Abhisit Vows To Back Probe Into 91 Deaths

[KireB]

Abhisit was sharp and was a man of principle when he was the Opposition Leader, but when he became Prime Minister, his words in the past do not correspond to his actions today. The article ends by asking whether he never believed in what he had to say, or whether he just says what he never believes.

Abhisit offered to step down, call an early election, before the violence and bloodshed in the streets of Bangkok. Get your facts, and time line right!

[Skywalker69]

I haven't seen Amsterdam making any noise recently about a probe into the Ratchprasong deaths. Has his paymaster told him to shut up?

I have been thinking the same.

Have their relatinship gone sour?

[rixalex]

There was the small matter of a heavily armed takeover of an international airport however (my wife, a foreign national with zero interest in Thai politics saw the machine guns for herself).

I belief the people your wife most likely encountered with machine guns was security personnel at road checks in the area around the airport. These people were not protesters.

How did she know they were?

She was in one of the local vans and the driver told her who they were. Plus how they were dressed and how the checkpoints were set up. She might not care for politics, but she's not stupid (most of the time ;-) !)

I don't think she (or her van driver) would of needed to have been stupid to confuse discreetly clothed security personnel for protesters. In the midst of all the confusion and chaos of having an International Airport shut down, it was an assumption that quite a lot of people made, but an assumption that from i understand from what i have read in the intervening four years, was incorrect. I don't know for certain because i didn't go to the airport and see what she did. My question remains though, as a foreign national with no interest in Thai politics, and presumably no knowledge of Thai language, no knowledge of how some security personnel might dress, how can she, or you, state with any certainty who these people were? Or are we just taking the van driver's word for it?

[hyperdimension]

I haven't seen Amsterdam making any noise recently about a probe into the Ratchprasong deaths. Has his paymaster told him to shut up?

I have been thinking the same.

Have their relatinship gone sour?

The general mood is now one of "reconciliation", i.e. settling issues with opponents through "cash and contracts". So all the caustic propaganda Amsterdam has written in the past is now irrelevant. Amsterdam has no reason to complain, as long as he got paid.

Edited April 26, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Insight]

It's completely off-topic, but I'd love to (finally) see some photos of these "armed PAD" lot.

There are pictures of armed red shirts aplenty.

[thaihome]

Abhisit, in his much ballyhooed speech at Centralworld in 2011 immediately before the elected, publicly admitted he signed the order to use deadly force on the street protests. He said he cried. ...

An outright lie.

Even Saksith Saiyasombut in his article at Asian Correspondent.com about the rally on June 23, 2011 does not make that claim. What Aghisit said was:

People are saying I do not show much emotion,” Abhisit said, “but on the night of April 10, I cried!”

There was no "order to use deadly force on the street protests". What there were were rules of engagement that were modified in the face of the increasing violence the Army was facing. These culminated in the ones announced on May 14^th that allowed the Army to use live ammunition in 3 circumstances:

1. as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving closer
   
2. for self-defense
   
3. when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists
   

How well the individual troops on the ground followed those orders should be subject to close investigation. As should who was shooting and lobbing grenades at the Army and who was behind that armed faction of the UDD.

Strongly suggest you read the HRW report Descent into Chaos. You very likely will like parts of it and disagree with others. But at least you will have a factual background.

TH

[KireB]

Claiming that this isn't hypocrisy just demonstrates blatant bias. It's convenient for your stance to label one protest as peaceful and another as armed insurgency.

The facts however would dispute your carefully chosen words:

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded during the 2010 rallies

Digest that fact then consider these words...

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

If you really can't see the hypocrisy in that statement, given the events of 2010, you are being entirely selective with your reasoning.

The PAD did not use or had grenades, rocket launchers, armed militias, LPG tankers, blood collections, hospital raids, killing of radio hosts, attack of army personnel and take their tanks and weapons, attack army barracks, steal corpses (evidence) from hospitals, attack rallies of those with an other opinion, attack gay parades, threaten people in villages to vote for certain political party, kill soldiers near Democracy Monument .....................should I go on!

Name 1 country in the world, without functioning riot police where eventually the army would not step in!

[animatic]

Of course the Thaksin opposition had their Specialist Sniper Units in use too, and as a surprise tactic,

so it was fairplay for the army to send a sniper to get a sniper.

[animatic]

Abhisit, in his much ballyhooed speech at Centralworld in 2011 immediately before the elected, publicly admitted he signed the order to use deadly force on the street protests. He said he cried. ...

