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

[nurofiend]

Experience of the facts, not the colored propaganda, facts that those without direct experience try to rewrite in their ignorance. Or is it deliberate, wilful ignorance? Heaven forfend. So we have a phalanx of absentee experts telling eyewitnesses what they saw and experienced. Hypocrisy at the least, and downright lies and cynical propaganda at the worst. Nurofiend, another who would decry eyewitnesses. Where are you? What have you actually seen? Go ahead, spout off in an experiential vacuum, but we who were here know what we saw and those are the real facts. They just don't suit your case, do they? Not the new facts that support some dogma or subterfuge. Your trying to rewrite the facts from a remote location stinks to high Heaven of collusion, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But i'm sure you're incapable of shame. You just swallow your pride, if you ever had any, and like streetwalkers do what you must and take the money. After reading months of your bs, that is the only logical conclusion.

The trouble is that eye witnesses are not consistent and are capable of being misled as anyone else.Your own observations can easily be challenged by others with equal if not better credentials.This is not unusual as any educated student of street conflicts (or even of fully fledged battles) knows.This fog of war issue is understood by most people.Having said that individual accounts are always useful and contribute to the larger patchwork picture.Obviously in this instance as in others any preconceived prejudices or politics need to be taken into account.So far the only credible overall report has been that produced by HRW, and even that is flawed though has the merit of being fairminded and not dodging awkward questions.The Thai army has not properly cooperated in any enquiry though its incompetence and criminality is steadily becoming more apparent.The question of the government's responsibility for civilian deaths remain unclear but for the usual reasons we can be sure Abhisit and his colleagues will never be subject to adequate interrogation on this mastter.Of course the redshirts have their own axe to grind as well.

I don't understand the recent fascination with eye-witness accounts. One of the most experienced eye-witnesses to frequent the forum is routinely ridiculed when he posts. But the point being that with events like this, there is not one eye-witness for all of the events anyway, so even if one was in BKK at during the 2010, if that person wanted to be informed, they would still need to rely on the accounts of many sources.

As you point out, eye-witnesses of the same events will also recount different stories - sometimes conflicting stories. To be informed and to debate, therefore takes effort and is not dependent on personally witnessing every event. Hence the importance in situations like this of good investigations of which there has been very little done. Phiphidon points out correctly that the investigative panel setup by the government did not have the powers needed to actually do the job. The HRW report you point out is the closest we have at this time.

For my part, I try to pay more attention to verifiable events to build a picture of how things unfolded and to pose more questions. For example, it is clear that there was a para-military element among the UDD protesters and the army was apparently taken by surprise by them. Why? The government was predicting grenade attacks and terrorists before the protests began. Why didn't the army, after one month of protests, not have better intelligence before they began the dispersal on Apr 10th. Besides the other obvious issues around this action, that one flaw cost the lives of people on both sides.

Coming back to the eye-witness point, one does not need to be an eye-witness to pose questions similar to the one above and look for answers. Additionally, AFAIK, no one is trying to tell an eye-witness what they did or did not see...

i think because some people on here may have walked past the crowd a few times that they feel they have the claim on the facts.

absolute garbage as all reasonable people know, but hey, we must remember what forum we are on.

Edited July 6, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

i think because some people on here may have walked past the crowd a few times that they feel they have the claim on the facts.

absolute garbage as all reasonable people know, but hey, we must remember what forum we are on.

Very, very few posters were near the protests, and particularly, near any of the key events. So really, these threads should only get a couple of posts if you're only going to allow people that were there to post.

[GentlemanJim]

It's not a personal insult.

"absolute garbage as all reasonable people know, but hey, we must remember what forum we are on."

This is a general insult for my fellows in the forum. I fought back. Fellows means for me " open mind, open heart and open mouth"

The Teaching of the Buddha, I can give to you some links to study more about this..

Well regardless of how arguments between myself and nurofiend often go, I would say you need to read some of your links yourself, as I doubt for one moment that the teachings of the Buddha would condone a verbal attack on someone. More likely a consideration for what has been said, a period of unattached reflection, followed by a period of compassion and sympathy for someone that may have not reacted well in your opinion to a certain situation. Just a thought!

[nurofiend]

It's not a personal insult.

"absolute garbage as all reasonable people know, but hey, we must remember what forum we are on."

This is a general insult for my fellows in the forum. I fought back. Fellows means for me " open mind, open heart and open mouth"

The Teaching of the Buddha, I can give to you some links to study more about this..

sorry, it was a personal insult actually.

an off the cuff comment that was meant as how people can hold unreasonable opinions on tv forum, doesn't give you the right to personally attack me.

i don't think many would disagree with that comment and even if you do disagree it doesn't give you the right to call me garbage.

Edited July 6, 2012 by nurofiend

[Scott]

An inflammatory post and replies to it have been deleted.

