'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[ChiangMaiFun]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

Funny, I think that the army shooting protesters was exactly what was needed at the time - the opposite of disgraceful, it was commendable. I suppose that's the freedom that democracy truly offers, but is unmentionable to a Red Shirt.

But I agree, Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven by those who still blame them... even if their orders as released to the public were less forceful than the army's actions. I think that says more about those who still blame them than either Abhisit or Suthep.

so you will support this in your home country?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Now I agree. Your previous remarks should and can be safely ignored.

Not at all. The discussion further highlights your ongoing attempts to gloss over the actions of a brutal, corrupt, politically-interfering military.

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

I assume that this general statement is again an 'opinion only'. Myself I still hope and pray for reconciliation.

well the election is about many 'opinions' right? so let's see... right? you do agree with elections?

[ChiangMaiFun]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

But protesters shooting solders and burning buildings and bombing and grenade tossing are ok, right CMF?

I consistently post against violence - by any side - and I am also against security forces shooting into temples and killing people - no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not). It is always up to any government to take the 'high ground' and show restraint - I agree law and order should prevail and would support a peaceful 'Ghandi' style protest which would serve the reds better in my view.

[Buchholz]

The Nation: Channel 3: Pathumwanaram Temple offers itself as refuge for any side on condition that no weapons would be allowed to be carried in.

May 15, 2010

The Nation: Petrol bombs and boxes labelled 'grenades' were found by authorities near Lumphini park. Weapons were also found belonging to the red shirts in Sarasin and Pathumwaranaram temple. Bomb-making materials were amongst the items confiscated.

May 20, 2010

no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not)

The weapons and bomb-making materials at the temple were going to be used as offerings to the monks?

Most Buddhists use saffron robes or packages of soap or food items for that purpose.

.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Buchholz

[ChiangMaiFun]

The Nation: Channel 3: Pathumwanaram Temple offers itself as refuge for any side on condition that no weapons would be allowed to be carried in.

May 15, 2010

The Nation: Petrol bombs and boxes labelled 'grenades' were found by authorities near Lumphini park. Weapons were also found belonging to the red shirts in Sarasin and Pathumwaranaram temple. Bomb-making materials were amongst the items confiscated.

May 20, 2010

no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not)

The weapons and bomb-making materials at the temple were going to be used as offerings to the monks?

Most Buddhists use saffron robes or packages of soap or food items for that purpose.

.

I doubt that's true and even if it were shooting from the expressway into crowds of terrified temple-goers would hardly be tolerated in the West would it?

[SomTumTiger]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

But protesters shooting solders and burning buildings and bombing and grenade tossing are ok, right CMF?

I consistently post against violence - by any side - and I am also against security forces shooting into temples and killing people - no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not). It is always up to any government to take the 'high ground' and show restraint - I agree law and order should prevail and would support a peaceful 'Ghandi' style protest which would serve the reds better in my view.

You understand incorrectly. The soldiers showed considerable restraint, by an large, considering the massive pressure the red leadership was putting on them.

What you people can't seem to grasp is that the reds wanted a massacre. They put the black shirts in the lttle old lady reds, as human shields, to provoke a huge overeaction, as has happened in the past. Instead the army did a very careful urban containment of the situation. Sealed the area, and slow limited the access, like a vise. Eventually the reds cracked, tried to force the issue with the breakout marches (which is what provoked the final crackdown, if you recall), and the army ended it. Most international military analysts credit the Thai army with a well executed urban riot containment, and confirm this key fact. They did not have any other choice. Should they have allowed the reds to keep lobbing grenades? Should they have allowed them to keep firing LIVE ROUNDS at soldiers and buildings? Should they have allowed the reds to use women and children as human shields (Cattle to the slaughter for Thaksin) in the Red's game of "Kill the innocents, change the government"?

The reds always use the same refrain - "I am against violence, but....the government soldiers are bad.." How about the reds how started it? Who is to blame, the cop who shoots the bad guy, or the bad guy who draws his gun first? The incident was crafted to create a massacre, and the fact that it was handled reasonable well from a strategic standpoint is why the reds finally broke. And what happened with they broke? They continued to destroy! Burning, looting, shooting? And you wanted this to continue indefinitely? You wanted Bangkok to be held hostage by these people?

Soldiers killed reds. Yes they did. Were some of the deaths tragic? Yes. Where some negligent - Yes. What it a perfect flawless operation? - No. But was it successful in restoring peace and sanity to the Red-induced crazy violence - Yes.

