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

[carra]

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.

Nonsense, we are talking about a Prime Minister here and peoples lives, not some office wallah that forgets to change the drinking water. Unbelievable that some people can just whitewash the deaths of so many people on both sides.

he was running the country, he either gave the order or he didn't, if he didn't then who did? He knows so why won't he say?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[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.

Nonsense, we are talking about a Prime Minister here and peoples lives, not some office wallah that forgets to change the drinking water. Unbelievable that some people can just whitewash the deaths of so many people on both sides.

he was running the country, he either gave the order or he didn't, if he didn't then who did? He knows so why won't he say?

The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find

[Moruya]

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.

Somchai, for it was he, attempted to get the boys in brown to disperse the crowd with teargas. After killing and maiming PAD protesters by shooting them with military grade Chinese gas canisters, Somchai and others found themselves at the wrong end of legal action.

At that stage the police must have realised how useless they actually were and were collectively reticent to do anything other than observe subsequently

[slapout]

To say that any one individual, runs Thailand or for that matter, any country that professes to have a democatic process, may be a step from reality.

Those individuals, charged with handling a problem, seem to find a way to shift the blame, when their plans/action go tits up. Lack of responsiblity via committee, passing the buck, not approaching the real issue, etc, seems to be a trait of the incomptntent, corrupt and in a few cases, the inexperienced.

It is too bad that we as humans do not accept our own limitations, as we seem to point out about those we disagree with, or in many cases, it would seem, those we envy.

[Siripon]

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.

Nonsense, we are talking about a Prime Minister here and peoples lives, not some office wallah that forgets to change the drinking water. Unbelievable that some people can just whitewash the deaths of so many people on both sides.

he was running the country, he either gave the order or he didn't, if he didn't then who did? He knows so why won't he say?

When over 80 muslims died in army custody at Tak Bai, nobody suggested Thaksin should resign, and in the end the army was exonerated as the deep South was under emergency rule.

I would suggest Ratchaprasong in 2010 is covered by the same laws.

The red shirts attempts to involve the ICC are a waste of time too,for the ICC will not get involved until the case has already passed through the courts of the country involved.

As Thailand is not a signatory, so the red shirts try to invoke Apisit's UK passport as an avenue for prosecution. But I haven't seen any move by the British authorities to prosecute Apisit!

[jayboy]

When over 80 muslims died in army custody at Tak Bai, nobody suggested Thaksin should resign, and in the end the army was exonerated as the deep South was under emergency rule.

I would suggest Ratchaprasong in 2010 is covered by the same laws.

The red shirts attempts to involve the ICC are a waste of time too,for the ICC will not get involved until the case has already passed through the courts of the country involved.

As Thailand is not a signatory, so the red shirts try to invoke Apisit's UK passport as an avenue for prosecution. But I haven't seen any move by the British authorities to prosecute Apisit!

The Tak Bai massacre and its aftermath was a disgrace, hardly a relevant precedent or reason to apply the same disgusting behaviour and lack of accountability to Ratchaprasong 2010.

Thaksin as PM had political responsibility for what happened at Tak Bai and he aquitted himself very badly, firstly by his crass and insensitive remarks and secondly by not demanding (yes I know heads will be reeling at this comically unlikely scenario) the dismissal of the senior army officers involved (though in this latter respect no other PM would have shown a different attitude: all are equally craven to the Thai army even when as in this case criminality was involved)

However Thaksin, quite unlike Abhisit in 2010, had no direct part in the murderous activity.Abhisit was directly involved in command and control the Ratchaprasong operation.I agree the redshirts demand he resign are unrealistic but I would have thought some apology on his part was appropriate even if just an expression of sincere regret for the death of fellow Thai citizens.However there has been nothing on these lines from Abhisit - just surly, mealy mouthed, self justifying platitudes.Disappointing really because he certainly is more of a cultured and sensitive human being than Thaksin ever could be.Abhisit is in short off the hook and the UK authorities frankly couldn't care less.As for the army in both the cases of Tak Bai and Ratchprasong, no comment is neceaarry because its crimes are never properly investigated let alone punished.Look at the repellent arrogance it has treated the half hearted inquiries into both incidents.

[Moruya]

When over 80 muslims died in army custody at Tak Bai, nobody suggested Thaksin should resign, and in the end the army was exonerated as the deep South was under emergency rule.

I would suggest Ratchaprasong in 2010 is covered by the same laws.

The red shirts attempts to involve the ICC are a waste of time too,for the ICC will not get involved until the case has already passed through the courts of the country involved.

As Thailand is not a signatory, so the red shirts try to invoke Apisit's UK passport as an avenue for prosecution. But I haven't seen any move by the British authorities to prosecute Apisit!

The Tak Bai massacre and its aftermath was a disgrace, hardly a relevant precedent or reason to apply the same disgusting behaviour and lack of accountability to Ratchaprasong 2010.

