Excellent interview, but I disagree with Andrew Walker that the minor parties will win 100 seats. The opinion polls and the Bangkok Pundit suggest that their counts will be way down, and that this election is turning into a two-party race. Newin’s BJT and Silpa-archa’s Chart Thai Pattana Party will be lucky to get 50 seats between them.
Also, no one mentioned the seething anger about price inflation that is driving a lot of voters to vote against the Democrats. The average Thai is really being squeezed by staggering price increases in stables like rice, palm oil, eggs, and vegetables. Some of this is just due to knock-on effects from world markets (e.g. the price of petrol), over which the government can have little or no control, but most suspect the middlemen of price gouging, and they are looking for someone to blame. The Democrats are the party most closely associated with the greedy Sino-Chinese merchants, and it’s payback time.
[…] Snipers are different: Referring to earlier reports, the Army’s spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd has managed to come up with his usual denials […]
#106 Walker [NF: Don’t you mean Marshall?], that’s quite an accusation you just made against me. And as usually, like most of what you cover on your site, completely baseless and tragically divorced from reality.
However, Prachatai is on record funded by the US government and that completely undermines their objectivity and their claims of being “independent.” The fact that they haven’t disclosed it, and many people trying to defend them are still unaware that it is true, is proof of how disingenuous they really are.
Pointing that out is not an attempt to “undermine them” rather expose who they really are, and where they get their money. Transparency, honesty, openness, and truth. Why should I have to point it out at all? Why isn’t it on their own website? If it’s no big deal like you seem to believe, why have they hidden it all this time?
What my “credentials” are or who I am is irrelevant. Nothing I say depends on my credibility, the facts speak for themselves. For instance, what level of credibility do I need to point out NED.org’s page featuring Prachatai’s funding?
I think no more credibility than I’d need to point out that the sky is blue.
And what amount of credibility do I need to point out that this isn’t on their website? It is self-evident. Walker [NF: Again, don’t you mean Marshall?], I appreciate the strawman you are trying to build up here, but the facts are the facts, and they dwarf you and your efforts to obfuscate them. I also appreciate the myriad of excuses you use to cover up arguments you are incapable of dealing with.
Be careful with how obnoxious and arrogant you are, and how quick you are to dismiss me and my work. Some of your readers might actually be interested in challenging their beliefs and expanding their understanding of the world.
First I stated the fact that Prachatai is funded by the US government via the notoriously dubious Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy. You claimed that was not true, stating that making such claims was “out to lunch.” Now that Prachatai was forced to admit it, you are back peddling and making excuses as to why it is harmless for them to take money from such a despicable organization.
Between you and Walker, you both have true contempt for objective, fact-based debate and instead myopically fixate on my identity and credentials in an attempt to deflect the reality that I was factually right, and you were fanatically wrong. These are not the issues, because I am not making statements that depend on my character, history, or credentials – unlike Marshall and his entire Thai Story – I am making statements based on irrefutable evidence ANYBODY interested in the truth can obtain.
The point being that between NED’s board of directors, Freedom House’s inclusion of Kenneth Adelman, Thaksin’s former lobbyist under Edelman, James Baker, and Robert Blackwill, you see a concerted effort by a cabal of notorious Neo-Cons and big business interests aligning behind Thaksin and his movement to destabilize and over throw Thailand just like they have admitted to doing in Egypt and Tunisia, and are attempting to do else where. If you’d like to call such a statement “tinfoil gobbledygook” please read New York Times’ “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings” where a full admission to all of this is given.
If you think that’s great, that’s fine, but people have a right to know the truth about who is really behind this, who is really funding Prachatai, and to what end they are really working for. Let them decide for themselves if a foreign funded color revolution, for which NED is notorious for, is how they want to end their country’s national sovereignty and have US Senators escorting Fortune 500 elitists through Bangkok’s streets when its over so they can strip mine the nation.