Did the reds have a chance to end peacefully - Yes (if they accepted, we would have ALREADY HAD AN ELECTION). Did they accept - No (Because it didn't get Thaksin what he wanted HIS MONEY BACK).

I don't apologize for anyone who uses violence, but the government has the duty to protect the public from violence perpetrated against them. The Reds were the perpetrators of that violence, and had to be stopped. You say "they should have used water cannons, tear gas, etc. You seem to forget that they tried that, and the Reds/black fired live rounds and grenades at them, killing soldiers. Does this happen in western countries, during protests? No. So that argument has no merit.

Stop defending an imoral protest, led by immoral leaders, whose goals and aims were not for anyone's interests but themselves.

FInally - what about the money? When the money stopped flowing, the attacks stopped. Coincidence? These black shirt/red shirts aren't even ideological zealots, they are mercenaries, and when they don't get paid, they don't work. Hence, a peaceful Bangkok. Every argument the proreds use is flawed, because the results of their "it should have been done this way" statement results in more chaos and violence perpetrated against the public by a group of psychopaths. When the bully hits us, we are suppose to take it, without recourse. Nonsense. In the end, history will judge who was right and wrong. In the violence of 1973, 1976, and 1991, it has given verdict. In 2010, I think we all know who will be held responsible for the deaths.

[ChiangMaiFun]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

But protesters shooting solders and burning buildings and bombing and grenade tossing are ok, right CMF?

I consistently post against violence - by any side - and I am also against security forces shooting into temples and killing people - no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not). It is always up to any government to take the 'high ground' and show restraint - I agree law and order should prevail and would support a peaceful 'Ghandi' style protest which would serve the reds better in my view.

You understand incorrectly. The soldiers showed considerable restraint, by an large, considering the massive pressure the red leadership was putting on them.

What you people can't seem to grasp is that the reds wanted a massacre. They put the black shirts in the lttle old lady reds, as human shields, to provoke a huge overeaction, as has happened in the past. Instead the army did a very careful urban containment of the situation. Sealed the area, and slow limited the access, like a vise. Eventually the reds cracked, tried to force the issue with the breakout marches (which is what provoked the final crackdown, if you recall), and the army ended it. Most international military analysts credit the Thai army with a well executed urban riot containment, and confirm this key fact. They did not have any other choice. Should they have allowed the reds to keep lobbing grenades? Should they have allowed them to keep firing LIVE ROUNDS at soldiers and buildings? Should they have allowed the reds to use women and children as human shields (Cattle to the slaughter for Thaksin) in the Red's game of "Kill the innocents, change the government"?

The reds always use the same refrain - "I am against violence, but....the government soldiers are bad.." How about the reds how started it? Who is to blame, the cop who shoots the bad guy, or the bad guy who draws his gun first? The incident was crafted to create a massacre, and the fact that it was handled reasonable well from a strategic standpoint is why the reds finally broke. And what happened with they broke? They continued to destroy! Burning, looting, shooting? And you wanted this to continue indefinitely? You wanted Bangkok to be held hostage by these people?

Soldiers killed reds. Yes they did. Were some of the deaths tragic? Yes. Where some negligent - Yes. What it a perfect flawless operation? - No. But was it successful in restoring peace and sanity to the Red-induced crazy violence - Yes.

Did the reds have a chance to end peacefully - Yes (if they accepted, we would have ALREADY HAD AN ELECTION). Did they accept - No (Because it didn't get Thaksin what he wanted HIS MONEY BACK).

I don't apologize for anyone who uses violence, but the government has the duty to protect the public from violence perpetrated against them. The Reds were the perpetrators of that violence, and had to be stopped. You say "they should have used water cannons, tear gas, etc. You seem to forget that they tried that, and the Reds/black fired live rounds and grenades at them, killing soldiers. Does this happen in western countries, during protests? No. So that argument has no merit.

Stop defending an imoral protest, led by immoral leaders, whose goals and aims were not for anyone's interests but themselves.

FInally - what about the money? When the money stopped flowing, the attacks stopped. Coincidence? These black shirt/red shirts aren't even ideological zealots, they are mercenaries, and when they don't get paid, they don't work. Hence, a peaceful Bangkok. Every argument the proreds use is flawed, because the results of their "it should have been done this way" statement results in more chaos and violence perpetrated against the public by a group of psychopaths. When the bully hits us, we are suppose to take it, without recourse. Nonsense. In the end, history will judge who was right and wrong. In the violence of 1973, 1976, and 1991, it has given verdict. In 2010, I think we all know who will be held responsible for the deaths.

