Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

[ballpoint]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

I can sit and listen to the evidence presented in a court and make my own conclusions on the case. Maybe those conclusions don't tally with that of the judges (the Thaksin asset concealment one would be a pertinent example). Does that mean I cannot use the evidence presented in that court to support my own views? No it doesn't. The HRW report is useful for the statements made by independent eye witnesses (employees of various places attacked or threatened by the red shirts). It also contains statements made by less independent eye witnesses, ie/ the reds themselves, and accounts by journalists, who, it would seem, can't help adding their own analysis to events. This very thread shows just that. The conclusions in the HRW report are a human being's findings based on evidence they have gathered. They present the evidence. I make my own conclusions based on that evidence, along with other evidence I have seen, the history of red protests and members of that organisation, and personal communication with people directly affected.

In short, unlike, it would appear, some here, I do not need to be spoon fed conclusions someone else makes based on evidence I have seen for myself. It's called free thinking, something a number of red supporters clearly find unnerving based on their posts over the past few weeks. Go figure.

So you don't accept the HRW Report as a whole because you don't like its conclusions.You do however feel free to pick out bits of it that support your position and ignore those that don't.You can do this because you "were there" and thus have a superior overall view to one of the most respected international human rights groups that received evidence from all parties.

Forgive me if I treat your position with a degree of bemusement.

I can hardly be held responsible for your bemused state while you wait for the next "respected" organisation, journalist, biographer or Thai commentator to tell you what to think. You should try breaking down the evidence used by those people, whether you like it or not, and make your own conclusions from that. I already gave a relevant example in the post you quoted above, of using the evidence presented in a court case to come to some conclusion independent of the judge. I believe that's why the so called civilised countries make use of a jury system. Different people can, and do, make different conclusions based on the same evidence.

[Buchholz]

If you didn't know what he really meant, perhaps you should have asked for him to explain; and if you weren't inclined or couldn't be bothered to do that, perhaps you should have desisted from mocking his position when you now accept you don't know exactly what it is.

Sorry I won't rise to the bait for a pointless argument.

Pray tell, what was the bait?

As for pointless argument, you have made a joke of his position and now accept that you don't know exactly what it is, so as far as i can see, there is no argument here whatsoever (pointless or otherwise), just your trolling.

Status quo, in other words.

.

[lungmi]

Otherwise, i have reached now the limits of my patience with these discussions that are leading nowhere.

Where should these discussions be leading? To an acceptance and agreeance of your opinion?

Discussions don't have to lead anywhere. They can simply be an exchange of views. Sometimes views will be agreed upon. Other times not.

Perhaps you confuse discussion for negotiation, whereby success or failure thereof is dependant upon some sort, any sort, of agreement being reached.

I posted one time that I don't contest your observations, but you still avoid, neglect and downplay the historical context. This is sensational press journalism.

Other posters put it out, you never answered them correctly to the topic.

"Where should these discussions be leading? To an acceptance and agreeance of your opinion? " rivalex said.

When he meant a kind of narcisism, I wouldn't contradict him.

[jdinasia]

I can hardly be held responsible for your bemused state while you wait for the next "respected" organisation, journalist, biographer or Thai commentator to tell you what to think. You should try breaking down the evidence used by those people, whether you like it or not, and make your own conclusions from that. I already gave a relevant example in the post you quoted above, of using the evidence presented in a court case to come to some conclusion independent of the judge. I believe that's why the so called civilised countries make use of a jury system. Different people can, and do, make different conclusions based on the same evidence.

The HRW report has flaws as pointed out in other posts. I have read photographers' commentary on events where they openly state they have no proof or evidence (other than, one would assume anecdotal statements made by other people that cannot be proven -- or there would be no basis for a claim at all) regarding events and body counts around Songkran 2009. etc etc etc

We all work with what we read, see, talk to people about, and in the end draw our own conclusions. My personal observations, experiences, discussions, readings, etc lead me to think the way I do. I think the HRW started out with a point to prove and that they did it pretty well. They omitted details that would tend to show the reds escalating the violence such as the molotov cocktails discussed earlier that were not in their report. I know enough about the topic and what is in the realm of the possible (and I believe probable) to come to the conclusions I do. Having someone repeatedly misstate my position doesn't surprise me nor does the name-calling etc. Look for the arguments that go to facts and opinions and look for the arguments that simply attack the poster ..

