'Leaked' Reports Blame Thai Military For Some Crackdown Deaths

[Piengrudee]

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/147344.html . . . . . ."The DSI will also file further charge against Mr Jatuporn for disclosing confidential documents if he claimed the information he obtained was the DSI investigation accounts," stated Mr Tharit. . . . . Does this mean that the leak info is true?

[mkawish]

"The source of the leaked report also told The Nation that all the files, both in Thai and English, would be uploaded on a yet-to-be-identified site by today." . . . . . . . I am still waiting.

Me too.

Spending almost half of last night scanning the Nation and the rest of the horizon looking for the promised Thai and English DSI report but to no avail.

But found instead, many chimney sweepers busily and gleefully cleaning up various kinds of chimney messes, after overweight papa and mama Santa came by with their wooden sleights.

Merry Christmas everyone and have a safe holidays season.

And Shabbat Shalom as well.

[mkawish]

http://www.mcot.net/...age/147344.html . . . . . ."The DSI will also file further charge against Mr Jatuporn for disclosing confidential documents if he claimed the information he obtained was the DSI investigation accounts," stated Mr Tharit. . . . . Does this mean that the leak info is true?

NO, but it does means.... DSI rebuttal to JaTuPorn.... attempting to have justice revoked JaTuPorn's bail, for various bail-conditions violations.... next week.

If you have time read the attachment.

[OzMick]

http://www.mcot.net/...age/147344.html . . . . . ."The DSI will also file further charge against Mr Jatuporn for disclosing confidential documents if he claimed the information he obtained was the DSI investigation accounts," stated Mr Tharit. . . . . Does this mean that the leak info is true?

It's called a double gotcha - charge him with falsifying and leaking and any defense of one supports the charge on the other. Or he could change his story and go for perjury.

[Piengrudee]

"a double gotcha". I like the idea.

[mkawish]

"a double gotcha". I like the idea.

As thick skin as JaTuPorn is,

he probably will challenge his honor for his impartiality and then files another law suit citing his justice as his plaintiff....

and then if he can not get away with that....

then he might just claim the famous Flip Wilson Claims....

that the real red devil makes him do it.

[asiawatcher]

Of course the army killed some of them, if not most. That was the whole aim of the reds' April policy - take out officers, shoot a few of their own, cause fear and hate on both sides. After that, all that was required was for occasional real gunfire from the red side, and many news agency reported "an exchange of gunfire", so don't try and tell us that none of the reds were armed, in amongst all the fireworks and rockets to continue the situation. You must admit it was masterly planning on the reds side. By keeping the gunmen largely hidden after April, most witnesses could truthfully say that they saw no armed protestors, and the army would be demonised by the general public. Let's not forget though, that the reds have many of the old "dirty tricks" instigators of previous army crackdowns and brutalities on their side, a fact not often acknowledged by their supporters. Let's also not forget that we are talking about 91 deaths, not all of them red, out of tens of thousands of protestors. The reds, and many of their supporters here, would have us believe that the army went around blasting at anything that moved, indiscriminantly firing into groups of protestors. A "fact" that is very easily revealed to be a lie by the extremely low casualty to protestor ratio - and I'm not trying to be callous here, just making a point. It's also very revealing that, despite the enormous number of mobile phones equipped with still and video cameras in the country, there is very little documented evidence of any of the accusations, as per the events in Iran earlier in the year.

Interestingly, they (the reds and their supporters here) tried a similar approach in "Black Songkran" 2009, where the same accusations about indiscriminant military shooting at protestors was made, most famously by "I'm not their leader, and it's not all about me" Thaksin in several interviews with the Western media. When challenged to produce bodies, or even evidence in the form of bullet marked trees and buildings, things went quiet. They obviously learned from that and made damned sure there were bodies to be found this time around.

What a cynical biased viewpoint.

I disagree. This is not cynical. It is quite factual although I disagree with the events being deliberately manipulated and planned. If the Reds had the intelligence - and they have not demonstrated that to date - then they would be responsible for the sacrifice of their members. If that is the case then the Reds have a lot more to answer for. Either way I think the Reds and the PTP are at a distance but the PTP will call upon them to do their dirty work of course. Anyone casting a vote for red supporters in my opinion, has rocks in their head. Yes the policies may need upgrading and I think the PM is getting on with it but violence and seizure of a city does not get my vote and hundreds like me, especially when it results (inevitably) in deaths.

