Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[phiphidon]

So that was a genuine translation into English was it? Did it cross your mind that the video poster charmingly named as f***thaksinthetyrant may be a wee bit biased?

Best stick to your Boys Bumper Book of Quotes and Song Verses. Oh and according to the subtitles the "orders" to the "Red Mob" were to tie the soldiers up which apparently in your version of english means "murder them". Oh, Well...............

Do you have a different translation? Does it say anywhere that the video poster translated the video, or did he just repost it, as many other people did?

No, I don't have a different translation, I don't speak Thai, is that a concern of yours? Despite this obvious handicap (Buchholz did once question how I survived in Thailand and showed genuine concern, not wishing to belittle me in any way) At first I used common sense (which apparently is not that common on this forum) and considered that a poster with the name of f***thaksinthetyrant would not probably be a PTP or UDD supporter. With me so far?

I then watched it and read that apparently Arisman addressed his audience as a "Red Mob". Now I don't know about you but I think he would be considerably more polite if he were to ask his countrymen and women to rise up and burn Thailand to the ground.

Taking the above into consideration, I reasoned that the subtitles were probably a less than accurate account of the speech but I'm sure the gist was there.

Now if you read my post and the wxyzs' post properly you would see that he had said that Arisman "ordered" the "red mob" to murder the troops even before they came to Bangkok. I correctly pointed out that he was wrong and even accepting the dodgy subtitles the "order" was to "tie them up" not murder.

And yes he did just repost it as many other people did ad infinitum and no doubt will continue to do so whilst declaring their view is right and everybody else is wrong. When confronted with obvious BS and/or genuine (or in some cases feigned) hatred I like to apply checks and balances, i.e an alternative view or at least question their motives and or facts. It may at least keep some of the more rabid posters at bay if they realise that there are other people out there who do not think or act in the same way as they do and as such do not slavishly consume their offerings

Now, anything else I can help you with?

[hellodolly]

One of the few people who might have done some good for this country and due to a political system that allows completely uneducated people to vote and to sell that vote to the highest bidding or most threatening political team , a chance for this Nation to step forward is lost . Instead it looks to a future of lies and deceipt so criminals can avoid punishment .

Please list and highlight some of these great achievements. Some of the events that come to mind are ministers that distinguished themselves with accusations of corruption and payoffs, without any ramifications. Mr. Abhisit made claims of honesty and integrity, yet he did not address the ministers that faced the allegations of serious corruption. Mr. Abhisit now sits in caucus with an alleged murderer that is accused of having planned and carried out a brutal killing. Mr,. Abhisit has the power to ask the accused murderer to excuse himself from caucus until such time as the serious allegation is cleared. Unfortunately, Mr. Abhisit has not exercised such moral courage nor taken such an ethical stand. So yes, please go on and list his accomplishments.

Were you not here in 2010?

He stopped a bunch of armed thugs with there brain washed supporters being paid by a man who dosen't even live in the country from taking it over. The fact that they thought firing rockets at transit terminals invading hospitals and using their children as shields to take over a country speaks loads to their mental capacity

I guess being a red shirt you have to deny it and say it was nothing. Don't know why you red shirts even bother to post the last thing you want is truth. It starts right at the top and works it's way all the way to the bottom.

Yes Abhist was not able to effect a lot of good for the countrie but you are overlooking the fact that he did not have the control the present government has and the main opposition was not interested in helping Thailand their only interest was in getting the power.

[hellodolly]

I never get tired of watching this video. Just goes to show what animals these Reds are. Red apologists of course will say Arisman was taken out of context!

You're easily pleased it seems.

By Jove gl555, I think you have hit a sore spot here.

What is the old saying the truth hurts.

Some people refuse to accept it and carry on in their dream land.

[hellodolly]

So that was a genuine translation into English was it? Did it cross your mind that the video poster charmingly named as f***thaksinthetyrant may be a wee bit biased?

