Jump to content

Army Infighting Caused Deaths During Red-Shirt Protests 2010: Academics


Recommended Posts

Posted

'Army infighting caused deaths'

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- A group of academics claimed yesterday that conflicts between Army factions led to the fighting and high casualties during the red-shirt protests in 2010.

The group, calling itself the Information Centre of People Affected by the Crackdowns on Demonstrations in April-May 2010, presented its 933-page draft report on the political unrest in 2010 at a press conference at Thammasat University.

A source from the academics, who are seen as supporting the red-shirt movement, said the wording needed to be polished before the final report would be released.

Banthit Chanrojanakij, a political science lecturer and a former member of a committee of the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT), said the conflicts had developed and culminated in the fighting at Kokwua Intersection on April 10, 2010 and the shootings and killings of some Army officers at the National Memorial later.

The Army claimed that unknown armed "men in black" were responsible for the shootings at the demonstrators and the troops at Kokwua Intersection and for other incidents.

According to the report, as seen by The Nation, not all the killings at Kokwua Intersection were committed by the "men in black" as claimed by the then Democrat government.

Conflicts between two groups of Army officers were also blamed for the killing of Colonel Romklao Thuwatham, who was in charge of the operation at Kokwua Intersection.

Puangthong Phawakkaraphan, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, said her centre needed to conduct its research in parallel with the TRCT's investigation because the TRCT showed no progress in its study.

She said the TRCT had neglected to find out whether the authorities had violated the rights of the demonstrators so the centre would do its best to uncover the truth and make it known to the public.

nationlogo.jpg

-- The Nation 2012-08-20

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Well that's an interesting new (to me at least) theory, it wasn't the armed black-shirts, mingling amongst the red-shirt protesters, who did it but another army-faction.

But at least its agreed ("not all the killings") that some of the troops were shot by the black-shirts.

Posted

If they are such an esteemed group of academics, surely they could have summerised down 933 pages? You average ajarn would not have had the patience to read that and would have have thrown it back at the student. I would thus conclude that its not the quality academic piece that it claims to be?

  • Like 2
Posted

Damned right, the faction under army general Seh Daeng were rebelling against their own country with Arms paid for by the tax man.

I agree, I've thought so all along.

  • Like 1
Posted

"The group, calling itself the Information Centre of People Affected by the Crackdowns on Demonstrations in April-May 2010, presented its 933-page draft report on the political unrest in 2010 at a press conference at Thammasat University".

The I.C.P.A.C.D.A.M.2010, never heard of them.

Thank You for the Laugh.
Posted

What if there is some truth to their assertion ?

It is a theory that I have heard raised before and it raises some very serious questions.

  • Like 2
Posted

"Conflicts between two groups of Army officers were also blamed for the killing of Colonel Romklao Thuwatham, who was in charge of the operation at Kokwua Intersection."

"This is our fraggie!"

"No, it's ours!"

"No, it's ours!"

"Let's make a deal. We get the supparot, you get the safety pin. You can decorate your hat with it like Seh Daeng. Deal?"

"Deal!"

The rest is history

Posted

These outrageous claims by ad-hoc academic committees have lost all credibility, so much so, that even streching of the truth, small exagerations, or embellishments are now treated as telling porkies.

Same as most opinion polls - just paid results to lead the people.

Sad really, because this country needs input from academics.

Posted

'Army infighting caused deaths'

Oh really ?

In my opinion the deaths were caused by the red shirts being such a pain in the arse.

C'mon, a stronghold made of tires and a 'non violent rally'

Give us a break.

Do we have stupid tattooed on our foreheads ?

Posted

"The group, calling itself the Information Centre of People Affected by the Crackdowns on Demonstrations in April-May 2010, presented its 933-page draft report on the political unrest in 2010 at a press conference at Thammasat University".

The I.C.P.A.C.D.A.M.2010, never heard of them.

Icpacdam? Yes I think I've heard of him. A bit silly putting his pin number down though. biggrin.png

Posted

The text should have been "Not all Killings have committed by the army". Bet you that the fast mind of Prayuth will conclude in three and half months time that the academics have defamed the holy army.

