Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[Skywalker69]

So, Rix, what specifically so you think brought on the decision to evacuate?

The safety of staff and patients.

Easy for you, someone who wasn't there, who now sits safely behind his computer completely removed from any of this (like us all of course) to make the judgement that lives weren't in danger and that this was simply political showboating, but you don't know this for a fact, it is just something you choose to believe. I choose to believe that 99% of doctors and nurses ultimately, and when it comes to the crunch, will act in the best interests of their patients - it is how they are programmed - and i believe that is what was happening here - as well as of course acting in the interests of their own safety.

And you can insult me with your "hospital invasion apologist" jibe as much as you like, I'm thick-skinned . I continue to moderate my criticism of Chula hospital's behaviour and the hyperbole of fellow TVF posters with my genuine condemnation of the intrusion by Red Shirts.

Sorry but I find the "genuine condemnation" rings fairly hollow all the time you are making silly comparisons like "much akin to official visitors passing through".

In the TV Red Shirt supporters/admirers mind it´s totally OK to use kids as shields and storm hospitals, in the Geneva Convention it´s not. That´s about says it all.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Skywalker69

[Siam Simon]

So, Rix, what specifically so you think brought on the decision to evacuate?

The safety of staff and patients.

Easy for you, someone who wasn't there, who now sits safely behind his computer completely removed from any of this (like us all of course) to make the judgement that lives weren't in danger and that this was simply political showboating, but you don't know this for a fact, it is just something you choose to believe. I choose to believe that 99% of doctors and nurses ultimately, and when it comes to the crunch, will act in the best interests of their patients - it is how they are programmed - and i believe that is what was happening here - as well as of course acting in the interests of their own safety.

And you can insult me with your "hospital invasion apologist" jibe as much as you like, I'm thick-skinned . I continue to moderate my criticism of Chula hospital's behaviour and the hyperbole of fellow TVF posters with my genuine condemnation of the intrusion by Red Shirts.

Sorry but I find the "genuine condemnation" rings fairly hollow all the time you are making silly comparisons like "much akin to official visitors passing through".

You provided a very graphic commentary of a video you claimed to have seen of the intrusion into Chula by Red Shirts. The video was produced and proved that your commentary was pure hyperbole.

You claim that Chula's doctors would only act ethically, when it has been proven that they have a history of unethical and highly immoral behaviour.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the evacuation was medically necessary - all the available evidence suggests that it was unnecessary - and you merely cling to the belief that a group of doctors with a history of unethical, highly immoral political grandstanding would not behave in the same way again.

Then you have the audacity to accuse me of being insincere in my condemnation of the hospital intrusion on the basis that I've looked at as much of the available evidence as I can, and draw some conclusions that also condemn behaviour by Chula Hospital.

btw, Did you look at the photo of the soldier primed for action in Chula Hospital's grounds provided by Don? More highly immoral behaviour by Chula, or fake soldier?

[hyperdimension]

You have failed to provide any evidence that the evacuation was medically necessary

I don't think the patients were forced to evacuate, but given the option to do so. Some remained there, probably the ones who felt that it was unnecessary to move.

[TheCure]

One question for Mark : How does it feel for an Oxford alumni to be nicknamed the butcher of Bangkok ?

[hyperdimension]

One question for Mark : How does it feel for an Oxford alumni to be nicknamed the butcher of Bangkok ?

Ask him on his Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Abhisit-Vejjajiva/111725798844063

[Buchholz]

A post meant to incite more bickering has been removed. If you cannot post in a polite manner respectful of others and the fact that they are allowed to have opinions different than your own then I would highly recommend that you do not post.

Come on Buchholz. Why aren't you pressing the like this button?

Just got back home and did. Thank you for pointing it out.

.

[Buchholz]

You provided a very graphic commentary of a video you claimed to have seen of the intrusion into Chula by Red Shirts. The video was produced and proved that your commentary was pure hyperbole.

The video that was "produced" (by me, btw) is certainly not the be all to end all documentation of this event.

Television coverage at the time was very vivid and very much reflected rixalex's description of the event. I watched it unfold at the time and the images are not easily forgotten. One video doesn't change what happened one iota.

It's described very well in the text previously posted. It's also present in the 3 threads at the time with nearly 2,000 posts to them that I posted earlier. If one could be bothered, many of the detailed descriptions could be put into this, what must be the 100th thread on the issue.

The hospital invasion was uniformly panned as the reprehensible, egregious intrusion it was.

It's been condemned left, right, and center.

It was even condemned by the other Red Shirt Leaders.

