Thai Defense Minister Clarifies Crackdown Of Red-Shirt Rally

[webfact]

Defense Minister Clarifies Crackdown of Red-Shirt Rally

BANGKOK: -- During the House session, the defense minister pointed out that the cracking down of the red shirt rally earlier this year was done lawfully and in accordance to the human rights standards, and that those injured have already been compensated.

Yesterday, the House inquired about the government's crackdown on the red shirt rally earlier this year.

Roi Et MP Niramit Sujaree from the Pheu Thai Party questioned how the government has been taking responsibility for the deaths and injuries from clashes between the security forces and the anti government protestors.

Niramit also claimed that the government should have used a peaceful means of resolving the dispute instead of using force which resulted in many losses.

The Roi Et MP also asked whether or not the government has been able to bring those responsible for the 91 deaths and more than 2,000 injured to justice.

Defense Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan responded that the government had operated under the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Decree after they were invoked to oversee security.

He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.

For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force.

The defense minister also reported that the government has already compensated each of the 25 deaths and 864 injured from the clash that took place on April 10.

Meanwhile, the property confiscated from the protestors will be returned to their rightful owners once the investigation has been completed.

Prawit also added that security forces did everything to ensure public security in accordance to the human rights standards.

He also pointed out that a number of government officials were also killed in the unrest and the matter is now being investigated by many appointed committees.

Meanwhile, the Department of Special Investigation is carrying on with investigations into the violent incidents.

-- Tan Network 2010-10-22

[whybother]

If it was a peaceful protest they could have used peaceful means to resolve it.

Edited October 22, 2010 by whybother

[animatic]

Nothing unexpected here.

[phiphidon]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

[whybother]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

[phiphidon]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

[LikeHeat]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

I am sure you'll never be told the losses were unavoidable simply because they were totally avoidable. All that had to happen was for the Red Shirts to leave and go home since they were in a live fire zone and could be wounded or worse. They chose to stay and I doubt even the most fervent RED supporters will not say the Government forced the people to stay put. The Red Shirts chose to stay and offer cover for the terrorists. I am amazed that people are not able to comprehend that simple warning. Surely you Red Supporters and Red's are not that simple minded that you cannot understand that to be in a dangerous spot could in fact be dangerous. Even small children get the concept of danger.

[whybother]

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

Some of them may have been unavoidable because the army were shooting back at the red shirts. If there are bullets flying everywhere from both sides, some innocents are going to be hit.

Edited October 22, 2010 by whybother

[ianf]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

Make no mistake here: there were losses because that was what the red shirt leadership wanted as is so often the case in these type of situations. Losses add up to sympathy and more support if you can turn them into positive propaganda. The Reds were spoiling for a fight - they used the language of violence from their stages in Bangkok, they were armed, they stole weapons from the military (or were given them by police/military synmpathisers). You know, the Reds (or rather their spokespeople) are forever exaggerating, twisting facts and creating emotional appeals. I have said before, and I'll say it again, building a movement that has no real ideology is done through manipulating emotions. Wilhelm Reich explained this very well in The Mass Psychology of Fascism - an iconic work on this topic. The Red leadership have got this off to a T (no pun intended)and it keeps the government and opposition on the back foot defensively - because they are always having to defend the Red's accusations. You may have noticed that these accusations are at times ridiculous - but the Government has to defend and it gives more support to the emotions of their supporters. So, to repeat, there were losses because that was what the Reds wanted. They had the chance, in fact many chances, of a peaceful outcome, early elections and so on - but compromise and a quick settlement would not help them build a mass movement or indeed quench Mr Thaksin's thirst for revenge.

Edited October 22, 2010 by ianf

[cougar52]

And I look forward to the time when the Red Shirt Leaders and Supporters of the Red Shirt violence, looting, arson

and killing of innocents admit there crimes and their lack of concern for their fellow countrymen, be they men

women, government, civilians, Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts, Multi Colored Shirts. How they can sleep at night with a

clear conscience in beyond me.

