Deaths From Stray Bullets 'shock' Group

[Lite Beer]

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

Deaths from stray bullets 'shock' group

Puangthong

BANGKOK: -- After two years, the People's Information Centre (PIC), a group of activists and academics who seek to end state impunity in relation to the 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters, is releasing its report, titled "Truth for Justice: Events and Impact on the Dispersal of Protests in April-May 2010". The group claims there were 94 deaths from all sides. Pravit Rojanaphruk talks to PIC coordinator and co-editor of the report, Puangthong Pawakapan, about what they discovered. Excerpts:

What did you discover that might change the way society looks at the incidents?

I was rather shocked by the many 'stray' deaths, of those who had nothing to do with the protests but were hit by stray bullets.

Many think that death and violence occurred after the burning of buildings [on May 19], but we discovered that military operations began from May 14 onwards, and on that day, 11 persons in Bon Kai, Lumpini Park and Rajprarop Road areas were killed. A senior military officer with the pen name Hua-na Kuang wrote in an Army journal [in 2010] about the 'success' of the military operation that it is credited to the use of live bullets against protesters. This is likely the reason why many were hit by stray bullets.

As for the so-called 'men in black', there is no clarity as to who they were and even the [Abhisit Vejjajiva] government has failed to trace them. Also, deaths and injuries occurred on the afternoon of April 10, [2010], before the claim by the Abhisit administration and the Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) that it occurred in the evening [after clashing with 'men in black'].

The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed.

What about the deployment of Army snipers?

There are so many video clips on the Internet showing many soldiers using telescopic guns. This explains why almost 30 per cent of the deaths resulted from bullet wounds on their heads. And if combined with another 22 per cent who died from gunshot wounds on the chest, the figure is above 50 per cent. This is no shooting for self-defence [as claimed by the Abhisit government].

Who do you think ought to be responsible for all these deaths?

The mastermind, the head of the government, the one who gave orders at the CRES and the person/s who came up with Army strategy. It is the responsibility of those who employed military means to disperse the protest and failed to control it.

Your group is regarded as sympathetic to red-shirt demonstrators. Would this not affect the credibility of your findings?

We are not surprised by the accusation. But what we want society to consider is the information we are presenting, and in many cases point to the excessive use of force and not in line with what the government or CRES claimed.

Even if you have all the military might and the law, you have no right to violate the right to life of protesters who had no lethal weapons and fought against the government. None of those maimed or killed appeared to carry lethal weapons.

You are also pessimistic about two other fact-finding reports soon to be released by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Why?

The TRCT is still confused between the issue of finding the truth and reconciliation. It appears that they fear that the truth may hinder reconciliation. As for the NHRC, we hope that it will apply human rights principles equally on both sides and not use human rights principle to defend the [Abhisit] government's use of indiscriminate force.

Also, while many protesters have been detained before verdicts were given, and some have been acquitted, the trial of Abhisit [and his people] has yet to begin. Not even one.

It seems that different groups in Thai society already have their own conclusions as to what happened in 2010.

We do not expect society to change their conclusion. Whether the information we gathered will be beneficial or not will depend on political change in the future. Then the culprits will be punished.

Are you not confident that state impunity will end?

I have no confidence. But we can't just sit idly and do nothing. We hope that if we do not accept [state impunity] then it will be shaken. What we are doing is to challenge the culture of impunity.

-- The Nation 2012-09-02

[OzMick]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

[Thaddeus]

Are you not confident that state impunity will end?

I have no confidence. But we can't just sit idly and do nothing. We hope that if we do not accept [state impunity] then it will be shaken. What we are doing is to challenge the culture of impunity.

Bravo, well said, why not start with the current incumbents and work outwards, it'll be easier. And much more productive.

[Valentine]

Seems almost impossible to get a truly neutral report as all the vested interests pull strings on these so called independent bodies.

[ballpoint]

Seems almost impossible to get a truly neutral report as all the vested interests pull strings on these so called independent bodies.

Exactly. While in no way being a supporter of Robert Amsterdam, I would love it if his ICC threats could somehow be made true and a truely independent tribunal investigates the events that lead up to and took place during the Songkrans of 2009 and 2010. No pastry boxes. No intimidation. No fleeing the verdict.

[phiphidon]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

[GentlemanJim]

It is not possible to get an internally administered investigation in to these events that is not biased towards one side or the other. It will only be achieved by a neutral 3rd party from the west. This is yet another waste of paper and trees in producing a report that has zero significance, zero impact and serves no other purpose than to give the head of the 'activist and academic group' their 5 mins of fame on National media. This is not news it is just sh*t stirring.

