PM Abhisit: Officials Compiling Report On Investigation Of Protest Clashes

[webfact]

PM: Officials compiling report on investigation of protest clashes

BANGKOK, Dec 11 -- Concerned officials are now compiling reports from an investigation of this year’s April and May clashes between security personnel and anti-government protesters and a court trial will be held afterwards, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Saturday.

Mr Abhisit said a report disclosed by Reuters news agency on Friday was “only a part” in which the British news agency asked the Thai government to disclose the cause of the death of its Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto.

Mr Muramoto was shot dead while covering the military operation on anti-government protesters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) on April 10 on Rajadamnoen Avenue in Bangkok. The killer is still unknown.

The report quoted by Reuters is believed to have been leaked with the cooperation of state officials while Mr Abhisit said the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and police had supplied information concerning progress on Mr Muramoto’s death to the Japanese embassy here on a regular basis.

Mr Abhisit said the investigation was based on facts surrounding the event and was conducted according to judicial processes so there should be neither a problem nor confusion.

On the possibility that military personnel killed protesters or bystanders during the marathon protests, Mr Abhisit said the charges will have to be cleared in court.

Referring to the proposal of UDD leader Jatuporn Prompan, an MP of opposition Puea Thai Party, to submit investigation reports of interrogations of detained UDD leaders by the DSI to the Japanese embassy, Mr Abhisit said he should “submit the entire report” and not just part of it. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2010-12-11

[monkfish]

The Reuters article just in case its relevant.

http://www.reuters.c...10?pageNumber=1

Exclusive: Probe reveals Thai troops' role in civilian deaths

By Jason Szep and Ambika Ahuja BANGKOK | Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:48am EST

Muramoto, a 43-year-old Japanese national based in Tokyo, was killed by a high-velocity bullet wound to the chest while covering protests in Bangkok's old quarter.

The report quoted a witness who said Muramoto collapsed as gunfire flashed from the direction of soldiers. Thailand's government has not yet publicly released the report into his death despite intense diplomatic pressure from Japan.

Reuters Editor in Chief David Schlesinger called for the immediate public release of the full report.

"The Thai authorities owe it to Hiro's family to reveal exactly how this tragedy happened and who was responsible," Schlesinger said in a statement.

The detailed accounts of soldiers opening fire on civilians could inflame public anger and galvanize supporters of twice-elected and now-fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who has called for an international probe into the April-May violence, including the contentious deaths at the temple.

One witness hiding under a car at the temple said he was shot at four or five times by men in camouflage uniforms positioned on the elevated mass transit Skytrain track.

He was hit once and helped to safety by a monk. Autopsies showed bullets found in four of the six bodies inside the temple were the same type that soldiers on the elevated tracks said they were equipped with. An unknown number of people were wounded at the temple.

'OFFICIAL SECRET'

Soldiers quoted in the DSI report said they fired warning shots toward the temple and came under fire from black-clad gunmen from below and by another gunman in the temple. They said they were providing cover fire for troops on the ground, who had requested backup.

Tharit Pengdith, director general of the Department of Special Investigation, said the DSI had concluded its preliminary investigation and passed the results to the police but had not publicly disclosed the contents.

"The investigation report is a sensitive issue to talk about or to confirm its authenticity," he said. "It's an official secret. To confirm the authenticity of the report sent to police would affect the rights of the people whose names were in it."

He would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the two reports seen by Reuters but said police will now investigate the case of the three people believed to have been killed by troops at the temple, along with three others possibly killed by troops, including Muramoto.

The results of the police investigation will be sent to the DSI and government prosecutors.

If troops are found responsible for civilian deaths, families could sue for compensation. But authorities could also claim shootings were committed in the line of official duty.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Marshall in Singapore; editing by Andrew Marshall and John Chalmers)

[asiawatcher]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

[jayboy]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

[Insight]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

There's still way too many unanswered questions IMHO before the army can be fully blamed for the deaths, specifically as to why people ended up in the temple when moments earlier the surrendering leaders told them to head to National Stadium where transport was available for them. Noppadon also gave a second announcement shortly after when he arrived at National Stadium, therefore giving the impression the route was unblocked.