[phiphidon]

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

I am sure you'll never be told the losses were unavoidable simply because they were totally avoidable. All that had to happen was for the Red Shirts to leave and go home since they were in a live fire zone and could be wounded or worse. They chose to stay and I doubt even the most fervent RED supporters will not say the Government forced the people to stay put. The Red Shirts chose to stay and offer cover for the terrorists. I am amazed that people are not able to comprehend that simple warning. Surely you Red Supporters and Red's are not that simple minded that you cannot understand that to be in a dangerous spot could in fact be dangerous. Even small children get the concept of danger.

Was Wat Pathum Wanaram in the Live Fire Zone?

[animatic]

Clearly to all, but the zealous, the reds refused to take YES for an answer

and continued to up the provocations until violence as a last resort was forced.

They and the government were far from the only ones involved, and greatly

affected by the Red Leader's choices.

Reap what you sow and live by your deeds, and don't blame those

that you have provoked to acts they would have never chosen on their own.

[whybother]

Was Wat Pathum Wanaram in the Live Fire Zone?

Do you know if the army killed people in the temple?

[Pi Sek]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

I fully expect that the public will be told why deaths were necessary. And I expect we will see that the UDD are NO WAY NEAR as innocent as you proport and that they were responsible for the larger part of the civilian deaths.

The 28th April friendly fire incident?

This policy of non-officials conducting searches on private people has been condemned by both the National Human Rights Commission and the government, who stated that anyone operating further checkpoints would be arrested immediately and the Red Shirts should stay within the bounds of their protest site. Arrests of 14 Red Shirt protesters followed when they were caught operating a checkpoint in Pathum Thani, just north of Bangkok.

Kwanchai Praiphana led some 2,000 Red Shirts to rally in Pathum Thani in support of their arrested comrades. This was countered by the Queen’s Special Air Force unit, who were stationed at Don Muang in northern Bangkok, who told the protesters to return to their rally site or risk being dispersed forcefully. Violence ensued when the protesters started firing on the army in what CNN reported as a “major gun battle”. One soldier was killed by a high-velocity rifle shot to the head; it was confirmed by autopsy that this was not a case of friendly fire and many protesters were arrested. Initial reports claimed Kwanchai was arrested, but then it transpired that he had fled after a telephone warning from Peua Thai Party chairman Police Captain Chalerm Yoobamrung (himself with various ties to the Bangkok mafia, including two sons who were acquitted on murder charges after key witnesses refused to testify), stopping for a photo opportunity at McDonald’s on the way. Chalerm denied ever calling Kwanchai.

Please, please, please - get your head out the sand and recognise this protest was in no way "peaceful" towards journalists, medics, civilians, etc... you can go on all you like about "not all red shirts were armed" - but, as long as they were intentionally obscuring visibility (burned tyres, firecrackers, etc) and harbouring an armed element shooting at soldiers (!), you cannot possibly be serious in criticising the army's actions. Below is a collection of some events that were clear (for me, anyway) cases of the UDD's implicit guilt in civilian deaths:

10 April

An M79 grenade was fired from an elevated position at the tent of the army colonel directing the dispersal, killing him and another soldier, and then several black-shirted masked men appeared within the protests armed with M16 assault weapons and M79 grenades launchers. 20 civilians and 5 soldiers died and there were over 800 injuries – although autopsy reports show many of the 25 were killed by high-velocity sniper rifle headshots and other protesters were shot from behind, so many of the deaths were seemingly not caused by the army. Reports and investigations later showed that a third element, widely believed to be these Black Shirt warriors, infiltrated the Red Shirts and caused major bloodshed on both sides; the Red Shirt leaders insist that all deaths were caused by the army.

22 April

Tensions again came to a head when there were M79 grenade attacks seemingly from Lumpini Park where some Red Shirt partisans were been “stationed”. The grenades were fired directly at the Multi-coloured Shirt protesters, at Saladaeng skytrain station and at Bangkok Bank HQ on Silom Road. A Res Shirt retired soldier and four others were arrested.