Red Shirt Leader Weng even apologized for it which gives one the idea of just how bad it was as they've not apologized for other acts that were conducted by the Red Shirts.

Because you and one other internet forum poster are the only ones in memory to dispute it, defend it, and attempt to down play it says a tremendous deal.

.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

You provided a very graphic commentary of a video you claimed to have seen of the intrusion into Chula by Red Shirts. The video was produced and proved that your commentary was pure hyperbole.

The video that was "produced" (by me, btw) is certainly not the be all to end all documentation of this event.

Television coverage at the time was very vivid and very much reflected rixalex's description of the event. I watched it unfold at the time and the images are not easily forgotten. One video doesn't change what happened one iota.

It's described very well in the text previously posted. It's also present in the 3 threads at the time with nearly 2,000 posts to them that I posted earlier. If one could be bothered, many of the detailed descriptions could be put into this, what must be the 100th thread on the issue.

The hospital invasion was uniformly panned as the reprehensible, egregious intrusion it was.

It's been condemned left, right, and center.

It was even condemned by the other Red Shirt Leaders.

Red Shirt Leader Weng even apologized for it which gives one the idea of just how bad it was as they've not apologized for other acts that were conducted by the Red Shirts.

Because you and one other internet forum poster are the only ones in memory to dispute it, defend it, and attempt to down play it says a tremendous deal.

.

It's also been condemned by me on several occasions on this forum (fwiw).

Now, where is the video evidence that confirms your version of that debacle? There were many media operatives present: They can be seen in the video that you embedded. The www is awash with videos grabbed from news coverage of the 2010 troubles. Hell, there must be thousands on youtube alone. But the only video evidence presented shows non-violent entry to and loitering in the hospital's main lobby, and an organised walk through the undercover car park involving media and hospital employees.

Please don't spam the thread with a barrage of syndicated news reports in reply. Personal, on-the-ground witness reporting by journalists with established reputations will be helpful, though grabbed video of the news footage you 'saw' would be better..

[rixalex]

You provided a very graphic commentary of a video you claimed to have seen of the intrusion into Chula by Red Shirts. The video was produced and proved that your commentary was pure hyperbole.

It proved nothing of the sort. I said there was a state of pandemonium, and there was. You on the other hand described it as much akin to an official visitor on a look-see. Did you really have a straight face when you typed that nonsense?

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video, but i'm not sure anyone, besides red fanatics of course, would really believe that people coming to sweep through a building and root out snipers they believed present, would do so without something on their person with which to "do battle".

You claim that Chula's doctors would only act ethically, when it has been proven that they have a history of unethical and highly immoral behaviour.

I don't think you understand what the word "proven" means. You read some opinion pieces and blogs and then start declaring those viewpoints as being a matter of fact. As things being "proven". In your head only i'm afraid. Doctors proven having acted unethically and highly immorally in treatment of patients, no longer practice medicine.

You have failed to provide any evidence that the evacuation was medically necessary - all the available evidence suggests that it was unnecessary -

Unless you were there at the time, and unless you are a medical expert, you are in no position whatsoever to claim that you know what decision should have been taken, or to know what "all the evidence was".

Then you have the audacity to accuse me of being insincere in my condemnation of the hospital intrusion on the basis that I've looked at as much of the available evidence as I can, and draw some conclusions that also condemn behaviour by Chula Hospital.

Save your mock outrage. You can't even bring yourself to accept that what occurred was an "invasion". Have to tone it down and soften it up to being an "intrusion". Desperate and pathetic in the extreme.

[phiphidon]

You provided a very graphic commentary of a video you claimed to have seen of the intrusion into Chula by Red Shirts. The video was produced and proved that your commentary was pure hyperbole.

The video that was "produced" (by me, btw) is certainly not the be all to end all documentation of this event.

Television coverage at the time was very vivid and very much reflected rixalex's description of the event. I watched it unfold at the time and the images are not easily forgotten. One video doesn't change what happened one iota.

It's described very well in the text previously posted. It's also present in the 3 threads at the time with nearly 2,000 posts to them that I posted earlier. If one could be bothered, many of the detailed descriptions could be put into this, what must be the 100th thread on the issue.

The hospital invasion was uniformly panned as the reprehensible, egregious intrusion it was.

It's been condemned left, right, and center.

It was even condemned by the other Red Shirt Leaders.

Red Shirt Leader Weng even apologized for it which gives one the idea of just how bad it was as they've not apologized for other acts that were conducted by the Red Shirts.

Because you and one other internet forum poster are the only ones in memory to dispute it, defend it, and attempt to down play it says a tremendous deal.

.