I totally agree - and have posted before - that the reds 'threw it away' and should have walked and the elections would have been in Nov - a stupid, stupid decision. But as for your other observations I cannot concur - anyway let the people decide? hold an election... and I don't like being called 'you people' I am not a red nor a Thaksin supporter but sympathise with the issues the reds raised (i.e. the poor etc.). It stinks that the yellows were allowed to hold the country hostage and nothing was done - now one of their spokesmen is deputy PM! go figuer why people are frustrated!

Edited December 30, 2010 by ChiangMaiFun

[Buchholz]

The Nation: Channel 3: Pathumwanaram Temple offers itself as refuge for any side on condition that no weapons would be allowed to be carried in.

May 15, 2010

The Nation: Petrol bombs and boxes labelled 'grenades' were found by authorities near Lumphini park. Weapons were also found belonging to the red shirts in Sarasin and Pathumwaranaram temple. Bomb-making materials were amongst the items confiscated.

May 20, 2010

no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not)

The weapons and bomb-making materials at the temple were going to be used as offerings to the monks?

Most Buddhists use saffron robes or packages of soap or food items for that purpose.

I doubt that's true and even if it were shooting from the expressway into crowds of terrified temple-goers would hardly be tolerated in the West would it?

I also doubt it's true that the Red Shirts planned to offer their weapons and bomb-making materials to monks.

They must have had alternative plans with their weaponry.

[AleG]

What you people can't seem to grasp is that the reds wanted a massacre. They put the black shirts in the lttle old lady reds, as human shields, to provoke a huge overeaction, as has happened in the past. Instead the army did a very careful urban containment of the situation. Sealed the area, and slow limited the access, like a vise. Eventually the reds cracked, tried to force the issue with the breakout marches (which is what provoked the final crackdown, if you recall), and the army ended it. Most international military analysts credit the Thai army with a well executed urban riot containment, and confirm this key fact. They did not have any other choice. Should they have allowed the reds to keep lobbing grenades? Should they have allowed them to keep firing LIVE ROUNDS at soldiers and buildings? Should they have allowed the reds to use women and children as human shields (Cattle to the slaughter for Thaksin) in the Red's game of "Kill the innocents, change the government"?

I think we've all seen the footage from the "Black Shirts" firing at the army on May 10th, it's important to note that the Black Shirts are firing standing and crouched, horizontally and through the Red Shirt protesters mob. That shows they didn't give a dam_n about inflicting self-casualties.

[SomTumTiger]

I totally agree - and have posted before - that the reds 'threw it away' and should have walked and the elections would have been in Nov - a stupid, stupid decision. But as for your other observations I cannot concur - anyway let the people decide? hold an election... and I don't like being called 'you people' I am not a red nor a Thaksin supporter but sympathise with the issues the reds raised (i.e. the poor etc.). It stinks that the yellows were allowed to hold the country hostage and nothing was done - now one of their spokesmen is deputy PM! go figuer why people are frustrated!

Elections will be held sometime in 2011. Then the people will decide. I think I know what they will decide. (a slight Democrat popular vote majority, a slight PTP MP majority, and a significant increase in the MP count of BJT, but the return of a democrat led coalition with Abhisit as PM) The "you people" are anyone who lumps the red/black violence, and the miltary response in the same "both are bad" category. One was created with malicious intent, the other was a response to protect the public - they are two separate moral issues, one was morally wrong, the other wasn't. (This does not excuse killing of innocents, and it did happen, and I want those people punished, of course. Wishful thinking though)

I, actually, ALSO AGREE, that the reds would have had a chance of making an impact if they had remained peaceful, becuase YES they do have significant social grievances. Unfortunately, they picked a leader (Thaksin) who had different motives and agendas. If their current leader is sincere about peaceful protests - I am happy to see it. They have a long way to go to "earn back" any sort of trust in their actions, though.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I totally agree - and have posted before - that the reds 'threw it away' and should have walked and the elections would have been in Nov - a stupid, stupid decision. But as for your other observations I cannot concur - anyway let the people decide? hold an election... and I don't like being called 'you people' I am not a red nor a Thaksin supporter but sympathise with the issues the reds raised (i.e. the poor etc.). It stinks that the yellows were allowed to hold the country hostage and nothing was done - now one of their spokesmen is deputy PM! go figuer why people are frustrated!