Best stick to your Boys Bumper Book of Quotes and Song Verses. Oh and according to the subtitles the "orders" to the "Red Mob" were to tie the soldiers up which apparently in your version of english means "murder them". Oh, Well...............

Do you have a different translation? Does it say anywhere that the video poster translated the video, or did he just repost it, as many other people did?

No, I don't have a different translation, I don't speak Thai, is that a concern of yours? Despite this obvious handicap (Buchholz did once question how I survived in Thailand and showed genuine concern, not wishing to belittle me in any way) At first I used common sense (which apparently is not that common on this forum) and considered that a poster with the name of f***thaksinthetyrant would not probably be a PTP or UDD supporter. With me so far?

I then watched it and read that apparently Arisman addressed his audience as a "Red Mob". Now I don't know about you but I think he would be considerably more polite if he were to ask his countrymen and women to rise up and burn Thailand to the ground.

Taking the above into consideration, I reasoned that the subtitles were probably a less than accurate account of the speech but I'm sure the gist was there.

Now if you read my post and the wxyzs' post properly you would see that he had said that Arisman "ordered" the "red mob" to murder the troops even before they came to Bangkok. I correctly pointed out that he was wrong and even accepting the dodgy subtitles the "order" was to "tie them up" not murder.

And yes he did just repost it as many other people did ad infinitum and no doubt will continue to do so whilst declaring their view is right and everybody else is wrong. When confronted with obvious BS and/or genuine (or in some cases feigned) hatred I like to apply checks and balances, i.e an alternative view or at least question their motives and or facts. It may at least keep some of the more rabid posters at bay if they realise that there are other people out there who do not think or act in the same way as they do and as such do not slavishly consume their offerings

Now, anything else I can help you with?

What a load of crap your common sense and checks and balances always seem to justify what ever the red shirts did.

[phiphidon]

So that was a genuine translation into English was it? Did it cross your mind that the video poster charmingly named as f***thaksinthetyrant may be a wee bit biased?

Best stick to your Boys Bumper Book of Quotes and Song Verses. Oh and according to the subtitles the "orders" to the "Red Mob" were to tie the soldiers up which apparently in your version of english means "murder them". Oh, Well...............

Do you have a different translation? Does it say anywhere that the video poster translated the video, or did he just repost it, as many other people did?

No, I don't have a different translation, I don't speak Thai, is that a concern of yours? Despite this obvious handicap (Buchholz did once question how I survived in Thailand and showed genuine concern, not wishing to belittle me in any way) At first I used common sense (which apparently is not that common on this forum) and considered that a poster with the name of f***thaksinthetyrant would not probably be a PTP or UDD supporter. With me so far?

I then watched it and read that apparently Arisman addressed his audience as a "Red Mob". Now I don't know about you but I think he would be considerably more polite if he were to ask his countrymen and women to rise up and burn Thailand to the ground.

Taking the above into consideration, I reasoned that the subtitles were probably a less than accurate account of the speech but I'm sure the gist was there.

Now if you read my post and the wxyzs' post properly you would see that he had said that Arisman "ordered" the "red mob" to murder the troops even before they came to Bangkok. I correctly pointed out that he was wrong and even accepting the dodgy subtitles the "order" was to "tie them up" not murder.

And yes he did just repost it as many other people did ad infinitum and no doubt will continue to do so whilst declaring their view is right and everybody else is wrong. When confronted with obvious BS and/or genuine (or in some cases feigned) hatred I like to apply checks and balances, i.e an alternative view or at least question their motives and or facts. It may at least keep some of the more rabid posters at bay if they realise that there are other people out there who do not think or act in the same way as they do and as such do not slavishly consume their offerings

Now, anything else I can help you with?

What a load of crap your common sense and checks and balances always seem to justify what ever the red shirts did.

Q E D

[DocN]

And have the Red Shirt Mafia paid for Damages to Central World, Center One and Big C?