I personally await the full report,

[Nowhereman60]

The government is just digging a deeper hole for itself. Admit your soldiers did kill some civilians and journalist. The longer they wait to admit the truth the worst it will be on the government.

[whybother]

The government is just digging a deeper hole for itself. Admit your soldiers did kill some civilians and journalist. The longer they wait to admit the truth the worst it will be on the government.

I think they've already admitted that security forces killed the Japanese journalist and 3 people in the Wat.

[Nowhereman60]

The government is just digging a deeper hole for itself. Admit your soldiers did kill some civilians and journalist. The longer they wait to admit the truth the worst it will be on the government.

I think they've already admitted that security forces killed the Japanese journalist and 3 people in the Wat.

They have not admitted to anything.

Tharit Pengdith, director general of the Department of Special Investigation, said the DSI had concluded its preliminary investigation and passed the results to the police but had not publicly disclosed the contents.

"The investigation report is a sensitive issue to talk about or to confirm its authenticity," he said. "It's an official secret. To confirm the authenticity of the report sent to police would affect the rights of the people whose names were in it."

He would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the two reports seen by Reuters but said police will now investigate the case of the three people believed to have been killed by troops at the temple, along with three others possibly killed by troops, including Muramoto.

The results of the police investigation will be sent to the DSI and government prosecutors.

If troops are found responsible for civilian deaths, families could sue for compensation. But authorities could also claim shootings were committed in the line of official duty.

[whybother]

The government is just digging a deeper hole for itself. Admit your soldiers did kill some civilians and journalist. The longer they wait to admit the truth the worst it will be on the government.

I think they've already admitted that security forces killed the Japanese journalist and 3 people in the Wat.

They have not admitted to anything.

Tharit Pengdith, director general of the Department of Special Investigation, said the DSI had concluded its preliminary investigation and passed the results to the police but had not publicly disclosed the contents.

"The investigation report is a sensitive issue to talk about or to confirm its authenticity," he said. "It's an official secret. To confirm the authenticity of the report sent to police would affect the rights of the people whose names were in it."

He would neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the two reports seen by Reuters but said police will now investigate the case of the three people believed to have been killed by troops at the temple, along with three others possibly killed by troops, including Muramoto.

The results of the police investigation will be sent to the DSI and government prosecutors.

If troops are found responsible for civilian deaths, families could sue for compensation. But authorities could also claim shootings were committed in the line of official duty.

OK, they've said that 3 deaths in the Wat and the cameraman were possibly caused by the army, and have passed the cases to police to investigate further. They haven't denied it, but haven't come out with a definitive statement until the investigation has been completed.

[SomTumTiger]

I have no false illusitions that the military action is responsible for some of the deaths. The question is, were those deaths occuring during the shoot out (where the black shirts were firing back strongly) or were they indiscriminant firings into a crowd. I would be careful with this, as the DSI appear to be doing, and do a compete job. I love Voranai's column in Bangkok Post today - he covers this topic, and speaks well about the "Saving face" government actions, which just end up making them look foolish.

[jdinasia]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

[jdinasia]

I have no false illusitions that the military action is responsible for some of the deaths. The question is, were those deaths occuring during the shoot out (where the black shirts were firing back strongly) or were they indiscriminant firings into a crowd. I would be careful with this, as the DSI appear to be doing, and do a compete job. I love Voranai's column in Bangkok Post today - he covers this topic, and speaks well about the "Saving face" government actions, which just end up making them look foolish.

The sad fact is that many of the cases will be filed under "killer or killers unknown" due to the simple fact that bodies were moves, battlelines were amorphous and both sides had some of the same weaponry. The only thing so far that can be said with reasonable certainty (not 100%) is that the military on the streets were not issued grenades or grenade launchers.

[jayboy]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

The official reports have begun to emerge and the events will become clearer though not perhaps with complete certainty.I would however expect the current consensus that many innocents were killed by the army to become widely accepted.This is not a criticism of the military effort which was generally professional, though clearly with some disgraceful lapses.However it will be instructive to compare positions taken including the barking mad "reds murdered themselves" to various other extremes.It will be clear that the back pedalling has already begun (see quoted post) and will certainly continue as the truth becomes generally accessible.It's becoming evident as most reasonable people would have anticipated is that it was a very mixed picture.Anyway all credit to Abhisit who slightly against my expectation is taking a very fair approach (so far).