As for Walker’s comments that I am “ranting,” I would like to remind him once again, that out of everyone here, I am the only one posting verifiable, documented evidence, while the rest of you sycophantically grovel at Marshall’s feet and hail his collection of unsubstantiated and already public cables, as revolutionary truth. That being said, Walker’s supposed justification for not carrying my comments (his right to do so) is tenuous at best, and it is much more likely he either knows full well what it is he is participating in, or is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.
The fact that they wrote an article on it, suggested that they took pride in what they know they are best at – Shooting Civilians. It’s probably the core basis on which the RTA is founded for.
I don’t want to go too deep into this issue of why the explosives did not go up right now, it would need more context. But they were real explosives.
“Nganadeeleg”:
It is quite clear that there were soldiers in Chula, Matichon published photos of some in the parking lot. My own sources are quite clear about this as well.
Nevertheless – the search by Red Shirt guards was an incredible idiocy.
Thanks for being honest to your thought, actually I like people like you to make a lot of comment like VichaiN and LesAbbey just because it is a good indication on what you people are thinking.
Lastly, don’t get sour just because they didn’t post your comment, I’ve my own comment block more than 10 times throughout my 4 years on this website. They didn’t give you any special treatment be certain of that.
@Seh Fah (#9) said: “The border was surveyed by the French. They obviously cheated to place a rather attractive temple complex on the French Indochinese side of the border”
It is true that the French placed this temple on the Cambodian border, despite the fact that it is contrary to the rule of natural boundary. I cannot agree with the word “cheat”, because that is a strong accusation, and it requires some evidence. Whether the French ‘cheated’ or not, I guess we will never know.
@Seh Fah said: “the claim that the temple rightfully belongs to Cambodia because it was built by the ancestors of today’s Cambodians is not persuasive.”
This issue was not discussed in the judgment, and I do not know whether this issue has ever been argued in the ICJ (and I would agree with you that it would not be a persuasive argument if this issue is raised). But have you read the judgment? I have read it, and what we know from the judgment is the Thai authorities have carelessly and lazily accepted the French map. They had years to object to this map, and they never objected about this. And this case is one of the signature cases where the ICJ applied the principle of estoppel (ie. when you already say you “accept” something, you cannot retract your acceptance), that Thailand has accepted the French map, and thus it cannot retract its acceptance.
Another important evidence is Prince Damrong was treated as a foreign guest by the French when he arrived at the Temple of Preah Vihear in 1930. And Thailand did not protest about this. Thus this is another evidence of acquiescence. Because Thailand never protested its ownership for decades despite it having three opportunities to protest, ICJ ruled that it belongs to Cambodia.
I would agree with you that Thailand would be in a more advantageous legal position if it protested when it first saw the map, as the rule of natural boundary suggests that it should be on the Thai side. Unfortunately, the civil servants in that era are probably as lazy as Thai civil servants nowadays, so they didn’t bother to notice this error 😉
@Seh Fah said: “The 1962 International Court of Justice decision awarding it to Cambodia was not a majority decision.”
Sorry, I must correct you here. Tha majority of the ICJ ruled that this temple belongs to Cambodia. I am aware that Justice Spender of Australia dissented, but he is in the minority. Feel free to correct me (as well as bring evidences to correct me), because I have read the judgment ages ago when I was a 19 year old student, studying international law in the university. And I remember vividly that Justice Spender is in the minority.
Hence, my belief is unchanged. The Democrats are making a fuss out of this issue for their own political gain.
On the question of love or fanaticism raised by CT:
Despite his many failings, St. Paul did give us a pretty good definition of love which may be worth considering in this context.
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-7)
(Darren Nelson, #117) I also saw that BBC report, though I’m pretty sure the reporter was Rachel Harvey. I was surprised it didn’t cause much comment at the time. It was filmed from the Red Shirt side of the barricades and showed cables running to some objects inside the barricade, said to be bombs. Has anyone ever explained what happened to these objects? Nothing big exploded when the troops pushed through, and they didn’t even seem to be taking major precautions. Was it all a bluff?
I do not think it is accurate that under international law the watershed constitutes the actual border. My understanding is that this is a general guideline, but that there are many exceptions.
Thongchai Winichakul, at the FCCT, said that the treaty between the French and the Thais on the border was the relevant guide, not some general reference to international law.