Thaksin as PM had political responsibility for what happened at Tak Bai and he aquitted himself very badly, firstly by his crass and insensitive remarks and secondly by not demanding (yes I know heads will be reeling at this comically unlikely scenario) the dismissal of the senior army officers involved (though in this latter respect no other PM would have shown a different attitude: all are equally craven to the Thai army even when as in this case criminality was involved)

However Thaksin, quite unlike Abhisit in 2010, had no direct part in the murderous activity.Abhisit was directly involved in command and control the Ratchaprasong operation.I agree the redshirts demand he resign are unrealistic but I would have thought some apology on his part was appropriate even if just an expression of sincere regret for the death of fellow Thai citizens.However there has been nothing on these lines from Abhisit - just surly, mealy mouthed, self justifying platitudes.Disappointing really because he certainly is more of a cultured and sensitive human being than Thaksin ever could be.Abhisit is in short off the hook and the UK authorities frankly couldn't care less.As for the army in both the cases of Tak Bai and Ratchprasong, no comment is neceaarry because its crimes are never properly investigated let alone punished.Look at the repellent arrogance it has treated the half hearted inquiries into both incidents.

Abhisit did his job as well as he could.

The Red Shirts brought this upon themselves - they knew they had armed men within their ranks that were firing guns and grenades, they knew that the armed forces had been issued with live rounds to protect themselves. I can tell you that I would not have stayed under those circumstances.

[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.

Somchai, for it was he, attempted to get the boys in brown to disperse the crowd with teargas. After killing and maiming PAD protesters by shooting them with military grade Chinese gas canisters, Somchai and others found themselves at the wrong end of legal action.

At that stage the police must have realised how useless they actually were and were collectively reticent to do anything other than observe subsequently

and they would do that in NY? Berlin? London? 'observe'? why didn't they cut of the water and electric??? the point IS this is where it all started (the recent events) and the government treated the airport protest meekly YET cracked down and killed many when the shot color was different.

[chuang]

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.

.. 555555555

[carra]

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.

Nonsense, we are talking about a Prime Minister here and peoples lives, not some office wallah that forgets to change the drinking water. Unbelievable that some people can just whitewash the deaths of so many people on both sides.

he was running the country, he either gave the order or he didn't, if he didn't then who did? He knows so why won't he say?

When over 80 muslims died in army custody at Tak Bai, nobody suggested Thaksin should resign, and in the end the army was exonerated as the deep South was under emergency rule.

I would suggest Ratchaprasong in 2010 is covered by the same laws.

The red shirts attempts to involve the ICC are a waste of time too,for the ICC will not get involved until the case has already passed through the courts of the country involved.

As Thailand is not a signatory, so the red shirts try to invoke Apisit's UK passport as an avenue for prosecution. But I haven't seen any move by the British authorities to prosecute Apisit!

Well he did go to school with cameron

[carra]

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.

.. 555555555

I know some people actually believe this

[Siripon]

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.

.. 555555555

I know some people actually believe this

Absolutely true. The yellow shirts milled or swarmed around the airport, sat down for 5 days and then left.

The airport resumed normal operations very quickly, within a day or two.

The siege of Ratchaprasong by the red shirts was far, far more violent.

[saltandpepper]

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.

.. 555555555

I know some people actually believe this

You guys have a strange sense of humor..

[binjalin]

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.

.. 555555555

I know some people actually believe this

it's beyond belief...

[ThaiOats]

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3281

Go read this and tell me what's wrong? Not one mention of Tak Bai, not one mention of Red Shirt protestors being armed. This letter being sent to the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who I believe has access to youtube and google. If this professor didn't go through the trouble of omitting all the other stuff, it might actually be considered. Instead, he's playing the prosecutor for being a fool by trying to hide his political bias.

[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.

am I reading this correctly??? the PM is 'not responsible'? you mean the US Presidents is 'not responsible' for Iraq too? jeeze

I think the invasion of another sovereign nation is a slightly different game to a PM and Government being responsible for the safety of their own monarchy, people and nation, when a mob of tens of thousands of people, with many armed, have been brainwashed for several weeks to burn down the capital city and murder soldiers....don't you?

The order to shoot life bullets is not to kill its citizen. It is to minimize the country losses as the Red Shirts are burning down the capital city and murdering soldiers.

[SuneeTH]

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3281

Go read this and tell me what's wrong? Not one mention of Tak Bai, not one mention of Red Shirt protestors being armed. This letter being sent to the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who I believe has access to youtube and google. If this professor didn't go through the trouble of omitting all the other stuff, it might actually be considered. Instead, he's playing the prosecutor for being a fool by trying to hide his political bias.

I hope Prachatai link is not allowed in ThaiVisa.

The webowner is chared for LM.

ThaiVisa don't want to be charged for LM.

[binjalin]

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.

am I reading this correctly??? the PM is 'not responsible'? you mean the US Presidents is 'not responsible' for Iraq too? jeeze

I think the invasion of another sovereign nation is a slightly different game to a PM and Government being responsible for the safety of their own monarchy, people and nation, when a mob of tens of thousands of people, with many armed, have been brainwashed for several weeks to burn down the capital city and murder soldiers....don't you?

we are not debating that - we were debating WAS he responsible? yes he was is the only answer (not that I agree with the rest of your post)

[jayboy]

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.