Has Mr. Watermelon been summoned? He was in charge of the military not Khun Abhisit.

As always Thailand has got it back to front.

A bit off topis but:

Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know.

And who is is NOT creating stable Government, the other lot.

Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept?

Do you know some thing I don't? I can't remember him making election promises.

I don't know anything about that. I am referring to Lindsay, who said that Mr. Abisith kept his election promises, PT didn't!

So...first time he got to power, there wasn't an election, right?!

When there was an election...he lost....

Can you follow?

[hellodolly]

And have the Red Shirt Mafia paid for Damages to Central World, Center One and Big C?

Has Mr. Watermelon been summoned? He was in charge of the military not Khun Abhisit.

As always Thailand has got it back to front.

A bit off topis but:

Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know.

And who is is NOT creating stable Government, the other lot.

Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept?

Do you know some thing I don't? I can't remember him making election promises.

I don't know anything about that. I am referring to Lindsay, who said that Mr. Abisith kept his election promises, PT didn't!

So...first time he got to power, there wasn't an election, right?!

When there was an election...he lost....

Can you follow?

You best reread your post. You are the one intuiting about not keeping election promises. I just asked what they were.

Now you are off on another tangent. Yes he lost the last election back to you and your not keeping election promises. What were they and when were they made or were you just posting to post?

[nurofiend]

One of the few people who might have done some good for this country and due to a political system that allows completely uneducated people to vote and to sell that vote to the highest bidding or most threatening political team , a chance for this Nation to step forward is lost . Instead it looks to a future of lies and deceipt so criminals can avoid punishment .

Please list and highlight some of these great achievements. Some of the events that come to mind are ministers that distinguished themselves with accusations of corruption and payoffs, without any ramifications. Mr. Abhisit made claims of honesty and integrity, yet he did not address the ministers that faced the allegations of serious corruption. Mr. Abhisit now sits in caucus with an alleged murderer that is accused of having planned and carried out a brutal killing. Mr,. Abhisit has the power to ask the accused murderer to excuse himself from caucus until such time as the serious allegation is cleared. Unfortunately, Mr. Abhisit has not exercised such moral courage nor taken such an ethical stand. So yes, please go on and list his accomplishments.

Were you not here in 2010?

He stopped a bunch of armed thugs with there brain washed supporters being paid by a man who dosen't even live in the country from taking it over. The fact that they thought firing rockets at transit terminals invading hospitals and using their children as shields to take over a country speaks loads to their mental capacity

I guess being a red shirt you have to deny it and say it was nothing. Don't know why you red shirts even bother to post the last thing you want is truth. It starts right at the top and works it's way all the way to the bottom.

Yes Abhist was not able to effect a lot of good for the countrie but you are overlooking the fact that he did not have the control the present government has and the main opposition was not interested in helping Thailand their only interest was in getting the power.

"Yes Abhist was not able to effect a lot of good for the countrie but you are overlooking the fact that he did not have the control the present government has and the main opposition was not interested in helping Thailand their only interest was in getting the power."

and this is different now, how?

Edited January 5, 2012 by nurofiend

[wxyz]

So that was a genuine translation into English was it? Did it cross your mind that the video poster charmingly named as f***thaksinthetyrant may be a wee bit biased?

Best stick to your Boys Bumper Book of Quotes and Song Verses. Oh and according to the subtitles the "orders" to the "Red Mob" were to tie the soldiers up which apparently in your version of english means "murder them". Oh, Well...............

Do you have a different translation? Does it say anywhere that the video poster translated the video, or did he just repost it, as many other people did?

No, I don't have a different translation, I don't speak Thai, is that a concern of yours? Despite this obvious handicap (Buchholz did once question how I survived in Thailand and showed genuine concern, not wishing to belittle me in any way) At first I used common sense (which apparently is not that common on this forum) and considered that a poster with the name of f***thaksinthetyrant would not probably be a PTP or UDD supporter. With me so far?