He went on to say that the treaty did specify that the border would follow the watershed, but that the binding conditions lived in the survey that was attached to this treaty.
The survey placed the temple on the Cambodian side and drew the national boundary to show this. This is waht counts.
That was affirmed by the World Court in 1960 or so and the Thais had ten years to contest it, which they did not do.
It appears indisputable that by the treaty, the court decision, Thai disposition at the time, and international law, the temple in on Cambodian territory.
OK “C4” …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) Well I know in Thailand that its easy to get hold of anything legal or illegal, including explosives.But anyway the explosives didn’t detonate.Not a proffesional job in that case ? …but back to the BBC report I mentioned.Alistair Leithead said before mentioning the “high explosives” words to the effect that “this was all being stirred” from outside the country by Thaksin”….Well we now know(the general public that is) due to Andrews #thaistory that Mr Thaksin isn’t the only stirrer,but Queen Sirikit and many others are tottally immersed in this conflict.If only the BBC had the guts to tell us this in the first place.
C4 is not legal over the counter mixed up into something nasty. It is a plastic explosive.
If they would have blown the bombs, also the fertilizer based bombs – the final death toll would have been considerably higher, especially at Saladaeng, where there were countless soldiers, and journalists eager to photograph and film the military crossing the barricade. Some photographers even managed to cross before the soldiers, which i think shows a plain insane disregard for one’s own life.
Under international law, when a mountain range forms a natural boundary between two countries, the line of the watershed constitutes the actual border.
Visit Prasat Khao Phra Wihan. The fact that the temple complex is on the Thai side of the watershed is plain for all to see.
The border was surveyed by the French. They obviously cheated to place a rather attractive temple complex on the French Indochinese side of the border. The 1962 International Court of Justice decision awarding it to Cambodia was not a majority decision. The Australian judge, for one, voted (quite correctly in my opinion) in favour of Thai ownership.
The claim that the temple rightfully belongs to Cambodia because it was built by the ancestors of today’s Cambodians is not persuasive. What about Phanom Rung, Phimai, Muang Sing, and all the other ancient Khmer sites in Thailand? Should they also be transferred to Cambodian ownership?
There are other border issues. Shouldn’t the two Lao provinces on the west bank of the Mekong i.e. Sayaboury and Champassak, belong to Thailand (as they did in 1941-46)? And what about the “Thai” provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, which should be transferred to the Federation of Malaysia as the State of Pattani?
OK thanks Nick, it is just that I watched a BBC report just before the crackdown,with Alistair Leithead. It went something like this….”But hidden between the bamboo there are high explosives..” Well I realise that fertilizer bombs are lethal.At the time I thought the redshirts had just loaded the barricades with gas bottles primed.I think the point I’m trying to make is “public perception” on news reporting.You say the word “explosives” and one immediately think of a terrorist action or someone in possesion of a restricted substance.If you say the protestors improvised gas canisters and fertilizer as weapons it takes a completely different sense of what is really happening.Having explosive material like TNT or similar would indicate something entirely different compared to using legal “over the counter” material.I hope you understand what I’m trying to say,and it may sound silly to some,but you know,in a court of law the Redshirts could say,hey we were only planning a BBQ with the gas bottles. (By the way what is C4 ?)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Walker and Thitinan on the Thai election
Excellent interview, but I disagree with Andrew Walker that the minor parties will win 100 seats. The opinion polls and the Bangkok Pundit suggest that their counts will be way down, and that this election is turning into a two-party race. Newin’s BJT and Silpa-archa’s Chart Thai Pattana Party will be lucky to get 50 seats between them.
Also, no one mentioned the seething anger about price inflation that is driving a lot of voters to vote against the Democrats. The average Thai is really being squeezed by staggering price increases in stables like rice, palm oil, eggs, and vegetables. Some of this is just due to knock-on effects from world markets (e.g. the price of petrol), over which the government can have little or no control, but most suspect the middlemen of price gouging, and they are looking for someone to blame. The Democrats are the party most closely associated with the greedy Sino-Chinese merchants, and it’s payback time.
