Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[tlansford]

You do not have any evidence that the UDD did not want to end the protest.

The evidence was the live TV broadcast meeting in which an offer was made, which was very reasonable. It wouldn't have been reasonable had that offer been backtracked on without reason of course, but to refuse an offer based on something someone might do in the future, is the sort of mentality that ensures no deal will ever be made.

As others have said, it would have been very easy for the UDD to organise renewed protests had the deal been a ruse. They should have given it a chance, and they would have, had they any thought for the lives of the protesters.

Whether they should have or not is indeed an opinion we can discuss. But you once again launch into the heads of the UDD with

They should have given it a chance, and they would have, had they any thought for the lives of the protesters.

Which you just cannot do. You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not. And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

[rixalex]

You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not.

i judge them by their actions. I don't think they did. Not stopping you believing otherwise.

And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

They knew their side was armed. They knew the army was armed. What sort of idiots do you take the UDD leaders for, to suggest they were oblivious to the dangers that they were putting their supporters in by refusing the deal?

[tlansford]

You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not.

i judge them by their actions. I don't think they did. Not stopping you believing otherwise.

And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

They knew their side was armed. They knew the army was armed. What sort of idiots do you take the UDD leaders for, to suggest they were oblivious to the dangers that they were putting their supporters in by refusing the deal?

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens. You know already that I believe that was the single biggest mistake made by the gov't in 2010. Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

[sparebox2]

You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not.

i judge them by their actions. I don't think they did. Not stopping you believing otherwise.

And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

They knew their side was armed. They knew the army was armed. What sort of idiots do you take the UDD leaders for, to suggest they were oblivious to the dangers that they were putting their supporters in by refusing the deal?

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens. You know already that I believe that was the single biggest mistake made by the gov't in 2010. Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

The soldiers who do the shooting could be non-Buddhist. It is quite possible right?

[hyperdimension]

the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens.

It is Thaksin who had no hesitation to send them to their deaths by organizing the protests / riots with generals who brought military weapons. What would you expect in return when you shoot or launch grenades at soldiers?

Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

Had Thaksin not planned the protests / riots at all and simply waited for the next general election, 91 (or more) people would not be dead. The election result would probably have been the same, just a little later.

Edited May 2, 2012 by hyperdimension

[rixalex]

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

That is one incident that accounted for about 10% of the deaths, and as far as i am aware, the culprit is still a matter of some mystery. What about the other 90% of deaths? Why have you conveniently made no mention of them at all?

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens.

Generally no government wants to kill its citizens, but pretty much every country does, especially when citizens break the law. I'm in no doubt that the same situation in the vast majority of capital cities around the world, would have resulted in deaths - how many i guess depends on the skills of law enforcers in using the minumum amount of force necessary, without endangering themselves at the same time. When protesters are using lethal arms, the likelihood of any country being able to bring the situation under control without any deaths, is i would suggest pretty remote.

[Buchholz]

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel

hy·per·bo·le

[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration

.

[OzMick]

You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not.

i judge them by their actions. I don't think they did. Not stopping you believing otherwise.

And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

They knew their side was armed. They knew the army was armed. What sort of idiots do you take the UDD leaders for, to suggest they were oblivious to the dangers that they were putting their supporters in by refusing the deal?

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens. You know already that I believe that was the single biggest mistake made by the gov't in 2010. Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

'If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.' Dalai Lama

Only one group in Bangkok had the right to carry weapons - and they weren't protesters.

[tlansford]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

[OzMick]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

a bit hard to argue morals with the Dalai Lama?

[tlansford]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

a bit hard to argue morals with the Dalai Lama?

you need to understand his morals first before using a quote out of context. Bye-bye.

[rixalex]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

Perhaps for you Tom, what it would take to understand how it can be justified, is for your own life, or that of your son, to be on the line, face to face and under attack from "fellow" citizens with lethal arms.

[philw]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

a bit hard to argue morals with the Dalai Lama?

Likewise a squaddie robot with a gun, heh ??

[koosdeboer]

You are saying that they did not think about the lives of the protesters. But you do not know that they did not.

i judge them by their actions. I don't think they did. Not stopping you believing otherwise.

And your statement in any case, seems to assume that the UDD leaders knew the government would indiscriminately kill protesters during the final 6 day assault on the site which I sincerely doubt anyone knew would happen.

They knew their side was armed. They knew the army was armed. What sort of idiots do you take the UDD leaders for, to suggest they were oblivious to the dangers that they were putting their supporters in by refusing the deal?

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens. You know already that I believe that was the single biggest mistake made by the gov't in 2010. Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

What if it were watermelon soldiers who did it?

Edited May 2, 2012 by koosdeboer

[phiphidon]

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel

hy·per·bo·le

[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration

.

Yes it was only 6 innocent people that were shot dead after all. What were you thinking of?

[phiphidon]

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel, no, I don't think that they foresaw that.

You still base your argument on the weakest point, IMO, which is that the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens. You know already that I believe that was the single biggest mistake made by the gov't in 2010. Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

What if it were watermelon soldiers who did it?