I then watched it and read that apparently Arisman addressed his audience as a "Red Mob". Now I don't know about you but I think he would be considerably more polite if he were to ask his countrymen and women to rise up and burn Thailand to the ground.

Taking the above into consideration, I reasoned that the subtitles were probably a less than accurate account of the speech but I'm sure the gist was there.

Now if you read my post and the wxyzs' post properly you would see that he had said that Arisman "ordered" the "red mob" to murder the troops even before they came to Bangkok. I correctly pointed out that he was wrong and even accepting the dodgy subtitles the "order" was to "tie them up" not murder.

And yes he did just repost it as many other people did ad infinitum and no doubt will continue to do so whilst declaring their view is right and everybody else is wrong. When confronted with obvious BS and/or genuine (or in some cases feigned) hatred I like to apply checks and balances, i.e an alternative view or at least question their motives and or facts. It may at least keep some of the more rabid posters at bay if they realise that there are other people out there who do not think or act in the same way as they do and as such do not slavishly consume their offerings

Now, anything else I can help you with?

all your suppositions are of course wrong, but you knew that already

as is your claim he did not call for the murder/execution of the troops

what part of "with this execution" do you not understand?

Edited January 5, 2012 by wxyz

[nurofiend]

So that was a genuine translation into English was it? Did it cross your mind that the video poster charmingly named as f***thaksinthetyrant may be a wee bit biased?

Best stick to your Boys Bumper Book of Quotes and Song Verses. Oh and according to the subtitles the "orders" to the "Red Mob" were to tie the soldiers up which apparently in your version of english means "murder them". Oh, Well...............

Do you have a different translation? Does it say anywhere that the video poster translated the video, or did he just repost it, as many other people did?

No, I don't have a different translation, I don't speak Thai, is that a concern of yours? Despite this obvious handicap (Buchholz did once question how I survived in Thailand and showed genuine concern, not wishing to belittle me in any way) At first I used common sense (which apparently is not that common on this forum) and considered that a poster with the name of f***thaksinthetyrant would not probably be a PTP or UDD supporter. With me so far?

I then watched it and read that apparently Arisman addressed his audience as a "Red Mob". Now I don't know about you but I think he would be considerably more polite if he were to ask his countrymen and women to rise up and burn Thailand to the ground.

Taking the above into consideration, I reasoned that the subtitles were probably a less than accurate account of the speech but I'm sure the gist was there.

Now if you read my post and the wxyzs' post properly you would see that he had said that Arisman "ordered" the "red mob" to murder the troops even before they came to Bangkok. I correctly pointed out that he was wrong and even accepting the dodgy subtitles the "order" was to "tie them up" not murder.

And yes he did just repost it as many other people did ad infinitum and no doubt will continue to do so whilst declaring their view is right and everybody else is wrong. When confronted with obvious BS and/or genuine (or in some cases feigned) hatred I like to apply checks and balances, i.e an alternative view or at least question their motives and or facts. It may at least keep some of the more rabid posters at bay if they realise that there are other people out there who do not think or act in the same way as they do and as such do not slavishly consume their offerings

Now, anything else I can help you with?

all your suppositions are of course wrong, but you knew that already

as is your claim he did not call for the murder/execution of the troops

what part of "with this execution" do you not understand?

lol, i think it's you who's not understanding that phrase and it's context

[OzMick]

Seems pretty obvious that the 'red shirt' military arm the 'black shirts, aka 'black angels', aka 'men in black'

were the perpetrators of violence and death along with the leaders of the 'red shirts' including mr T

asia times headline, "Unmasked: Thailand's men in black"

The govt at the time showed a lot of restraint, too much restraint if anything, allowing the 'red shirt' mobs to break laws and abuse civilians and businesses. The govt is tasked with enforcing the laws even with the use of deadly force.