[Bagwan]

If I am involved in a road accident a view that will certainly be aired is, that in the face of evidence to the contrary I, a farang, am to blame. The rationale would be that I am a farang and should not be in Thailand. If I had stayed in my own country then the accident would not have occurred. We know what the cameraman was doing there but what of the others? If they had stayed in Nakhon Nowhere they wouldn't have been shot i.e. they are not totally innocent. Thai logic, but not mine I would point out.

I have never joined in any mass protest and never will. Any positive returns on that sort of investment are meagre indeed.  I would propose that the recent student unrest in London has lost them a degree of support and many will write them off as scruffy, unwashed troublemakers whom seem to have enough money to fill up their own pubs and discos and then complain that they cannot afford to buy books. Similarly the action in Bangkok, particularly the acts of arson, would have the Red Shirts written off as ignorant peasants recruited to march under the banner of Rent-A -Crowd. Most sentient people know that this last is not so and they have genuine grievances of long standing that must be addressed. Strange that they chose the wrong guys to follow and that their aims were more likely to be achieved under the leadership of the guy they wanted out of power and demonstrated in favour of a reversion to the status quo. Maybe they wouldn't have been in Bangkok at all if they hadn't sold their votes for peanuts.   

I am no stranger to violence involving Armed Forces and if I had been anywhere the disturbances I would have removed myself and my family from the vicinity at the sound of the first gunshot. It is a pity that the protesters were not of that mindset. Those that remained knew that they were in a place of extreme danger and must take some of the responsibility for the subsequent sad events. It cannot be denied that they formed a contributory factor and I wonder if a true peace can be attained unless they acknowledge this within themselves.  

[jdinasia]

]

I often feel that posts than are completed with "end of story" simply demonstrate that it is in fact just the beginning of the story.All the evidence now emerging whether from official sources or elsewhere are showing that many innocent civilians were shot by the army.It may well be there was no alternative to the overall strategy and I still believe the army acted professionally in a very difficult situation.

In this particular post with its curious mixture of defensiveness, dishonesty and prejudice there is a very reasonable point made about the "fog of war".However I think that it's important that the argument that protesters deserve whatever comes to them should be resisted.The Reds had every right to protest.The blame for the tragic outcome rests on many shoulders including the red leadership, the army and the government.

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

The official reports have begun to emerge and the events will become clearer though not perhaps with complete certainty.I would however expect the current consensus that many innocents were killed by the army to become widely accepted.This is not a criticism of the military effort which was generally professional, though clearly with some disgraceful lapses.However it will be instructive to compare positions taken including the barking mad "reds murdered themselves" to various other extremes.It will be clear that the back pedalling has already begun (see quoted post) and will certainly continue as the truth becomes generally accessible.It's becoming evident as most reasonable people would have anticipated is that it was a very mixed picture.Anyway all credit to Abhisit who slightly against my expectation is taking a very fair approach (so far).

I don't think that ANYONE will say that many of the casualties were not caused by the military. That was never a point of contention. The point of contention was the claim that the vast majority were caused by the military and that can only be considered an opinion.

It really doesn't matter if you want to attack posters who think that the "Ronin"/black-shirted reds were instructed to make sure that redshirt blood flowed on the streets as "barking mad". Many people are of that opinion and there is some indications via video accounts that give credence to that opinion. The idea that certain elements inside the redshirts wouldn't deliberately sacrifice some pawns in a game for "keeps" strikes me as rather naive. The game in April/May was for elections to be held before Oct1 and it was a high-stakes game for the redshirt leadership.

Strangely we agree on two other things. Abhisit has done very well in dealing with almost impossible power plays by all sides (including inside his coalition) and that the military attempted to deal with what amounted to an insurrection inside the capital with as much professionalism as could be expected. Even limited "urban warfare" is an extremely difficult undertaking and that when faced by an unknown number of heavily armed men inside of a covering group of protesters, I think they did a decent job in actually limiting casualties.

[webfact]

DSI won't confirm troops' involvement in death of Japanese cameraman

By The Nation on Sunday

Department of Special Investigation (DSI) chief Tharit Pengdit declined yesterday to release the full report on the death of a Japanese cameraman during the April 10 crackdown on red shirts in Bangkok, saying the investigation and witnesses could be affected by such a disclosure.