An outright lie.

Even Saksith Saiyasombut in his article at Asian Correspondent.com about the rally on June 23, 2011 does not make that claim. What Aghisit said was:

People are saying I do not show much emotion,” Abhisit said, “but on the night of April 10, I cried!”

There was no "order to use deadly force on the street protests". What there were were rules of engagement that were modified in the face of the increasing violence the Army was facing. These culminated in the ones announced on May 14^th that allowed the Army to use live ammunition in 3 circumstances:

1. as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving closer
   
2. for self-defense
   
3. when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists
   

How well the individual troops on the ground followed those orders should be subject to close investigation. As should who was shooting and lobbing grenades at the Army and who was behind that armed faction of the UDD.

Strongly suggest you read the HRW report Descent into Chaos. You very likely will like parts of it and disagree with others. But at least you will have a factual background.

TH

Agreed.

The earlier post quote about the Central World speech is utter BS.

Repeated lies to make the legend seem possibly real.

But it's still a PR. legend propaganda and nothing more.

[Ferangled]

Claiming that this isn't hypocrisy just demonstrates blatant bias. It's convenient for your stance to label one protest as peaceful and another as armed insurgency.

The facts however would dispute your carefully chosen words:

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded during the 2010 rallies

Digest that fact then consider these words...

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

If you really can't see the hypocrisy in that statement, given the events of 2010, you are being entirely selective with your reasoning.

The PAD did not use or had grenades, rocket launchers, armed militias, LPG tankers, blood collections, hospital raids, killing of radio hosts, attack of army personnel and take their tanks and weapons, attack army barracks, steal corpses (evidence) from hospitals, attack rallies of those with an other opinion, attack gay parades, threaten people in villages to vote for certain political party, kill soldiers near Democracy Monument .....................should I go on!

Name 1 country in the world, without functioning riot police where eventually the army would not step in!

Did I suggest they did? I only commented on the blatant hypocrisy on display. Sorry if that upsets you but it's true, your rant does nothing to address that.

It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power.

[KireB]

Did I suggest they did? I only commented on the blatant hypocrisy on display. Sorry if that upsets you but it's true, your rant does nothing to address that.

It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power.

When Abhisit was in power he threw in the towel while negotiating with Red Shirt leaders (Weng, Veera and Jatuporn), live on National TV, before things would get out of hand. He offered to step down and have early elections. The Red Shirt negotiators (also where else in the world would this happen on national TV) first seemed to agree, then after some text messages coming in (guess from who?), they denied his resolution. And the days after, the proverbial shit hit the fan!

Abhisit was reasonable, critical of the situation and his position in it and openly offered a way out! What else would you want him to do?

[Buchholz]

I haven't seen Amsterdam making any noise recently about a probe into the Ratchprasong deaths. Has his paymaster told him to shut up?

I have been thinking the same.

Have their relatinship gone sour?

The general mood is now one of "reconciliation", i.e. settling issues with opponents through "cash and contracts". So all the caustic propaganda Amsterdam has written in the past is now irrelevant. Amsterdam has no reason to complain, as long as he got paid.

A new month.

A new strategy.

Same ultimate goal.

Thaksin's exonerated return.

.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Buchholz

[Skywalker69]

Claiming that this isn't hypocrisy just demonstrates blatant bias. It's convenient for your stance to label one protest as peaceful and another as armed insurgency.

The facts however would dispute your carefully chosen words:

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded during the 2010 rallies

Digest that fact then consider these words...

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

If you really can't see the hypocrisy in that statement, given the events of 2010, you are being entirely selective with your reasoning.

The PAD did not use or had grenades, rocket launchers, armed militias, LPG tankers, blood collections, hospital raids, killing of radio hosts, attack of army personnel and take their tanks and weapons, attack army barracks, steal corpses (evidence) from hospitals, attack rallies of those with an other opinion, attack gay parades, threaten people in villages to vote for certain political party, kill soldiers near Democracy Monument .....................should I go on!

Name 1 country in the world, without functioning riot police where eventually the army would not step in!

Did I suggest they did? I only commented on the blatant hypocrisy on display. Sorry if that upsets you but it's true, your rant does nothing to address that.

It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power.

Calgaryll are you back?

[thaihome]

...Name 1 country in the world, without functioning riot police where eventually the army would not step in!