29 April

A group of armed Red Shirt protesters led by Payap Panket (one of the banned Thai Rak Thai party executives) forcefully entered Chulalongkorn Hospital near to the Rajprasong rally site, claiming that the hospital was not neutral and were housing soldiers in preparation for a violent dispersal of the protest. Patients and hospital staff were evacuated immediately after intimidation by the protesters and the hospital was closed down by its directors. Four patients died from the evacuation.

8 May

Two police officers were killed and more police and civilians injured not far from the rally site by drive-by shootings and M79 grenade attacks.

15th May

Local news showed gun battles between Red Shirts and soldiers and a group of Red Shirts hijacking a civilian aid truck (suspecting it was military), with one of the workers being mobbed and shot at pointblank range.

16th May

The night saw RPG attacks on the Dusit Thani hotel where foreign journalists were staying; the staff and guests took shelter in the basement until the army cleared the area of the attackers.

18th May

Black Shirt snipers were caught on camera for the first time, supporting the CRES’ claims that it was not the army’s snipers who were shooting civilians randomly.

18th May

The CRES also arrested a Black Shirt guard, Pichet Sukjiddathong (aka Phumkitti), who was General Seh Daeng’s closest aide and right-hand man. He was accused of terrorism; during interrogation, he stated that Natthawut was the primarily person responsible for ordering violence.

19th May

At the new protest stages at Klong Toey and Bon Kai, which had seen the most violence, the Red Shirt leaders were playing marching music and telling the protesters to stay where they were and get ready to fight as there was nowhere to run to anymore. Very aggressive Black Shirts were in abundance, not allowing reporters to take any photography. At Din Daeng intersection, protesters had set several buildings on fire; a French journalist had his camera destroyed after he captured images of Red Shirts committing arson.

19th May

The Din Daeng protest stage announced their independence from the rest of the rally and announced they would ‘hunt down members of the press’ before torching a police kiosk.

19th May

CentralWorld, Asia’s second-largest shopping centre burnt down in the early evening as firefighters were being shot at by the Red Shirts.

[Pi Sek]

They were unnecessary losses. Unfortunately unavoidable.

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

I am sure you'll never be told the losses were unavoidable simply because they were totally avoidable. All that had to happen was for the Red Shirts to leave and go home since they were in a live fire zone and could be wounded or worse. They chose to stay and I doubt even the most fervent RED supporters will not say the Government forced the people to stay put. The Red Shirts chose to stay and offer cover for the terrorists. I am amazed that people are not able to comprehend that simple warning. Surely you Red Supporters and Red's are not that simple minded that you cannot understand that to be in a dangerous spot could in fact be dangerous. Even small children get the concept of danger.

Was Wat Pathum Wanaram in the Live Fire Zone?

I think Wat Pathumwanaram was outside the army's live fire zone but inside the UDD's. But that's just my guess.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Very restrained reporting by TAN. I was listening on the car radio when this gimp from Roi Et was talking, somthing along the lines of, "I just want to remind you that totally 100% innocent people were murdered by the government and want to remind you that you may not consider them Thai, but these innocent peaceful heros were all Thais, they are not foreigners like you think (ie, government) they are, they deserve to be treated as innocent Thai people and not murdered ruthlessly, etc. etc." It was all very hard to listen to. He kept going on about how Abhisit had such little experience he made so many mistakes, and that the government should return all possessions confiscated from protesters, or they will be accused od stealing it (gov responded that 60 impounded cars are slowly being returned), he also demanded that the phu yai baan in Isaan, who had their guns taken by authorities earlier this year, be returned all their guns because now crime was so spiked in Isaan because of the dearth of guns. He then went on to demand government compensation for all victims, to which government already said it was in process.

While he got my gander up big time, he was quite a dynamic speaker, compared to the government guy who responded well, sensibly, intelligently, but about put my to sleep at the wheel! Anyway, just to add to this as I happaned to have listened in for an hour.