[Insight]

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

[hyperdimension]

I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Amsterdam wrote fake reports and "leaked" them. Casual observers of the political situation here can be easily swayed by his writing, and he knows that.

[Emptyset]

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

I asked Andrew Marshall (from Reuters, not the one from Time) about it on Facebook when Reuters first reported on it. He didn't say who they'd got the reports from but said it wasn't Jatuporn and that Jatuporn only had partial bits of the report at that time, whilst they had the full report. Some of the witnesses are clearly unreliable, like the one that says he saw them burn his colleagues body: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B91VD20101210 - people are panicked and can just totally misremember things or at times just confabulate and invent things. Nevertheless, the witness evidence together with the forensic makes the evidence compelling as a whole. Obviously the DSI are claiming it's fake, they likely never had any intention of releasing it, soldiers killed no one, remember? It seems to be very important to them to keep repeating this story, I'm not sure why. People have already made their minds up about the crackdown one way or another, so it won't change too much. Maybe they're just worried even small cracks in the facade risk bringing the whole building down? That said some Thais I know were convinced that soldiers hadn't killed anyone, and that it had been the "500 armed terrorists" that did all the killings... so maybe it is important. I don't know anyone that still believes that story though.

Obviously there's still a slim possibility that it's fake, but it appears to match what we knew before. The testimony here states the bullets were coming from above: http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/1854 and then you also have the video: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/2043

Like I said before, Jatuporn is known for outrageous claims and nothing about this seems very outrageous to me. Seems perfectly plausible. You'd think if Jatuporn fabricated it he'd leave it without a doubt that soldiers did it, but the report still leaves some doubt. You can't say it's absolutely certain soldiers shot three, it's just highly probable. The full report has now been published here, but it's in Thai so I can't really glean much from it myself: http://www.prachatai3.info/journal/2010/12/32440

Surely if they charge Jatuporn they'll also have to charge Prachatai now for distributing it? Aren't they already charging Matichon for distributing something else? Seem to remember something about that from a while ago. Anyway, Merry Christmas.

[mkawish]

Perhaps, the relationships between Prachatai and JaTuPorn should also be first invalidated.

Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?

At any rate, Merry Christmas to everyone, especially JaTuPorn and his families and all his in jail and out of jail colleagues and their families as well.

On the second video clip, there really and absolutely was nothing to indicate that those dressed in black were govt soldiers or otherwise. Or that they shot at any one at any particular moment.

It is another disgusting endeavor by JaTuPorn et al to claim and to show something when there really was nothing of significance to show in the video.

For the first video, i won't waste any more time.

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

I asked Andrew Marshall (from Reuters, not the one from Time) about it on Facebook when Reuters first reported on it. He didn't say who they'd got the reports from but said it wasn't Jatuporn and that Jatuporn only had partial bits of the report at that time, whilst they had the full report. Some of the witnesses are clearly unreliable, like the one that says he saw them burn his colleagues body: http://www.reuters.c...E6B91VD20101210 - people are panicked and can just totally misremember things or at times just confabulate and invent things. Nevertheless, the witness evidence together with the forensic makes the evidence compelling as a whole. Obviously the DSI are claiming it's fake, they likely never had any intention of releasing it, soldiers killed no one, remember? It seems to be very important to them to keep repeating this story, I'm not sure why. People have already made their minds up about the crackdown one way or another, so it won't change too much. Maybe they're just worried even small cracks in the facade risk bringing the whole building down? That said some Thais I know were convinced that soldiers hadn't killed anyone, and that it had been the "500 armed terrorists" that did all the killings... so maybe it is important. I don't know anyone that still believes that story though.

Obviously there's still a slim possibility that it's fake, but it appears to match what we knew before. The testimony here states the bullets were coming from above: http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1854 and then you also have the video: http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2043

Like I said before, Jatuporn is known for outrageous claims and nothing about this seems very outrageous to me. Seems perfectly plausible. You'd think if Jatuporn fabricated it he'd leave it without a doubt that soldiers did it, but the report still leaves some doubt. You can't say it's absolutely certain soldiers shot three, it's just highly probable. The full report has now been published here, but it's in Thai so I can't really glean much from it myself: http://www.prachatai...l/2010/12/32440

Surely if they charge Jatuporn they'll also have to charge Prachatai now for distributing it? Aren't they already charging Matichon for distributing something else? Seem to remember something about that from a while ago. Anyway, Merry Christmas.