His comment followed a report by news agency Reuters that leaked documents indicated the cameraman was likely killed by government troops.

The red shirts are scheduled to submit "evidence" about who murdered Reuters cameraman Hiro Muramoto at the Japanese Embassy tomorrow.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday police had updated the embassy regularly about progress on the case. Abhisit also said the red-shirts' report about the DSI probe should be complete rather than partial.

Affirming that the investigation met international standards, the PM said the DSI had no authority to reveal the report to Reuters or the public as it could affect the investigation and pose a threat to witnesses.

Tharit said they had kept the Japanese Embassy informed about the probe and the embassy officials were satisfied with that.

Tharit also said he had instructed officials to conclude within the coming week the inquiries into 89 deaths during the March-May red-shirt protests.

Previously, the DSI submitted its initial findings about 13 deaths to the Metropolitan Police to pass on to police investigators. These indicated troops may have been involved in these deaths, including Muramoto's and three people who died at Wat Pathum Wanaram said to have been shot from a higher ground.

The military has reportedly admitted eight armed soldiers were sent to watch over the Skytrain line near the temple.

Meanwhile, red-shirt Somyos Preuksakasemsuk, who leads the June 24 Group, said yesterday his group would go to the Japanese embassy at 10am tomorrow to submit "evidence". This would be a CD of pictures, a video of interviews with four people who helped the cameraman after he was shot and an English language letter about suspicions that suggested the Thai government was trying to hide something, he said.

They would also give the Japanese embassy the four witnesses' names and addresses so the embassy could try to help them against threats from government people. Somyos said they had no intent to affect bilateral relations but hoped the international community would probe the government's "lies".

PM Abhisit said Reuters had interviewed him earlier about the case. He said the news agency had told him the report they saw was partial.

Asked about leaked documents indicating troops' involvement in deaths, he said the news agency used the word "likely". He said everything had to be done according to the justice process, and a court would rule on the alleged involvement of state officers.

Meanwhile, Si Sa Ket Senator Jittipoj Wiriyaroj, who chairs a Senate committee on political developments, said the committee had information - both official and unofficial - including witness accounts and video clips, but couldn't reveal them.

He said the committee's information leaned in the same direction as the Reuters report -there were suspicions suggesting state officers may have beeninvolved in the six deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram and the Japanese cameraman.

He said the committee would call the DSI to get regular updates on their work and check if they were doing their duties. The committee would conclude its initial report soon, he said.

-- TNA 2010-12-12

[jayboy]

I am no stranger to violence involving Armed Forces and if I had been anywhere the disturbances I would have removed myself and my family from the vicinity at the sound of the first gunshot. It is a pity that the protesters were not of that mindset. Those that remained knew that they were in a place of extreme danger and must take some of the responsibility for the subsequent sad events. It cannot be denied that they formed a contributory factor and I wonder if a true peace can be attained unless they acknowledge this within themselves.

You could say the same about the Chinese students murdered in Tianmen Square by the Chinese army.Some people are courageous and have strong principles.

Edited December 12, 2010 by jayboy

[chuang]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

What a piece of garbage...

[Ponbkk]

 

and that lays the blame squarely on the reds.  End of story.

No further than that? Not to the funders, to the 'supporters' in their words of the funder?

Or just to those caught in the mess?

Very sad how it could turn out.

[rubl]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

What a piece of garbage...

It stinks. The fish may have lain in the sun too long

Apart from that, care to explain why you think asianwatcher's part is garbage?

[Siam Simon]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

What a piece of garbage...

It stinks. The fish may have lain in the sun too long

Apart from that, care to explain why you think asianwatcher's part is garbage?

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, start without the "red thugs".

Edited December 12, 2010 by Siam Simon

[jdinasia]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

What a piece of garbage...

It stinks. The fish may have lain in the sun too long

Apart from that, care to explain why you think asianwatcher's part is garbage?

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, take place without the "red thugs".

Ummmm

What day did they toss the petrol bombs? What day did they threaten to burn BKK down? What day did they invade Parliament and what day for ThaiCom?