To be fair, in serveral instances over the past 50 years, some US states have had to call out their National Guard to deal with serious riots. Also, many in the UK some have questioned why the Army has not been called in to help deal with the riots that have occured recently.

TH

Edited April 26, 2012 by thaihome

[Ferangled]

Did I suggest they did? I only commented on the blatant hypocrisy on display. Sorry if that upsets you but it's true, your rant does nothing to address that.

It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power.

When Abhisit was in power he threw in the towel while negotiating with Red Shirt leaders (Weng, Veera and Jatuporn), live on National TV, before things would get out of hand. He offered to step down and have early elections. The Red Shirt negotiators (also where else in the world would this happen on national TV) first seemed to agree, then after some text messages coming in (guess from who?), they denied his resolution. And the days after, the proverbial shit hit the fan!

Abhisit was reasonable, critical of the situation and his position in it and openly offered a way out! What else would you want him to do?

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

It's quite an experience trying to remain neutral on here; I have no ties to either political party and comment on as neutral a basis as possible... why is that that there's such a blatant bias in the response?!

The mere suggestion that an opposition politician could be capable of hypocrisy and there's an overwhelming outcry... that speaks volumes to me about the bias evident here.

Next I will be labelled a red shirt sympathizer or similar...

[Ferangled]

Claiming that this isn't hypocrisy just demonstrates blatant bias. It's convenient for your stance to label one protest as peaceful and another as armed insurgency.

The facts however would dispute your carefully chosen words:

More than 90 people, mostly civilians, were killed and nearly 1,900 wounded during the 2010 rallies

Digest that fact then consider these words...

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

If you really can't see the hypocrisy in that statement, given the events of 2010, you are being entirely selective with your reasoning.

The PAD did not use or had grenades, rocket launchers, armed militias, LPG tankers, blood collections, hospital raids, killing of radio hosts, attack of army personnel and take their tanks and weapons, attack army barracks, steal corpses (evidence) from hospitals, attack rallies of those with an other opinion, attack gay parades, threaten people in villages to vote for certain political party, kill soldiers near Democracy Monument .....................should I go on!

Name 1 country in the world, without functioning riot police where eventually the army would not step in!

Did I suggest they did? I only commented on the blatant hypocrisy on display. Sorry if that upsets you but it's true, your rant does nothing to address that.

It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power.

Calgaryll are you back?

See what I mean?! What a way to prove a point! Label me as your arch nemesis Red supporter because I dare to suggest that Abhisit is guilty of hypocrisy. I dare to say even the man himself would be able to accept that as part and parcel of Thai politics...

Can you not see through your bias and realize that statement cuts both ways? It applies to both sides of the political spectrum, try reading it again:

"It's very easy to be critical as the opposition but not so easy to apply that same criticism to yourself when in power."

This could easily be applied to a number of PT MPs, who are themselves now finding that it's not easy to run a country without attracting criticism from the opposition.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Ferangled

[rixalex]

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

An election had been held.

[KireB]

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

It's quite an experience trying to remain neutral on here; I have no ties to either political party and comment on as neutral a basis as possible... why is that that there's such a blatant bias in the response?!

The mere suggestion that an opposition politician could be capable of hypocrisy and there's an overwhelming outcry... that speaks volumes to me about the bias evident here.

Next I will be labelled a red shirt sympathizer or similar...

There were several elections after the 2006 coup and prior to the red carnage in the streets of Bangkok. The suggestion that the present opposition party is also hypocrite to a certain extend, is absolutely correct. There are plenty of events in which the Democrat Party has been on hypocritical par with the PT so to speak.

But concerning your particular point that Abhisit is a hypocrite for backing this probe or asking for Somchai to step down in 2008 is just wrong. Of all the previous PM's from Somchai, to Samak, to Abhisit and now Yingluck, Abhisit is the only one that showed some form of self reflection on his government and the only one who offered to step down to calm society. The others are just mere puppets of we all know who!

I don't think that the above is biased, it's based on the facts as I have noticed them and read about in my years here, and please stop the drama of you being labeled a red sympathizer! That's not an argument.

[hyperdimension]

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

If they had waited until the end of the Democrat-led government's term, which was around a mere 1.5 years away, by which time there'd be a general election anyway, would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

People died just because one man wanted elections earlier than scheduled. Those lives are gone forever. Cash to the families (from the treasury, not the man) are an attempt to subdue them for their loss, but cannot replace those lives.

