No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[rixalex]

On the positive side there now seems clear consensus (the army apart of course, not surprising given its recored of criminality and lying) that the army was responsible for many civilian deaths, a change from the position of a year or so ago where some of the usual suspects were still arguing the redshirts murdered themselves or walked into bullets.

Talking of ridiculous arguments by usual suspects, i wonder if there has been any shift towards acceptance that Thaksin did indeed support and fund the armed and violent insurrection that attempted to topple by force the legitimate government of the day, in full knowledge of what that would mean for the fate of a good number of people? Or are there still those stubbornly in denial, arguing that if you don't have proof on a piece of paper, they won't believe it?

[jayboy]

On the positive side there now seems clear consensus (the army apart of course, not surprising given its recored of criminality and lying) that the army was responsible for many civilian deaths, a change from the position of a year or so ago where some of the usual suspects were still arguing the redshirts murdered themselves or walked into bullets.

Talking of ridiculous arguments by usual suspects, i wonder if there has been any shift towards acceptance that Thaksin did indeed support and fund the armed and violent insurrection that attempted to topple by force the legitimate government of the day, in full knowledge of what that would mean for the fate of a good number of people? Or are there still those stubbornly in denial, arguing that if you don't have proof on a piece of paper, they won't believe it?

Oh dear you have suddenly become rattled and changed the subject as some people do when confronted with difficult to digest truths.

I don't think there is much denial in the way you suggest.We know Thaksin supported the redshirt movement.The question of the MIB remains under consideration as we were discussing before you threw a wobbly.There are different points of view about the legitimacy of the Abhisit government (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum).Personally I doubt if the redshirts were seriously trying to overthrow a govenment through violence.Wasn't their demand a fairly conducted general election - which their interests easily won when it was eventually held.Is the fate (entrenched interests, assumption of permanent political influence etc etc) of a good number of people threatened by a fairer and more just political system in Thailand? Of course it is.

[rixalex]

Oh dear you have suddenly become rattled and changed the subject as some people do when confronted with difficult to digest truths.

I don't think there is much denial in the way you suggest.We know Thaksin supported the redshirt movement.The question of the MIB remains under consideration as we were discussing before you threw a wobbly.There are different points of view about the legitimacy of the Abhisit government (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum).Personally I doubt if the redshirts were seriously trying to overthrow a govenment through violence.Wasn't their demand a fairly conducted general election - which their interests easily won when it was eventually held.Is the fate (entrenched interests, assumption of permanent political influence etc etc) of a good number of people threatened by a fairer and more just political system in Thailand? Of course it is.

Not sure where you got the impression of me being rattled or throwing a wobbly. Was merely responding to your selective highlighting of silly arguments that get made. Walking into bullets is certainly one of them, although i'm not sure if that has been subjected to some artistic license, as it is hard to imagine anyone arguing something in quite that way. Murdering themselves? Well if the MIB were responsible for any protester deaths, that would quite possibly be akin to the same thing. Not sure therefore why you find it so far-fetched.

Difficult to digest truths that i am avoiding? Please clarify, with regards the events of 2010, which are the "truths" you presented me with that you think i have a problem with.

As for your having difficulty in believing the red shirts were trying to topple the government through violence, i think the fact that they refused an offer that though not without condition, was very reasonable and a massive compromise on the part of the government, and instead continued to hold the capital city hostage as fighting escalated more and more, tells the story. Whether it had of been by military intervention, or whether it had of been by the government standing down itself through inability to govern or through international pressure, the result would have been much the same: government toppled through violence.

[jayboy]

Oh dear you have suddenly become rattled and changed the subject as some people do when confronted with difficult to digest truths.

I don't think there is much denial in the way you suggest.We know Thaksin supported the redshirt movement.The question of the MIB remains under consideration as we were discussing before you threw a wobbly.There are different points of view about the legitimacy of the Abhisit government (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum).Personally I doubt if the redshirts were seriously trying to overthrow a govenment through violence.Wasn't their demand a fairly conducted general election - which their interests easily won when it was eventually held.Is the fate (entrenched interests, assumption of permanent political influence etc etc) of a good number of people threatened by a fairer and more just political system in Thailand? Of course it is.

Not sure where you got the impression of me being rattled or throwing a wobbly. Was merely responding to your selective highlighting of silly arguments that get made. Walking into bullets is certainly one of them, although i'm not sure if that has been subjected to some artistic license, as it is hard to imagine anyone arguing something in quite that way. Murdering themselves? Well if the MIB were responsible for any protester deaths, that would quite possibly be akin to the same thing. Not sure therefore why you find it so far-fetched.