Ryan Gaerity: "I've come here to create a new country for you called chaos, and a new government called anarchy. "

"Blown Away" (1994)

Asia Times Quote "They let us inside their secret world on one condition: if we took any pictures, they would kill us" all credibility for this story finished there. Not one image in the whole story just text. Biggest load of cr4p ever. The non return of over 2200 sniper bullets shows they were in a turkey shoot in those abhorrent live fire zones. It was murder and somebody will have to cop it

The highlighted statement gained a bit of credibility when photographers WERE shot and killed - but of course, somebody else must have done it.

[OzMick]

Seems pretty obvious that the 'red shirt' military arm the 'black shirts, aka 'black angels', aka 'men in black'

were the perpetrators of violence and death along with the leaders of the 'red shirts' including mr T

asia times headline, "Unmasked: Thailand's men in black"

The govt at the time showed a lot of restraint, too much restraint if anything, allowing the 'red shirt' mobs to break laws and abuse civilians and businesses. The govt is tasked with enforcing the laws even with the use of deadly force.

Ryan Gaerity: "I've come here to create a new country for you called chaos, and a new government called anarchy. "

"Blown Away" (1994)

Asia Times Quote "They let us inside their secret world on one condition: if we took any pictures, they would kill us" all credibility for this story finished there. Not one image in the whole story just text. Biggest load of cr4p ever. The non return of over 2200 sniper bullets shows they were in a turkey shoot in those abhorrent live fire zones. It was murder and somebody will have to cop it

They're pretty crap shots.

Well watching some vids on youtube my thai colleague translated 'good shot hes down' snipering a thai citizen from 100 yards armed with an home rocket and no direct threat to any troops smacks of a shoot to kill policy. Dont worry soon the dirty washing will be hanging in the Thai wind and then hopefully blamed will be laid at the feet of the guilty but I doubt it. Abhisit and his sidekick the 'horriblew litle man' will bear most. Not fair really as they had little say in who shot who

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

[phiphidon]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

[whybother]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

[airconsult]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

I believe I've quoted K. Abhisit's speeches from 2008 before in relation to this, but his speech to the press on Oct 7 2008 is still relevant. Please note the 4th paragraph

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

On 7 Oct 2008, then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat ordered a

crackdown on the PAD protests in front of Parliament House, resulting

in two deaths and over 400 injuries. Abhisit held a press conference

after a meeting of his party.

‘For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility,

either by negligence or intention.

‘What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is

vilifying the people.

‘I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people

killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the

crimes. This is unacceptable.

‘I have heard those in the government always asking people whether

they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is not

the question of being Thai or not, but whether you are human at all.

‘Today, [the government] has lost legitimacy. We are demanding that

the PM take responsibility. [The PM] can resign, or if he is afraid

that by his resignation, the Democrat Party will take power, he can

dissolve the House. He cannot just do nothing, because if he does

nothing, it would be tantamount to damaging the country and the

political system.

‘There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the

people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from

the people does not take responsibility.

‘For what we have said today, the government must not make the

accusation that it is because we agree with all points of the PAD.

Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people.’

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a

crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person

like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it

would not have been like this.’

Edited January 6, 2012 by airconsult

[nurofiend]

Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people

interesting

[whybother]

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

I believe I've quoted K. Abhisit's speeches from 2008 before in relation to this, but his speech to the press on Oct 7 2008 is still relevant. Please note the 4th paragraph

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

<snip>

The 4th paragraph doesn't have anything about this person being shot.

[phiphidon]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

Well I don't think it was a heart attack. Use some common. Audio : "Good shot he's down" While you may accept that it's possible that he wasn't shot I (and probably others) would suggest that he was.

If you are being pedantic and asking for evidence as in bullet matched to soldiers gun etc then you know the answer as well as I do. Abhisit and through him the CRES and DSI deliberately dragged their feet or falsified reports to obfuscate the process of identifying individual murders.

