Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

wxyz · January 6, 2012

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.legalnoma...10/05/1789.html

ya, the govt wants to kill citizens so they put up a sign to warn them, good one

OzMick · January 6, 2012

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.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OzMick · January 6, 2012

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?

That, sir, is the million dollar question. It is a recognised weakness of Democracy that the village idiot gets the same voting rights as the professor of political science, the educated and well informed, and the ignorant and clueless. I offer no solution or POV.

OzMick · January 6, 2012

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 draggeduld elicit the same response 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.

My common sense tells me that "Good shot he's down" means that he has been shot, but gives no indication of the placement of the round. Foot, head, or anywhere in between could elicit the same response. I have no doubt that people were killed on both sides - those that initiated deadly violence get a near zero sympathy rating.

phiphidon · January 6, 2012

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.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

Moruya · January 6, 2012

I was just sitting here wondering.....

Why have the Red Shirt leaders not been summonsed to answer questions on the armed personnel that freely roamed and formed part of their demonstrations?

weka · January 6, 2012

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.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

Now now PP, let's leave Taksin's war on drugs out of this, we're talking about the time when the people tried to burn down Bangkok.

OzMick · January 6, 2012

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

Can't say that I am familiar with all the incidents mentioned, but will concede where clearly ROE were breached punishment should be applied if the offender can be determined. OTOH, the criminals that invaded BKK should also be prosecuted for their crimes, and that is NOT going to happen. In fact, many of the ringleaders are currently members of the government AT THE MOMENT.

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

The man shot in the delivery van (did he die?) stopped at a roadblock sounded very much like an accidental discharge to me. I recall that medical help was given immediately after the incident (if the same one). If it was an AD and he died, a charge of manslaughter would be applicable.

As for the others, if it can be proved the shots were fired by the military, charges should be laid. Proving that would be the major problem as there was firing from both sides and the red shirts had seized M-16 army rifles.

Why do you assume that the RTA are trigger happy homicidal maniacs - what is their motive? OTOH, painting them (and the Dem govt) that way was the intended result of the whole affair, a political ploy that worked quite well. Ask the question - who gained from the crime?

whybother · January 6, 2012

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.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

The temple is still being investigated and the 15 year old was killed when the van he was in ad speeding towards a check point.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

wxyz · January 6, 2012

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.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

Can you tell me it was not the 'red shirts'? or their military wing the 'black shirts' aka the 'men in black' aka the 'black angel'?

It is a common tactic for thug groups like the 'red shirts' to shoot at citizens and blame it on the govt.

nurofiend · January 6, 2012

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

are you for real?

men in camouflage clothing... military water bottles...video footage.... army admitting they were at the area at the time... numerous witness accounts of no gun battles taking place at the time

all evidence points to the army

so of course you suggest it was guys dressed up as the army doing it

i mean really, people bitch about red shirt posters (or whatever the current buzz word about people with a differing opinion is).. denying every possible wrongdoing and going to ridiculous lengths to make their argument...

nurofiend · January 6, 2012

Can you tell me it was not the 'red shirts'? or their military wing the 'black shirts' aka the 'men in black' aka the 'black angel'?

It is a common tactic for thug groups like the 'red shirts' to shoot at citizens and blame it on the govt.

ok, since you've thrown that comment out so readily... you must have lots of proof,

please provide it.

edit: i misread that you said groups like the red shirts... so i take it you don't have lots of proof that the red shirts shoot citizens and blame the government

go figure.

Edited January 6, 2012 by nurofiend

Roadman · January 6, 2012

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"

You seem to have your wires crossed. Besides the all out attack on the Thai Army which last I knew in any country is an act of war, the "people" were the ones who were being hurt here. From the "Black" and Red Thaksin paid for troops and general scum bags. Or do you call firing ordinance into public areas like the sky train, commandering hospitals etc. etc. as the acts of the people? The thai government at the time got its response pretty close to spot on with what was an all out Thaksin declaration of war on the Thai Army and the Thai government.