Edited December 25, 2010 by mkawish

[chuang]

"They were ordered not to move closer to the temple, which was about 300 metres away." CRES said. I believe the army is very discipline. If the order say NOT to move closer to the temple, the army WILL obey order. Hence the killing is Black shirt shooting Red shirts. I remember some Farang also confirm this; I am searching some old Farang interview now.

You make my toes laugh...

[Emptyset]

Perhaps, the relationships between Prachatai and JaTuPorn should also be first invalidated.

Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?

At any rate, Merry Christmas to everyone, especially JaTuPorn and his families and all his in jail and out of jail colleagues and their families as well.

On the second video clip, there really and absolutely was nothing to indicate that those dressed in black were govt soldiers or otherwise. Or that they shot at any one at any particular moment.

It is another disgusting endeavor by JaTuPorn et al to claim and to show something when there really was nothing of significance to show in the video.

For the first video, i won't waste any more time.

First, we know the DSI had concluded its probe into the Wat deaths and concluded (publicly) that it couldn't be determined who the victims were shot by. Where the DSI has more-or-less conclusive evidence that the "men in black" were involved in deaths, they've made clear it's them. Clearly they were covering up. Their evidence had shown that the soldiers were mostly likely responsible for the deaths in the Wat, but they refused to admit this in public.

Second, we've seen pretty much seen these testimonies published before. What we didn't have was the forensic evidence. Wassana's column on 10th of June contains testimony of soldiers involved, admitting it was them on the skytrain tracks but insisting they were firing at "armed militants". I see no evidence that Jatuporn has fabricated anything here. But even though this is completely irrelevant now since the evidence is overwhelming (if it's proven to be wrong at a later date I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but nothing I've seen so far suggests I am), who do you think they were?

"Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?" No. What evidence do you have of this or is it just more baseless, inaccurate, speculation?

We're asked to believe that these "men in black" were not only in ideological agreement with the red shirts, but would callously kill their own for "the cause"? From what I've seen so far, yes the MIB did join because they were in ideological agreement (though some just for money I'm sure) but I've yet to see any evidence that they've, deliberately, or otherwise, killed any of their own side. April 10th was different, I've already made clear that it was a different group involved and likely the soldiers employed by that group were cold-blooded killers. After April 10th, the "men in black" were ordinary red shirt guards, probably trained by Seh Daeng, neither ruthless nor efficient. A lot of them were just kids or lost former conscripts and that's borne out in the death toll. No evidence to suggest they were ruthless hired killers carrying out a Machiavellian plot, more likely just confused individuals convinced they were doing the right thing. Apparently it takes quite a lot of training to shoot the M-79 accurately, which these guys clearly didn't have. But like I said, if I see anything that suggests I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say so.

[mkawish]

Perhaps, the relationships between Prachatai and JaTuPorn should also be first invalidated.

Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?

At any rate, Merry Christmas to everyone, especially JaTuPorn and his families and all his in jail and out of jail colleagues and their families as well.

On the second video clip, there really and absolutely was nothing to indicate that those dressed in black were govt soldiers or otherwise. Or that they shot at any one at any particular moment.

It is another disgusting endeavor by JaTuPorn et al to claim and to show something when there really was nothing of significance to show in the video.

For the first video, i won't waste any more time.

First, we know the DSI had concluded its probe into the Wat deaths and concluded (publicly) that it couldn't be determined who the victims were shot by. Where the DSI has more-or-less conclusive evidence that the "men in black" were involved in deaths, they've made clear it's them. Clearly they were covering up. Their evidence had shown that the soldiers were mostly likely responsible for the deaths in the Wat, but they refused to admit this in public.

Second, we've seen pretty much seen these testimonies published before. What we didn't have was the forensic evidence. Wassana's column on 10th of June contains testimony of soldiers involved, admitting it was them on the skytrain tracks but insisting they were firing at "armed militants". I see no evidence that Jatuporn has fabricated anything here. But even though this is completely irrelevant now since the evidence is overwhelming (if it's proven to be wrong at a later date I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but nothing I've seen so far suggests I am), who do you think they were?

"Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?" No. What evidence do you have of this or is it just more baseless, inaccurate, speculation?

