Thai PM Abhisit Sued For Attempted Murder

[whybother]

Question: how many of those were killed were armed and armed with what kind of weapon? Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer:???

ps. Under what circumstances law enforcement officer can shot at people you can read here: Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

That is something i am not argue against.

pps. and i deny nothing.

I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.

Thank you, finally you admit that you cannot prove your claims. it is just your fantasy.

What has your question got to do with my claims?

edit: and I like how you edit my question out of my quotes so it doesn't look like you haven't answered them.

Edited July 25, 2010 by whybother

[mazeltov]

What has your question got to do with my claims?

edit: and I like how you edit my question out of my quotes so it doesn't look like you haven't answered them.

Question: Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer: NO, you cannot.

edit. add ps.

ps. If something unclear to you of the things i actually said - feel free to ask. i think i had posted lots of additional content and links, that show how i came to my conclusions.

I didn't saw you doing something similar.

Edited July 25, 2010 by mazeltov

[whybother]

What has your question got to do with my claims?

edit: and I like how you edit my question out of my quotes so it doesn't look like you haven't answered them.

Question: Can you back up your claim and provide more details of your theory?

Answer: NO, you cannot.

edit. add ps.

ps. If something unclear to you of the things i actually said - feel free to ask. i think i had posted lots of additional content and links, that show how i came to my conclusions.

I didn't saw you doing something similar.

Your question was: how many of those were killed were armed and armed with what kind of weapon? which I answered "I don't know, and neither do you".

As to my claims (there were armed red shirts) ... there was plenty of evidence of it ... but you aren't denying that.

[rubl]

To 'whybother' and 'mazeltov':

Boys, boys! Now stop that nonsense and start behaving.

yr. local Dutch uncle.

[way2muchcoffee]

Questions for mazeltov. How many of the killed were unarmed at the moment of their injury? How many were accompanying armed protesters? How many were killed by military personnel? How many were not killed by military personnel? Do you know? Can you prove it?

Edited July 25, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[philw]

Questions for mazeltov. How many of the killed were unarmed at the moment of their injury? How many were accompanying armed protesters? How many were killed by military personnel? How many were not killed by military personnel? Do you know? Can you prove it?

Well, according to the Government they were ALL shot by unknown parties / terrorists, notwithstanding that the area was secured by about 32,000 RTA troops, one would assume deployed to prevent terrorism.

Apparently,not very successfully.

Your questions are unprovable and I guess you know that, so what is your agenda ??

That the reds all shot themselves ??

That nobody was shot by the army ??

That all deaths were justifiable and are not to be regretted ?

That 90 dead and nearly 2,000 injured is nothing to do with the Government ?

[way2muchcoffee]

my agenda with the previous post is only to point out to mazeltov exactly what you have just stated. Nobody knows those statistics and nobody ever will know. We all have our suspicions but none can be proven.

[whybother]

Questions for mazeltov. How many of the killed were unarmed at the moment of their injury? How many were accompanying armed protesters? How many were killed by military personnel? How many were not killed by military personnel? Do you know? Can you prove it?

Well, according to the Government they were ALL shot by unknown parties / terrorists, notwithstanding that the area was secured by about 32,000 RTA troops, one would assume deployed to prevent terrorism.

Apparently,not very successfully.

Your questions are unprovable and I guess you know that, so what is your agenda ??

That the reds all shot themselves ??

That nobody was shot by the army ??

That all deaths were justifiable and are not to be regretted ?

That 90 dead and nearly 2,000 injured is nothing to do with the Government ?

his agenda is to ask the same type of ridiculous unanswerable question that mazeltov asks.

[philw]

Questions for mazeltov. How many of the killed were unarmed at the moment of their injury? How many were accompanying armed protesters? How many were killed by military personnel? How many were not killed by military personnel? Do you know? Can you prove it?

Well, according to the Government they were ALL shot by unknown parties / terrorists, notwithstanding that the area was secured by about 32,000 RTA troops, one would assume deployed to prevent terrorism.

Apparently,not very successfully.

Your questions are unprovable and I guess you know that, so what is your agenda ??

That the reds all shot themselves ??

That nobody was shot by the army ??

That all deaths were justifiable and are not to be regretted ?

That 90 dead and nearly 2,000 injured is nothing to do with the Government ?

his agenda is to ask the same type of ridiculous unanswerable question that mazeltov asks.

So, the answer is most were shot by the RTA !

[TAWP]

Well, according to the Government they were ALL shot by unknown parties / terrorists, notwithstanding that the area was secured by about 32,000 RTA troops, one would assume deployed to prevent terrorism.

Actually, that has not been said...they said in April that the violence started by terrorists attacking both the army and the red shirts, to instigate violence. Which succeded.

However during the occupation they never claimed that the army haven't shot anyone nor that terrorists killed overone on both sides nor that red shirts per se was unarmed and innocent...that is something mazeltow has dreamed up. Or perhaps he got his stories mixed up, since the reference has never been to the deaths from the end-violence...(that had not yet occured when the PM gave that statement.)

[mazeltov]

Questions for mazeltov. How many of the killed were unarmed at the moment of their injury? How many were accompanying armed protesters? How many were killed by military personnel? How many were not killed by military personnel? Do you know? Can you prove it?