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end

[hanuman1]

I can hardly be held responsible for your bemused state while you wait for the next "respected" organisation, journalist, biographer or Thai commentator to tell you what to think. You should try breaking down the evidence used by those people, whether you like it or not, and make your own conclusions from that. I already gave a relevant example in the post you quoted above, of using the evidence presented in a court case to come to some conclusion independent of the judge. I believe that's why the so called civilised countries make use of a jury system. Different people can, and do, make different conclusions based on the same evidence.

The HRW report has flaws as pointed out in other posts. I have read photographers' commentary on events where they openly state they have no proof or evidence (other than, one would assume anecdotal statements made by other people that cannot be proven -- or there would be no basis for a claim at all) regarding events and body counts around Songkran 2009. etc etc etc

We all work with what we read, see, talk to people about, and in the end draw our own conclusions. My personal observations, experiences, discussions, readings, etc lead me to think the way I do. I think the HRW started out with a point to prove and that they did it pretty well. They omitted details that would tend to show the reds escalating the violence such as the molotov cocktails discussed earlier that were not in their report. I know enough about the topic and what is in the realm of the possible (and I believe probable) to come to the conclusions I do. Having someone repeatedly misstate my position doesn't surprise me nor does the name-calling etc. Look for the arguments that go to facts and opinions and look for the arguments that simply attack the poster ..

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the end

I think most of what you say can't be argued with although your point about the reds escalating the violence with molotov cocktails is a moot point. The army's own analysis of how the events unfolded - which Nick N alluded to earlier - says the CRES intelligence upon which the army acted stated that there were around 500 armed militants in the Ratchaprasong area. If this estimate were anywhere near accurate, one would imagine that the arms used by the militants included things other than guns, otherwise we would surely have expected many more deaths on the army side. If that were the case, the use of molotov cocktails would have been considered a part of the present danger faced by the army and not an escalation of a more stable situation over the period of the operation.

The HRW may have missed mentioning the molotov cocktails, but if we agree that there weren't 500 gun-toting fighters aiming at the army that day, it would appear that army commanders were aware of them and did not consider them an aggravating factor during the execution of their operation.

By the way, I wonder what you consider the point was that the HRW had to prove as a starting point to their report? To prove they could write an accurate and unbiased report? Or are you saying they had prejudicial views to reinforce by writing their report? Do tell...

[jdinasia]

The escalation (using the molotovs) at Thaicom and the regimental headquarters was prior to the blackshirts breaking out the heavier weapons on the evening of April 10th. My view, and it seems the view of many others, is that the escalation was designed to force a crackdown so Seh Daeng's ronin could be let off the leash. This was NOT at the Ratchaprasong intersection. Your conclusion is thus the moot point. In the past when the army has opened fire on civilians in BKK, the government fell very very quickly. I think they were counting on that and when it didn't happen the people leading the strategy for the reds were at a loss for what to do next. They just didn't count on being caught on film, or count on the people seeing them as more than just "peaceful protestors." Did those militants fire on people on "their own side"? There is certainly evidence to support this conclusion. How many of the deaths they are responsible for is anyone's guess at this point.

My opinion of the HRW's stance has been discussed before. I think they did a good job of proving their point and in doing so they had to ignore or under-report some things. My opinion is that they started out with the idea that using the military at all was wrong. The fact that the government was not facing peaceful protestors doesn't seem to have entered into their thinking at the start. If they started with the supposition that the redshirt rally was a front for an armed insurrection with the deliberate aim to have enough blood on the streets of BKK to cause the government to fall then their end conclusion might be very different.