Please stay on topic.

[Yunla]

i think because some people on here may have walked past the crowd a few times that they feel they have the claim on the facts.

absolute garbage as all reasonable people know, but hey, we must remember what forum we are on.

Very, very few posters were near the protests, and particularly, near any of the key events. So really, these threads should only get a couple of posts if you're only going to allow people that were there to post.

I agree that geographical location is no validation of your political analysis which can be made on collected news clippings and common sense etc. But you don't have to be standing in the middle of or walking past a protest to be affected. Being in the same city is enough if the protests themselves and the arrival of more protestors causes delays for commuters or the bank closure when you have appointment there. This is why I challenged Tlansford on his innaccurate "two months five days" claim for the 2010 protests, when there was over three months active mobilisation February to May in Bangkok causing disruption all the way. Several protests in February to May caused me to cancel appointments including the bank, or to arrive late for meetings due to congestion. I also had abuse thrown at me by a group of drunk redmob near where I live, again in February and this type of event isn't something you forget. For this reason my being in the city during the Ferbruary phase meant that I was aware fo the smaller build-up protests which Tlansford was unaware of because he was not there and not all rallies made the world news or even national news. In February we just thought these people wanted what they had said - the right to protest and make their democratic demands. So it was taken as a less serious issue than it became later in the protests, and reported on accordingly. Again, if you were caught up in the traffic, closed banks, had insults shouted at you etc. then you doesn't mean you have a better knowledge of the political facts than somebody living in Hawaii would, but it means you can get your dates right and are aware that the redmob were actively on the streets in the capital for slightly over three months. But also the television especially BBC painted the redmob as Robin Hoods, oppressed by the evil Sherriff of Nottingham, and really this was not true. The redmob were armed which I saw on the street, hostile, threatening locals. Abhisit did allow them three months protest which doesn't fit with the evil Sherriff picture that was on the world media.

[AleG]

Bombings around Bangkok also started on February.

[rubl]

One can certainly see a pattern in this last list.

You probably mean "it's not about Thaksin" as he didn't know red-shirts at that time. He was busy shopping anyway

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed, the grenade attacks in Chiang Mai would be another topic altogether.

[maidu]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

[nurofiend]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

[Yunla]

One can certainly see a pattern in this last list.

You probably mean "it's not about Thaksin" as he didn't know red-shirts at that time. He was busy shopping anyway

He was buying toys and chocolates for homeless orphans, with Aung San Suu Kyi.

[maidu]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

I don't know what 'innit' means. and I don't understand your last sentence. Some protesters were shot, yes, but it's a miracle many more were not shot. If Abhisit wasn't procrastinating and trying so hard to appease Thaksin and the Reds (in other words, if the Dem leader had been bold and decisive), a whole bunch of military would have been brought to bear, to dislodge the mob which had commandeered downtown Bkk with barriers of old tires and sharpened bamboo spikes. Some may conveniently forget, but those tire barriers were soaked with petrol by demonstrators, and many kids were in the crowd barricaded inside. It's a miracle that a much larger catastrophe was averted.

Surviving Reds should profusely thank Abhisit every day for being so trepidatious and slow to act. If not, dozens of Reds would be cremation dust.

[maidu]

as an aside: How many know how Napoleon first vaulted to fame?

He was put in charge of quelling a riot in the streets of Paris. He assembled a row of cannons in front of a church (facing away, down a cobblestone street). When protesters came up the street, Ka-boom-boom-boom! - he mowed them all down. End of demonstration. Beginning of Napoleon's legend.

I'm not recommending that Abhisit should have taken such dramatic action, but it's interesting to see how he adopted the opposite type of reaction to a big city demonstration.

[philw]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

I don't know what 'innit' means. and I don't understand your last sentence. Some protesters were shot, yes, but it's a miracle many more were not shot. If Abhisit wasn't procrastinating and trying so hard to appease Thaksin and the Reds (in other words, if the Dem leader had been bold and decisive), a whole bunch of military would have been brought to bear, to dislodge the mob which had commandeered downtown Bkk with barriers of old tires and sharpened bamboo spikes. Some may conveniently forget, but those tire barriers were soaked with petrol by demonstrators, and many kids were in the crowd barricaded inside. It's a miracle that a much larger catastrophe was averted.

Surviving Reds should profusely thank Abhisit every day for being so trepidatious and slow to act. If not, dozens of Reds would be cremation dust.

And that justifies it ???

How grateful they should be that more were not murdered by the State ??

That really is patronage at it's best. " Thank you for not shooting me oh Great One"................

Innit means "is it not" unless one is from Liverpool, where it means " It's true and i'm going for a beer, La."

[Moruya]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

What language is this?

[nurofiend]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

What language is this?

i'm tempted to quote samuel l jackson here but i'm afraid it would get me suspended.... so i won't.