That is my question. I would like to know that. Some poster claim to have that knowledge. Declaring the high death count as a result of red shirts attacking the army with guns and firecrackers.

If you just use words like 'killed civilians', 'innocent dead' (because they didn't deserve to die.) the usual suspects and pseudo libertarian extreme right wing extremists and pseudo democrat hardcore hatemonger will attack you with their verbal bully attacks.

just posting the government official version ("it was the terrorists who killed people") will make them go ballistic. but don't expect that they can provide any sources to back up their claims.

[mazeltov]

Well, according to the Government they were ALL shot by unknown parties / terrorists, notwithstanding that the area was secured by about 32,000 RTA troops, one would assume deployed to prevent terrorism.

Actually, that has not been said...they said in April that the violence started by terrorists attacking both the army and the red shirts, to instigate violence. Which succeded.

However during the occupation they never claimed that the army haven't shot anyone nor that terrorists killed overone on both sides nor that red shirts per se was unarmed and innocent...that is something mazeltow has dreamed up. Or perhaps he got his stories mixed up, since the reference has never been to the deaths from the end-violence...(that had not yet occured when the PM gave that statement.)

However during the occupation they never claimed that the army haven't shot anyone ... That is something TAWP just dreamed up aka one of his typical lies.

www.capothai.org: CRES Press conference 17 May 2010 at 2030 hrs

Some people are using the words “the military is killing the people”, to mislead the public. This is definitely not true. The military are tasked only to cordon off the protest area and set up blockades, but not to do harm the people.

more of similar statements i posted already. Of course the government does not strictly exclude any death as results of their action but still insist that for nearly all of the civilians' casualties the terrorists are to blame, the unidentified gunmen who pulled the trigger.

[thaicbr]

"more of similar statements i posted already. Of course the government does not strictly exclude any death as results of their action but still insist that for nearly all of the civilians' casualties the terrorists are to blame, the unidentified gunmen who pulled the trigger."

Mazeltov.. I presume by the statement "results of their action" you are refering to the Red shirt leadership who had a chance to end the illegal protest but chose not to. And to instead provoke the Red masses in riot and mayhem. And "unidentified gunmen who pulled the trigger" You are of course refering to Thaksin. Who if he hadn't bankrolled this in the beginning and was calling the shots all the way through. There would have been no bloodshed. So THEREFOR even though he did not have a gun in hand this would not have happened if he cared in the slightest about the country called Thailand and the Thai people.

[ThaksinKharma]

You really got to laugh at the feeble attempts of these red shirts to rewrite history. They ask you to show proof of your consensuses and in the same post put forth there consensuses with out any proof. And they wonder why we don't take them serious. More like comic relief.

They can't even get along with themselves.

[jayjay0]

my agenda with the previous post is only to point out to mazeltov exactly what you have just stated. Nobody knows those statistics and nobody ever will know. We all have our suspicions but none can be proven.

Not that I am advocating it but if I was I would use mazeltov's posts as a good reason to bar wi fi in bars.

[mazeltov]

"more of similar statements i posted already. Of course the government does not strictly exclude any death as results of their action but still insist that for nearly all of the civilians' casualties the terrorists are to blame, the unidentified gunmen who pulled the trigger."

Mazeltov.. I presume by the statement "results of their action" you are refering to the Red shirt leadership who had a chance to end the illegal protest but chose not to. And to instead provoke the Red masses in riot and mayhem. And "unidentified gunmen who pulled the trigger" You are of course refering to Thaksin. Who if he hadn't bankrolled this in the beginning and was calling the shots all the way through. There would have been no bloodshed. So THEREFOR even though he did not have a gun in hand this would not have happened if he cared in the slightest about the country called Thailand and the Thai people.

"unidentified gunmen" are unidentified gunmen.

I took that description of the culprits from the CRES press conference on 18 May 2010:

The civilians’ casualties and injuries during the past few days could have been caused by unidentified gunmen

hiding behind self-made bunkers and on high buildings. There were also eyewitnesses, both protesters and press,

on such incidents. Besides, among those who lost their lives or were injured, they should not always be seen as

innocent victims, since some of them could also be terrorists who get shot by security forces---just that no

weapons were found making them look like ordinary civilians.

If you have any evidence that can expose and identify these unknown gunmen, please contact the authorities.

[thaicbr]

Mazeltov... No comment about who was ultimely responsible for the terrible waste of life. It could have been avoided, everything the govenment did was to try and avoid loss of life.

BUT it was the choices of the red shirt leadership that caused what happened to happen. Some red shirts wanted to leave the protest site but they were refused by the red guards.

EDIT. I believe that the Red shirts have 2 distinct sides. 1) The morally corrupt Red leadership and Phua Thai (Thaksin). And 2) the normal people who have problems and believe the spin of number 1.

I also believe that the Government used the wrong description of Number 1, They are not terrorist. They favor insurrection.

Edited July 26, 2010 by thaicbr

[Zzinged]

@Mazeltov and @everyone against Mazeltov...

What the heck are you arguing about again?

[animatic]

@Mazeltov and @everyone against Mazeltov...

What the heck are you arguing about again?

Contrarian vs thoughtful.

The points argued mean less than the argument itself