Edited April 26, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

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:

Edited April 26, 2012 by hyperdimension

[lungmi]

Conscientious objector in Germany

Red Cross paramedic

Buddhist following the Teaching of the Buddha not to kill.

When I saw before the raid on the Hospital a tomatocop discussing with a read leader that they can "inspect" the hospital

to take out supposed snipers, my emotional and justified (Geneva Convention about war crimes) reaction was - give me a pistol, put it to the temple of the red shirt terrorist leader and ask him to retire with his mob. If not , I kill you to protect my innocent sick people in the Hospital.

[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)

[waza]

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

If they had waited until the end of the Democrat-led government's term, which was around a mere 1.5 years away, by which time there'd be a general election anyway, would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

People died just because one man wanted elections earlier than scheduled. Those lives are gone forever. Cash to the families (from the treasury, not the man) are an attempt to subdue them for their loss, but cannot replace those lives.

The question is would this carnage on the streets of Bangkok happen if they didnt confiscate Thaksins corrupted money? Thats why Abhist compromise was acceptable but rejected. You are fooling yourself if you believe it was about anything but that.

[phiphidon]

The point was - it's all well and good that he says now he will support a probe - but does he still believe what he said in statements he made to the press in 2008?

Let's wait and see. Or will Thaksin just say "just forget about it, everything's OK now" after giving some substantial gifts to the few elites that really matter?

Can you or anyone else refresh my memory when Thaksin said "just forget about it, everything's OK now". I'm not doubting it, but just that I've seen that quote on this forum being attributed by a democrat party member as being addressed specifically to Kamonkate Akahad's mother. I'd just like to know when Thaksin said it and in what form.

If you've been reading around, the general push for "reconciliation" from Pheu Thai is far more prominent than anything to do with seeking justice. The article "Lonely voices still seeking justice" in the Bangkok Post is just one example of many that shows that victims from both sides who want answers and accountability are being sidelined or ignored in the push to "move forward". Also, I hope you have read the article "Daring double game in Thailand" on the Asia times web site - it all boils down to "cash and contracts".

No, I'm looking for the actual quote or something approximating it that the democrats have manipulated - what the above is an answer to, well who knows, but it is certainly not to my question.

[hyperdimension]

If an election had been held prior to this would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

If they had waited until the end of the Democrat-led government's term, which was around a mere 1.5 years away, by which time there'd be a general election anyway, would we have seen this carnage on the streets of Bangkok?

People died just because one man wanted elections earlier than scheduled. Those lives are gone forever. Cash to the families (from the treasury, not the man) are an attempt to subdue them for their loss, but cannot replace those lives.

The question is would this carnage on the streets of Bangkok happen if they didnt confiscate Thaksins corrupted money? Thats why Abhist compromise was acceptable but rejected. You are fooling yourself if you believe it was about anything but that.

I am aware that it was about that and more. But they demanded early elections, elections that they would have got anyway if instead of protesting, they waited just another 1.5 to 2 years, which is an insignificant amount of time in the bigger scheme of things. Thaksin probably would have re-taken power anyway via his populist policies, just a little later than he wanted, and all of those people who had died would probably still be alive today.

Edited April 26, 2012 by hyperdimension

[indyuk]

One of the few honourable and most honest Thai's that is involved with the governance of what could be an awesome country.

Comparing the morals and values of Abhisit against Thaksin or any many of the Shinwatra's is like chalk and cheese.

Not cognizant of mainstream Thai political opinion. Thailand is an awesome country and shall prevail. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the minimum wage being set at Bt300 per day. It is productivity that has to be improved. As of now many hand processing tasks drag on the Thai economy whilst giving the illusion of full employment. Thailand's indigenous core industries will modernize quickly if political stability prevails then Thai economy will soar.

[hyperdimension]

Let's wait and see. Or will Thaksin just say "just forget about it, everything's OK now" after giving some substantial gifts to the few elites that really matter?

Can you or anyone else refresh my memory when Thaksin said "just forget about it, everything's OK now". I'm not doubting it, but just that I've seen that quote on this forum being attributed by a democrat party member as being addressed specifically to Kamonkate Akahad's mother. I'd just like to know when Thaksin said it and in what form.

If you've been reading around, the general push for "reconciliation" from Pheu Thai is far more prominent than anything to do with seeking justice. The article "Lonely voices still seeking justice" in the Bangkok Post is just one example of many that shows that victims from both sides who want answers and accountability are being sidelined or ignored in the push to "move forward". Also, I hope you have read the article "Daring double game in Thailand" on the Asia times web site - it all boils down to "cash and contracts".

