Army Rebuttals On Six Deaths At Bangkok's Wat Pathum

[saltandpepper]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

Your opinion, not a fact!

[rixalex]

I concur. It is not only "Army training" that anybody is going to shoot back its also the very first rule of your own survival.

I recall when the Army was moving into secure the area to start to set up "the live shooting zone" there was footage of the front line troops that were moving in. They were terrified and there were two directions they were all looking - forward at the ground scene they were to take and secure and also up at the surrounding buildings. It was not half obvious what they were concerned about - it was whether their own Army snipers had taken out <edit> snipers, or at the least that they had any points where they were established well lined up within their cross hairs.

Agree. But without your PC writting and more from my straight forward don't tell me bullsh!t stance that the Thaksin lovers on here provoke - the blame belongs with the fugitive convicted criminal <edit> in Dubai who led and financed the whole deal. The sooner that Thailand can get rid of this <edit> clutch on Thailands governance the sooner Thailand can move on with true reconciliation and dealing with the urgent issues (like the true Reds poverty concerns) that this country desperately needs

Videos of army snipers positioned on rooftops around the area, photos showing army snipers on the BTS with their guns aiming at the temple, army bullets taken out of dead medical volunteers, videos of army snipers continuing to fire when their commander is shouting at them to stop, videos of soldiers firing on protesters & then shouting out instructions in Cambodian....oh the innocence!

So anyone dressed in army fatigues must be part of the army because army fatigues are quite unique and impossible to reproduce or buy from the local market. And army bullets must have been shot by the army because it has never been known for the army to have their weapons stolen. Oh the unquestionable without holes evidence!

[Moruya]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

Is that the best you can do?

He's taken the time out to present his case and you can't take the time out to air your disagreement like an adult?

[Buchholz]

army bullets taken out of dead medical volunteers

For the benefit of the obviously uninitiated, there's no such thing as "army bullets"

.

[Buchholz]

quote 'animatic:

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

Unquote animatic.

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

Is that the best you can do?

He's taken the time out to present his case and you can't take the time out to air your disagreement like an adult?

Yes, that's about the best he can do, given the calm, rational, and logical aspects of reasonable doubt that were coherently presented.

.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[tlansford]

I guess when logical statements of reality go up against the party line,

the only choice is to attempt to diminish the person stating them,

repeatedly, and hope others might believe the attempted diminution.

Of course that is a last ditch attempt at distraction that rarely works.

There is a lot of attempts by the boiler room boys to skew the message

away from the bad for PTP stories and spin it off to something more

on the talking points passed down from above.

Perception Management 101.

Diminish in the minds of others those who make good arguments

against the points you want made.

it is about what the person is saying.

[Moruya]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that they were ordered to shoot?

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that someone shot people at Wat Pathum?

No "Red Shirts" in the army?

No sons of "Red Shirts"?

[philw]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that they were ordered to shoot?

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that someone shot people at Wat Pathum?

No "Red Shirts" in the army?

No sons of "Red Shirts"?

Perhaps you should read some of the court submissions prepared by ( the hated on Thai Visa ) Robert Amsterdam, wherein army personnel make sworn statements and give evidence.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

are you dizzy after all that?

Why should he?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

Is that the best you can do?

He's taken the time out to present his case and you can't take the time out to air your disagreement like an adult?

I am not getting into another rehash of 2010 here.

He took the time to air his arrogant propaganda, it's BS.

I am not claiming absolute certainty that the military shot those people.

But until there is significant, concrete evidence to the contrary, reasonable, thinking people understand that this is the most likely scenario. This "rebuttal" falls far short of that. It's embarrassing.

And in any case reasonable thinking people do want to eventually know (as far as that is possible) what happened to those people killed in the wat.

[Moruya]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that they were ordered to shoot?

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that someone shot people at Wat Pathum?

No "Red Shirts" in the army?

No sons of "Red Shirts"?

Perhaps you should read some of the court submissions prepared by ( the hated on Thai Visa ) Robert Amsterdam, wherein army personnel make sworn statements and give evidence.

I certainly will read any article that is presented by a respectful body that is not massively connected withy making sure that the blame goes on the Dems and the Armed forces.

[mca]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

With all due respect I think you need to go back and check out the position of Phitsanulok. It's not in Isaan.

[Moruya]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

With all due respect I think you need to go back and check out the position of Phitsanulok. It's not in Isaan.

