Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
snoop1130

Student activists put Abhisit on the spot over 2010 crackdown

Recommended Posts

. When you have red terrorists bombing/burning/looting  the city and shooting at people there isnt much recourse apart from bringing  in the army

While it sounds logical what you state, it unfortunately goes against facts. The shooting and killing took place before the "burning down the city" started.

So now turn it around.
When the green shirt terrorists (army) starts shooting up to a hundred protestors, nurses, and journalists you cannot expect them to go home for noodles and sit idle. You can expect at least some properties to be damaged or burned down.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
takes two to tango, if the red shirt terrorists hadnt started shooting at others it would not have happened, seems people are p*ssed that the army returned fire when shot at.

The problem is that the army had spotters and snipers and still "accidently" shot reporters in the streets and a bunch of unarmed nurses on temple grounds.

Maybe thats pissing them off????
What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seajae said:

takes two to tango, if the red shirt terrorists hadnt started shooting at others it would not have happened, seems people are p*ssed that the army returned fire when shot at. This happened because thaksin pushed the reds to do it, he is the one that needs to take responsibility for what happened, him, the red leaders and the police that were in thaksins pocket, they refused to enforce the laws of the country that allowed the reds to start it. When you have red terrorists bombing/burning/looting  the city and shooting at people there isnt much recourse apart from bringing  in the army, deaths are always a terrible thing but people need to look at why it happened in the first place and the answer is thaksin getting his corrupt money seized then paying the reds top try to destroy Bangkok

 

The only terrorists in Thailand are the military. They have no respect for any law and their own amnesty only confirms their intentions. Otherwise, if law abiding why would they need it? Just an opportunity to clean out their closets with minimal reprocussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

 

The military appointed Ahbisit. Learn some history before posting to live out your fantasy.

 

Or are you suggesting Ahbisit was elected? 

You don't know what you're about. Abhisit WAS elected just like all the other MPs & I doubt that he had to buy his seat like some others.

The conspracy theorists (like yourself) have no proof that Abhisit was not voted in as PM by parliament. Fake history (i.e. rumour) is what seems to drive the bar stool eggspurts.

Edited by khunken
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't know what you're about. Abhisit WAS elected just like all the other MPs & I doubt that he had to buy his seat like some others.
The conspracy theorists (like yourself) have no proof that Abhisit was not voted in as PM by parliament. Fake history (i.e. rumour) is what seems to drive the bar stool eggspurts.

Yawn.
Guess you are just trolling now?

Not even this board's hard-core military/abhisit supportes make such statements anymore.

Have fun finding someone who will still take you serious now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bob12345 said:


Yawn.
Guess you are just trolling now?

Not even this board's hard-core military/abhisit supportes make such statements anymore.

Have fun finding someone who will still take you serious now.

Actually it's you that's trolling. You said earlier that you didn't want to discuss anything with me - likely because I don't believe a word you're saying. Carry on up the gullible creek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the whole event on the tele.

Those red shirt protesters tried every trick in the book to provoke a violent reaction from the army.

They got what they wanted when someone hurled a bomb at a group of soldiers.

Live rounds were fired.

The second event was the dismantling of the red shirt barricade near central world by a tank.

Only 90 people died, it could have easily been a few thousand. The army was very restrained. Abhisit the PM then was very cool and collective. Watching as I said on TV I was amazed how cool the army was. Anywhere else the soldiers would have gunned these idiots down. It was just amazing, mouth was open, jaw dropping, how could thousands of red shirts get away with causing chaos. One of those never forget events, like the twin towers or the fall of the Berlin wall.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, khunken said:

You don't know what you're about. Abhisit WAS elected just like all the other MPs & I doubt that he had to buy his seat like some others.

The conspracy theorists (like yourself) have no proof that Abhisit was not voted in as PM by parliament. Fake history (i.e. rumour) is what seems to drive the bar stool eggspurts.

 

I could agree with you but what would be the point of us both looking like a fool when you clearly have superior qualities in such behaviour than I possess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, khunken said:

Is that an extract from the red shirt book of lies?

 

The military were not in power in 2010 - and the Abhisit government that was took power in Dec 2008. The protests were instigated by Thaksin just a month or so after he'd been releived of some of his ill gotten riches.

Where did you hear that?

 

They have been in power for the last 80 to 90 years or so, or have you only just arrived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you hear that?
 
They have been in power for the last 80 to 90 years or so, or have you only just arrived?

If you are correct then why the need for the coup's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 5:42 PM, Samui Bodoh said:

responsibility.

i wonder if there is thai word for that ; perhaps not even a thai phrase for it; conceptually, thais run from it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

I watched the whole event on the tele.

Who owns the tele?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are correct then why the need for the coup's?

Because a new person, who used to belong to the same group, started getting a bit too popular which put some other rather important people out of the limelight.

Thailand is the 3rd most unequal country in the world where the 1% owns 58% of the wealth.
That 1% did not get so much wealth and power only to give it away in an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 24 November 2017 08:54
Sponsors
×