This is not the only forum where people make comments on the political situation in Thailand.

Edited April 29, 2012 by phiphidon

[hyperdimension]

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video

I saw a guy with a big stick wearing a helmet. Others were wearing helmets too, indicating the potential for violence.

[hyperdimension]

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video

I saw a guy with a big stick wearing a helmet. Others were wearing helmets too, indicating the potential for violence.

At 2:45:

A big stick can be a weapon that can inflict harm, can't it?

Edited April 29, 2012 by hyperdimension

[phiphidon]

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video

I saw a guy with a big stick wearing a helmet. Others were wearing helmets too, indicating the potential for violence.

At 2:45:

A big stick can be a weapon that can inflict harm, can't it?

So can guns...........

Finally there was, in the parking area of the hospital when the UDD group actually encountered a few army officers. The soldiers shot at them. The UDD people escaped uninjured.

http://asiapacific.a...-the-red-germs/

[rubl]

After having concluded that the storminginspection of a hospital by red-shirt tugs]protesters is a non-issue as the personel in the hospital were known to be pro-PAD anyway, we seem back on weaponry, various 'facts', 'details', 'logical' connections.

What happened with the OP 'Abhisit vows to back probe ..."? Why is there no progress in the probe? The current government to busy? Dept PM Pol. Captain Chalerm still writing a new constitution? UDD leaders otherwise occupied? Army back in the barracks?

It's almost as if lots of people fear an honest, truthful outcome of a probe, uh?

[Siam Simon]

It proved nothing of the sort. I said there was a state of pandemonium, and there was. You on the other hand described it as much akin to an official visitor on a look-see. Did you really have a straight face when you typed that nonsense?

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video, but i'm not sure anyone, besides red fanatics of course, would really believe that people coming to sweep through a building and root out snipers they believed present, would do so without something on their person with which to "do battle".

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

I don't think you understand what the word "proven" means. You read some opinion pieces and blogs and then start declaring those viewpoints as being a matter of fact. As things being "proven". In your head only i'm afraid. Doctors proven having acted unethically and highly immorally in treatment of patients, no longer practice medicine.

Rix, you are lying again. Dr Suthep made a public statement on behalf of fifty doctors at Chula, that they were boycotting treatment of police officers and that they were canvassing other doctors from other hospitals. You can lie all you want that it's something that can only be read in opinion pieces. That unethical and highly immoral escapade unfolded in the national and international mainstream media (where Dr Suthep wanted it).

Unless you were there at the time, and unless you are a medical expert, you are in no position whatsoever to claim that you know what decision should have been taken, or to know what "all the evidence was".

Save your mock outrage. You can't even bring yourself to accept that what occurred was an "invasion". Have to tone it down and soften it up to being an "intrusion". Desperate and pathetic in the extreme.

Why does one need to be a medical expert to understand that the doctors at Chula acted unethically and highly immorally to pursue their political agenda when they refused to treat police officers injured by PAD rioters? Why does one need to be a medical expert to see from video evidence that nobody was disturbing the patients during the intrusion (except the doctors who evacuated them, of course)?

And there is nothing desperate or pathetic about describing a situation exactly as it can be seen in video evidence. It is desperate and pathetic in the extreme for you to lie about what actually happened, as has been shown by the video evidence.

btw, Got any opinions of photo of the soldier crouching with a weapon in the hospital grounds provided by Don? Fake or real?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Siam Simon

[AleG]

...

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

..

I do remember seeing the news back when the event happened, a mob of Red Shirts, some with sticks and helmets, bursting in through the lobby (lobby I think) of the hospital.

But don't let that stand on the way of the SS Revisionism steaming full ahead.

[rixalex]

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

There is plenty in the video that shows what i described. If you can't see it then you need to take the blinkers off.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

With idiots ready to invade hospitals... sorry, i mean intrude hospitals, all one needs to do is believe what actually happened. Something you clearly struggle with.

Rix, you are lying again. Dr Suthep made a public statement on behalf of fifty doctors at Chula, that they were boycotting treatment of police officers and that they were canvassing other doctors from other hospitals. You can lie all you want that it's something that can only be read in opinion pieces. That unethical and highly immoral escapade unfolded in the national and international mainstream media (where Dr Suthep wanted it).

To repeat, doctors proven of highly unethical treatment of patients, are no longer doctors.

[rixalex]

Why does one need to be a medical expert to see from video evidence that nobody was disturbing the patients during the intrusion (except the doctors who evacuated them, of course)?

You are an armchair critic who based on a few video clips, thinks he knows better than doctors and nurses who were in the position you weren't, with the medical knowledge you don't have. It's a ridiculous argument. Have it with someone else. Can longer be bothered.