Good point - but it is in Red Shirt turf

[Buchholz]

are you dizzy after all that?

because it is absolute BS / spin.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

it is about what the person is saying.

Your three previous castigating replies above would indicate it's at least something more to do with castigating the poster.

.

[animatic]

I guess when logical statements of reality go up against the party line,

the only choice is to attempt to diminish the person stating them,

repeatedly, and hope others might believe the attempted diminution.

Of course that is a last ditch attempt at distraction that rarely works.

There is a lot of attempts by the boiler room boys to skew the message

away from the bad for PTP stories and spin it off to something more

on the talking points passed down from above.

Perception Management 101.

Diminish in the minds of others those who make good arguments

against the points you want made.

it is about what the person is saying.

Needing to be deflected elsewhere from the publics perceptions.

Yep, got that.

Of course going in with a mind open to all possibilities is much more likely to find something like TRUTH, than being 100% assured of the facts that back your preconceived ideas, before any are actually in evidence.

Nothing I have said at any time precludes finding the truth, or blaming any army members if found to have acted badly. I am just putting up info that backs concepts other than a forgone conclusion of 'army intentional culpability'.

Such arrogance to think a conviction is based on fact,

and not on desire for self-blinding political vindication.

Edited June 21, 2012 by animatic

[lungmi]

I guess when logical statements of reality go up against the party line,

the only choice is to attempt to diminish the person stating them,

repeatedly, and hope others might believe the attempted diminution.

Of course that is a last ditch attempt at distraction that rarely works.

There is a lot of attempts by the boiler room boys to skew the message

away from the bad for PTP stories and spin it off to something more

on the talking points passed down from above.

Perception Management 101.

Diminish in the minds of others those who make good arguments

against the points you want made.

it is about what the person is saying.

Not 100% right.

When the person says the center of the earth is made by soda water, a discussion is not exluded, but when he says it's made by "Red Jam", then you can send him only to a good doctor.

[Buchholz]

Let me put up another thought.

Of the 4 "armys" that make upp the RTA, half are based in Isaan - Pitsanulok and Korat (the remainder being Bangkok and Nakhorn si Thamarat in the south)

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that they were ordered to shoot?

Of the thousands that were present over the riots, you would have thought that one at least would have come forward to say that someone shot people at Wat Pathum?

No "Red Shirts" in the army?

No sons of "Red Shirts"?

Perhaps you should read some of the court submissions prepared by ( the hated on Thai Visa ) Robert Amsterdam, wherein army personnel make sworn statements and give evidence.

I certainly will read any article that is presented by a respectful body that is not massively connected withy making sure that the blame goes on the Dems and the Armed forces.

How about statements that are actually admitted into evidence in an actual ongoing court case? Hopefully, that's not too stringent a criteria... But it's one the Amsterdam produced statements fail.

.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Buchholz

[tominbkk]

Sorry to be disrespectful, not intended at all. But if you were in the middle of this, you would have known the risks involved. You take your chances, you get the consequences.

Absolutely. What about the redshirt guy holding his three year old boy above the barricade so they wouldn't shoot in his direction. What animals!

[tominbkk]

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

"2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

Anyone dumb enough to be running around in a war zone must accept the consequences that their head may be disconnected from their body. He knew the risk and took the chance. Case closed.

Edited June 21, 2012 by tominbkk

[Moruya]

Because it dosen't make Thaksin a hero and he has no rebuttal other than a inane statement that has nothing to do with reality.

or because it is just the normal propaganda pushed out here which has nothing to do with reality.

"2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don't have the man who killed Fabio. We don't have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven't identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

Anyone dumb enough to be running around in a war zone must accept the consequences that their head may be disconnected from their body. He knew the risk and took the chance. Case closed.

and it's a real shame that the idiot Rachel Harvey didn't at least get a pellet in her @ss

[SuneeTH]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

The RED SHIRT's Men in Black did it. Because the army did not use real bullets at all. Only rubber bullets and tear gas.

Plus, the order for Mark is very clear. Do not shoot at people; if necessary (self defense), only shoot at their legs.

[rixalex]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

The RED SHIRT's Men in Black did it. Because the army did not use real bullets at all. Only rubber bullets and tear gas.

Plus, the order for Mark is very clear. Do not shoot at people; if necessary (self defense), only shoot at their legs.

Your daft sarcasm has a very familiar ring to it.