We're asked to believe that these "men in black" were not only in ideological agreement with the red shirts, but would callously kill their own for "the cause"? From what I've seen so far, yes the MIB did join because they were in ideological agreement (though some just for money I'm sure) but I've yet to see any evidence that they've, deliberately, or otherwise, killed any of their own side. April 10th was different, I've already made clear that it was a different group involved and likely the soldiers employed by that group were cold-blooded killers. After April 10th, the "men in black" were ordinary red shirt guards, probably trained by Seh Daeng, neither ruthless nor efficient. A lot of them were just kids or lost former conscripts and that's borne out in the death toll. No evidence to suggest they were ruthless hired killers carrying out a Machiavellian plot, more likely just confused individuals convinced they were doing the right thing. Apparently it takes quite a lot of training to shoot the M-79 accurately, which these guys clearly didn't have. But like I said, if I see anything that suggests I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say so.

Perhaps, many of us missed the video last week, in which Tuxsin admitted that he was the one and only who financed the redshirts and his former political party.

He is the only one who will hire or fire any turncoats or whomever he deems unsupportive of his coming back to power future plans which will involve massive manifestation and injection of cash into his political party and all the activities that will culminate at the victorious national election which will bring him back to Thailand to challenge the dual standards court systems and reunite divisive Thailand into one single unified party under his directives.

He stated that he will use all the resources under his control to achieve that monumental return to power in Thailand.

And more importantly, what are some of the more challenging responses from the current govt representatives and Apisit?

MEOW.... meow.... meow....

I honestly suspect that many probable profitable personal deals under the table and under the PM's nose and behind the PM back, have already been signed, sealed and delivered by Apisit's undertakers, some of who categorically find many reasons to also delay the judicial processes to demote the ex-PM to ordinary citizen during the past two years in power.

Don't get me wrong pls, I do not wear redshirt trying to destroy the current govt either.

Edited December 26, 2010 by mkawish

[Emptyset]

Perhaps, the relationships between Prachatai and JaTuPorn should also be first invalidated.

Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?

At any rate, Merry Christmas to everyone, especially JaTuPorn and his families and all his in jail and out of jail colleagues and their families as well.

On the second video clip, there really and absolutely was nothing to indicate that those dressed in black were govt soldiers or otherwise. Or that they shot at any one at any particular moment.

It is another disgusting endeavor by JaTuPorn et al to claim and to show something when there really was nothing of significance to show in the video.

For the first video, i won't waste any more time.

First, we know the DSI had concluded its probe into the Wat deaths and concluded (publicly) that it couldn't be determined who the victims were shot by. Where the DSI has more-or-less conclusive evidence that the "men in black" were involved in deaths, they've made clear it's them. Clearly they were covering up. Their evidence had shown that the soldiers were mostly likely responsible for the deaths in the Wat, but they refused to admit this in public.

Second, we've seen pretty much seen these testimonies published before. What we didn't have was the forensic evidence. Wassana's column on 10th of June contains testimony of soldiers involved, admitting it was them on the skytrain tracks but insisting they were firing at "armed militants". I see no evidence that Jatuporn has fabricated anything here. But even though this is completely irrelevant now since the evidence is overwhelming (if it's proven to be wrong at a later date I'll gladly admit I was wrong, but nothing I've seen so far suggests I am), who do you think they were?

"Aren't they sleeping with the same bed fellow, eating from the same spoon and drinking from the same waterhole?" No. What evidence do you have of this or is it just more baseless, inaccurate, speculation?

We're asked to believe that these "men in black" were not only in ideological agreement with the red shirts, but would callously kill their own for "the cause"? From what I've seen so far, yes the MIB did join because they were in ideological agreement (though some just for money I'm sure) but I've yet to see any evidence that they've, deliberately, or otherwise, killed any of their own side. April 10th was different, I've already made clear that it was a different group involved and likely the soldiers employed by that group were cold-blooded killers. After April 10th, the "men in black" were ordinary red shirt guards, probably trained by Seh Daeng, neither ruthless nor efficient. A lot of them were just kids or lost former conscripts and that's borne out in the death toll. No evidence to suggest they were ruthless hired killers carrying out a Machiavellian plot, more likely just confused individuals convinced they were doing the right thing. Apparently it takes quite a lot of training to shoot the M-79 accurately, which these guys clearly didn't have. But like I said, if I see anything that suggests I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say so.

Perhaps, many of us missed the video last week, in which Tuxsin admitted that he was the one and only who financed the redshirts and his former political party.