The military strategy at Ratchaprasong
[…] Snipers are different: Referring to earlier reports, the Army’s spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd has managed to come up with his usual denials […]
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
#106 Walker [NF: Don’t you mean Marshall?], that’s quite an accusation you just made against me. And as usually, like most of what you cover on your site, completely baseless and tragically divorced from reality.
However, Prachatai is on record funded by the US government and that completely undermines their objectivity and their claims of being “independent.” The fact that they haven’t disclosed it, and many people trying to defend them are still unaware that it is true, is proof of how disingenuous they really are.
Pointing that out is not an attempt to “undermine them” rather expose who they really are, and where they get their money. Transparency, honesty, openness, and truth. Why should I have to point it out at all? Why isn’t it on their own website? If it’s no big deal like you seem to believe, why have they hidden it all this time?
What my “credentials” are or who I am is irrelevant. Nothing I say depends on my credibility, the facts speak for themselves. For instance, what level of credibility do I need to point out NED.org’s page featuring Prachatai’s funding?
http://ned.org/where-we-work/asia/thailand
I think no more credibility than I’d need to point out that the sky is blue.
And what amount of credibility do I need to point out that this isn’t on their website? It is self-evident. Walker [NF: Again, don’t you mean Marshall?], I appreciate the strawman you are trying to build up here, but the facts are the facts, and they dwarf you and your efforts to obfuscate them. I also appreciate the myriad of excuses you use to cover up arguments you are incapable of dealing with.
Be careful with how obnoxious and arrogant you are, and how quick you are to dismiss me and my work. Some of your readers might actually be interested in challenging their beliefs and expanding their understanding of the world.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Nick, let’s see what happened here.
First I stated the fact that Prachatai is funded by the US government via the notoriously dubious Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy. You claimed that was not true, stating that making such claims was “out to lunch.” Now that Prachatai was forced to admit it, you are back peddling and making excuses as to why it is harmless for them to take money from such a despicable organization.
Between you and Walker, you both have true contempt for objective, fact-based debate and instead myopically fixate on my identity and credentials in an attempt to deflect the reality that I was factually right, and you were fanatically wrong. These are not the issues, because I am not making statements that depend on my character, history, or credentials – unlike Marshall and his entire Thai Story – I am making statements based on irrefutable evidence ANYBODY interested in the truth can obtain.
Exhibit A: Prachatai’s NED funding:
http://ned.org/where-we-work/asia/thailand
Exhibit B: Thaksin’s lobbying registrations taken directly from the public US Senate disclosure database:
Edelman: http://www.fara.gov/docs/3634-Exhibit-AB-20070125-4.pdf
Baker Botts: http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=200059128
BGR: http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=1AA1A98A-2494-44E5-A5CB-F658EB445C4B
Amsterdam (as if this could be contested): http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300322917
The point being that between NED’s board of directors, Freedom House’s inclusion of Kenneth Adelman, Thaksin’s former lobbyist under Edelman, James Baker, and Robert Blackwill, you see a concerted effort by a cabal of notorious Neo-Cons and big business interests aligning behind Thaksin and his movement to destabilize and over throw Thailand just like they have admitted to doing in Egypt and Tunisia, and are attempting to do else where. If you’d like to call such a statement “tinfoil gobbledygook” please read New York Times’ “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings” where a full admission to all of this is given.
If you think that’s great, that’s fine, but people have a right to know the truth about who is really behind this, who is really funding Prachatai, and to what end they are really working for. Let them decide for themselves if a foreign funded color revolution, for which NED is notorious for, is how they want to end their country’s national sovereignty and have US Senators escorting Fortune 500 elitists through Bangkok’s streets when its over so they can strip mine the nation.
As for Walker’s comments that I am “ranting,” I would like to remind him once again, that out of everyone here, I am the only one posting verifiable, documented evidence, while the rest of you sycophantically grovel at Marshall’s feet and hail his collection of unsubstantiated and already public cables, as revolutionary truth. That being said, Walker’s supposed justification for not carrying my comments (his right to do so) is tenuous at best, and it is much more likely he either knows full well what it is he is participating in, or is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.