[SuneeTH]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

The RED SHIRT's Men in Black did it. Because the army did not use real bullets at all. Only rubber bullets and tear gas.

Plus, the order for Mark is very clear. Do not shoot at people; if necessary (self defense), only shoot at their legs.

Your daft sarcasm has a very familiar ring to it.

Here is my proof. Where is yours?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/28/c_13270922.htm

[phiphidon]

The RED SHIRT's Men in Black did it. Because the army did not use real bullets at all. Only rubber bullets and tear gas.

Plus, the order for Mark is very clear. Do not shoot at people; if necessary (self defense), only shoot at their legs.

Your daft sarcasm has a very familiar ring to it.

Here is my proof. Where is yours?

http://news.xinhuane.../c_13270922.htm

Suthep said the "men in black" were responsible for the killings of security forces and civilians in his testimony to the police in December 2011.

The ex-premier reasserted that the security personnel followed international standard practice in crowd control by applying the softest measures before resorting to the tough ones..............

.............“The deaths of security officials and civilians (on April 10) were caused by the black-clad men," Mr Suthep stated.

http://www.pattayama...-crackdown-8519

No military involved, nothing to see here.

Though he did later admit that he had lied when he said that he had signed the order authorising the use of live ammunition after the events of April 10th.........................

[animatic]

quote ='SuneeTH' timestamp='1340270782' post='5412842']

The RED SHIRT's Men in Black did it. Because the army did not use real bullets at all. Only rubber bullets and tear gas.

Plus, the order for Mark is very clear. Do not shoot at people; if necessary (self defense), only shoot at their legs.

Your daft sarcasm has a very familiar ring to it.

Here is my proof. Where is yours?

http://news.xinhuane.../c_13270922.htm

Suthep said the "men in black" were responsible for the killings of security forces and civilians in his testimony to the police in December 2011.

The ex-premier reasserted that the security personnel followed international standard practice in crowd control by applying the softest measures before resorting to the tough ones..............

.............“The deaths of security officials and civilians (on April 10) were caused by the black-clad men," Mr Suthep stated.

http://www.pattayama...-crackdown-8519

No military involved, nothing to see here.

Though he did later admit that he had lied when he said that he had signed the order authorising the use of live ammunition after the events of April 10th.........................

Oh do, please do, show us where he said he lied about that.

Any actual press story besides in Taksin Magazine saying this.

[TheCure]

Of course, we all know the fairy godmother blew their brains out with high velocity bullets shot from sniper rifles...

Until the day the RTA stays in their barracks where they belong, Thailand will never be decently called a democracy .

[phiphidon]

Oh do, please do, show us where he said he lied about that.

Any actual press story besides in Taksin Magazine saying this.

Thai Rak was the newspaper that confronted Suthep with a leaked photocopy of the order which he had to admit was real. The command had been signed by Suthep on the 10th April. The government had always insisted that it wasn't signed until the 13th April. This was reported by the Tan Asean Network here http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1046658.

Unfortunately the TAN network site has now closed (30th May) just leaving its' online tv site so the link doesn't work. I have waded through my posts and come up with this partial quote from that same site

"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............the three pages of the CRES order clearly are dated April 10 and 13........"

http://www.thaivisa....ts/page__st__50

And do not dismiss this just because it's amsterdam but he refers to the same tan network site

Consistent with information contained in Amsterdam & Peroff’s initial Application,Human Rights Watch describes the use of live fire made by the Royal Thai Army against unarmed protesters during the daytime clashes that preceded the bloodier night time assault on the Red Shirt rally at the Phan Fa Bridge on April 10, 2010.

While the government has always denied that this had been the case, in August 2011 the Thai-language newspaper Khao Sod published an internal command issued by CRES on April 10, 2010, in which troops were ordered to load their weapons with live ammunition in preparation for the crackdown, and expressly authorized the use of such weapons not only in self-defense or to save civilian lives, but to safeguard property as well. Former Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsubhan, who signed the command, at first denied the authenticity of the documents, claiming that they had been “distorted,” but was later forced to admit their veracity.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82955699/ICC-Addendum-to-the-Petition-Submitted-on-behalf-of-the-Red-Shirt-Movement-of-Thailand-regarding-the-Bangkok-Massacres-of-2010

You could also look at this

Suthep and the use of live rounds against red shirts

Aug 26, 2011

Suthep and friends PPT missed this story at Thai-ASEAN Network when it came out. A link in a Bangkok Pundit post brought it to our attention, and it is worth citing in full for the light it throws on Suthep Thaugsuban as a politicians, the nature of the “security operation” against red shirts on 10 April 2010, and the lies that have been told: The Tell-Tale Heart Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:00 AM 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.