The CRES intelligence (?) of a core of 500 armed men (many with military ordnance) doesn't make the strategic escalation of the reds using less lethal weapons first a moot point, in fact, it makes it a primary strategic point. Had the reds started with war weapons then it would have been hard to find any fault with the government response. While I still regret the loss of lives on both sides; I also still see the government/military response as being somewhat muted and nothing like the "massacre" that some pro-red posters make it out to be.

[MrsMills]

My opinion of the HRW's stance has been discussed before.

And what was the outcome ?

[lungmi]

For me the raid of the Hospital was crucial. The tomato cop (his duty was to defend the hospital against any attack, protected by the Convention of Geneva, license to kill to save humanity) bargain a little bit at the entrance and let the terrorists do.

[lungmi]

All the discussions about who kills first is a fake discussion if there is neglection of the sociaand historical context.

The maoist roadmap (training camps established long time before the riots), the bombing, the blood spitting, Voodoo ceremonies fits with

this.

[MrsMills]

For me the raid of the Hospital was crucial. The tomato cop (his duty was to defend the hospital against any attack, protected by the Convention of Geneva, license to kill to save humanity) bargain a little bit at the entrance and let the terrorists do.

How crucial was it, crucial enough to have the only vote a Farang has, the vote to leave with your feet ?

Or did you stay and battle your way through all the hardships ?

[MrsMills]

All the discussions about who kills first is a fake discussion

Its all BS, these Farangs that are so against this or that still stay here, ask them if they will make a sacrifice by leaving, or course, they wont, it suits them not to.

But they are willing to put Thai people down who have very little choice.

These people should be gathered together in a dojo and have their brains reprogrammed.......

Edited July 28, 2011 by MrsMills

[lungmi]

All the discussions about who kills first is a fake discussion

Its all BS, these Farangs that are so against this or that still stay here, ask them if they will make a sacrifice by leaving, or course, they wont, it suits them not to.

But they are willing to put Thai people down who have very little choice.

These people should be gathered together in a dojo and have their brains reprogrammed.......

I stay in a Buddhist Wat of the Forest Tradition, I have my clinique for Hilltribe people and work in the old asian tradition of natural healers (Nuad Thai, Nuad Chin, Acupuncture, Nuad Farang. My brain is programmed by the Teaching Of Lord Buddha and my heart too. I give English teaching to young monks by using the English translations of the Pali Canon (the suttas).

[MrsMills]

All the discussions about who kills first is a fake discussion

Its all BS, these Farangs that are so against this or that still stay here, ask them if they will make a sacrifice by leaving, or course, they wont, it suits them not to.

But they are willing to put Thai people down who have very little choice.

These people should be gathered together in a dojo and have their brains reprogrammed.......

I stay in a Buddhist Wat of the Forest Tradition, I have my clinique for Hilltribe people and work in the old asian tradition of natural healers (Nuad Thai, Nuad Chin, Acupuncture, Nuad Farang. My brain is programmed by the Teaching Of Lord Buddha and my heart too. I give English teaching to young monks by using the English translations of the Pali Canon (the suttas).

And I thought I was fecked up !!

[473geo]

For me the raid of the Hospital was crucial. The tomato cop (his duty was to defend the hospital against any attack, protected by the Convention of Geneva, license to kill to save humanity) bargain a little bit at the entrance and let the terrorists do.

I think the army turning up with live ammunition rather than tear gas and water cannons was crucial......but as one would be respected commentator appears to believe (mentioned in this thread twice) that the reds shot themselves......I guess who fired first is not in question....

[nicknostitz]

For me the raid of the Hospital was crucial. The tomato cop (his duty was to defend the hospital against any attack, protected by the Convention of Geneva, license to kill to save humanity) bargain a little bit at the entrance and let the terrorists do.

Crucial is that both sides have violated the hospital and Geneva Conventions - the protesters by raiding the hospital for soldiers that were indeed placed there by the army (photo published by Matichon).

