. His followers would take beatings from the army but would not strike back. This is not the case with the reds. History will not speak kindly of the red leaders and the tactics they have used. Martin Luther King never urged his followers to go to Washington and burn it down.

Apples and Oranges.

To do peaceful resistance like Ghandi and Kinbd did. you must have a government that cares what the people think.

If Ghandi were walking the streets here with his group, the army and police would have just shot him down and dumped his body in a garbage can. The regime, like the one in north Korea, and Myanmar, does not care what the people want.

Tell me--why is it you demand the reds die for peace to a regime which has a long record of butchering unarmed students and protesters? Nonsense

Picture The French doing peaceful resistance in the time of the French Revolution. The French regime would have simply killed them all.

Picture Peacefully resistance with the Jews against the Nazis. Not affective.

BUT

Picture the American revolution and hit and run fighting and you have a better model for success for the reds. never fight a fight you cannot and will not win. Fight every battle and lose them all if need be but never get taken down.

Vietnam did this.

Americans did this against the Kings" army of England.

My take on this all is that people of Issan and of the north want to be free of the tyranny of the bangkok elite. They are tired of being ignores and made to be slaves.

The men in black are Thai military and they have taken sides with their brothers in red. How many?

How many more might follow/

Bangkok is a very dangerous place.

Some say the Thai air force can be used to bomb and so it could be.

BUT--when people are hiding among the population, you would end up bombing women and children and destroying much of your own city.

Also--is it possible that the reds if they continue, could get support from the other nations?

Yes it is possible.

I say it is very possible that the reds have already broken the regime.

It is a dead man walking.

It orders military to attack the reds each day and each day the military refuses to do so.

Thought for you who think the reds would be easy to take.

A dozen or so men in black at the not main area, were able to shoot with mainly rubber bullets 250 army.

Now there are over 500 of them and more coming to the area where the reds are. They have machine guns and military weapons including explosives. if you attack them all out, they will kill thousands of Thai military and still simply fade away into the city and start somewhere else and do it again.

This is not the end but it is the start of the end.

[animatic]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

If Ghandi were leading the reds he would instruct them to resist non violently. His followers would take beatings from the army but would not strike back. This is not the case with the reds. History will not speak kindly of the red leaders and the tactics they have used. Martin Luther King never urged his followers to go to Washington and burn it down.

Yes exactly you slander the memories of MLK and Gandhi by even raising their names in relation to the Reds deeds of this last week.

We know for a fact that all the SAID was just words, their actions spoke louder.

Their simulacrum's of Gandhiist peacefulness truly became nothing but phantoms mirror images of the reality.

Edited April 20, 2010 by animatic

[commons]

A completely illogical response - I tink you'd better check how the British media treated Gandhi and the independence movement.

as for your comments about Thaksin - can you find anything in in any of my posts about the man?

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

If Ghandi were leading the reds he would instruct them to resist non violently. His followers would take beatings from the army but would not strike back. This is not the case with the reds. History will not speak kindly of the red leaders and the tactics they have used. Martin Luther King never urged his followers to go to Washington and burn it down.

Apples and Oranges.

To do peaceful resistance like Ghandi and Kinbd did. you must have a government that cares what the people think.

If Ghandi were walking the streets here with his group, the army and police would have just shot him down and dumped his body in a garbage can. The regime, like the one in north Korea, and Myanmar, does not care what the people want.

Tell me--why is it you demand the reds die for peace to a regime which has a long record of butchering unarmed students and protesters? Nonsense

Picture The French doing peaceful resistance in the time of the French Revolution. The French regime would have simply killed them all.

Picture Peacefully resistance with the Jews against the Nazis. Not affective.

BUT

Picture the American revolution and hit and run fighting and you have a better model for success for the reds. never fight a fight you cannot and will not win. Fight every battle and lose them all if need be but never get taken down.

Vietnam did this.

Americans did this against the Kings" army of England.

My take on this all is that people of Issan and of the north want to be free of the tyranny of the bangkok elite. They are tired of being ignores and made to be slaves.

The men in black are Thai military and they have taken sides with their brothers in red. How many?

How many more might follow/

Bangkok is a very dangerous place.

Some say the Thai air force can be used to bomb and so it could be.

BUT--when people are hiding among the population, you would end up bombing women and children and destroying much of your own city.

Also--is it possible that the reds if they continue, could get support from the other nations?

Yes it is possible.

I say it is very possible that the reds have already broken the regime.

It is a dead man walking.

It orders military to attack the reds each day and each day the military refuses to do so.

Thought for you who think the reds would be easy to take.

A dozen or so men in black at the not main area, were able to shoot with mainly rubber bullets 250 army.

Now there are over 500 of them and more coming to the area where the reds are. They have machine guns and military weapons including explosives. if you attack them all out, they will kill thousands of Thai military and still simply fade away into the city and start somewhere else and do it again.