However I will agree with you on one aspect. The only act from the legal authorities at the time that I have an issue with is the firing into the temple grounds from the sky train tracks above, when the final hand was being played out to finish the whole deal. I have no doubts that it was the Thai Army. I do not believe all of the deaths that resulted from what was a calm, by then safe from Black shirt snipers, calculated action was fully justified and that is the one issue that does need clarification from CRES and the Thai Army. I would have no problem if those that were taken out were carrying or were highly suspected of carrying weapons but if they were not then there is an issue to be answered. I have no problem with the innocents who died when the ground troops stormed the temple barricades as that is a completely different scenario where a lot of these troops would have had fear and anxiety at the front of their minds and responsed as we all would. And that is where I have the utmost respect, symphany and condolences for the family and friends of the young nurse who lost her life.

But where this whole deal loses it whole impatiality clasue and why this current government is complete and utter scum bags, is that they are not out to seek honest answers to put the whole thing right and allow the whole country to move forward. That can be seen in their actions to try to nail the past regime for whatever they can so that they can then use that minor gain to leverage against immunity for the piece of scum that financed and lead what was an outright attack on Thailand. While everyone in opposition to the Red/UDD/PheuThai/Shinwatra dictatorship claim is being grilled the biggest piece of scum in the whole deal the convicted criminal Thaksin is being given out all the freebies and is not even being considered for questioning in his lead role. The double standards for any democratic minded westerner with even a partial usable brain is obvious.

OzMick · January 6, 2012

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

are you for real?

men in camouflage clothing... military water bottles...video footage.... army admitting they were at the area at the time... numerous witness accounts of no gun battles taking place at the time

all evidence points to the army

so of course you suggest it was guys dressed up as the army doing it

i mean really, people bitch about red shirt posters (or whatever the current buzz word about people with a differing opinion is).. denying every possible wrongdoing and going to ridiculous lengths to make their argument...

I was not denying the possibility, merely indicating NOT ALL evidence points to the army. What possible motivation could soldiers have? Are they REALLY homocidal maniacs on a thrill kill binge? I suggest you use a basic investigative tool and ask "who gained from the crime?"

How many times have we heard the claim that violent offenders were "fake" redshirts - isn't it possible that someone came up with the idea to create fake soldiers?

moe666 · January 6, 2012

How many of you guys and gals posting here have ever carried a weapon for personal defense into a combat zone and the redshirt encampment was a combat zone. Lets say you are a 19 year old Thai kid with what kind of training you are scared sh------less and it is suprising that more people were not killed.

Roles of engagement go to hell in a hand basket when some joker fires anything at you even a slingshot, they can kill just as fast as a gun. Yeap innocent people got killed but when you are in an area where guns, grenade launchers, slingshots, gas bombs, sharpened spears, and what ever leathal weapon that can be devised is on hand for use, people are going to get killed.

The Pm at the time was actually very restrained for how long 3 months of this crap and he wouldn't order in the army to clear it out. The redshirt leaders and Big T all are responsibile for allowing the demonstration to get out of hand and the encouragement of violence and criminal activity (burning down Bangkok) need to be held responsible. They were given what they wanted, early elections and still refused to leave.

nurofiend · January 6, 2012

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

are you for real?

men in camouflage clothing... military water bottles...video footage.... army admitting they were at the area at the time... numerous witness accounts of no gun battles taking place at the time

all evidence points to the army

so of course you suggest it was guys dressed up as the army doing it

i mean really, people bitch about red shirt posters (or whatever the current buzz word about people with a differing opinion is).. denying every possible wrongdoing and going to ridiculous lengths to make their argument...

I was not denying the possibility, merely indicating NOT ALL evidence points to the army. What possible motivation could soldiers have? Are they REALLY homocidal maniacs on a thrill kill binge? I suggest you use a basic investigative tool and ask "who gained from the crime?"

How many times have we heard the claim that violent offenders were "fake" redshirts - isn't it possible that someone came up with the idea to create fake soldiers?

anything is possible, i'm just saying what's more likely by way of the evidence that's been gathered so far.