That would be difficult, for the most part they were confined to barracks.

[heiwa]

The 91 deaths is representative of what goes on every day so why make a big deal of it? It was just a worse than average day but not too far from the average. Call it a spike in gun murders - that's all it was.

[philw]

The 91 deaths is representative of what goes on every day so why make a big deal of it? It was just a worse than average day but not too far from the average. Call it a spike in gun murders - that's all it was.

Thank you, and truly pathetic.

[hyperdimension]

some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't.

Would you have supported the police killing them? Or do you think that police around the world should not be carrying any guns or lethal weapons at all, because governments should not allow the killing of its own citizens, no matter how violent and heavily armed any of those citizens are?

Edited May 2, 2012 by hyperdimension

[rubl]

Yeah, only five army personel killed by having a grenade lobbed on them. A Thai lady just happened to be at BTS Saladaeng when some 'unknowns' missed the multi-colored protesters (aiming too high I guess). The grenade severly wounding two soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May 2010 was probably just a matter of reducing the luggage to carry going home.

Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy. Seems intriguing that some come from so-called mature democracies even if one of them doesn't have a constitution I'm told :-)

[tlansford]

Yeah, only five army personel killed by having a grenade lobbed on them. A Thai lady just happened to be at BTS Saladaeng when some 'unknowns' missed the multi-colored protesters (aiming too high I guess). The grenade severly wounding two soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May 2010 was probably just a matter of reducing the luggage to carry going home.

Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy. Seems intriguing that some come from so-called mature democracies even if one of them doesn't have a constitution I'm told :-)

Rubl, normally you are reasonable and not one to put words into others' mouths. As I feel a bit implicated here, I'll come back for this one comment...

"Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy."

which is never what I have said nor implied. I have always said that the gov't had many many options for action without resorting to lethal force.

[rubl]

^

Tom, I was referring indirectly to my dear adversary PPD who wrote "Yes it was only 6 innocent people that were shot dead after all."

Still since you replied, what options did the government have after the April 10th grenade attack? Roll over and play, be dead ?

Excuses for replying like this, now using opera on W/Xp and unable to reply, can only post.

[OzMick]

Yeah, only five army personel killed by having a grenade lobbed on them. A Thai lady just happened to be at BTS Saladaeng when some 'unknowns' missed the multi-colored protesters (aiming too high I guess). The grenade severly wounding two soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May 2010 was probably just a matter of reducing the luggage to carry going home.

Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy. Seems intriguing that some come from so-called mature democracies even if one of them doesn't have a constitution I'm told :-)

Rubl, normally you are reasonable and not one to put words into others' mouths. As I feel a bit implicated here, I'll come back for this one comment...

"Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy."

which is never what I have said nor implied. I have always said that the gov't had many many options for action without resorting to lethal force.

Please elucidate at least one option the government SHOULD have applied when faced with armed persons killing their security personnel.

[Roadman]

Yeah, only five army personel killed by having a grenade lobbed on them. A Thai lady just happened to be at BTS Saladaeng when some 'unknowns' missed the multi-colored protesters (aiming too high I guess). The grenade severly wounding two soldiers and Canadian vanderGrift on the 19th of May 2010 was probably just a matter of reducing the luggage to carry going home.

Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy. Seems intriguing that some come from so-called mature democracies even if one of them doesn't have a constitution I'm told :-)

Rubl, normally you are reasonable and not one to put words into others' mouths. As I feel a bit implicated here, I'll come back for this one comment...

"Yeah, if only the government had rolled over and played or be dead, a few posters here would be very happy."

which is never what I have said nor implied. I have always said that the gov't had many many options for action without resorting to lethal force.

Please elucidate at least one option the government SHOULD have applied when faced with armed persons killing their security personnel.

To make an offer of early elections to such murdering armed persons?

[rubl]

The main problem may lay in the fact that k. Abhisit was not only English educated, but even in Oxford. I have it from an impeccable source that in the list of great Universities, Cambridge, Oxford and Hull, only two are considered great Universities. A general officer told me 'That's right, Oxford's a complete dump!'

© Blackadder Goes Forth - Episode 5 General Hospital

[Skywalker69]

the government was not afraid to kill its own citizens.

It is Thaksin who had no hesitation to send them to their deaths by organizing the protests / riots with generals who brought military weapons. What would you expect in return when you shoot or launch grenades at soldiers?

Had the gov't not used lethal force, 91 (or more) people would not be dead.

Had Thaksin not planned the protests / riots at all and simply waited for the next general election, 91 (or more) people would not be dead. The election result would probably have been the same, just a little later.

The Red´s were dying in the streets and the "dear leader" was shopping in Paris with his daughter. That´s how much he cared for his "followers"

[Buchholz]

I do not believe that they thought the army would shoot monks in a wat like fish in a barrel

hy·per·bo·le

[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration

Yes it was only 6 innocent people that were shot dead after all. What were you thinking of?

I'm thinking you have thankfully removed the

hy·per·bo·le

[hahy-pur-buh-lee]

noun

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration

from tlansford's post.