This is not the end but it is the start of the end.

1) you haven't even read the thread: a poster deeral claims comparability between "red shirts" & doctrine&discipline of ghandi & mlk.

2) i replied to this nonsense. as well as chadinteusa did: he actually did it much better than i did - by supplying illustration.

3) _now_ _you_ post even more nonsense:

3.a) you just don't get it - that gandhi & mlk doctrine&discipline are well-rooted in "non-violence": it's not some mere fancy pr-strategy, it's a state of mind/heart.

3. _you_, on the other hand, go out to _dismiss_ this approach of "non-violence". you even are so mad to compare current situation in thailand with, as you say, "Picture Peacefully resistance with the Jews against the Nazis. Not affective [sic]." - that is, you _oppose_ "non-violence".

3.c) you state, "The regime, like the one in north Korea, and Myanmar, does not care what the people want." - & thus you show your utter ignorance. that's all. to compare thailand to north korea or myanmar is an _insult_ to I) intelligence, II) people of nk & myanmar, III) people of thailand.

3.c.I) i'll not discuss details, as many others have done before: abhisit gov _actually_ implemented & implements _real_ policies to ease grievances of disenfranchised + supply a framework for a more equal society.

3.d) you say, "Some say the Thai air force can be used to bomb and so it could be.

BUT--when people are hiding among the population, you would end up bombing women and children and destroying much of your own city." - well, what's more to discuss with a mind who's obviously excitedly indulging nightmares?

3.e) you say, "A dozen or so men in black at the not main area, were able to shoot with mainly rubber bullets 250 army." - & _i_ call that a blatant distortion. it's not even a "lie". honestly, i feel sorry for your extremely handicapped faculties for analysis.

3.f) & you go on, stating, "Now there are over 500 of them and more coming to the area where the reds are. They have machine guns and military weapons including explosives. if you attack them all out, they will kill thousands of Thai military and still simply fade away into the city and start somewhere else and do it again." so, you too call for violent uprising? ->

4) -> while these last posts were about "non-violence". _you_ actually try to argue _against_ "non-violence" (gandhi, mlk, many more) - but it seems you _prefer_ to _claim_ gandhi & mlk... as patrons for the "red shirt" cause... just as it sounds "sexy", right?

*

if it's too difficult to grasp: you preach violence & want gandhi & mlk to bless your cause, right?

[whiterussian]

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

Edited April 20, 2010 by whiterussian

[TAWP]

Great, unfinished pic without point for 2010...4 years after last note.

Welcome to the future.

[Deeral]

I find the lack of of critical thinking ability on this thread very alarming - Thailand is likely to enter a period of political chaos over the next months/years and many of the posters here seem only capable of regurgitating sound bites and have little or no ability to see the big picture . Their vision clouded by ignorance and half-baked partisan views.

[yoshiwara]

THe Redshirts are essentially advocating civil disobedience - this is the same as Gandhi and ML King - I'm not making judgments on their couse I'm pointing out that the word "terrorism" is meaningless and unhelpful,

I'm very sorry to see that some posters here think they know what is and isn't - it surely shows a lack of understanding of how the media works and a lamentable gullibility. It also shows a dangerous lack of ability to think critically.

I love the above comments.

What a hoot.

And what the red apologists won't stoop to.....

This is the Gandhi red style:

[yoshiwara]

I find the lack of of critical thinking ability on this thread very alarming - Thailand is likely to enter a period of political chaos over the next months/years and many of the posters here seem only capable of regurgitating sound bites and have little or no ability to see the big picture . Their vision clouded by ignorance and half-baked partisan views.

Above contributor posing as an independent observer but here is the full text of our champion intellectual red apologist:

I find the lack of of critical thinking ability on this thread very alarming (why do so many contributors disagree with the reds?)

- Thailand is likely to enter a period of political chaos over the next months/years (the reds are going to cause violence so why don't people give in to them?)

and many of the posters here seem only capable of regurgitating sound bites (again, why do these people hate the reds?)

and have little or no ability to see the big picture .(again, they don't like the reds)

Their vision clouded by ignorance and half-baked partisan views. (they disagree with me)

[jackr]

It is as I suspected - many of the posters here cannot engage in a serious conversation as they can't understand the proposal in the first place.

I find the lack of of critical thinking ability on this thread very alarming - Thailand is likely to enter a period of political chaos over the next months/years and many of the posters here seem only capable of regurgitating sound bites and have little or no ability to see the big picture . Their vision clouded by ignorance and half-baked partisan views.

Get over yourself. Your rhetoric is annal to the extent of appearing trollish... only seeing one's point of view while knocking every one else is rather childish. In fact it could almost be likened to the lack of foresight and thinking of a typical British state school teacher.