[Sayonarax]

You came to the city with the intent to cause havoc and mayhem to the other citizens who live here and you got shot. You set fire to our business and rode through our streets like hooligans.. are you really surprised that you got shot.

Whats the morale of the story? You wanted to do harm and you got harmed. Karmas a !!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 2, 2012 by Sayonarax

[pattayaorganic]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

Please enlighten me as to what democratic country in the world would allow and armed insurgency to take over the central business district, allow confiscation of military weapons, tanks, allow a non-state militia to conduct road stops/searches, allow armed insurgents to take over a government hospital, allow the tossing of grenades at innocent civilians, allow the leading army officer to be assassinated with a bullet to the head, and on and on and on WITHOUT an armed intervention. Do you think the US government would allow such a thing? Do you think UK would allow? Do you think Norway would allow?

Jeez guys. Whatever use of live bullets was undertaken by the government, don't you think that maybe, just maybe it might have been justified no matter how unpalatable that may be to you, this group was clearly across the line and again if these actions took place in a "democratic" country such as the US, I am absolutely sure the crackdown would have been even more prompt and powerful.

Just putting things in perspective for those with short and/or selective memories.

[aaacorp]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

The answer he wrote in poor english language shows how he sees the thai countrymen and the respect he has for them...a bit racist IMO

Edited September 2, 2012 by aaacorp

[Pimay1]

You came to the city with the intent to cause havoc and mayhem to the other citizens who live here and you got shot. You set fire to our business and rode through our streets like hooligans.. are you really surprised that you got shot.

Whats the morale of the story? You wanted to do harm and you got harmed. Karmas a !!!!!!!!!!!!

Excellent post Sayonarax. It seems that there are not many poeple left in this world that think they are responsible for their own actions. They cause mayhem, destruction, some die as a direct result of these actions and never admit to any fault or blame. It is always some one else's fault.

[Orac]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

Please enlighten me as to what democratic country in the world would allow and armed insurgency to take over the central business district, allow confiscation of military weapons, tanks, allow a non-state militia to conduct road stops/searches, allow armed insurgents to take over a government hospital, allow the tossing of grenades at innocent civilians, allow the leading army officer to be assassinated with a bullet to the head, and on and on and on WITHOUT an armed intervention. Do you think the US government would allow such a thing? Do you think UK would allow? Do you think Norway would allow?

Jeez guys. Whatever use of live bullets was undertaken by the government, don't you think that maybe, just maybe it might have been justified no matter how unpalatable that may be to you, this group was clearly across the line and again if these actions took place in a "democratic" country such as the US, I am absolutely sure the crackdown would have been even more prompt and powerful.

Just putting things in perspective for those with short and/or selective memories.

The lack of democracy in Thailand at the time is a very pertinent point I think.

[AleG]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

Please enlighten me as to what democratic country in the world would allow and armed insurgency to take over the central business district, allow confiscation of military weapons, tanks, allow a non-state militia to conduct road stops/searches, allow armed insurgents to take over a government hospital, allow the tossing of grenades at innocent civilians, allow the leading army officer to be assassinated with a bullet to the head, and on and on and on WITHOUT an armed intervention. Do you think the US government would allow such a thing? Do you think UK would allow? Do you think Norway would allow?

Jeez guys. Whatever use of live bullets was undertaken by the government, don't you think that maybe, just maybe it might have been justified no matter how unpalatable that may be to you, this group was clearly across the line and again if these actions took place in a "democratic" country such as the US, I am absolutely sure the crackdown would have been even more prompt and powerful.

Just putting things in perspective for those with short and/or selective memories.

A difference, IMHO, would be that in those countries the Army (or whichever state organism charged with the operation) would had stuck to the Rules Of Engagement much more strictly. I have no doubt that soldiers flaunted those rules left and right . TiT after all

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Edited September 2, 2012 by AleG

[GentlemanJim]

A difference, IMHO, would be that in those countries the Army (or whichever state organism charged with the operation) would had stuck to the Rules Of Engagement much more strictly. I have no doubt that soldiers flaunted those rules left and right . TiT after all

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just why do you have no doubt that the soldiers flaunted their rules of engagement? What knowledge gives you the right to say that? It is very very rare for a soldier to flaunt his ROE. Where is your proof of this statement you make? You then make a mockery of your own statement by saying:

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just what do you think rules of engagement are?? How about a rule of engagement to a soldier would be 'son, you are to stand here and defend this position. You are not to open fire unless you are fired upon. You are here to protect civilian life and the infrastructure of this city, you are permitted to defend your own life, the lives of your colleagues and the lives of innocent civilians by the use of lethal force only if you or those you are protecting are under fire and in danger of mortal injury. The rule of minimum force should be adhered to at all times unless your life, those you are protecting or the infrastructure you are protecting is in danger from the use of lethal force'.