And a few years before the hospital itself has violated conventions as well by refusing to admit injured police officers during the October 7, 2008, incident.

Historical context...

[Siam Simon]

If one cannot keep an open mind, it is easy to become distracted by the turmoiled waters on the surface, rather than looking to the controlling undercurrents below. How easily people absorb explanation that suits their line of thinking, and reject eyewitness fact because it contradicts.

Which makes the fact that so many red sympathisers have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about eyewitnesses to the red's looting and burning of Central World very ironic. The fact that these accounts, by CW management, tally with those given by CW security guards in the HRW report, and also with those independantly given by Channel 3 employees and security guards in the attempted arson and killing of anyone in that building - an attempt that was beyond doubt made by the reds, points to the modus operandi of the red shirts. Burn and use force to prevent fire fighting or even escape from the building. There is something sinister in the organised attempt here by the red supporters to detract from the OP. The red rewrite of history continues.

Thread hijacked? Why an I not surprised that this particular poster is trying to rewrite history (even if it's only the course of a politics thread on TVF in this instance)? The thread's about the court case against two Red Shirts who allegedly burned CTW, not "supposed to be about eyewitnesses to the red's looting and burning of Central World".

Nick Nostitz posted with some pertinent info about the two defendants in this case. Then, what a surprise, all the usual suspects turned up at some point or other, all trying to discredit Nick on the basis that he is 'biased', and many trying to drag him into debates that are nothing to do with the thread header.

Nick has responded to the usual suspects with his usual patience and factual and witness explanations. Only one of his contrary debaters (Thaihome, to his credit) has challenged Nick repeatedly with alternative witness accounts. Nick's regular requests for new info have otherwise been met with all sorts of variations on trying to discredit him without trying to engage him on specific evidence.

The only sinister thing going on in this thread, and in the politics threads in general, is the constant attempts to gangbang bully away any poster who doesn't sing from the hymnsheet that the relatively small gang of bullies who spam the politics threads want all posters to sing from. As Nick Nostitz is finding out.

It's time on this thread for posters questioning Nick's evidence to come up with verifiable facts, rather than making unsustainable allegations about Nick's credibility.

[whybother]

I think the army turning up with live ammunition rather than tear gas and water cannons was crucial......

<snip>

I think you'll find that they did turn up with their riot gear, but also had live ammunition as back up. The situation turned bad so quickly, and not with the protesters rioting, that they didn't use any of that gear.

The red shirts had already shown what they thought of the riot squad after storming parliament house and Thaicom.

The question you should ask yourself is, Why would "peaceful protesters" bring along a militia?

If the black shirts hadn't been there on April 10, would there have been ANY deaths that night?

[thaihome]

The "urban warfare" that many of us witnessed firsthand was not started or continued by the Army.

Good, then i would suggest the many of you that indeed have witnessed something that i haven't considered yet firsthand (other than the noise of explosions and gunfire you heard from your apartments) would finally supply me with these first hand accounts please, which disagree so much with what i have seen on the ground and posted here.

But accounts of having heard explosions and gunfire from your apartments is not exactly what i need, as we have already quite clearly established that there indeed were explosions and gunfire.

You can always send me a private message, and we can work out a modus operandi how we can get into contact, and naturally i will assure absolute confidentiality.

Otherwise, i have reached now the limits of my patience with these discussions that are leading nowhere.

Nick, my comment on hearing gunfire and explosions was in reference to a specific incident that took place late on the 13th. I knew better then even look out my balcony to see what was going on. I witnessed a lot more over that week or so and what I did see was a mob that was almost continually attacking the Army positions on Rama IV.

Positions that once setup, the Army did not try to move any further down towards the expressway overpass. It was the rioters that were continually attempting to move up Rama IV or through the sois on the side at the Army.