  • Like 1
Posted
The text should have been "Not all Killings have committed by the army". Bet you that the fast mind of Prayuth will conclude in three and half months time that the academics have defamed the holy army.

It always amuses me when someone reads an article and distorts a summary of it to fit their preconceived ideas.

Posted

the official report writers only have two buttons on the auto write. One is suicide the other not yet used. I recommend they label the second button 'friendly fire'

The polishing will be how to get all involved parties accounted for under one or other of the auto writer buttons. then we can all go home happy that there is no case to answer

Posted

What if there is some truth to their assertion ?

It is a theory that I have heard raised before and it raises some very serious questions.

Re your gullibility?

You find the concept of foreign mercenaries completely unacceptable, but brother officers of the RTA deciding to murder each other is plausible? Maroon.

I actually think the possibility that there were Russian mercenaries involved ( your original assertion ) to be startlingly laughable.

However given the known tensions within the Thai military, it is quite plausible and a distinct possibility, that brother officers did in fact murder each other.

They do have considerable form and experience of murdering their brother Thais, do they not ??

Thanks for your opinion on my gullibility and other than a cake, colour, pyrotechnic or obscure Napoleonic Guard, what is a maroon ???

Or were you trying to say "moron"

Posted

The fact that there was a lot of ill-feeling (murderous hatred?) between different regiments in the Thai army is widely reported. The obvious bias to a particular regiment in regards to promotions left others extremely bitter

Posted

What if there is some truth to their assertion ?

It is a theory that I have heard raised before and it raises some very serious questions.

Re your gullibility?

You find the concept of foreign mercenaries completely unacceptable, but brother officers of the RTA deciding to murder each other is plausible? Maroon.

I actually think the possibility that there were Russian mercenaries involved ( your original assertion ) to be startlingly laughable.

However given the known tensions within the Thai military, it is quite plausible and a distinct possibility, that brother officers did in fact murder each other.

They do have considerable form and experience of murdering their brother Thais, do they not ??

Thanks for your opinion on my gullibility and other than a cake, colour, pyrotechnic or obscure Napoleonic Guard, what is a maroon ???

Or were you trying to say "moron"

"What a maroon!" is a mis-use of the word moron made famous to generations by Bugs Bunny. That the word also depicts a deep shade of red makes it singularly appropriate.

And my claim as to your gullibility stands.

Posted

The fact that there was a lot of ill-feeling (murderous hatred?) between different regiments in the Thai army is widely reported. The obvious bias to a particular regiment in regards to promotions left others extremely bitter

are you able to reference that with an article of any credibility?

Posted

The fact that there was a lot of ill-feeling (murderous hatred?) between different regiments in the Thai army is widely reported. The obvious bias to a particular regiment in regards to promotions left others extremely bitter

are you able to reference that with an article of any credibility?

New Mandala has this very good article and there are other sources out there.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/27/the-deep-political-crisis-within-the-royal-thai-army-officer-corps

  • Like 1
Posted

What if there is some truth to their assertion ?

It is a theory that I have heard raised before and it raises some very serious questions.

Re your gullibility?

You find the concept of foreign mercenaries completely unacceptable, but brother officers of the RTA deciding to murder each other is plausible? Maroon.

I actually think the possibility that there were Russian mercenaries involved ( your original assertion ) to be startlingly laughable.

However given the known tensions within the Thai military, it is quite plausible and a distinct possibility, that brother officers did in fact murder each other.

They do have considerable form and experience of murdering their brother Thais, do they not ??

Thanks for your opinion on my gullibility and other than a cake, colour, pyrotechnic or obscure Napoleonic Guard, what is a maroon ???

Or were you trying to say "moron"

"What a maroon!" is a mis-use of the word moron made famous to generations by Bugs Bunny. That the word also depicts a deep shade of red makes it singularly appropriate.

And my claim as to your gullibility stands.

"Bugs Bunny".................oh, sorry, I should have known.

Any further comment on the army on army bit , or are we having a cartoon break ??

Posted
The text should have been "Not all Killings have committed by the army". Bet you that the fast mind of Prayuth will conclude in three and half months time that the academics have defamed the holy army.

It always amuses me when someone reads an article and distorts a summary of it to fit their preconceived ideas.

Sounds about right for The Nation.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...