Elections will be held sometime in 2011. Then the people will decide. I think I know what they will decide. (a slight Democrat popular vote majority, a slight PTP MP majority, and a significant increase in the MP count of BJT, but the return of a democrat led coalition with Abhisit as PM) The "you people" are anyone who lumps the red/black violence, and the miltary response in the same "both are bad" category. One was created with malicious intent, the other was a response to protect the public - they are two separate moral issues, one was morally wrong, the other wasn't. (This does not excuse killing of innocents, and it did happen, and I want those people punished, of course. Wishful thinking though)

I, actually, ALSO AGREE, that the reds would have had a chance of making an impact if they had remained peaceful, becuase YES they do have significant social grievances. Unfortunately, they picked a leader (Thaksin) who had different motives and agendas. If their current leader is sincere about peaceful protests - I am happy to see it. They have a long way to go to "earn back" any sort of trust in their actions, though.

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

[SamritT]

The army have no intention to kill. They will shooting warning shot. The killing was an accident. Just like people was killed in road accident. The drive did not intend to run people over. It was an accident beyond control of the driver.

[SamritT]

Shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is just an once off case. Get over it.

[Pi Sek]

Yes, I mean you and your assertion that un-armed protestors "got what they deserved". With opinions like yours, there is simply no hope for reconciliation.

I seem to have offended you by suggesting that some protesters got what they deserved... by getting shot at. I maintain that some protesters got more than they deserved (i.e. got critically injured or killed for hanging out with militants) but, in the main, I have no objection to armed forces shooting those involved in an insurrection.

The ones that you're getting shirty about - the ones who were unarmed who ended up getting shot - well, you're failing to acknowledge that you don't have to be holding a gun to be involved in an insurrection. Insurrection is war upon the state. War had been declared by Jatuporn and Nattawut several times on stage already, and the army had been driving around saying "we will forcefully evict you soon as your protest is infringing upon the rights of the general public". The UDD leaders had confirmed on stage that they had an armed element. In war, you have to target resources such as weapons logistics; this is exactly why some unarmed protesters got shot, and I maintain that this was the correct action to take, given the forewarning and the no-brainer assumption that those remaining in the live fire area OUTSIDE THE PROTEST SITE shooting catapults and what-have-you are involved in the armed insurrection.

Those who were shooting at the army and ended up getting shot... sorry, no sympathy from me. Some free advice to follow - don't shoot at armed soldiers (or anyone that will reciprocate), even if it's just a catapult or a fai bang, especially when you're stood amongst others who are shooting lethal weapons at said armed soldiers.

Regarding your comment about no hope for reconciliation with attitides like mine, I'd probably add the same about you. Until the Reds acknowledge that their actions were serious and detrimental to the Thai people enough to warrant an army response, there is no hope for reconciliation either. Reconciliation in South Africa was a great open process and the truth came out. Both sides acknowledged guilt, but not necessarily blame. Seemingly because of Thai-ness, neither the army nor the UDD will allow this to happen.

Having said that, I have noticed a propensity on your part to attack the poster, not the post - others have mentioned it to you in the past, so I'll say no more.

so you will support this in your home country?

Yes, I would absolutely support this action in my own country. I think that the only difference you can spin on this is, "Did the protesters know they were part of an insurgency?". My answer would be "not all, maybe not even half" of the 10,000 remaining when the protests turned nasty, but many so-called "innocents" were knowingly supporting an armed insurrection.

As regards the real "innocents"... stupid Swedish guys in restricted tiger areas might get bitten, stupid journalists believe their green armband is visible and bulletproof in plumes of black tyre smoke, stupid protesters believe they won't get shot by the armed forces after they've been repeatedly told not to hang around with insurrectionists because they have guns. Stupidity is no excuse... you'll notice (or you should do) that the army didn't shoot anyone once they took the actual Rajprasong protest site, where all the red grannies were.

[AleG]

I, actually, ALSO AGREE, that the reds would have had a chance of making an impact if they had remained peaceful, becuase YES they do have significant social grievances. Unfortunately, they picked a leader (Thaksin) who had different motives and agendas. If their current leader is sincere about peaceful protests - I am happy to see it. They have a long way to go to "earn back" any sort of trust in their actions, though.

hehehe... No, they didn't pick Thaksin as a leader, Thaksin picked an easily manipulated mob and a handful of satraps to herd them.

[Pi Sek]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

[TAWP]

Don't worry Pi Sek, PostChiangMaiFun is just being true to form; passing judgment on facts he doesn't possess.