[Insight]

Very restrained reporting by TAN. I was listening on the car radio when this gimp from Roi Et was talking, somthing along the lines of, "I just want to remind you that totally 100% innocent people were murdered by the government and want to remind you that you may not consider them Thai, but these innocent peaceful heros were all Thais, they are not foreigners like you think (ie, government) they are, they deserve to be treated as innocent Thai people and not murdered ruthlessly, etc. etc." It was all very hard to listen to. He kept going on about how Abhisit had such little experience he made so many mistakes, and that the government should return all possessions confiscated from protesters, or they will be accused od stealing it (gov responded that 60 impounded cars are slowly being returned), he also demanded that the phu yai baan in Isaan, who had their guns taken by authorities earlier this year, be returned all their guns because now crime was so spiked in Isaan because of the dearth of guns. He then went on to demand government compensation for all victims, to which government already said it was in process.

While he got my gander up big time, he was quite a dynamic speaker, compared to the government guy who responded well, sensibly, intelligently, but about put my to sleep at the wheel! Anyway, just to add to this as I happaned to have listened in for an hour.

I presume this was all in phasa Thai?

And people try to give the impression of red shirt voices being suppressed, yet they frequently go publicly spouting blatant BS like this.

[Sao Jiang Mai]

Exactly. And yes, it was in Thai. It was a parliament debate. I think if people actually listened to these very widely televised/reported/radio broadcasted debates they would learn A LOT! I have often found the debates to be very revealing and it puts to rest any accusation that this government is blanketing dissent. The opposition is not shy about saying what they feel! And there are some seriously offensive comments, outrageous accusations and the rest. But most of us - me included - don't listen in very often. And that is a shame because these live debates have no media spin to them and we can all pertty much see the true colours of many politicians in how they handle debate and answer questions. Though some bits are so tedious as to be painful, it often is quite spicy and, dare I say, fun!

[asiawatcher]

Clearly to all, but the zealous, the reds refused to take YES for an answer

and continued to up the provocations until violence as a last resort was forced.

They and the government were far from the only ones involved, and greatly

affected by the Red Leader's choices.

Reap what you sow and live by your deeds, and don't blame those

that you have provoked to acts they would have never chosen on their own.

Absolutely 100% correct - its all been said above anyway.

[SergeiY]

Nothing unexpected here.

Nobody would expected that the Defence Minister says something different, at least not as long he wants to stay at this post.

[SergeiY]

I look forward to the time when the public is told why those losses were unavoidable.

Some of them may have been unavoidable because the army were shooting back at the red shirts. If there are bullets flying everywhere from both sides, some innocents are going to be hit.

???

[Skywalker69]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

I fully expect that the public will be told why deaths were necessary. And I expect we will see that the UDD are NO WAY NEAR as innocent as you proport and that they were responsible for the larger part of the civilian deaths.

The 28th April friendly fire incident?

This policy of non-officials conducting searches on private people has been condemned by both the National Human Rights Commission and the government, who stated that anyone operating further checkpoints would be arrested immediately and the Red Shirts should stay within the bounds of their protest site. Arrests of 14 Red Shirt protesters followed when they were caught operating a checkpoint in Pathum Thani, just north of Bangkok.

Kwanchai Praiphana led some 2,000 Red Shirts to rally in Pathum Thani in support of their arrested comrades. This was countered by the Queen's Special Air Force unit, who were stationed at Don Muang in northern Bangkok, who told the protesters to return to their rally site or risk being dispersed forcefully. Violence ensued when the protesters started firing on the army in what CNN reported as a "major gun battle". One soldier was killed by a high-velocity rifle shot to the head; it was confirmed by autopsy that this was not a case of friendly fire and many protesters were arrested. Initial reports claimed Kwanchai was arrested, but then it transpired that he had fled after a telephone warning from Peua Thai Party chairman Police Captain Chalerm Yoobamrung (himself with various ties to the Bangkok mafia, including two sons who were acquitted on murder charges after key witnesses refused to testify), stopping for a photo opportunity at McDonald's on the way. Chalerm denied ever calling Kwanchai.