See the original post here:

http://Suthep and th...inst red shirts

Unfortunately this site is still blocked by the ICT

[Theoutsider]

Some have made up their minds 'the army must have done it'.

But that is an emotional / political response,

and not something a court can decided upon.

Others see the 'reasonable doubt' of

1) stolen weapons and ammunition available for the Red or 'men in black' to use ,

2 ) the obviousness of group of men in black in multiple instances violently going after the army or civilians.

3 ) the political need to blame the army in any way possible,

for the Reds or Thaksin to win political cards to play.

4 ) the lack of political or military need of the army to kill anyone to wrap up the occupation.

5 ) the likelihood of the army knowing it is NOT in it's benefit nor it having a need for any one to die.

6 ) killing innocent people and blaming the army serves a ongoing political need for the opposite side.

It's called reasonable doubt versus a lack of provable facts, or provable and logical motive.

Your so funny

I have to agree with you so I will not be seen as emotional or political. But you are not

[philw]

Let's get back to basics, Thai Visa has to be the only place on the planet where it is denied that the RTA were using snipers to kill demonstrators, generally unarmed demonstrators, with shots to the head.

The whole country know this, maybe not cares about it, but knows about as does the rest of the world.

The denial here is insane.

[Moruya]

Let's get back to basics, Thai Visa has to be the only place on the planet where it is denied that the RTA were using snipers to kill demonstrators, generally unarmed demonstrators, with shots to the head.

The whole country know this, maybe not cares about it, but knows about as does the rest of the world.

The denial here is insane.

As are your rantings

[tlansford]

Oh do, please do, show us where he said he lied about that.

Any actual press story besides in Taksin Magazine saying this.

Thai Rak was the newspaper that confronted Suthep with a leaked photocopy of the order which he had to admit was real. The command had been signed by Suthep on the 10th April. The government had always insisted that it wasn't signed until the 13th April. This was reported by the Tan Asean Network here http://www.tannetwor...?DataID=1046658.

Unfortunately the TAN network site has now closed (30th May) just leaving its' online tv site so the link doesn't work. I have waded through my posts and come up with this partial quote from that same site

"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............the three pages of the CRES order clearly are dated April 10 and 13........"

http://www.thaivisa....ts/page__st__50

And do not dismiss this just because it's amsterdam but he refers to the same tan network site

Consistent with information contained in Amsterdam & Peroff’s initial Application,Human Rights Watch describes the use of live fire made by the Royal Thai Army against unarmed protesters during the daytime clashes that preceded the bloodier night time assault on the Red Shirt rally at the Phan Fa Bridge on April 10, 2010.

While the government has always denied that this had been the case, in August 2011 the Thai-language newspaper Khao Sod published an internal command issued by CRES on April 10, 2010, in which troops were ordered to load their weapons with live ammunition in preparation for the crackdown, and expressly authorized the use of such weapons not only in self-defense or to save civilian lives, but to safeguard property as well. Former Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsubhan, who signed the command, at first denied the authenticity of the documents, claiming that they had been “distorted,” but was later forced to admit their veracity.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82955699/ICC-Addendum-to-the-Petition-Submitted-on-behalf-of-the-Red-Shirt-Movement-of-Thailand-regarding-the-Bangkok-Massacres-of-2010

You could also look at this

Suthep and the use of live rounds against red shirts

Aug 26, 2011

Suthep and friends PPT missed this story at Thai-ASEAN Network when it came out. A link in a Bangkok Pundit post brought it to our attention, and it is worth citing in full for the light it throws on Suthep Thaugsuban as a politicians, the nature of the “security operation” against red shirts on 10 April 2010, and the lies that have been told: The Tell-Tale Heart Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:00 AM 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.

See the original post here:

http://Suthep and th...inst red shirts

Unfortunately this site is still blocked by the ICT

rather odd that Mr A. needed to ask for something that has been referenced repeatedly on TVF, but he certainly made you work for that post - good job !

The interesting new news for me was that TANN's online website folded ! Amazing.

But I noticed this juicy little morsel from the existing "site".

"Despite the same broadcasting entity, TAN Network is absolutely independent from ASTV."