You have yet to answer the simple question. What were those people doing under and front of the Expressway overpass in the Rama IV area? It was well away from the main protest site. Were they protesting or were they trying to stop the Army from setting up blockades of the main site? Were some of them using violent means to try and do so? Were the ones that were not using violence actively supporting the ones that did?

If there were not people firing slingshots, shooting off homemade rockets, throwing Molotov cocktails mixed in with the occasional armed person shooting or firing grenades at the Army all under the cover of constant burning tire smoke, who would the Army have shot at?

Nobody, that’s who. If the mob on Rama IV had stayed in between the overpasses where the stage was setup and just listened to speeches don’t you think there would have been a lot less casualties and maybe none, between the 14th and 18th?

Finally, do you think confronting the Army violently, not with peaceful means, such as sitting down in the middle of street and making no threatening moves, is a legitimate and justifiable protest activity which you not only condone, but now are making these people out to be victims?

You can discuss individual incidents you saw all day long, but it does not appear you want to discuss what the &lt;deleted&gt; those people were doing there in first place and if what they were doing is acceptable behavior in a civil society.

TH

[rubl]

The bulk of the killed protesters were unarmed protesters. The majority of protesters that stayed when things were going violent were unarmed, and a minority were armed militants.

These militants to the most part only operated in cover of darkness. I was one of the view journalists who have seen them operating, briefly. They arrived after Red Shirt guards were shot and injured by the military at a barricade late at night, and launched a series of grenades into the lines of the military from a forward position, after which the military fired indiscriminately into the barricade, wounding several guards (i retreated to a safe position about 50 meters behind after the grenades were launched).

I was present on several occasions where the military have shot at, injured and killed next to me clearly identifiable unarmed protesters, without any militant in sight. On May 13, in the early night near Rama IV/Wireless intersection (one dead, at least one injured), on May 14 at Wireless Rd opposite Lumpini Police Station (where Nelson Rand, a Matichon photographer and several protesters were shot), on May 15 in the afternoon in Rajaparop Road - as described in my story "the killing zone", May 16 i took a day off to get my head back into shape, and until May 19 i went to the frontlines only when things were relatively calm. On May 19 i was behind the military, and was about 60 meters away from Chandler when he was injured by a M79 grenade fired by militants against soldiers (Chandler was in a group of soldiers, which was a bad mistake, most of us journos ran into cover after the first grenades exploded)

I do not underestimate the threat militants posed to the soldiers. That does not mean though that the military is excused from killing and injuring unarmed protesters. Kill and injure militants, no problem, as they are legitimate targets.

As we're (trying) discussing "Chaos at Bangkok's Zen After red-shirt surrender" I think this is one of the best posts on this topic till now which clearly indicates the chaos and violence between the 13th - 19th of May 2011. That chaos caused harm and death to many. Difficult to proof, but had the army only faced 'peaceful protesters' there might have been harm, but no deaths. IMHO, all of this

[nicknostitz]

As we're (trying) discussing "Chaos at Bangkok's Zen After red-shirt surrender" I think this is one of the best posts on this topic till now which clearly indicates the chaos and violence between the 13th - 19th of May 2011. That chaos caused harm and death to many. Difficult to proof, but had the army only faced 'peaceful protesters' there might have been harm, but no deaths. IMHO, all of this

That may possibly be so, but i am not entirely convinced about this view. I honestly don't know.

Both sides have contributed to the escalation. Was the existence of the militants part reason for the over-reaction of the military - hardly any doubt. But was the partial incompetence and brutality of the army reason for the existence of the militants - very little doubt either.

Add now recent history that led to the 2010 violence - it even gets more complex. Just mentioning one point - the 2009 dispersal at Samliem Din Daeng in the morning: soldiers fired directly at protesters, there were no proper investigations, and the officers responsible got awarded.

All this, and far more than a brief post here allows, plays a role in the collective consciousness of the Red Shirt protesters - and these points have to be considered.

Deciphering this is very difficult, especially because there is much information existing that has not yet been made public either. There is much that has to be taken into account, and especially that we still are in the middle of this conflict.