He is the only one who will hire or fire any turncoats or whomever he deems unsupportive of his coming back to power future plans which will involve massive manifestation and injection of cash into his political party and all the activities that will culminate at the victorious national election which will bring him back to Thailand to challenge the dual standards court systems and reunite divisive Thailand into one single unified party under his directives.

He stated that he will use all the resources under his control to achieve that monumental return to power in Thailand.

And more importantly, what are some of the more challenging responses from the current govt representatives and Apisit?

MEOW.... meow.... meow....

I honestly suspect that many probable profitable personal deals under the table and under the PM's nose and behind the PM back, have already been signed, sealed and delivered by Apisit's undertakers, some of who categorically find many reasons to also delay the judicial processes to demote the ex-PM to ordinary citizen during the past two years in power.

Don't get me wrong pls, I do not wear redshirt trying to destroy the current govt either.

Yes, some good points, but for the most part a paranoid fantasy. Why talk about hypotheticals? We can glean enough from known facts without any invention, as far as I'm concerned.

[Buchholz]

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

LOL... Jatuporn up to his old tricks and Reuters fell for it...

[brahmburgers]

Who came to Bangkok claiming to stage a peaceful demonstration? Who then commandeered much of downtown Bkk with barricades and hired 'black shirts' toting weapons? Who lobbed grenades? Who stormed the hospital? This doesn't necessarily justifying shootings by government agents, but the whole mess needs to be looked at within the perspective of what transpired over those many weeks. If there were extra-judicial injuries and deaths (caused by either side) then there should be prosecutions within the framework of the law. Innocent 'til proven guilty.

From my perspective, from watching events unfold during March April and May 2010, one strong impression (among many) was the police doing as little as possible, and the army showing restraint and professionalism - in general.

[Emptyset]

Who came to Bangkok claiming to stage a peaceful demonstration? Who then commandeered much of downtown Bkk with barricades and hired 'black shirts' toting weapons? Who lobbed grenades? Who stormed the hospital? This doesn't necessarily justifying shootings by government agents, but the whole mess needs to be looked at within the perspective of what transpired over those many weeks. If there were extra-judicial injuries and deaths (caused by either side) then there should be prosecutions within the framework of the law. Innocent 'til proven guilty.

From my perspective, from watching events unfold during March April and May 2010, one strong impression (among many) was the police doing as little as possible, and the army showing restraint and professionalism - in general.

No one is saying any different. Let's look at the evidence as it comes and we'll make a judgement in the context of what you've just said. As you say, what the reds did (i.e. storming the hospital which is clearly nothing to do with any of the shootings), doesn't necessarily justify anything, so we should judge it case by case... and hopefully we'll get to find out what the specific orders to the soldiers were.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

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

LOL... Jatuporn up to his old tricks and Reuters fell for it...

I could be wrong, but why do you think you know better than journalists who've been involved with Thailand for ten years who speak and read fluent Thai? They could've been misled, but the evidence points against it, so why are you so sure of yourself?

[brahmburgers]

Here's an open question: Who's the biggest liar in this quartet?

Amsterdam, Noppadam, Thaksin or Jatupon?

I know it's a tough question, so don't bother wracking your brain for an answer.

Anywho, the more I hear about this 'leaded' report (particularly with Jatupon's name attached to it), the more it smells like sewer gas. How hard would it be for an insider like Jatupon to get some documents which looked official (from DSI or some related agency), and simply doctor them up a bit to suit his agenda? His agenda being to besmrich the government by any means, with no concern for truth. Have you ever doctored or fudged a document? I have. It's the easiest thing to do, with scissors, a smidgen of glue, some white-out and access to a copy machine. What's the worse that could happen to Jatupon if charged? ....not worse than the legal charges he would face without the parliamentary immunity he already flaunts.

BTW, someone mentioned chimney sweeping in a less-than-flattering light in a previous post. I beg to differ. I was a chimney sweep and it's one of the honest ways of making a living, certainly cleaner than being a politician.

[ChiangMaiFun]

PM Abhisit probably said 'clear up the area with as limited injuries as humanly possible'. In gunfire exchange with unarmed protesters that's a wee bit difficult. Like vanderGrift on the 19th, together with some soldiers getting a grenade lopped on them.

In a close-to war-zone with militants, burning buildings, innocents will get harmed. The fault of the government? Should they have rolled over and submit to terrorists? Grow up.