OzMick · January 6, 2012

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

are you for real?

men in camouflage clothing... military water bottles...video footage.... army admitting they were at the area at the time... numerous witness accounts of no gun battles taking place at the time

all evidence points to the army

so of course you suggest it was guys dressed up as the army doing it

i mean really, people bitch about red shirt posters (or whatever the current buzz word about people with a differing opinion is).. denying every possible wrongdoing and going to ridiculous lengths to make their argument...

I was not denying the possibility, merely indicating NOT ALL evidence points to the army. What possible motivation could soldiers have? Are they REALLY homocidal maniacs on a thrill kill binge? I suggest you use a basic investigative tool and ask "who gained from the crime?"

How many times have we heard the claim that violent offenders were "fake" redshirts - isn't it possible that someone came up with the idea to create fake soldiers?

anything is possible, i'm just saying what's more likely by way of the evidence that's been gathered so far.

The military water bottles found on the overpass was just a tad TOO convenient for my liking.

nurofiend · January 6, 2012

You seem to have your wires crossed. Besides the all out attack on the Thai Army which last I knew in any country is an act of war, the "people" were the ones who were being hurt here. From the "Black" and Red Thaksin paid for troops and general scum bags. Or do you call firing ordinance into public areas like the sky train, commandering hospitals etc. etc. as the acts of the people? The thai government at the time got its response pretty close to spot on with what was an all out Thaksin declaration of war on the Thai Army and the Thai government.

However I will agree with you on one aspect. The only act from the legal authorities at the time that I have an issue with is the firing into the temple grounds from the sky train tracks above, when the final hand was being played out to finish the whole deal. I have no doubts that it was the Thai Army. I do not believe all of the deaths that resulted from what was a calm, by then safe from Black shirt snipers, calculated action was fully justified and that is the one issue that does need clarification from CRES and the Thai Army. I would have no problem if those that were taken out were carrying or were highly suspected of carrying weapons but if they were not then there is an issue to be answered. I have no problem with the innocents who died when the ground troops stormed the temple barricades as that is a completely different scenario where a lot of these troops would have had fear and anxiety at the front of their minds and responsed as we all would. And that is where I have the utmost respect, symphany and condolences for the family and friends of the young nurse who lost her life.

But where this whole deal loses it whole impatiality clasue and why this current government is complete and utter scum bags, is that they are not out to seek honest answers to put the whole thing right and allow the whole country to move forward. That can be seen in their actions to try to nail the past regime for whatever they can so that they can then use that minor gain to leverage against immunity for the piece of scum that financed and lead what was an outright attack on Thailand. While everyone in opposition to the Red/UDD/PheuThai/Shinwatra dictatorship claim is being grilled the biggest piece of scum in the whole deal the convicted criminal Thaksin is being given out all the freebies and is not even being considered for questioning in his lead role. The double standards for any democratic minded westerner with even a partial usable brain is obvious.

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

Edited January 6, 2012 by nurofiend

OzMick · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

SomTumTiger · January 7, 2012

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.

What is funny is that GK refuses to believe that his chosen side carries any weight of responsibility for these actions and events - whatsoever. For me - punish those who broke the law. Whoever they may be. Im not afraid to find out who ordered who to do what. I have a feeling that the army orders to fire were felt justifiable considering they were being fired upon. They gave a lot of warning prior to their operations.

Who ordered the "Black shirts" to mingle with the red old ladies, armed with assault rifles and RPG rounds - who did that GK? I'll wait for your answer..of course, that answer hasn't been forthcoming for over a year. I'm guessing now will be more of the same.

animatic · January 7, 2012

The only ones who gained by shooting human fish in a barrel at the wat were not the army.

And the soldiers would have had no valid reason to fire from the tracks at civilians in the wat.

The Red Arguments WERE furthered by this killing field, Redside DID gain from this.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. The continued escalation of tactics and denial of ALL good faith deals by leadership made this obvious to all not harboring intractable biases. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

Army said they were in the area,

but that doesn't mean that there was no one firing over their heads,

from farther back and above, plus other plausible scenarios.

Nor does it mean they were right at that exact spot.