.. 555555555

I know some people actually believe this

Absolutely true. The yellow shirts milled or swarmed around the airport, sat down for 5 days and then left.

The airport resumed normal operations very quickly, within a day or two.

The siege of Ratchaprasong by the red shirts was far, far more violent.

I dont think anyone disputes that Rajprasong was far more violent, mostly the result of the army's actions.But the economic damage as a result of the airport occupation was huge. and equally significant set a precedent for lawlessness ( committed by better off and better educated people).The double standards applied still seems stunning with the criminals responsible still untouched.No wonder the redshirts remain furiously angry.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[ThaiOats]

I dont think anyone disputes that Rajprasong was far more violent, mostly the result of the army's actions.But the economic damage as a result of the airport occupation was huge. and equally significant set a precedent for lawlessness ( committed by better off and better educated people).The double standards applied still seems stunning with the criminals responsible still untouched.No wonder the redshirts remain furiously angry.

Which is worse, the economic damage or the deaths of 98 people? The economic damage was the result of a peaceful sit in or do you propose that the yellow shirts bring weapons and did what the Red Shirts did? Why didn't the Red-Shirts take a page out of the PAD's protest and sit in Bangkok then? I'm not a yellow-shirt by the way but I'm a pro-Democrat. If the Red-Shirts really wanted to show that there was double-standards going on, they should've done exactly the same thing that the yellow-shirts and see what the outcome would be like. If they go to jail for sitting in Bangkok (with no weapons) or occupying the Airport (with no weapons) and go to jail, THEN you can point double standards.

[metisdead]

but in a sense you are right we have veered off topic

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[tlansford]

I dont think anyone disputes that Rajprasong was far more violent, mostly the result of the army's actions.But the economic damage as a result of the airport occupation was huge. and equally significant set a precedent for lawlessness ( committed by better off and better educated people).The double standards applied still seems stunning with the criminals responsible still untouched.No wonder the redshirts remain furiously angry.

Which is worse, the economic damage or the deaths of 98 people? The economic damage was the result of a peaceful sit in or do you propose that the yellow shirts bring weapons and did what the Red Shirts did? Why didn't the Red-Shirts take a page out of the PAD's protest and sit in Bangkok then? I'm not a yellow-shirt by the way but I'm a pro-Democrat. If the Red-Shirts really wanted to show that there was double-standards going on, they should've done exactly the same thing that the yellow-shirts and see what the outcome would be like. If they go to jail for sitting in Bangkok (with no weapons) or occupying the Airport (with no weapons) and go to jail, THEN you can point double standards.

While I agree that the UDD should have held non-violent protests, and that this would have served their purposes much better, it did not happen that way in 2010, nor has it been that way since this street level conflict started. The violence was there from the start and escalated through 2010. But this "PAD peaceful sit-in protesters" is a myth. It is not the case that the PAD were not violent. Here is one of many times that Nick Nositz has posted about the violence on both sides, and he has written extensively about it.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/493271-wreath-for-house-speaker-sparks-red-shirt-attack/page__view__findpost__p__4654152

[somtumlion]

I dont think anyone disputes that Rajprasong was far more violent, mostly the result of the army's actions.But the economic damage as a result of the airport occupation was huge. and equally significant set a precedent for lawlessness ( committed by better off and better educated people).The double standards applied still seems stunning with the criminals responsible still untouched.No wonder the redshirts remain furiously angry.

Which is worse, the economic damage or the deaths of 98 people? The economic damage was the result of a peaceful sit in or do you propose that the yellow shirts bring weapons and did what the Red Shirts did? Why didn't the Red-Shirts take a page out of the PAD's protest and sit in Bangkok then? I'm not a yellow-shirt by the way but I'm a pro-Democrat. If the Red-Shirts really wanted to show that there was double-standards going on, they should've done exactly the same thing that the yellow-shirts and see what the outcome would be like. If they go to jail for sitting in Bangkok (with no weapons) or occupying the Airport (with no weapons) and go to jail, THEN you can point double standards.

While I agree that the UDD should have held non-violent protests, and that this would have served their purposes much better, it did not happen that way in 2010, nor has it been that way since this street level conflict started. The violence was there from the start and escalated through 2010. But this "PAD peaceful sit-in protesters" is a myth. It is not the case that the PAD were not violent. Here is one of many times that Nick Nositz has posted about the violence on both sides, and he has written extensively about it.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4654152

horse is dead - time to stop beating it.

[animatic]

If only the non-violence would actually have helped the Red sides aims they might have gone that route. They didn't and that speaks volumes. It wasn't the under-educated reddish masses, but the educated hardcore red leadership that caused it to all go bad.

We know these because we could see it on TV in real time.

Edited July 12, 2012 by animatic