[nurofiend]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

I don't know what 'innit' means. and I don't understand your last sentence. Some protesters were shot, yes, but it's a miracle many more were not shot. If Abhisit wasn't procrastinating and trying so hard to appease Thaksin and the Reds (in other words, if the Dem leader had been bold and decisive), a whole bunch of military would have been brought to bear, to dislodge the mob which had commandeered downtown Bkk with barriers of old tires and sharpened bamboo spikes. Some may conveniently forget, but those tire barriers were soaked with petrol by demonstrators, and many kids were in the crowd barricaded inside. It's a miracle that a much larger catastrophe was averted.

Surviving Reds should profusely thank Abhisit every day for being so trepidatious and slow to act. If not, dozens of Reds would be cremation dust.

"funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit."

translation

it is funny how the protesters that were shot at in order for them to leave bangkok didn't clean up after themselves isn't it.

Surviving Reds should profusely thank Abhisit every day for being so trepidatious and slow to act. If not, dozens of Reds would be cremation dust.

please explain to me how the timing of the crackdown relates to the deathtoll??

[Moruya]

I followed the problems in Bkk as closely as a person could, from northern Thailand - via TV and print and online coverage. My thoughts ranged from annoyance at Abhisit - for being so eager to appear the 'nice guy'. I think he was tolerant and restrained to a fault.

My main impressions were of the mayhem and vindictiveness of the Red faction. There were a lot of other impressions I came away with, including the a strong belief that the Black military- trained (Sae Daeng) element embedded with the Reds, and the funding/encouragement of the Reds by T and his family and friends.

All subsequent discussions are, to me, variations on the themes mentioned above.

Parting shot: The Reds didn't even have the decency to offer to clean up their collective shit afterwards.

you mean like their bodies?

funny how the protesters that were shot out of bangkok didn't clean up after themselves innit.

What language is this?

i'm tempted to quote samuel l jackson here but i'm afraid it would get me suspended.... so i won't.

A second rate actor?

Surely you must have someone with a bit more gravitas? Someone who might possibly have said something I remember?

[Thaddeus]

i'm tempted to quote samuel l jackson here but i'm afraid it would get me suspended.... so i won't.

A second rate actor?

Surely you must have someone with a bit more gravitas? Someone who might possibly have said something I remember?

Like.....

"On my command, unleash hell"

Also something that AV didn't say either. (keeping with the topic)

[Moruya]

i'm tempted to quote samuel l jackson here but i'm afraid it would get me suspended.... so i won't.

A second rate actor?

Surely you must have someone with a bit more gravitas? Someone who might possibly have said something I remember?

Like.....

"On my command, unleash hell"

Also something that AV didn't say either. (keeping with the topic)

Is that magnum opus from this Jackson chap or Thaksin?

[ballpoint]

[

i'm tempted to quote samuel l jackson here but i'm afraid it would get me suspended.... so i won't.

"Get these mother f***ing snakes out from behind these mother f***ing barricades".

[473geo]

I'm surprised how naive posters are to think Abhisit exercised any control once the RTA was deployed!.....probably the reason he held back so long

[Thaddeus]

I'm surprised how naive posters are to think Abhisit exercised any control once the RTA was deployed!.....probably the reason he held back so long

You want to see naive, I'll show you naive.....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/564230-no-order-to-open-fire-on-the-crowds-in-2010-abhisit/page__st__600#entry5466056

[maidu]

Nurofriend writes: "it is funny how the protesters that were shot at in order for them to leave bangkok didn't clean up after themselves isn't it."

We probably won't agree on this, but maybe that's ok. It's been over 2 years since Bkk was commandeered and trashed by the Reds and their paramilitary buddies with auto-weapons who were embedded with them.

Did the Reds have a specific beef with that downtown section of Bangkok? It's agreed they stormed a bordering hospital and harassed the staff there. It's also extremely likely that some of their members torched nearby commercial buildings. Does anyone dispute those things happened? What caused them to threaten the locals there?

Even a 3 year old child can deduce from the evidence above, that the Reds were making big messes and not lifting a finger to clean them up.

When they were offered several options for negotiated peace deals, their leaders (after a few quick phone calls to Dubai) turned them down. By every indication, the Reds had churlish contempt for Bkk its residents - and had no real intention of negotiating their nebulous demands.

Part of the job description for the PM is to try and maintain law and order in his jurisdiction (Thailand). He did that belatedly, in the most limp-wristed style imaginable. He practiced restraint and diplomacy to a fault. Bkk police offered scant little assistance (they simply didn't do their jobs). As Abhisit held back, Red audaciousness grew exponentially. Several times, the Reds even lobbed grenades outside their compound (killed a woman at a train platform with one. Killed a cop on a motorbike with another, ....and there were other casualties).