[whybother]

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, start without the "red thugs".

Actually, it started with the "red thugs" invading parliament and Thaicom.

If they had managed to keep their protest peaceful without breaking through police lines, or confronting troops at barracks and other places they were stationed AWAY from the protest areas, or expanding their protest areas to cause more disruption to people going about their lives, then there wouldn't have been a need to be dispersed.

[Siam Simon]

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, take place without the "red thugs".

Ummmm

What day did they toss the petrol bombs? What day did they threaten to burn BKK down? What day did they invade Parliament and what day for ThaiCom?

Ummmm

What day did they toss the petrol bombs, and how many tossed them? What day did they burn Bangkok down (bearing in mind the rather strange photo evidence from CTW on May 19 that has come to light recently)? When did the Parliament and Thaicom incidents take place? Prior to the Army escalation on April 10, when the protests were still about civil disobedience.

[jdinasia]

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, start without the "red thugs".

Actually, it started with the "red thugs" invading parliament and Thaicom.

If they had managed to keep their protest peaceful without breaking through police lines, or confronting troops at barracks and other places they were stationed AWAY from the protest areas, or expanding their protest areas to cause more disruption to people going about their lives, then there wouldn't have been a need to be dispersed.

Actually it started with Arisaman's threats before the reds moved into BKK.

[TAWP]

This part for starters:

"the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger"

There was no wide scale thuggery during the protests leading up to April 10, and there was no thuggery taking place when the Army moved in to confront the protestors on April 10. Therefore, logic dictates that the confrontation did, in fact, take place without the "red thugs".

Ummmm

What day did they toss the petrol bombs? What day did they threaten to burn BKK down? What day did they invade Parliament and what day for ThaiCom?

Ummmm

What day did they toss the petrol bombs, and how many tossed them? What day did they burn Bangkok down (bearing in mind the rather strange photo evidence from CTW on May 19 that has come to light recently)? When did the Parliament and Thaicom incidents take place? Prior to the Army escalation on April 10, when the protests were still about civil disobedience.

'Strange photo evidence'? It, together with the re-enactment walk-through, clearly showed that any and all conspiracy theory by nutcases aren't true...

[26vinny]

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

SO it was alright for the government to use armed forces from the very first day, thats ARMED what a pathetic remark, the government used their options and eventually so did the reds

[whybother]

The reds DID have the right to protest, and at the same time also did NOT have that right. When acknowledged red leadership like Arisaman called on people to bring bottles to fill with petrol in advance of the protests they lost the right to call it a "peaceful protest". That there were Sae daeng's "Ronin" in the mix certainly sealed the fate of how the protests would end. In an attempt to beat the Oct 1 deadline for being in control to set the new leadership for the military the red leaders (perhaps not all of them in the case of Veera) seemed prepared to go to any lengths to secure control before that deadline. It is good to see a change from "most" to "many", regarding the deaths as it still remains unclear who killed whom during the battles.

The right to PEACEFUL protest can be used as a benchmark for democracy. There is no right to armed protest.

SO it was alright for the government to use armed forces from the very first day, thats ARMED what a pathetic remark, the government used their options and eventually so did the reds

Given the speeches from the red shirts leaders for the protesters to bring weapons and petrol to burn Bangkok, don't you think being armed is an appropriate response?

[rubl]

begin removed, begin quote missing, check original post from 26vinny ...

SO it was alright for the government to use armed forces from the very first day, thats ARMED what a pathetic remark, the government used their options and eventually so did the reds

(edit: normal size seems sufficient)

The government, like the previous governments started with using the police. This government didn't give up too easily and started using unarmed army personel. When that still wasn't enough they allowed army pesonel to be armed. The reds used their options and eventually so did the government. Maybe check this out again ?

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/04/unrest_in_thailand.html

Edited December 12, 2010 by rubl

[truethailand]

The results of this report will be a PR exercise. There were shots from both sides but the confrontation would never have taken place without the red thugs. So blame the deaths on the originators and not who finally pulled the trigger - even in close battle fear usually leads to friendly fire casualties. Even if the journalists were targeted they like the other unfortunate victims were are direct result of the violent confrontation and seizure and that lays the blame squarely on the reds. End of story.

agenda