No, I'm looking for the actual quote or something approximating it that the democrats have manipulated - what the above is an answer to, well who knows, but it is certainly not to my question.

OK maybe it doesn't exist. if you read my post, it was just speculation that he may say that, i.e. call off all investigations, after doing a deal with his opponents. Edited April 26, 2012 by hyperdimension

[TheCure]

One of the few honourable and most honest Thai's that is involved with the governance of what could be an awesome country.

Comparing the morals and values of Abhisit against Thaksin or any many of the Shinwatra's is like chalk and cheese.

[phiphidon]

Abhisit, in his much ballyhooed speech at Centralworld in 2011 immediately before the elected, publicly admitted he signed the order to use deadly force on the street protests. He said he cried. ...

An outright lie.

Even Saksith Saiyasombut in his article at Asian Correspondent.com about the rally on June 23, 2011 does not make that claim. What Aghisit said was:

People are saying I do not show much emotion,” Abhisit said, “but on the night of April 10, I cried!”

There was no "order to use deadly force on the street protests". What there were were rules of engagement that were modified in the face of the increasing violence the Army was facing. These culminated in the ones announced on May 14^th that allowed the Army to use live ammunition in 3 circumstances:

1. as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving closer
   
2. for self-defense
   
3. when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists
   

How well the individual troops on the ground followed those orders should be subject to close investigation. As should who was shooting and lobbing grenades at the Army and who was behind that armed faction of the UDD.

Strongly suggest you read the HRW report Descent into Chaos. You very likely will like parts of it and disagree with others. But at least you will have a factual background.

TH

Unfortunately also completely wrong. Suthep signed an order on the 10th April authorising the use of live ammunition. He had denied this (naturally, it's Suthep) but eventually had to agree that he had signed the order when presented with the evidence.

Finally, former deputy prime minister for security and one-time head of the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) Suthep Thaugsuban has admitted that a leaked document showing that the center had ordered security officers to use live rounds during last year's protests is in fact authentic. This is important as it may be the first time the usually tenacious politician has conceded to such a controversial revelation. The acceptance also highlights another defining characteristic of Suthep.

Ahead of his final submission, the outgoing secretary-general of the Democrat party lashed out at the press for 'distorting' the documents to paint the nation's security authorities in a negative light. He pointed out that the documents disseminated by the press omitted the dates they were drafted in an effort to imply that they were premature. This is demonstrably untrue. In the spread found in Khao Sod Newspaper, the three pages of the CRES order clearly are dated April 10 and 13. The print even bares a caption indicating that the pages are dated. Even if the display was 'distorted', it was not done in the way the former deputy premier so angrily claimed.

Today, other members of the security sector have come out to confirm that an order was issued for soldiers and police to load their guns with live ammunition, surely forcing Suthep's own admission. Whether or not the uncovering is condemning to security authorities however, is a separate issue. Even with the pages known to the public, arguments can still be made as to whether the command was justified. It can still be debated whether the protests of April 2010 warranted the use of live rounds and it is still under investigation as to whether authorities on the scene used excessive force in dealing with protesters. There is not even a consensus as to the causes of the close to 100 deaths from the episode.

What is known now is that there are high level officials, such as Suthep Thaugsuban, ready to irrationally defend their decisions and 'distort' the truth. It is now proven that even when faced with the facts, there are those that will wiggle and squirm their way from accountability. It is now known that even before judgment is cast, Thailand's powerful are anticipating the worse and acting in guilt.

http://www.tannetwork.tv/tan/ViewData.aspx?DataID=1046658

So it wasn't Abhisit who signed the orders but he is ultimately responsible under the emergency decree.

The use of live ammunition was authorised long before the 14th May.

[phiphidon]

Of course the Thaksin opposition had their Specialist Sniper Units in use too, and as a surprise tactic,

so it was fairplay for the army to send a sniper to get a sniper.

Are you aware of some special type of sniper tactics which include unarmed people (so plainly not snipers) standing around waving a flag or crawling along the road trying to get to safety or even sheltering in a wat or tending to the wounded - I don't think so - yet these people were shot by army snipers.

So I can only assume you are the kind of "person" who thinks that crowd control utilising snipers is a perfectly normal situation and cover your stance by saying "it was fairplay for the army to send a sniper to get a sniper".

You people make me shudder.