Please, please, please - get your head out the sand and recognise this protest was in no way "peaceful" towards journalists, medics, civilians, etc... you can go on all you like about "not all red shirts were armed" - but, as long as they were intentionally obscuring visibility (burned tyres, firecrackers, etc) and harbouring an armed element shooting at soldiers (!), you cannot possibly be serious in criticising the army's actions. Below is a collection of some events that were clear (for me, anyway) cases of the UDD's implicit guilt in civilian deaths:

10 April

An M79 grenade was fired from an elevated position at the tent of the army colonel directing the dispersal, killing him and another soldier, and then several black-shirted masked men appeared within the protests armed with M16 assault weapons and M79 grenades launchers. 20 civilians and 5 soldiers died and there were over 800 injuries – although autopsy reports show many of the 25 were killed by high-velocity sniper rifle headshots and other protesters were shot from behind, so many of the deaths were seemingly not caused by the army. Reports and investigations later showed that a third element, widely believed to be these Black Shirt warriors, infiltrated the Red Shirts and caused major bloodshed on both sides; the Red Shirt leaders insist that all deaths were caused by the army.

22 April

Tensions again came to a head when there were M79 grenade attacks seemingly from Lumpini Park where some Red Shirt partisans were been "stationed". The grenades were fired directly at the Multi-coloured Shirt protesters, at Saladaeng skytrain station and at Bangkok Bank HQ on Silom Road. A Res Shirt retired soldier and four others were arrested.

29 April

A group of armed Red Shirt protesters led by Payap Panket (one of the banned Thai Rak Thai party executives) forcefully entered Chulalongkorn Hospital near to the Rajprasong rally site, claiming that the hospital was not neutral and were housing soldiers in preparation for a violent dispersal of the protest. Patients and hospital staff were evacuated immediately after intimidation by the protesters and the hospital was closed down by its directors. Four patients died from the evacuation.

8 May

Two police officers were killed and more police and civilians injured not far from the rally site by drive-by shootings and M79 grenade attacks.

15th May

Local news showed gun battles between Red Shirts and soldiers and a group of Red Shirts hijacking a civilian aid truck (suspecting it was military), with one of the workers being mobbed and shot at pointblank range.

16th May

The night saw RPG attacks on the Dusit Thani hotel where foreign journalists were staying; the staff and guests took shelter in the basement until the army cleared the area of the attackers.

18th May

Black Shirt snipers were caught on camera for the first time, supporting the CRES' claims that it was not the army's snipers who were shooting civilians randomly.

18th May

The CRES also arrested a Black Shirt guard, Pichet Sukjiddathong (aka Phumkitti), who was General Seh Daeng's closest aide and right-hand man. He was accused of terrorism; during interrogation, he stated that Natthawut was the primarily person responsible for ordering violence.

19th May

At the new protest stages at Klong Toey and Bon Kai, which had seen the most violence, the Red Shirt leaders were playing marching music and telling the protesters to stay where they were and get ready to fight as there was nowhere to run to anymore. Very aggressive Black Shirts were in abundance, not allowing reporters to take any photography. At Din Daeng intersection, protesters had set several buildings on fire; a French journalist had his camera destroyed after he captured images of Red Shirts committing arson.

19th May

The Din Daeng protest stage announced their independence from the rest of the rally and announced they would 'hunt down members of the press' before torching a police kiosk.

19th May

CentralWorld, Asia's second-largest shopping centre burnt down in the early evening as firefighters were being shot at by the Red Shirts.

Good post, thank you!!!

[silp1979]

Clearly to all, but the zealous, the reds refused to take YES for an answer

and continued to up the provocations until violence as a last resort was forced.

They and the government were far from the only ones involved, and greatly

affected by the Red Leader's choices.

Reap what you sow and live by your deeds, and don't blame those

that you have provoked to acts they would have never chosen on their own.