It still doesn't alter the fact; soldiers shot at civilians, civilians died, many with shots to the head. If you feel satisfied that people were not killed by soldiers, OK, I'm not likely to change your mind. Let's face it, Suthep is of the same mindset.

[whybother]

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

Well I don't think it was a heart attack. Use some common. Audio : "Good shot he's down" While you may accept that it's possible that he wasn't shot I (and probably others) would suggest that he was.

If you are being pedantic and asking for evidence as in bullet matched to soldiers gun etc then you know the answer as well as I do. Abhisit and through him the CRES and DSI deliberately dragged their feet or falsified reports to obfuscate the process of identifying individual murders.

It still doesn't alter the fact; soldiers shot at civilians, civilians died, many with shots to the head. If you feel satisfied that people were not killed by soldiers, OK, I'm not likely to change your mind. Let's face it, Suthep is of the same mindset.

You don't think it was a heart attack, but you don't even know if he is dead or injured.

I'm not saying that soldiers didn't kill anyone. I'm just questioning this supposed "shoot to kill" policy based on a short translation of part of a video, and no other details.

[airconsult]

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

I believe I've quoted K. Abhisit's speeches from 2008 before in relation to this, but his speech to the press on Oct 7 2008 is still relevant. Please note the 4th paragraph

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

<snip>

The 4th paragraph doesn't have anything about this person being shot.

I accept that I did not address directly whether this person was shot or not - what I was pointing out, is that in K. Abhisit's own previously expressed views, having the snipers there was immoral.

Please don't bother asking me what alternative there was - I do not know, and fortunately will never be placed in a position where I have to make such a decision. But again, in his own words -

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it

would not have been like this.’

[Moruya]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Was there any evidence that this person was shot?

I believe I've quoted K. Abhisit's speeches from 2008 before in relation to this, but his speech to the press on Oct 7 2008 is still relevant. Please note the 4th paragraph

http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1760

On 7 Oct 2008, then Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat ordered a

crackdown on the PAD protests in front of Parliament House, resulting

in two deaths and over 400 injuries. Abhisit held a press conference

after a meeting of his party.

‘For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility,

either by negligence or intention.

‘What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is

vilifying the people.

‘I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people

killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the

crimes. This is unacceptable.

‘I have heard those in the government always asking people whether

they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is not

the question of being Thai or not, but whether you are human at all.

‘Today, [the government] has lost legitimacy. We are demanding that

the PM take responsibility. [The PM] can resign, or if he is afraid

that by his resignation, the Democrat Party will take power, he can

dissolve the House. He cannot just do nothing, because if he does

nothing, it would be tantamount to damaging the country and the

political system.

‘There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the

people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from

the people does not take responsibility.

‘For what we have said today, the government must not make the

accusation that it is because we agree with all points of the PAD.

Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people.’

When reporters asked why Somchai still stayed on despite such a

crisis, Abhisit said, ‘I have no idea. I have never seen a person

like this. If he were a normal human of the kind that I know, it

would not have been like this.’

Aye - the globally recognised political heavyweight Somchai Wonsuwat, Thaksin's brother in law, set the standards.

He was followed as leader by another guardian angel of human rights Samak. Blood still fresh on his hands - and not from his major contribution to Thailand, pork leg in Coca Cola.

Has Somchai yet been brought to task?

Don't get me wrong - the understanding of what orders were given by whom and under what legislation are key to many deaths - more so in some cases than who fired the gun.

Thing thing to note here, that is of paramount importance, is that the red shirts were armed and had already killed and maimed.

[AleG]

I accept that I did not address directly whether this person was shot or not - what I was pointing out, is that in K. Abhisit's own previously expressed views, having the snipers there was immoral.

...

Was it?

There are armed men roaming the streets, firing grenades willy nilly and mingling with unarmed protesters. What are the options? do nothing and let them do as they please, open fire indiscriminately or use snipers to try and take out only those who are armed or are committing a crime (like that guy shot on his foot when trying to set fire to a truck)?