[nicknostitz]

You have yet to answer the simple question.

You do not ask simple questions, you ask what is considered leading questions trying to fish for an answer in which you want your view confirmed, while rejecting or ignoring anything that could threaten this view of yours. Sorry, but that leads nowhere, and i am not having this ping pong discussion anymore.

[rixalex]

As we're (trying) discussing "Chaos at Bangkok's Zen After red-shirt surrender" I think this is one of the best posts on this topic till now which clearly indicates the chaos and violence between the 13th - 19th of May 2011. That chaos caused harm and death to many. Difficult to proof, but had the army only faced 'peaceful protesters' there might have been harm, but no deaths. IMHO, all of this

That may possibly be so, but i am not entirely convinced about this view. I honestly don't know.

Both sides have contributed to the escalation. Was the existence of the militants part reason for the over-reaction of the military - hardly any doubt. But was the partial incompetence and brutality of the army reason for the existence of the militants - very little doubt either.

Add now recent history that led to the 2010 violence - it even gets more complex. Just mentioning one point - the 2009 dispersal at Samliem Din Daeng in the morning: soldiers fired directly at protesters, there were no proper investigations, and the officers responsible got awarded.

All this, and far more than a brief post here allows, plays a role in the collective consciousness of the Red Shirt protesters - and these points have to be considered.

Deciphering this is very difficult, especially because there is much information existing that has not yet been made public either. There is much that has to be taken into account, and especially that we still are in the middle of this conflict.

In terms of identifying who was responsible for the escalation of violence, and your suggestion that both sides were probably to blame, the difficulty i have is in finding any motive or any reason why it was in any way, shape or form, in the interests of the government or the military to have people getting injured or worse, killed.

Injuries and deaths, no matter who was responsible, was only going to put them under greater pressure. It was in their interests to bring things to the most peaceful conclusion possible. I don't think the same can be said for the other side.

Can you offer any possible motive for the military wanting things to get more violent?

[rubl]

As we're (trying) discussing "Chaos at Bangkok's Zen After red-shirt surrender" I think this is one of the best posts on this topic till now which clearly indicates the chaos and violence between the 13th - 19th of May 2011. That chaos caused harm and death to many. Difficult to proof, but had the army only faced 'peaceful protesters' there might have been harm, but no deaths. IMHO, all of this

That may possibly be so, but i am not entirely convinced about this view. I honestly don't know.

Both sides have contributed to the escalation. Was the existence of the militants part reason for the over-reaction of the military - hardly any doubt. But was the partial incompetence and brutality of the army reason for the existence of the militants - very little doubt either.

Add now recent history that led to the 2010 violence - it even gets more complex. Just mentioning one point - the 2009 dispersal at Samliem Din Daeng in the morning: soldiers fired directly at protesters, there were no proper investigations, and the officers responsible got awarded.

All this, and far more than a brief post here allows, plays a role in the collective consciousness of the Red Shirt protesters - and these points have to be considered.

Deciphering this is very difficult, especially because there is much information existing that has not yet been made public either. There is much that has to be taken into account, and especially that we still are in the middle of this conflict.

I don't really want to go into the black Songkhran 2009 issues. Especially the 13th of April 2009 with a real chaos especially when a gas tank truck was threatened to be blown by red-shirt or UDD or militant protesters; that's also when at least two protesters got shot at Din Daeng. for those who like to read about it, this might be a good article on the violence and chaos and all those lovable, peaceful protesters:

"The crushing of the Red Shirts

April 20th, 2009 by Nick Nostitz, Guest Contributor"

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/04/20/the-crushing-of-the-red-shirts/

[nicknostitz]

Can you offer any possible motive for the military wanting things to get more violent?

Speculating on motives of the military and extrapolating from that is moot and rather fruitless, especially because discussing these points will lead us into for this particular forum too sensitive territory left better to a more academic environment.