Abhisit probably had nothing to do with it or very little input over what the troops actually did. Where did I say it was the fault of the government? No, they shouldn't have rolled over. They had a right to clear the area, but it doesn't follow from that that all the army's use of force was justified... I mean this is an extreme case, but in policing operations in Europe, protesters often get out of hand and try to occupy areas which the state would rather they didn't occupy. Does it follow that the state has a right to kill them? Obviously not. There are measures which are considered reasonable and measures that are not. Sometimes measures & orders are reasonable but actions of individuals operating on behalf of the state are not reasonable. It remains to be determined in this case what the orders and actions were. But in the specific case of the wat, I'd question why orders were given to fire? Surely, even if there were militants, it would've been better to withdraw and let the militants disappear rather than risking the lives of innocents?

PM Abhisit would know once he gave to order to clean-up, he should leave the army to it. That's delegation, no need for a boss to watch his troop's every move. not all the army violence might be fully justified, but that's hindsight. At the time the main goal was 'clean-up with minimal casualties'. With gunfire exchange and troops getting grenades lobbed on them, troop may have thought 'better safe than sorry'. Anyone having been in combat situations will probably confirm this.

In Europe the situation would never have been allowed to evolve as it did here. In Europe we also have functioning police forces. In Europe protesters tend to be really unarmed. All this makes a comparison difficult to the point of not adding any value.

As for the situation around the wat, see my first paragraph. Very regrettable, but under circumstances somewhat understandable. Remember by that time CentralWorld and ZEN were truly ablaze, lots of smoke and a need to clean-up before sunset.

I agree with your points about Abhisit.

"Very regrettable, but under circumstances somewhat understandable" How so? Much of the shooting happened after sunset. What did it have to do with CTW? You're right in Europe it wouldn't have happened, and neither would the military refusing to obey orders from the PM in 2008, and in fact maneuvering against him.

"In Europe protesters tend to be really unarmed." They often use what most of the red shirts used, molotovs, rocks and so fourth. But I would agree that because there were men amongst them armed with high powered rifles and grenades that the army's use of live bullets was justified. My point is, it doesn't follow that they were always justified in using that level of force.

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

[ChiangMaiFun]

Who came to Bangkok claiming to stage a peaceful demonstration? Who then commandeered much of downtown Bkk with barricades and hired 'black shirts' toting weapons? Who lobbed grenades? Who stormed the hospital? This doesn't necessarily justifying shootings by government agents, but the whole mess needs to be looked at within the perspective of what transpired over those many weeks. If there were extra-judicial injuries and deaths (caused by either side) then there should be prosecutions within the framework of the law. Innocent 'til proven guilty.

From my perspective, from watching events unfold during March April and May 2010, one strong impression (among many) was the police doing as little as possible, and the army showing restraint and professionalism - in general.

'restraint and professionalism'? you're taking the season of goodwill to extremes - talk about naive

[Emptyset]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

Yes... my point was, even if there was a gunman inside, surely they could've just retreated? Why did they feel the need to "take" the temple at that point? Bizarre.

[Emptyset]

Here's an open question: Who's the biggest liar in this quartet?

Amsterdam, Noppadam, Thaksin or Jatupon?

I know it's a tough question, so don't bother wracking your brain for an answer.

Anywho, the more I hear about this 'leaded' report (particularly with Jatupon's name attached to it), the more it smells like sewer gas. How hard would it be for an insider like Jatupon to get some documents which looked official (from DSI or some related agency), and simply doctor them up a bit to suit his agenda? His agenda being to besmrich the government by any means, with no concern for truth. Have you ever doctored or fudged a document? I have. It's the easiest thing to do, with scissors, a smidgen of glue, some white-out and access to a copy machine. What's the worse that could happen to Jatupon if charged? ....not worse than the legal charges he would face without the parliamentary immunity he already flaunts.

BTW, someone mentioned chimney sweeping in a less-than-flattering light in a previous post. I beg to differ. I was a chimney sweep and it's one of the honest ways of making a living, certainly cleaner than being a politician.

Never mind about that quartet, most serious people (i.e. those able to weigh up evidence with some semblance of critical thought) consider them utterly mendacious and not worth listening to. I'm more worried about the people on here that clearly believe Sansern's outrageous claim that soldiers harmed no one... no one at all, not even "terrorists".