The military strategy at Ratchaprasong
The fact that they wrote an article on it, suggested that they took pride in what they know they are best at – Shooting Civilians. It’s probably the core basis on which the RTA is founded for.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Darren Nelson”, “superanonymous”:
I don’t want to go too deep into this issue of why the explosives did not go up right now, it would need more context. But they were real explosives.
“Nganadeeleg”:
It is quite clear that there were soldiers in Chula, Matichon published photos of some in the parking lot. My own sources are quite clear about this as well.
Nevertheless – the search by Red Shirt guards was an incredible idiocy.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
I reckon Thaksin paid the French to put the temple on the wrong side of the border.
Election advice
Kate – 18
Thanks for being honest to your thought, actually I like people like you to make a lot of comment like VichaiN and LesAbbey just because it is a good indication on what you people are thinking.
Lastly, don’t get sour just because they didn’t post your comment, I’ve my own comment block more than 10 times throughout my 4 years on this website. They didn’t give you any special treatment be certain of that.
A cathartic moment for all Cambodians
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2011/06/30/a-cathartic-moment-for-all-cambodians/ […]
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
@Seh Fah (#9) said: “The border was surveyed by the French. They obviously cheated to place a rather attractive temple complex on the French Indochinese side of the border”
It is true that the French placed this temple on the Cambodian border, despite the fact that it is contrary to the rule of natural boundary. I cannot agree with the word “cheat”, because that is a strong accusation, and it requires some evidence. Whether the French ‘cheated’ or not, I guess we will never know.
@Seh Fah said: “the claim that the temple rightfully belongs to Cambodia because it was built by the ancestors of today’s Cambodians is not persuasive.”
This issue was not discussed in the judgment, and I do not know whether this issue has ever been argued in the ICJ (and I would agree with you that it would not be a persuasive argument if this issue is raised). But have you read the judgment? I have read it, and what we know from the judgment is the Thai authorities have carelessly and lazily accepted the French map. They had years to object to this map, and they never objected about this. And this case is one of the signature cases where the ICJ applied the principle of estoppel (ie. when you already say you “accept” something, you cannot retract your acceptance), that Thailand has accepted the French map, and thus it cannot retract its acceptance.
Another important evidence is Prince Damrong was treated as a foreign guest by the French when he arrived at the Temple of Preah Vihear in 1930. And Thailand did not protest about this. Thus this is another evidence of acquiescence. Because Thailand never protested its ownership for decades despite it having three opportunities to protest, ICJ ruled that it belongs to Cambodia.
I would agree with you that Thailand would be in a more advantageous legal position if it protested when it first saw the map, as the rule of natural boundary suggests that it should be on the Thai side. Unfortunately, the civil servants in that era are probably as lazy as Thai civil servants nowadays, so they didn’t bother to notice this error 😉
@Seh Fah said: “The 1962 International Court of Justice decision awarding it to Cambodia was not a majority decision.”
Sorry, I must correct you here. Tha majority of the ICJ ruled that this temple belongs to Cambodia. I am aware that Justice Spender of Australia dissented, but he is in the minority. Feel free to correct me (as well as bring evidences to correct me), because I have read the judgment ages ago when I was a 19 year old student, studying international law in the university. And I remember vividly that Justice Spender is in the minority.
Hence, my belief is unchanged. The Democrats are making a fuss out of this issue for their own political gain.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
On the question of love or fanaticism raised by CT:
Despite his many failings, St. Paul did give us a pretty good definition of love which may be worth considering in this context.
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. ” (1 Corinthians 13: 4-7)
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Snipers at Chula hospital”
That was a concern of redshirts, and quite a fuss was made over their purportedly clumsy attempt to find out about them.
Has there been any further information come out about the use of Chula hospital by the military?
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Can anyone imagine a BBC correspondent saying as glibly as Alistair did “and this is all being stirred by Queen Sirikit”……can you ?