I'd say snipers are the moral option in a situation like this as long as they stick to the rules of engagement.

[nurofiend]

Aye - the globally recognised political heavyweight Somchai Wonsuwat, Thaksin's brother in law, set the standards.

He was followed as leader by another guardian angel of human rights Samak. Blood still fresh on his hands - and not from his major contribution to Thailand, pork leg in Coca Cola.

Has Somchai yet been brought to task?

Don't get me wrong - the understanding of what orders were given by whom and under what legislation are key to many deaths - more so in some cases than who fired the gun.

Thing thing to note here, that is of paramount importance, is that the red shirts were armed and had already killed and maimed.

right, so why didn't abhisit say

"Even if the PAD UDD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people"

?

[AleG]

Aye - the globally recognised political heavyweight Somchai Wonsuwat, Thaksin's brother in law, set the standards.

He was followed as leader by another guardian angel of human rights Samak. Blood still fresh on his hands - and not from his major contribution to Thailand, pork leg in Coca Cola.

Has Somchai yet been brought to task?

Don't get me wrong - the understanding of what orders were given by whom and under what legislation are key to many deaths - more so in some cases than who fired the gun.

Thing thing to note here, that is of paramount importance, is that the red shirts were armed and had already killed and maimed.

right, so why didn't abhisit say

"Even if the PAD UDD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people"

?

I don't know, in my case it would be because there's a qualitative difference between occupying public places and firing ordnance into them.

[nurofiend]

Aye - the globally recognised political heavyweight Somchai Wonsuwat, Thaksin's brother in law, set the standards.

He was followed as leader by another guardian angel of human rights Samak. Blood still fresh on his hands - and not from his major contribution to Thailand, pork leg in Coca Cola.

Has Somchai yet been brought to task?

Don't get me wrong - the understanding of what orders were given by whom and under what legislation are key to many deaths - more so in some cases than who fired the gun.

Thing thing to note here, that is of paramount importance, is that the red shirts were armed and had already killed and maimed.

right, so why didn't abhisit say

"Even if the PAD UDD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt

the people"

?

I don't know, in my case it would be because there's a qualitative difference between occupying public places and firing ordnance into them.

ok fair enough, so he should have changed it to -

"because the UDD has done wrong, the government has the right to hurt

the people"

[DocN]

You best reread your post. You are the one intuiting about not keeping election promises. I just asked what they were.

Now you are off on another tangent. Yes he lost the last election back to you and your not keeping election promises. What were they and when were they made or were you just posting to post?

I make it easy for you:

LindsayBKK: "Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know."

DocN' (me!!!): "Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept?"

Lindsay said HE kept his election promise and I wanted to know, what TF he is talking about...

Please point out the exact point, where I stated anyone kept any promise?!

[sparebox2]

I think it will be a waste of time.

Like Suthep, he would probably say (like Suthep DID) that the dead themelves ran toward life bullets.

[Nanfarang]

One of the few people who might have done some good for this country and due to a political system that allows completely uneducated people to vote and to sell that vote to the highest bidding or most threatening political team , a chance for this Nation to step forward is lost . Instead it looks to a future of lies and deceipt so criminals can avoid punishment .

Who do you propose is the arbiter of a sufficient level of education to qualify for emancipation?

[whybother]

I think it will be a waste of time.

Like Suthep, he would probably say (like Suthep DID) that the dead themelves ran toward life bullets.

If I was dead, I would try and run towards a life bullet too.

[sparebox2]

I think it will be a waste of time.

Like Suthep, he would probably say (like Suthep DID) that the dead themelves ran toward life bullets.

If I was dead, I would try and run towards a life bullet too.

The Mark's govt did nfact declare some those areas "Life Firing Zone".

Don't believe me. See the actual pict here, or just google "Life Firing Zone".

http://www.legalnomads.com/2010/05/1789.html