Absolutely 100% correct - its all been said above anyway.

yes i agree you are right, totally absolutely right...if you guys could just run the country everything would be so much better, wouldnt it:D

[random]

I saw this guy in Home Pro earlier buying up all the whitewash

[random]

the 22nd April incident mentioned in the gargantuan attempt at whitewash above, your perspective is not quite right, it was said that the grenades were fired from lumphini park but the resultant investigation by forensics proves they were fired from chulalongkorn Hospital, which then resulted in the reds entering the hospital as they were sure government forces were stationed there, it would appear that these grenades were fired by the security forces as at this point the reds had not entered the hospital as confirmed by the hospital themselves.

[SergeiY]

I saw this guy in Home Pro earlier buying up all the whitewash

At least he didn't blame the 'victims' or the 'casualties' and say its their own fault, like some of the most delusional forum members argue. Wonder where these people got their brainwash.

Edited October 22, 2010 by SergeiY

[phiphidon]

Was Wat Pathum Wanaram in the Live Fire Zone?

Do you know if the army killed people in the temple?

No, no more than you do I suspect. I have read eyewitness testimonies which imply that Soldiers were involved in shooting from the skytrain track above. I aware of Gen.Anupongs denial of any troops being on the skytrain tracks. I am also aware that when shown photographs and videos of the troops on the tracks (thus ruling out Gen Anupongs claim) the Deputy PM (at the time) Mr.Suthep stated that that they were taken on the day after rally ended as troops could not enter that part of town on May 19th. This was also shown to be a false statement. We shall just have to wait and see what becomes of the Police CSI investigation of the Skytrain tracks.

[SiriusBlack1]

So that's all right then.

Just another day in Myanmar Dawan Ok.

[anterian]

The anti red bias in these comments is quite entertaining, rather like my attitude to Moslems although perhaps with greater justification. It reminds me of the attitude in the American wild West, the only good Indian is a dead one.

Here the only good red is a dead red.

Take a trip around the countryside, visit a few poor villages, or the poor areas of Bangkok, take a day out from your airconned condos, see how most of the Thais live.

[mkawish]

"He said the government considered applying the extra measures deemed most appropriate at the time, and instructed the authorities to follow such laws strictly to avoid unnecessary losses.For example, security authorities were instructed to exercise coordination and negotiations before using force".

By extension, any losses that happened because the authorities followed the laws strictly under the extra measures granted them were necessary then. Those losses include, Journalists, Medics, innocent bystanders, red shirt supporters, presumably red shirts carrying/using arms and maybe some of the "black shirts" though I haven't seen any evidence of dead blackshirts. That still leaves a lot of innocent people, surely not everyone of the above list of people killed were carrying arms?

( I deliberately have not included any losses from the security forces as nobody has accused them of shooting their own people. Unfortunately one Security official was killedand several others injured in a friendly fire incident on 28th April )

phiphidon :

Whether one is carrying or not carrying an operational or nonoperational weapon is not of the essence here.

When there is a street fight involving certain groups, whether you are one of the group members or not is not of the essence, either.

By the virtue of the fact that you are there in the midst of them, you are willingly exposing yourself to the impending danger at whatever degree and of whatever shape or form.

THEN, If and when you should suffer injury, how could you shout and claim--

I AM INNOCENT!

I AM NOT A MEMBER!

I AM NOT CARRYING ANY WEAPON AT ALL!

YOU ARE AT FAULT BECAUSE YOU INJURED AN INNOCENT PERSON!

I surely am not advocating violence but just how does a country try to contain a group of people advocating violence to the utmost extreme including assassination?

It appeared there were numerous warnings issued, to even warn the innocents and non-violent demonstrators to leave the area of violence provocation.

Most important of all, millions around Bangkok were seriously affected by the prolonged and ILLEGAL demonstration,

how are these million Bangkokians going to be compensated by the demonstrators or are they ever....?

What is your rebuttal?

A very simple analogy would be--if you do not want to get burned, do not play with fire.

Edited October 22, 2010 by mkawish