Student activists put Abhisit on the spot over 2010 crackdown

By The Nation 

 

 

Former PM and Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was confronted on Tuesday by student activists questioning him about the deadly crackdown in 2010, as he was giving a lecture at Thammasat University.

 

A group of students held up a banner reading “Unfortunately some people died” as Abhisit delivered the lecture as part of activities at the “Political Science Education Fair”, held by the Faculty of Political Science at the university’s Rangsit campus.

 

The quote harks back to a remark made by Abhisit in an interview in 2010 following the crackdown on demonstrators during his administration that left almost 100 people dead and thousands injured.

 

The students, led by activist Parit Chiwarak, asked the former PM: “What do you think about the incident where a 17-year-old boy was shot dead in Soi Rangnam,” referring to Samaphan Srithep, one of the youngest victims of the crackdown.

 

Appearing nonchalant, Abhisit replied: “I did everything in line with the procedures. Thank you for expressing opinions and not being aggressive. But the problem was that there were armed people among the protesters, making it difficult to handle the situation.”

 

“Officers had no choice but to use weapons to carry out the operation,” he explained, adding, “There were clear procedures and I always stressed that they avoid causing any loss [of life]. But when [officers were attacked], it was difficult to do so. And the discourse against me continues to this day”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30326493

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-9-12

3 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

that left almost 100 people dead and thousands injured.

one man's death is a tragedy

the above number is a mere statistic

4 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

And the discourse against me continues to this day”

 

As well it should.

 

You were the PM, and you have never taken any responsibility.

 

THAT is why the discourse continues...

' And the discourse against me continues to this day '

 

Oh didums .....................you poor little soldiers boy.  It's so unfair isn't it.

I mean.....it's not like they were ' quality ' people is it.

A cross between a cuckoo and a magpie, I wonder why they even turned up to listen.

13 hours ago, wakeupplease said:

A cross between a cuckoo and a magpie, I wonder why they even turned up to listen.

His decision to TAKE office without being elected does reflects bird brain behavior.  They showed up to put him on the spot.  They are good kids.  Perhaps the country will have a future one day. 

16 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

As well it should.

 

You were the PM, and you have never taken any responsibility.

 

THAT is why the discourse continues...

In his defense; so far nobody in power has ever taken responsibility in Thailand.

They either run, give themselves amnesty, or just call it a "misunderstanding" while making a u-turn.

18 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

I always stressed that they avoid causing any loss [of life].

Which is why, according to Abhisit, the troops were told by CRES chief Suthep to shoot below a person’s knee without intent to kill and not to fire a weapon when protesters were mingling with innocent people.(cannot cite ref. as per TV rules).

Sincerity does not become Abhisit.

He had no choice.

Tell the students to look up the word anarchy.

Had the army not been careful they could have shot  hundreds legally for looting

Please do not tell me I am wrong,,, as I witnessed it with my own eyes.

The Bangkok Bank in Rama 4 presented guilty parties of over 6 that legally could have been shot on the spot.

It had to be stopped & the Police ran away 

Which is why, according to Abhisit, the troops were told by CRES chief Suthep to shoot below a person’s knee without intent to kill and not to fire a weapon when protesters were mingling with innocent people.(cannot cite ref. as per TV rules).
Sincerity does not become Abhisit.

If you fire a modern high velocity 5.56mm round " below the knee and it hits the limb, striking bone, it will "tumble", probably taking the limb off, quite possibly traveling up the limb and severing the artery, passing through the genitals and destroying the abdomen. Usually fatal. Or it will hit the ground, and ricochet up, spinning around and carving a ginormous hole in any body it hits. There is no such thing, with high velocity rounds, as "shooting at somebody without intent to kill".

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

He had no choice.

Tell the students to look up the word anarchy.

Had the army not been careful they could have shot  hundreds legally for looting

Please do not tell me I am wrong,,, as I witnessed it with my own eyes.

The Bangkok Bank in Rama 4 presented guilty parties of over 6 that legally could have been shot on the spot.

It had to be stopped & the Police ran away 

 

Had the military not taken control of the country, again, there would not have been a protest.

29 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

 

Had the military not taken control of the country, again, there would not have been a protest.

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.

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.

If, at this point, you still don't see how the army and "the democrats" are serving the same it will be a waste of time discussing politics with you.

9 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

If, at this point, you still don't see how the army and "the democrats" are serving the same it will be a waste of time discussing politics with you.

Exactly! 

 

Democrats = Abhasit=Amart=Army.

 

 

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

Edited September 13, 20178 yr by seajae

. 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.

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?

3 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.

 

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

 

Or are you suggesting Abhisit was elected? 

 

The protests were started because the military promised and election and continually made excuses to delay. Sound familiar? Probably not to some.

Edited September 13, 20178 yr by Reigntax

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.

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 September 13, 20178 yr by khunken

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.

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.

A post containing a disallowed reference to the PM has been removed:

 

Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

 

Continue to post references of this nature will result in a suspension.

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.

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. 

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?

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?

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

5 hours ago, Wilsonandson said:

I watched the whole event on the tele.

Who owns the tele?

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.