[rubl]

Not at all. The discussion further highlights your ongoing attempts to gloss over the actions of a brutal, corrupt, politically-interfering military.

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

I assume that this general statement is again an 'opinion only'. Myself I still hope and pray for reconciliation.

well the election is about many 'opinions' right? so let's see... right? you do agree with elections?

Sure I agree with elections, probably the only part of your post I can agree with ('elections' that is, not the bring on). Properly executed, hassle free, open discussions, etc., etc.

And don't worry, the election will come, within a year even. No need to hurry

[rubl]

exactly... bring on the election! Army shooting protestors is disgraceful - Abhisit and his sidekick Suthep will never be forgiven

But protesters shooting solders and burning buildings and bombing and grenade tossing are ok, right CMF?

I consistently post against violence - by any side - and I am also against security forces shooting into temples and killing people - no justification apart from if they were being shot at (which I understand they were not). It is always up to any government to take the 'high ground' and show restraint - I agree law and order should prevail and would support a peaceful 'Ghandi' style protest which would serve the reds better in my view.

Against violence by any side, but mostly detailing from one side only ?

Anyway, Ghandi had some interesting supporters. Even some who loudly shouted 'till the last drop of my blood, you fight on'

Edited December 30, 2010 by rubl

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

whoever it was it was not Santa! use some common sense please

[Pi Sek]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

whoever it was it was not Santa! use some common sense please

Well, I agree it was not Santa. But I don't agree that it was definitely a soldier, because it might not have been.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

whoever it was it was not Santa! use some common sense please

Well, I agree it was not Santa. But I don't agree that it was definitely a soldier, because it might not have been.

no we are not 100% certain - but we are not 100% the Pope is Catholic but all the evidence points to it? if not an actual soldier he/she must have been a darned good shot!

[Pi Sek]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

no we are not 100% certain - but we are not 100% the Pope is Catholic but all the evidence points to it? if not an actual soldier he/she must have been a darned good shot!

Again, not all the evidence does point to it though.

And there are even arguments against it being a good shot! But regardless of whether it was a good shot or not, that discounts none of the parenthisised examples above of who it could have been.

And to restate, it is my suspicion that this was an army hit... but it's just a suspicion.

(Removed the 2 posts about Santa Claus because TV won't allow many posts - why is this?)

[SomTumTiger]

Yes a soldier shot Seh Daeng. That is obvious. But it is equally obvious that Seh Daeng was the mastermind of the Red/Black violence campaign. How many grenade/rpg attacks did he order? A lot - that is is obvious. With him gone, the number dropped sharply, and has dwindled to almost none. Seems his elimination had the direct benefit of improving Thailand's public safety - so I won't shed a tear over his demise.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I don't disagree... we only differ on the scale of the reaction and lack of discipline by some of the soldiers - shooting people in the head whilst being interviewed is hardly the sign of a developed democracy.

I didn't know it had been confirmed who shot Khattiya Sawasdiphol in the head?

I figured it was someone in the army, but could have just as well been someone else (UDD, PAD, desenchanted member of the public, CIA, KGB)... plenty of debate about this.

If I missed the identification of his shooter in the news, I apologise!

no we are not 100% certain - but we are not 100% the Pope is Catholic but all the evidence points to it? if not an actual soldier he/she must have been a darned good shot!

Again, not all the evidence does point to it though.

And there are even arguments against it being a good shot! But regardless of whether it was a good shot or not, that discounts none of the parenthisised examples above of who it could have been.

And to restate, it is my suspicion that this was an army hit... but it's just a suspicion.

(Removed the 2 posts about Santa Claus because TV won't allow many posts - why is this?)

you mean they were aiming for the reporter and 'accidently' hit the guy? I'm being tongue in cheek but I'm more likely to believe in Lord Lucan pulling the trigger than that one!

[TAWP]

The Men in Black was soldiers too. But hired (for money or political influence) to kill government employees and soldiers still loyal to the crown.

[phiphidon]

e,g the "Enjoy red shirts bodies" page.Some details follow:

There's no such page on facebook.

I think you missed the point of the report - it pointed out that as of the 21st June 2010 that "group" still had a prescence on facebook and had not been banned by the government whilst other pro red shirt websites had been banned. The fact that the "enjoy red shirts bodies" facebook group does not now exist means that the government has finally got round to banning directly or putting pressure on to Facebook to have the group page banned sometime between the 21st June 2010 and the the present day. Or are you trying to deny the fact that it existed in the first place?

I don't know, do you?

Do you know for a fact it did exist outside some blogger saying it did?