I'll rephrase what I mentioned earlier: if individual Reds have any capacity for appreciation, they should profusely thank Abhisit for showing such restraint in the face of protracted threats. Many are alive today, due to his kindness.

[binjalin]

Nurofriend writes: "it is funny how the protesters that were shot at in order for them to leave bangkok didn't clean up after themselves isn't it."

We probably won't agree on this, but maybe that's ok. It's been over 2 years since Bkk was commandeered and trashed by the Reds and their paramilitary buddies with auto-weapons who were embedded with them.

Did the Reds have a specific beef with that downtown section of Bangkok? It's agreed they stormed a bordering hospital and harassed the staff there. It's also extremely likely that some of their members torched nearby commercial buildings. Does anyone dispute those things happened? What caused them to threaten the locals there?

Even a 3 year old child can deduce from the evidence above, that the Reds were making big messes and not lifting a finger to clean them up.

When they were offered several options for negotiated peace deals, their leaders (after a few quick phone calls to Dubai) turned them down. By every indication, the Reds had churlish contempt for Bkk its residents - and had no real intention of negotiating their nebulous demands.

Part of the job description for the PM is to try and maintain law and order in his jurisdiction (Thailand). He did that belatedly, in the most limp-wristed style imaginable. He practiced restraint and diplomacy to a fault. Bkk police offered scant little assistance (they simply didn't do their jobs). As Abhisit held back, Red audaciousness grew exponentially. Several times, the Reds even lobbed grenades outside their compound (killed a woman at a train platform with one. Killed a cop on a motorbike with another, ....and there were other casualties).

I'll rephrase what I mentioned earlier: if individual Reds have any capacity for appreciation, they should profusely thank Abhisit for showing such restraint in the face of protracted threats. Many are alive today, due to his kindness.

I happen to agree with 'some' of this which is why I keep going back to the airport debacle - from my observations it goes back to that. Nothing was done and they caused HUGE economic distress to this country and it should have been cracked down HARD back then (it wasn't Abhisit but that's unimportant) it's the culture of weakness by government. Although I sympathize with the red cause I completely condemn any violence whatsoever which includes the airport mess and the riots in BKK so I don't agree with that part of your post that 'Abhisit's weakness' saved lives - it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place - airport OR the BKK gig and that would have saved lives for sure.

[maidu]

The airport take-over was significantly different. Not to fully justify it (tho I was a Yellow supporter at the time), the airport was a demonstration in classic-style with mostly sit-down attendees, whereas the Reds take-over of downtown bangkok was mob rule with armed contingent, plus much violence and destruction.

[Yunla]

I happen to agree with 'some' of this which is why I keep going back to the airport debacle - from my observations it goes back to that. Nothing was done and they caused HUGE economic distress to this country and it should have been cracked down HARD back then (it wasn't Abhisit but that's unimportant) it's the culture of weakness by government. Although I sympathize with the red cause I completely condemn any violence whatsoever which includes the airport mess and the riots in BKK so I don't agree with that part of your post that 'Abhisit's weakness' saved lives - it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place - airport OR the BKK gig and that would have saved lives for sure.

I do personally think that an eight day sitdown protest in an airport or anywhere else for that matter, to remove a tyrannical regime that had killed thousands of innocent people and robbed hundreds of billions from the state, is perfectly reasonable democratic behaviour. Eight days to remove a serious threat like that is entirely justified.

I think that the other protest, by the redmob, lasting over three months and including the protest-organisers onstage urging of citywide arson "burn Bangkok down" along with all the deaths that this arson would result in, is not democratic or reasonable. Especially since the regime they were trying to topple had not murdered thousands or robbed hundreds of billions, as the previous regime had done.

Those were two entirely different events, bearing similarity neither in duration, necessity, or the open promotion of violence and arson by the protest leadership.

I agree that the three month redmob event should have been stopped within the first fourteen days, and stopped by the city police with as little force as possible. But I do not agree that the eight day PAD protest to remove a tyrannical regime was unwarranted or needed stopping in under eight days.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Yunla

[SuneeTH]

There was no direct order from Mark to shoot anyone.

It was just a blanket order to use life bullet. Whether the army pull the trigger or not is not under the control of Mark, and he should not be held responsibility.

It is like telling your Thai staff (do did something wrong) "You can go to hell." Whether he/she does go to hell or not is beyond your jurisdiction.

[Moruya]

There was no direct order from Mark to shoot anyone.

It was just a blanket order to use life bullet. Whether the army pull the trigger or not is not under the control of Mark, and he should not be held responsibility.

It is like telling your Thai staff (do did something wrong) "You can go to hell." Whether he/she does go to hell or not is beyond your jurisdiction.

I agree.

I would also add that I doubt very much that the army had any training on shooting armed protesters in a crowd such as they faced and were scared of being shot or becoming the victim of a granade attack.