As I said before, if I'm wrong I'm fully willing to put my hand up and say so, but seems to me most serious (see my definition above) people consider Tharit to be the one making himself looking foolish here, not Jatuporn... for once. I admit it's hard to trust anyone that's told as many lies as Jatuporn, but neither side has demonstrated much adherence to truth at all, so you'll just have to judge each piece of evidence on its own merits, not on where it comes from. Anyway, as I clearly stated previously, I was personally told by Reuters that they got this stuff before Jatuporn did. Perhaps Jatuporn genuinely is the messenger here, and as they say... don't shoot the messenger.

[jayboy]

Here's an open question: Who's the biggest liar in this quartet?

Amsterdam, Noppadam, Thaksin or Jatupon?

I know it's a tough question, so don't bother wracking your brain for an answer.

Anywho, the more I hear about this 'leaded' report (particularly with Jatupon's name attached to it), the more it smells like sewer gas. How hard would it be for an insider like Jatupon to get some documents which looked official (from DSI or some related agency), and simply doctor them up a bit to suit his agenda? His agenda being to besmrich the government by any means, with no concern for truth. Have you ever doctored or fudged a document? I have. It's the easiest thing to do, with scissors, a smidgen of glue, some white-out and access to a copy machine. What's the worse that could happen to Jatupon if charged? ....not worse than the legal charges he would face without the parliamentary immunity he already flaunts.

But the awkward fact remains.Unarmed civilians were shot in the streets of Bangkok by the army.Most fair minded people recognise that the army acted generally professionally in a difficult but necessary task.However the deaths of civilians (and others) needs to be properly investigated. Politicians and generals need to be made accountable.This has not yet happened nor in my opinion is it likely to.

One can reflect on these points and consider their implications.Alternatively one can rant hysterically (forged documents, pleaaaase...) about Amsterdam,Jatuporn,Thaksin etc... anything other than contemplate the reality rather than the means by which it became generally known.

[whybother]

Here's an open question: Who's the biggest liar in this quartet?

Amsterdam, Noppadam, Thaksin or Jatupon?

I know it's a tough question, so don't bother wracking your brain for an answer.

Anywho, the more I hear about this 'leaded' report (particularly with Jatupon's name attached to it), the more it smells like sewer gas. How hard would it be for an insider like Jatupon to get some documents which looked official (from DSI or some related agency), and simply doctor them up a bit to suit his agenda? His agenda being to besmrich the government by any means, with no concern for truth. Have you ever doctored or fudged a document? I have. It's the easiest thing to do, with scissors, a smidgen of glue, some white-out and access to a copy machine. What's the worse that could happen to Jatupon if charged? ....not worse than the legal charges he would face without the parliamentary immunity he already flaunts.

But the awkward fact remains.Unarmed civilians were shot in the streets of Bangkok by the army.Most fair minded people recognise that the army acted generally professionally in a difficult but necessary task.However the deaths of civilians (and others) needs to be properly investigated. Politicians and generals need to be made accountable.This has not yet happened nor in my opinion is it likely to.

One can reflect on these points and consider their implications.Alternatively one can rant hysterically (forged documents, pleaaaase...) about Amsterdam,Jatuporn,Thaksin etc... anything other than contemplate the reality rather than the means by which it became generally known.

Unarmed people were shot, but don't forget the fact that most of them were consorting with armed people.

[Insight]

One can reflect on these points and consider their implications.Alternatively one can rant hysterically (forged documents, pleaaaase...) about Amsterdam,Jatuporn,Thaksin etc... anything other than contemplate the reality rather than the means by which it became generally known.

Time will tell re forged documents, specifically the conclusion.

/edit - wasn't the full "leaked" reports supposed to be published for the world to read? Anyone know where I can get a copy?

Edited December 26, 2010 by Insight

[chuang]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

May KARMA decides what to do with those resposible...

[Insight]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

Yes... my point was, even if there was a gunman inside, surely they could've just retreated? Why did they feel the need to "take" the temple at that point? Bizarre.

Because they had concerns that the gunmen could then turn the weapons on the civilians taking shelter...?

[rubl]

Shooting into Temples, whatever the circumstances, is abhorent and sinful

Yes... my point was, even if there was a gunman inside, surely they could've just retreated? Why did they feel the need to "take" the temple at that point? Bizarre.

Still at it, I see. With parts of Bangkok burning, lots of 'gunfire exchange' with 'unarmed protesters' I have no doubt some felt it necessary to be cautious to the point of fault. As I mentioned before 'better safe than sorry' when dealing with armed militants who after FIVE days of a slowly progressing clean-up still hadn't got the message: 'drop your weapons and go home!'