Difficult to digest truths that i am avoiding? Please clarify, with regards the events of 2010, which are the "truths" you presented me with that you think i have a problem with.

As for your having difficulty in believing the red shirts were trying to topple the government through violence, i think the fact that they refused an offer that though not without condition, was very reasonable and a massive compromise on the part of the government, and instead continued to hold the capital city hostage as fighting escalated more and more, tells the story. Whether it had of been by military intervention, or whether it had of been by the government standing down itself through inability to govern or through international pressure, the result would have been much the same: government toppled through violence.

Apologies if I misread your position.The tone of exasperation and change of subject may have given me the wrong impression.Anyway it's not important.

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.Abhisit's offer of elections has been much discussed and the matter is complex.Street protests in the face of injustice are not restricted to Thailand.The way Abhisit came to power was in many ways a disgrace.Even if his administration had fallen in 2010, the position would be that the people of Thailand would select the government through a general election.The nuttier community argue that it would have never happened because Thaksin would have seized totalitarian power and there would never be a fair general election again, a odd and complete reversal of the truth - which is that the Elite refused to recognise the Thai peoples democratic will (still don't actually).

[phiphidon]

Being corrected for burning down a city, killing.hurting soldiers, looting, rioting is on the side of human rights?

If you had been here over a year (or didn't have a red shirt bar girl friend) it is common knowledge Abhisit did not call live shots fired.

Remember who offered negotiation and who refused with violent threats?

Abhisit has the cleanest record of all PM's. How a westerner with more than a 3rd grade education would hold your views makes me think only that your girl works at places mentioned above and has got you believing this "Abhisit is a murderer" crap shows no depth of reasoning and a pure lack of understanding of powers and laws here.

Clearly you were far from Bangkok whe this all occured.

Educate yourself by even merely watching some compelling youtube videos on it.

All this from such a benevolent soul that states that Kamolkate Akkahad wasn't a proper nurse (she was a trainee before being shot and killed), was not a victim and knew what was going to happen because she had the temerity to "help and support these rogues and thugs" and therefore deserved what she got. Excuse me if I don't take much notice of your skewed rants.

Come on... they only shot people who had been told time and time again to go home or they were gonna be shot... how many times does the government have to tell lawbreakers to go home or else... and guess what...The or else happened... and how can lawbreakers receive compensation ... Only in Thailand..

Including a nurse tending those already shot, inside the temple grounds?

They were all told time and again. They knew what they were a part of and what was going to happen. It wasn't the alleged nurse who finally gave them a dose of their own medicine. Whining over their job position is just playing martyr/victim when they were certainly not. Would you aid and help and support these rogues and thugs if you were qualified in medicine? Those thugs even stormed a hospital.

[KireB]

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.Abhisit's offer of elections has been much discussed and the matter is complex.Street protests in the face of injustice are not restricted to Thailand.The way Abhisit came to power was in many ways a disgrace.Even if his administration had fallen in 2010, the position would be that the people of Thailand would select the government through a general election.The nuttier community argue that it would have never happened because Thaksin would have seized totalitarian power and there would never be a fair general election again, a odd and complete reversal of the truth - which is that the Elite refused to recognise the Thai peoples democratic will (still don't actually).

Funny how you seem to forget the violence of the 2009 protests and also the case of the 111 banned politicians of TRT (incuding Thaksin) who indeed tried to make sure there would never be a fair election again! They were caught red handed bribing smaller parties!

Edited June 24, 2012 by KireB

[jayboy]

Funny how you seem to forget the violence of the 2009 protests and also the case of the 111 banned politicians of TRT (incuding Thaksin) who indeed tried to make sure there would never be a fair election again! They were caught red handed bribing smaller parties!

Sometimes it is only necessary to wait a while before someone, ostensibly hostile to one's viewpoint, makes one own point very effectively.

Nevertheless it is worth repeating that some extremists do often suggest that it was part of the Thaksin grand plan never to hold fair general elections having secured power.To be fair there were legitimate concerns at Thaksin's meglomania which in an extreme and peverse form were reflected in the PAD political platform.However the big problem for the Elite was not that Thaksin intended to suspend elections (no evidence of this whatsoever) but that his party was too successful in winning them, and furthermore their chosen agency,the Democrat Party under Abhisit, could not win the support of the Thai people when general elections were held - despite attempts to rig the process by directed courts and a politicised army.

[rixalex]

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.

The reason was two-fold. For one, they were very impatient. Elections take time to organise at the best of times, and they were worried about the things that might happen with them no longer at the helm, even if only for six months. For two, they were looking for a way to totally discredit the opposition and in doing so, help vindicate Thaksin and promulgate the story of him being the good guy and the forces against him that kicked him out as being the bad guys. Peaceful elections being organised with the losers standing down and handing over power doesn't really speak evil, does it?