Do you have any proof of its past existence?

Do you know for a fact that the government banned the site as you claim?

Do you know for a fact the government put pressure on Facebook to close it as you claim?

It's the Internet. Anybody can claim anything exists on it... especially if it doesn't exist today without any proof it ever did.

.

Don't ask me, ask the American government - it's their report, not "some blogger", which you would have found out for yourself if you had looked at the link.

[rubl]

Yes a soldier shot Seh Daeng. That is obvious. But it is equally obvious that Seh Daeng was the mastermind of the Red/Black violence campaign. How many grenade/rpg attacks did he order? A lot - that is is obvious. With him gone, the number dropped sharply, and has dwindled to almost none. Seems his elimination had the direct benefit of improving Thailand's public safety - so I won't shed a tear over his demise.

Likely, but not obvious.

"SIEGEL: Now, tell us about what his message was today. I gather that other leaders of the Red Shirts, of the protestors, have been talking to the government to reach some kind of agreement. He considers them a sellout for doing that.

Mr. FULLER: Exactly. He called the other protest leaders wimps and he wanted to continue to fight. He said this was a lot more unconventional than the usual battles he was accustomed to, but he was ready to defend his barricade. So he was in an impediment to this particular phase of the crisis being resolved and the protestors going home."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126805541

[phiphidon]

Because they (Reuters) are not stupid? I think we've seen enough of Jatuporn's faked evidence by now to know when it's fake and when it's plausible. Look, what is your position here? Why is this surprising to you? You believe Sansern's line that the soldiers didn't kill anyone because they wouldn't want to harm the Thai people? I think most reasonable people, whichever side they're more sympathetic to, agree there were faults on both sides, that soldiers were likely responsible for the majority of deaths, but that certainly doesn't excuse the behavior of the protesters or their leaders either. However for some it's definitely a case of "four legs good, two legs bad." - on both sides. I'm not being critical here because you obviously support the government, I feel equally irritated by reds who claim the men in black were "agent provocateurs".

If you read the Bangkok Post today you'll find that it's Juttaporn who was responsible for handing over the report to the Reuters, with the DSI claiming the report is faked. Have a read of the eyewitness accounts - only one states that "soldiers" shot at the medical tent - a very dubious claim since many observers have stated the soldiers acted professionally with restraint throughout most the crisis. Why the h3ll would they suddenly start firing off rounds into a medical tent? The other witnesses states he was shot at by "six men in camouflage uniform on the Skytrain track." Camouflaged men like the one in the picture attached? He also managed to count them while he was being shot at?

At yet this report concludes that the deaths "likely occurred from the actions of Army officer(s) acting on their duty"? What has the Nation article missed from the report which led to the DSI making this amazing conclusion? This conclusion was gained from these two eyewitness accounts? Do the DSI have a crystal ball at hand?

The whole thing stinks of a typical UDD-led distortion of truth, and guess who is leading it?

All that besides, Merry Christmas

And if you read the Bangkok Post today, in a very small column at the bottom of page 2, marked Clarification you'll find it WASN'T Jaturporn who passed the documents to Reuters - Reuters have said that it received them from another source that it wouldn't identify.

Happy New Year

[Buchholz]

There's no such page on facebook.

I think you missed the point of the report - it pointed out that as of the 21st June 2010 that "group" still had a prescence on facebook and had not been banned by the government whilst other pro red shirt websites had been banned. The fact that the "enjoy red shirts bodies" facebook group does not now exist means that the government has finally got round to banning directly or putting pressure on to Facebook to have the group page banned sometime between the 21st June 2010 and the the present day. Or are you trying to deny the fact that it existed in the first place?

I don't know, do you?

Do you know for a fact it did exist outside some blogger saying it did?

Do you have any proof of its past existence?

Do you know for a fact that the government banned the site as you claim?

Do you know for a fact the government put pressure on Facebook to close it as you claim?

It's the Internet. Anybody can claim anything exists on it... especially if it doesn't exist today without any proof it ever did.

Don't ask me, ask the American government - it's their report, not "some blogger", which you would have found out for yourself if you had looked at the link.

Actually, you or anyone else doesn't know the American government said any of it.

All we have is some blog saying that the American government said any of it.

What we do know is... that there is no such page on Facebook and that we can take your reply as a "no" to all the above questions.

btw, just because some blog types out:

"some authorized use is for national security purposes of the United States Government only"

that's not irrefutable evidence that it actually is from the United States Government.

Once again, it's the Internet (see remainder above).