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
(Darren Nelson, #117) I also saw that BBC report, though I’m pretty sure the reporter was Rachel Harvey. I was surprised it didn’t cause much comment at the time. It was filmed from the Red Shirt side of the barricades and showed cables running to some objects inside the barricade, said to be bombs. Has anyone ever explained what happened to these objects? Nothing big exploded when the troops pushed through, and they didn’t even seem to be taking major precautions. Was it all a bluff?
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
Seh Fah,
I do not think it is accurate that under international law the watershed constitutes the actual border. My understanding is that this is a general guideline, but that there are many exceptions.
Thongchai Winichakul, at the FCCT, said that the treaty between the French and the Thais on the border was the relevant guide, not some general reference to international law.
He went on to say that the treaty did specify that the border would follow the watershed, but that the binding conditions lived in the survey that was attached to this treaty.
The survey placed the temple on the Cambodian side and drew the national boundary to show this. This is waht counts.
That was affirmed by the World Court in 1960 or so and the Thais had ten years to contest it, which they did not do.
It appears indisputable that by the treaty, the court decision, Thai disposition at the time, and international law, the temple in on Cambodian territory.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
OK “C4” …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_(explosive) Well I know in Thailand that its easy to get hold of anything legal or illegal, including explosives.But anyway the explosives didn’t detonate.Not a proffesional job in that case ? …but back to the BBC report I mentioned.Alistair Leithead said before mentioning the “high explosives” words to the effect that “this was all being stirred” from outside the country by Thaksin”….Well we now know(the general public that is) due to Andrews #thaistory that Mr Thaksin isn’t the only stirrer,but Queen Sirikit and many others are tottally immersed in this conflict.If only the BBC had the guts to tell us this in the first place.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Darren Nelson”:
C4 is not legal over the counter mixed up into something nasty. It is a plastic explosive.
If they would have blown the bombs, also the fertilizer based bombs – the final death toll would have been considerably higher, especially at Saladaeng, where there were countless soldiers, and journalists eager to photograph and film the military crossing the barricade. Some photographers even managed to cross before the soldiers, which i think shows a plain insane disregard for one’s own life.
Crowd-sourcing the Thai election
Great idea. A pity it has not received as much attention as it deserves.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
CT #5
Under international law, when a mountain range forms a natural boundary between two countries, the line of the watershed constitutes the actual border.
Visit Prasat Khao Phra Wihan. The fact that the temple complex is on the Thai side of the watershed is plain for all to see.
The border was surveyed by the French. They obviously cheated to place a rather attractive temple complex on the French Indochinese side of the border. The 1962 International Court of Justice decision awarding it to Cambodia was not a majority decision. The Australian judge, for one, voted (quite correctly in my opinion) in favour of Thai ownership.
The claim that the temple rightfully belongs to Cambodia because it was built by the ancestors of today’s Cambodians is not persuasive. What about Phanom Rung, Phimai, Muang Sing, and all the other ancient Khmer sites in Thailand? Should they also be transferred to Cambodian ownership?
There are other border issues. Shouldn’t the two Lao provinces on the west bank of the Mekong i.e. Sayaboury and Champassak, belong to Thailand (as they did in 1941-46)? And what about the “Thai” provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat, which should be transferred to the Federation of Malaysia as the State of Pattani?
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
OK thanks Nick, it is just that I watched a BBC report just before the crackdown,with Alistair Leithead. It went something like this….”But hidden between the bamboo there are high explosives..” Well I realise that fertilizer bombs are lethal.At the time I thought the redshirts had just loaded the barricades with gas bottles primed.I think the point I’m trying to make is “public perception” on news reporting.You say the word “explosives” and one immediately think of a terrorist action or someone in possesion of a restricted substance.If you say the protestors improvised gas canisters and fertilizer as weapons it takes a completely different sense of what is really happening.Having explosive material like TNT or similar would indicate something entirely different compared to using legal “over the counter” material.I hope you understand what I’m trying to say,and it may sound silly to some,but you know,in a court of law the Redshirts could say,hey we were only planning a BBQ with the gas bottles. (By the way what is C4 ?)