What better way to achieve their aims than with a blood bath in the capital city with the international media looking on?

We have seen that even with Thaksin's own party back in power for coming up to a year, and his very own sister as PM, the job of restoring Thaksin to anything close to his former position in business and politics, or even being allowed the dignity of living in his own country without having to face up to his legal problems, is proving a hard nut to crack and i'm not sure he is any closer now than he was a year or so ago.

Winning elections doesn't always solve all your problems. It certainly hasn't solved all of Thaksin's. Not yet anyway...

[jayboy]

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.

The reason was two-fold. For one, they were very impatient. Elections take time to organise at the best of times, and they were worried about the things that might happen with them no longer at the helm, even if only for six months. For two, they were looking for a way to totally discredit the opposition and in doing so, help vindicate Thaksin and promulgate the story of him being the good guy and the forces against him that kicked him out as being the bad guys. Peaceful elections being organised with the losers standing down and handing over power doesn't really speak evil, does it?

What better way to achieve their aims than with a blood bath in the capital city with the international media looking on?

We have seen that even with Thaksin's own party back in power for coming up to a year, and his very own sister as PM, the job of restoring Thaksin to anything close to his former position in business and politics, or even being allowed the dignity of living in his own country without having to face up to his legal problems, is proving a hard nut to crack and i'm not sure he is any closer now than he was a year or so ago.

Winning elections doesn't always solve all your problems. It certainly hasn't solved all of Thaksin's. Not yet anyway...

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

[rixalex]

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

[animatic]

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

Edited June 24, 2012 by animatic

[Moruya]

so, 280 replies to the article, several videos, photos, articles, rants, reasonings, disputes and the usual general nonsense.

The bottom line is that there was no order to open fire on the crowds.

No surprises there.

[tlansford]

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

[Moruya]

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Can you prove that or is it more wind from you?

[Buchholz]

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Can you prove that or is it more wind from you?

Unprovable...

also adding the best way for them to have exposed the offer as supposedly not an honest one would have been to accept it and point out the alleged backpedaling.

They simply weren't interested in an election at the time frame offered.

.

[gemini81]

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Those were certainly not the conditions and no back paddling, it was calling for an election, and on three occasions refused. How was it was dishonest I don't see.

[scotbeve]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

And if he had so much control over "HIS" government..... wait, just a sec.... HIS government??????? When the EFF is it his??? Did he buy it? Steal it? Or was given it to him as a "crumbs" present??? Invisible hands giving him stuffed envelopes (sure, he's had them...)... back to orig. sentence.... why couldn't He do anything about Thaksin???? Or the Saudis "issues"??? Or the Southern unrest???? Or the mafias??? Or the floods???? Or the corruption???? Or the answers to the killings in 2010??? Oxford must be real <deleted> now that he's been through???

[rubl]

And if he had so much control over "HIS" government..... wait, just a sec.... HIS government??????? When the EFF is it his??? Did he buy it? Steal it? Or was given it to him as a "crumbs" present??? Invisible hands giving him stuffed envelopes (sure, he's had them...)... back to orig. sentence.... why couldn't He do anything about Thaksin???? Or the Saudis "issues"??? Or the Southern unrest???? Or the mafias??? Or the floods???? Or the corruption???? Or the answers to the killings in 2010??? Oxford must be real <deleted> now that he's been through???

Calm down, old chap, take it easy!

Any government is called 'his' or 'her' government when talking about the PM. Like in 'her goverment' talking about the current government with PM Yingluck (also referred to as his government as in her brother's).

The "Invisible hands giving him stuffed envelopes (sure, he's had them...)" is getting close to defamation, unless you refer to Christmas presents and so. Even you must have had stuffed envelopes, or did you suffer in your youth?

As for the other questions, it's not the doing about, but the moving forward.

BTW did PM Yingluck only talked about those urgent questions? Asnwer, no, she had results. At the height of a flooding well done, her Minister of Foreign Affairs with offices flooded managed to issue AND deliver a shiny, brandnew passport within TWO days! Bravo! That shows them what we're capable of and what our priorities are

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Can you prove that or is it more wind from you?

you've been around forever - surely you've seen the posts in numerous 2010 discussions about the backpedaling / strings attached to the Abhisit proposal. You know that the red shirts welcomed the proposal at the beginning. The conventional wisdom on TVF is that the paymaster in Dubai nixed the deal. But the conditions attached to the deal have also been posted.