.

[OzMick]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

a bit hard to argue morals with the Dalai Lama?

Likewise a squaddie robot with a gun, heh ??

I would rather face a platoon of " squaddie robot(s) with a gun" than one drugged-up village idiot with a similar gun. Even less appealing is the trained mercenary behind him being paid to ensure a reasonably high death toll is achieved.

[OzMick]

we're going into the same dead-end debate where some think the gov't is justified in killing its citizens and others don't. Been there already with you guys - adios.

a bit hard to argue morals with the Dalai Lama?

you need to understand his morals first before using a quote out of context. Bye-bye.

"Silence is sometimes the best answer."

Dalai Lama

[lungmi]

Here is an old article for some background to the deaths during the 2010 riots.

Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown

By Sopon Onkgara

The Nation

Published on December 29, 2009

A NEW battle line has been drawn, with the sound of war drums beating, and the red shirts dancing around the bonfire. Their spirits are high, hoping that the showdown this time will be final and victorious. It does not matter to them whether there will be bloodshed or if the nation faces ruin.

The red-shirt battle cry this time came from a rogue junior Army general, and a number of retired military officers on the payroll of fugitiveThaksin Shinawatra. They don't mind being branded traitors. The tidy sum from the man in exile is considered worthwhile.

The other day, the rogue soldier, commonly known as "Seh Daeng" warned that the battle this time will be open, with advance warning when shots will be fired upon the enemy, or whoever dares to move against the joint push for power at the command of Thaksin.

"Seh Daeng", Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol, is a self-styled warrior, seeking the full blaze of publicity. He commands a group of militia being given political indoctrination as well as basic arms training.

He brands his warriors as "Ronin", the legendary leaderless samurai warriors of ancient times, and also soldiers of King Taksin the Great, who fought to free Thailand from Burmese occupation before the Chakri Dynasty. Some of the rogue general's fighters are mere thugs with no honour and or valour. It is sheer brute force inspired by cowardice.

The warning, of course, should cause considerable unease among those who know about Seh Daeng's notoriety. His claim to fame was an ability to predict when grenades would be launched at the rallies of the People's Alliance for Democracy. He denied with a deadpan face, of course, that he had any part in the action. There was no proof, due to lukewarm investigations by law enforcement officers.

When should the mayhem and bloodletting take place? There are variations in terms of timing for the strike. Seh Daeng said it should be sometime after Valentine's Day, as instructed by Thaksin. Another ageing general said April would be judgement day, and that would be the time for Thaksin's return to triumph.

The red shirts are not quite sure. The leaders are obviously not happy that their thunder has been stolen by soldiers. That means the credit sought will be shared together with the prize for victory. The red-shirt leaders are known for their heavy campaign expenses sought from Thaksin, and they have pocketed huge chunks, much to the chagrin of other group leaders.

One of them said the showdown day had not yet been decided. It must be decided by the red shirts at a meeting. Sounding arrogant, he uttered thatThaksin was just a red-shirt member and must heed the joint decision. Such insolence could be dealt with when all political scores are settled.

What is the government doing to prevent possible chaos? Nothing yet. Army chief, General Anupong Phaochinda, reckons there will not be any trouble, and no bloodshed. At the same time, he also assured the public through a radio interview that there would not be a coup either.

Nobody is quite sure what basis the general - who is due to retire at the end of September, 2010 - used to predict what is to come, especially when the public has seen all along that nothing much has been done to subdue Seh Daeng.

No preventative measures have been meted out yet. Prime Minister Abhisit still takes things lightly, as if he bases his hopes on the readiness of the military; and he has yet to complete the appointment of a new police chief.

Everything is hanging in the balance. The red shirts and Thaksin might overestimate their potential and ability to mobilise enough support to hold massive rallies at various locations to force out the government. There is a slim chance of success as long as there is no widespread violence, and the military refuses to take action to quell the uprising.

At least, there will be some time yet - until mid-February - if the words of Thaksin and his thugs are to be believed. But this must terrify many people, especially business people, who have been disheartened by the red shirts' unending hate campaigns.

This time around, Abhisit's political future will be put on the line. If he survives with some bruises, it should be the end of Thaksin's attempt to return to power. From now on, Abhisit must prove that he is worthy enough to lead the country against the spectre of Thaksin's political cronies ousted by court decisions.

If he can prove a higher degree of leadership and take full charge, he will not fight the battle alone - failing which, he will be another part of Thailand's tragic history.

Here is a picture of Thaksin with the rogue Major General Khattiya Sawasdiphol during their meeting in December 2009:

The right wing fascist out of control

has been killed by tomatocops.

In my memory I saw footages of a Police Van to stop in front of a Hotel with good Sniper position.

A journalist affirmed it.

But don't ask me for correct quoting.

We have Mr. Buchholz, his databank is correct, (he misuse it sometimes for his own ego, but I accep it for the work he does)

Care to expand on this, Lungmi?

Intelligent people, analysing international media and news papers in three languages connected to local witnesses with the ability to filter the plausibilty of all informations can expand. Now up to you.