And there is nothing desperate or pathetic about describing a situation exactly as it can be seen in video evidence. It is desperate and pathetic in the extreme for you to lie about what actually happened, as has been shown by the video evidence.

Describing it exactly as it can be seen? You mean describing it as akin to an official visitation? And you accuse others of lying... deary me.

[Siam Simon]

...

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

..

I do remember seeing the news back when the event happened, a mob of Red Shirts, some with sticks and helmets, bursting in through the lobby (lobby I think) of the hospital.

But don't let that stand on the way of the SS Revisionism steaming full ahead.

Where's the video, then?

Describing exactly what is shown in the only video evidence presented is revisionism, but claiming to have seen something on the news but not providing any evidence isn't?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

There is plenty in the video that shows what i described. If you can't see it then you need to take the blinkers off.

Please stop lying.

With idiots ready to invade hospitals... sorry, i mean intrude hospitals, all one needs to do is believe what actually happened. Something you clearly struggle with.

Believing what actually happened is something you clearly struggle with. Your eyes saw all sorts of goings on in the video evidence of the intrusion that simply aren't there.

To repeat, doctors proven of highly unethical treatment of patients, are no longer doctors.

Stating the intention to refuse to treat a section of the population for political reasons is unethical and highly immoral, and would get a doctor struck off the medical register in any civilised country.

[pimay11]

There is plenty in the video that shows what i described. If you can't see it then you need to take the blinkers off.

Please stop lying.

With idiots ready to invade hospitals... sorry, i mean intrude hospitals, all one needs to do is believe what actually happened. Something you clearly struggle with.

Believing what actually happened is something you clearly struggle with. Your eyes saw all sorts of goings on in the video evidence of the intrusion that simply aren't there.

To repeat, doctors proven of highly unethical treatment of patients, are no longer doctors.

Stating the intention to refuse to treat a section of the population for political reasons is unethical and highly immoral, and would get a doctor struck off the medical register in any civilised country.

SS were you here in Thailand when the reds invaded the hospital and witnessed it on local tv? I was and I did. It was pure pandemonium.

[OzMick]

The mating call of the modern historical revisionist sounds like "If you haven't got a video it didn't happen."

There is always a dispensation of the need for logic. We are told violent protesters entering a hospital to capture snipers always do so unarmed, are polite and respectful to all concerned, speak in whispers, and walk on tiptoe. The 24 hour EVERY day noise, smell and pollution they created was actually beneficial to the patients, taking their mind from their suffering; clearly audible incitations to kill, maim and burn were really quite entertaining and stress relieving.

Meanwhile respected medical professionals who have made a decision criticized by some in the past, will ALWAYS act in an immoral and reprehensible manner, abandoning all concern for patients to achieve a petty political point. That decision (as I recall) was that police should be treated at the nearby police hospital rather than at the same place as PAD protesters. Immoral or pragmatic?

[AleG]

...

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

..

I do remember seeing the news back when the event happened, a mob of Red Shirts, some with sticks and helmets, bursting in through the lobby (lobby I think) of the hospital.

But don't let that stand on the way of the SS Revisionism steaming full ahead.

Where's the video, then?

Describing exactly what is shown in the only video evidence presented is revisionism, but claiming to have seen something on the news but not providing any evidence isn't?

Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth.

[philw]

As far as weapons are concerned, i couldn't see any visible in the video

I saw a guy with a big stick wearing a helmet. Others were wearing helmets too, indicating the potential for violence.

Helmets, they were wearing helmets........

Good god, they must be terrorists.......

Was it a big guy with a big stick or what ??

The hospital was, rather cynically, being used by the army as a sniper position.

Neither unreasonable nor unexpected for those being shot at to "check it out".

Is it ?

[phiphidon]

...

So, some people standing around in the hospital's lobby and some more people walking up the levels of the indoor car park is "pandemonium", is it? Hmmm.....Anyway here's how you described it: "Footage i recall showed hospital staff barrackading up doors and reds storming through them forcefully wielding a variety of weapons. People then shrieking and fleeing in varying directions. In short, pandemonium" Of course, nothing in the video evidence provided shows anything that you so vividly described.

And I think it's safe to state that you'd believe anything if if helped to discredit the Red Shirts.

..

I do remember seeing the news back when the event happened, a mob of Red Shirts, some with sticks and helmets, bursting in through the lobby (lobby I think) of the hospital.

But don't let that stand on the way of the SS Revisionism steaming full ahead.

Where's the video, then?