If your platoon comes from the left,

and there are already others deployed

who look like they've come from the right,

and look like your fellow soldiers,

you don't overlap and mingle,

you stop before them and deploy.

If those come from the right were fakes,

then that easily explains the fact BOTH groups were in the area. Almost all Thai men are ex army and know how the army acts and thinks on the ground. Easy enough to use that knowledge to your own purposes if you have the balls (or psychosis) to do so.

No doubt their 'exit strategy' was known to the Reds early on, since they held the territory.

How to further their propaganda ends, using that small exit lane, no doubt crossed some amoral bastards mind, early enough to make it work for them in the propaganda war this was part of. War by other means.

Pretty disgusting, but they treat life cheaply here,

especially hiso politicians desperate to grab back power,

using loso pawns as a tool in their quest.

The whole thing was a set up;

and some people still believe the propaganda.,

which sadly enough has done it's job.

Edited January 7, 2012 by animatic

SomTumTiger · January 7, 2012

And since from DAY ONE of the demonstrations the obvious intent was to make the army move aggressively, and cause casualties as propaganda tools. Little doubt ringers were ordered to increase casualties to suitable numbers, and make it look army.

I'd love to hear GK, or any of the other Thaksin lovers address this issue - and their belief in or rejection of it. They never have addressed it. I wonder why? It doesn't further their agenda, perhaps.

Emptyset · January 7, 2012

AFAIK it is still disputed who fired at the temple. Last I heard it was men in camouflage clothing (not hard to get), and there were military style water bottles found on the overpass - that sounds like a set-up to me. Soldiers do not discard their water bottles as they are part of your kit and you have to pay to replace them.

If that's the last you heard, you should read this: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/watpathum2.pdf - it is a translation of the DSI investigation into the incident, which was leaked to Prachatai (and Reuters, among others, last December IIRC).

phiphidon · January 7, 2012

The military water bottles found on the overpass was just a tad TOO convenient for my liking.

"The military water bottles found on the overpass was just a tad TOO convenient for my liking".

Well that's because it's not true. The military water bottles "fact" is just another example of how various statements on this forum become "fact" just because they are repeated enough times.

DSI investigators, who along with crime scene investigators from the Forensics Institute, went to examine the BTS track where the witnesses inside Wat Pathum Wanaram and the witnesses injured both confirm they were shot at from soldiers on the BTS track, and upon inspection of the scene investigators discovered two bullet casings, one unfired bullet, one plastic water bottle, one bottle of Lipovitan [energy drink], and one beer can; examination showed that the bullet casings and the unfired bullet were both .223 caliber (5.56 mm). The bullet had a green tip, the same as the soldiers testified that they used on 19 May 2010.

http://asiapacific.a.../watpathum2.pdf

This does not detract from the truth that the soldiers were up on the tracks (despite Sutheps plain outright lies) and were firing at protesters as they testified.

Do note that the above comes with a proviso being that it is a translation of a report allegedly leaked from the DSI. But do keep an open mind.

edit - seems like emptyset beat me to it.

Edited January 7, 2012 by phiphidon

nurofiend · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

whatever you think about it

i'd say the exact same thing about pad protestors.

Edited January 7, 2012 by nurofiend

hellodolly · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

So you are saying that being unarmed and building barracades for armed terroists is being innocent.

Also supplying and preparing their meals for them.

Also to knowingly illegally occupy public domain is innocent.

I would agree with you if you were to say that they did not have the mental capabilities to separate right from wrong. But that is not what you are saying.

To be honest I believe that some of them really do fit in to that description and they are innocent. But for the most part I believe many of them had nothing better to do and there was the lure of money to be made. When they returned home the bar's were happy.

Just my thoughts

As for the army I really don't think they had many options. The red shirts had demonstrated that they would not negotiate it was all there way. The time they did negotiate they put conditions on it and when they were met backed out on them. And as you have said the army had the power to have caused far more deaths fortunately they held back.

Is there any thing being done towards the police for their failure to do any thing.