[nicknostitz]

I don't really want to go into the black Songkhran 2009 issues.

You may not want to go there, but the Songkran 2009 incident, and its aftermath is elementary in having shaped perception leading to the blow up in 2010.

And by the way - the protesters that were shot by the military in the early morning assault were shot hours before the gas tank truck incident, but during the first army assault in the early morning hours.

A more updated, and completed version of the article i wrote then is in my recently published book (no sales pitch - just clarifying).

Edited July 29, 2011 by nicknostitz

[rixalex]

Can you offer any possible motive for the military wanting things to get more violent?

Speculating on motives of the military and extrapolating from that is moot and rather fruitless, especially because discussing these points will lead us into for this particular forum too sensitive territory left better to a more academic environment.

I'm sorry but respectfully i find that answer to be something of a cop out.

I think the question of what motives the military had for escalating violence is indeed a tricky one, but not for the reasons you give. I think it is tricky because some people are reluctant to admit that whilst there are a stack of reasons why it was in the interest of the reds for things to get bloody, there was nothing whatsoever to be gained for the military in this outcome, quite the reverse in fact.

I hasten to add however that that does not prove the military did not escalate the violence; just that they had no reasonable cause to.

[nicknostitz]

I'm sorry but respectfully i find that answer to be something of a cop out.

I think the question of what motives the military had for escalating violence is indeed a tricky one, but not for the reasons you give. I think it is tricky because some people are reluctant to admit that whilst there are a stack of reasons why it was in the interest of the reds for things to get bloody, there was nothing whatsoever to be gained for the military in this outcome, quite the reverse in fact.

I hasten to add however that that does not prove the military did not escalate the violence; just that they had no reasonable cause to.

I am very sorry if you feel that this is a cop out. But forum rules are quite clear on not discussing certain issues (which, if i may add, i do support fully, given the nature of such a forum, and the extreme sensitivity of the topic). These issues, especially perception and loyalties of the Thai military though are key to understanding how it acts and reacts, and at times over-reacts.

Therefore no, i will not, and can not, discuss motivations of the Thai military on Thaivisa.

I will do so in my book, but there i have as much time as i want to - weeks and months - to check and recheck what appears finally on paper, and there are academics and legal experts that will check what i write as well. This luxury i do not have here.

Other than that - motivations aside - never forget the level of incompetence and lack of discipline that the Thai military regularly displays, factors which played a large role in the escalation process as well.

[jdinasia]

Seems to me that the first violence by the reds ... at General Prem's house in 2007 would put the 2009 issue to bed, wouldn't it? Then again, inflating body counts and minimizing the actions of the reds themselves seems par for the course.

[whybother]

Other than that - motivations aside - never forget the level of incompetence and lack of discipline that the Thai military regularly displays, factors which played a large role in the escalation process as well.

Given the regularity of the Thai military's incompetence and lack of discipline, it's a surprise the red shirt's didn't have their militia out in 2009. Instead they waited until 2010 and took advantage of that incompetence to blow up a colonel and kill a few soldiers .. not really caring if a few "innocents" got killed in the fire fight.

[nicknostitz]

Seems to me that the first violence by the reds ... at General Prem's house in 2007 would put the 2009 issue to bed, wouldn't it? Then again, inflating body counts and minimizing the actions of the reds themselves seems par for the course.

Well, i have been at the Si Sao Thewes incident back then, and the violence was initiated by the police on order of the military that could not bear UDD protesters insulting Prem for hours from the mobile stages in front of his residence. Besides my account on New Mandala there is also an account on Asia Sentinel, which go into detail what happened there.

Additionally - the military coup, even though then bloodless, was an act of violence, and at the time illegal and unconstitutional. The military even had to get in the new constitution an amnesty written in (it beats me though what an amnesty has to do in an constitution).

That the military has underestimated the loyalty of the electorate to Thaksin, their chosen Prime Minister, and overestimated their abilities to rule Thailand through their appointed government, should be clear by now as well.