Describing exactly what is shown in the only video evidence presented is revisionism, but claiming to have seen something on the news but not providing any evidence isn't?

Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth.

Is this forum unique in it's etiquette?

"Since you are the one claiming an alternative recollection of the events as everyone else here, it's up to you to prove that what you say is the truth."

<deleted>? So if the majority state something (which is so often the case on this forum once all the cheerleaders have woken up) anybody who has an opposing view has to prove their viewpoint but there is no onus on the originator of the discussion to do so?

Are we to conclude from this that if the majority say one thing it must be true? I've seen this on numerous occasions where posters casually drop lies and half truths around like confetti without a shred of evidence and carry on as if they are epitome of veracity.

[OzMick]

Helmets, they were wearing helmets........

Good god, they must be terrorists.......

Was it a big guy with a big stick or what ??

The hospital was, rather cynically, being used by the army as a sniper position.

Neither unreasonable nor unexpected for those being shot at to "check it out".

Is it ?

It was CLAIMED that the army was using it as a sniper position, but no such snipers were found. (Beam me up, Somchai?)

Now it is CLAIMED that those hunting the snipers were unarmed. THAT is both unreasonable and illogical. isn't it?

[phiphidon]

Helmets, they were wearing helmets........

Good god, they must be terrorists.......

Was it a big guy with a big stick or what ??

The hospital was, rather cynically, being used by the army as a sniper position.

Neither unreasonable nor unexpected for those being shot at to "check it out".

Is it ?

It was CLAIMED that the army was using it as a sniper position, but no such snipers were found. (Beam me up, Somchai?)

Now it is CLAIMED that those hunting the snipers were unarmed. THAT is both unreasonable and illogical. isn't it?

They were looking for evidence that the army were in occupation of the upper floors of the hospital. Why shouldn't they go looking for them unarmed. The hospital is run by the Thai Red Cross, not the Thai Medical institution - this means that it is even more a No No that army personnel should be there. In this situation even the army, snipers or whoever, are not going to be stupid enough to start a shooting match on the grounds of a red cross hospital - though it seems that on April 29th they did. What can you say?

Strangely enough the hospital was emptied the next day the lights were off and eye witnesses saw a large group of army soldiers in the grounds of the hospital, how convenient.

[OzMick]

Helmets, they were wearing helmets........

Good god, they must be terrorists.......

Was it a big guy with a big stick or what ??

The hospital was, rather cynically, being used by the army as a sniper position.

Neither unreasonable nor unexpected for those being shot at to "check it out".

Is it ?

It was CLAIMED that the army was using it as a sniper position, but no such snipers were found. (Beam me up, Somchai?)

Now it is CLAIMED that those hunting the snipers were unarmed. THAT is both unreasonable and illogical. isn't it?

They were looking for evidence that the army were in occupation of the upper floors of the hospital. Why shouldn't they go looking for them unarmed. The hospital is run by the Thai Red Cross, not the Thai Medical institution - this means that it is even more a No No that army personnel should be there. In this situation even the army, snipers or whoever, are not going to be stupid enough to start a shooting match on the grounds of a red cross hospital - though it seems that on April 29th they did. What can you say?

Strangely enough the hospital was emptied the next day the lights were off and eye witnesses saw a large group of army soldiers in the grounds of the hospital, how convenient.

Are you trying to tell me that " a large group of army soldiers" had been in the hospital but the red shirts couldn't find them? Were they too stupid to look under the beds?

It doesn't matter how big a No, no it was if they weren't there in the first place, and there is NO proof that they were.

[phiphidon]

They were looking for evidence that the army were in occupation of the upper floors of the hospital. Why shouldn't they go looking for them unarmed. The hospital is run by the Thai Red Cross, not the Thai Medical institution - this means that it is even more a No No that army personnel should be there. In this situation even the army, snipers or whoever, are not going to be stupid enough to start a shooting match on the grounds of a red cross hospital - though it seems that on April 29th they did. What can you say?

Strangely enough the hospital was emptied the next day the lights were off and eye witnesses saw a large group of army soldiers in the grounds of the hospital, how convenient.

Are you trying to tell me that " a large group of army soldiers" had been in the hospital but the red shirts couldn't find them? Were they too stupid to look under the beds?

It doesn't matter how big a No, no it was if they weren't there in the first place, and there is NO proof that they were.

Just out of interest I found this - haven't checked out other sources yet.

BANGKOK, 5 May 2010 (NNT) – M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan................

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050012

Curiouser and curiouser..............

[longway]

^ even more curious is that Thaksin is the one who wants to forget about it all and Abhist supports a full investigation