Animatic has seen this as well and knows this too. It is not the first time and won't be the last time that he posts disingenuous statements like the above.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Well i don't believe all of Thailand's problems are all about Thaksin, before i get accused of that one, but i do believe that what lies behind most of the red shirts / UDD / PTP moves and decisions, is what is in Thaksin's interest. Refusing to accept Abhisit's offer of early elections, having been on the verge of agreeing, was i think one example for the reasons i mention above, and what the PTP are focused on attempting to do right now with this bill, is another illustration.

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Those were certainly not the conditions and no back paddling, it was calling for an election, and on three occasions refused. How was it was dishonest I don't see.

then why didn't he just say "I will call for dissolving parliament on such & such date - no strings attached?

He did not say that. Why not? That would have been an honest offer.

[saltandpepper]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

And if he had so much control over "HIS" government..... wait, just a sec.... HIS government??????? When the EFF is it his??? Did he buy it? Steal it? Or was given it to him as a "crumbs" present??? Invisible hands giving him stuffed envelopes (sure, he's had them...)... back to orig. sentence.... why couldn't He do anything about Thaksin???? Or the Saudis "issues"??? Or the Southern unrest???? Or the mafias??? Or the floods???? Or the corruption???? Or the answers to the killings in 2010??? Oxford must be real <deleted> now that he's been through???

Man, I am headache just looking at your post. I am even not going to try to understand it...

[hellodolly]

Not going to waste my time reading this crap.

If there had been orders to open up on the crowds the death count would have been in the thousands.

Where has common sense gone.

[longway]

Indeed if it was so simple as to win the election, then when Abhisit offered to call it earlier; on TV at the table with Veera, Justaprawn and Nutawhat, then they would have grabbed at that brass ring then. But that just left the same situation, partial control and the other side with something like respect by the people and a diplomatic veneer... a sword of damoclese into the future waiting to dismember Thaksins plans. No good, the opposition government had to apear to be destroyed by their own actions, in appearance if not in fact. That called for prolonging the rebellion in the street, until it was big and violent forcing a response from the military that could be manipulated. As we all saw, but not all recognize as the manipulation it was.

Using the desires of a segment of the population as a cudgel

to create a different power structure is not helping the people,

it is USING the people as a tool to gain power, and as pawns.

but you know why they didn't "grab at the brass ring" - because it wasn't an honest (in their opinion) offer and came with strings attached that would allow Abhisit to back-peddle without keeping his promise for elections.

This has been pointed out numerous time here, yet people keep pretending it was an honest offer.

Those were certainly not the conditions and no back paddling, it was calling for an election, and on three occasions refused. How was it was dishonest I don't see.

then why didn't he just say "I will call for dissolving parliament on such & such date - no strings attached?

He did not say that. Why not? That would have been an honest offer.

Were there early elections or not? It was an honest offer and an agreement could have been made, but the UDD wanted blood. Face the facts.

[animatic]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

[tlansford]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see.

But you've seen the posts, and you know better.

Shame, shame, ...

[whybother]

then why didn't he just say "I will call for dissolving parliament on such & such date - no strings attached?

He did not say that. Why not? That would have been an honest offer.

Because their were strings attached ... like "End your protest". It seems the red shirts couldn't accept that condition.

[Moruya]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

continuing your denial, I see.

But you've seen the posts, and you know better.

Shame, shame, ...

They agreed to the deal and subsequently reneged.

That is where the shame shoud lie.

[Buchholz]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

One needed to be in Thailand at the time to watch the live television.

The Red Spin came after the television footage.

.

[jayboy]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

One needed to be in Thailand at the time to watch the live television.

The Red Spin came after the television footage.

.

There were many of us in Thailand at the time, both watching live TV coverage and in my case visiting the site (from a safe distance).There were also several top flight media correspondents who observed and drew conclusions.Given the circumstances it is scarcely surprising that participants subsequently attempted to put a spin on events.This was obviously not confined to the redshirts - both the army and the government put great effort to propagate their version of events.However one thing is for sure - it is virtually impossible to establish exactly what happened without an impartial judicial type enquiry.That has been shown over and over again from Kent State to Bloody Sunday.Certainly a few farang running around with special pleading for one group or another hardly inspire confidence let alone credibility.Actually the only grouping without an axe to grind were the foreign correspondents who needless to say were roundly abused.

[Buchholz]

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

One needed to be in Thailand at the time to watch the live television.

The Red Spin came after the television footage.

.

There were many of us in Thailand at the time, both watching live TV coverage and in my case visiting the site (from a safe distance).

My post was specifically in reference to the early election negotiations that were being discussed by animatic and tlansford.

.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Buchholz