Last but not least the occupying of the property by a horde of people with guns was illegal to begin with.

OzMick · January 7, 2012

The military water bottles found on the overpass was just a tad TOO convenient for my liking.

"The military water bottles found on the overpass was just a tad TOO convenient for my liking".

Well that's because it's not true. The military water bottles "fact" is just another example of how various statements on this forum become "fact" just because they are repeated enough times.

DSI investigators, who along with crime scene investigators from the Forensics Institute, went to examine the BTS track where the witnesses inside Wat Pathum Wanaram and the witnesses injured both confirm they were shot at from soldiers on the BTS track, and upon inspection of the scene investigators discovered two bullet casings, one unfired bullet, one plastic water bottle, one bottle of Lipovitan [energy drink], and one beer can; examination showed that the bullet casings and the unfired bullet were both .223 caliber (5.56 mm). The bullet had a green tip, the same as the soldiers testified that they used on 19 May 2010.

http://asiapacific.a.../watpathum2.pdf

This does not detract from the truth that the soldiers were up on the tracks (despite Sutheps plain outright lies) and were firing at protesters as they testified.

Do note that the above comes with a proviso being that it is a translation of a report allegedly leaked from the DSI. But do keep an open mind.

edit - seems like emptyset beat me to it.

Not sure where I got the idea it was a military style water bottle - possibly an accusation from one the red supporters here?

While you are quoting from the link you could have included that witness 41 (a rocket maker from the red camp) saw 5-6 men in black armed with rifles who shot his companions; and that the RTA claimed they were in a firefight with men in black. I suppose collateral damage doesn't sound as good as deliberate murder.

OzMick · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

whatever you think about it

i'd say the exact same thing about pad protestors.

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

nurofiend · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

whatever you think about it

i'd say the exact same thing about pad protestors.

.........while ignoring the fact that there was no lethal aggression on their part. Would that indicate bias?

i'm not biased, you're biased

are you claiming every pad protestor in the past has been peaceful?

well then

nurofiend · January 7, 2012

i don't think it was really an all out attack on the thai army tho tbf, that's the thing

i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting... if that statement wasn't the case then the death toll would have been tremendously higher.. on both sides

i'm not saying it wasn't a difficult situation to deal with for the army, of course i'm not

i do think that, particularly towards the end, it was a case of 'just get them the hell out of bangkok' being ordered by higher ups and the rank and file soldiers were the fall guys.. maybe i'm wrong but that's what i think.

i think there's darker elements on both sides, on one side you had thaksin and co pretending it wasn't just about them getting back into power and on the other you had a government who are obviously more affiliated with the higher society of bangkok etc than thaksins crowd, who were watching their city being taken over by people who they, lets be honest, don't really respect in any way, shape or form.

so i think there was definetely orders given from both sides that were, well probably just plain illegal.

"i still stand by that MOST people were innocent and i think that's unarguable given the amount of people that were there protesting..."

Which makes the expression "wolves in sheep's clothing" singularly appropriate!

So you are saying that being unarmed and building barracades for armed terroists is being innocent.

Also supplying and preparing their meals for them.

Also to knowingly illegally occupy public domain is innocent.

I would agree with you if you were to say that they did not have the mental capabilities to separate right from wrong. But that is not what you are saying.

To be honest I believe that some of them really do fit in to that description and they are innocent. But for the most part I believe many of them had nothing better to do and there was the lure of money to be made. When they returned home the bar's were happy.

Just my thoughts

As for the army I really don't think they had many options. The red shirts had demonstrated that they would not negotiate it was all there way. The time they did negotiate they put conditions on it and when they were met backed out on them. And as you have said the army had the power to have caused far more deaths fortunately they held back.

Is there any thing being done towards the police for their failure to do any thing.

Last but not least the occupying of the property by a horde of people with guns was illegal to begin with.

you're quoting ozmick btw

"So you are saying that being unarmed and building barracades for armed terroists is being innocent."

are you saying the majority of protestors were involved in this act?

"Also to knowingly illegally occupy public domain is innocent."

tell that to PAD

Sign In

Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US