Soldiers will not flaunt that! Thai soldiers and buddhist soldiers will not open fire on innocent Thai civilians running around the city, they just won't do it.

[lovetotravel]

A lot of this would not have happened if the police had done their job. The army would have never been called in for service.

[KireB]

Though she does have a point and without doubt the army made mistakes in their crowd control efforts and also without doubt innocent people died during the 'battle of Bangkok', by no means can she rule out the murderous fractions of the red shirts. It is not determined who killed who and it would not surprise me that there could have been snipers on both sides!

But even then, why were these people in a war zone? Who started this mess and why? He, and his cronies, are responsible and not those confronted with an armed revolution in their capital!

[jackr]

People died because perps were creating mayhem on the street. Doesn't need a rocket scientist to work it out really. End of.

[jackr]

A lot of this would not have happened if the police had done their job.

And what job is that?

[birdpooguava]

"The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed."

I would love to see AV locked up for murder, but I would prefer he stays as leader of the Dems because as long as he does this ensures they won't be in power.

[birdpooguava]

People died because perps were creating mayhem on the street. Doesn't need a rocket scientist to work it out really. End of.

The Dems were a military installed government that should never have been in power. They should have stood down long before the reds came to Bangkok. End of.

[SICHONSTEVE]

It is not possible to get an internally administered investigation in to these events that is not biased towards one side or the other. It will only be achieved by a neutral 3rd party from the west. This is yet another waste of paper and trees in producing a report that has zero significance, zero impact and serves no other purpose than to give the head of the 'activist and academic group' their 5 mins of fame on National media. This is not news it is just sh*t stirring.

"neutral 3rd party from the west".

Are you kidding!!!!! Employ some westerners - no way would they do this as they are paranoid about any sort of outside involvement/interfering in Thai matters!!!

[phiphidon]

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

Please enlighten me as to what democratic country in the world would allow and armed insurgency to take over the central business district, allow confiscation of military weapons, tanks, allow a non-state militia to conduct road stops/searches, allow armed insurgents to take over a government hospital, allow the tossing of grenades at innocent civilians, allow the leading army officer to be assassinated with a bullet to the head, and on and on and on WITHOUT an armed intervention. Do you think the US government would allow such a thing? Do you think UK would allow? Do you think Norway would allow?

Jeez guys. Whatever use of live bullets was undertaken by the government, don't you think that maybe, just maybe it might have been justified no matter how unpalatable that may be to you, this group was clearly across the line and again if these actions took place in a "democratic" country such as the US, I am absolutely sure the crackdown would have been even more prompt and powerful.

Just putting things in perspective for those with short and/or selective memories.

If you want perspective consider this quote by a leading Statesman in an interview with ABCs' Barbara Walters

“We don’t kill our people” "No government in the world kills its people unless it's led by a crazy person."

“There Was No Command to Kill”

Who was the leading Statesman? Abhisit?, Suthep?

No, Syrias President, Bashar al Assad

or this

For all that has happened, the PM cannot deny his responsibility, either by negligence or intention.

What is even worse than laying the blame on the authorities is vilifying the people.I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the crimes. This is unacceptable.

I have heard those in the government always asking people whether they are Thai or not. Considering what you are doing now, it is not the question of being Thai or not, but whether you are human at all.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1760

Now that was a quote from Abhisit.....................

[KireB]

"The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed."

I would love to see AV locked up for murder, but I would prefer he stays as leader of the Dems because as long as he does this ensures they won't be in power.

I am sure that Thaksin would love to see Abhisit locked up too so he can negotiate his 'reconciliation'. The fact that you still refuse to see who is responsible for the both 2009 and 2010 attacks is beyond me. Poor you.

[AleG]

A difference, IMHO, would be that in those countries the Army (or whichever state organism charged with the operation) would had stuck to the Rules Of Engagement much more strictly. I have no doubt that soldiers flaunted those rules left and right . TiT after all

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just why do you have no doubt that the soldiers flaunted their rules of engagement? What knowledge gives you the right to say that? It is very very rare for a soldier to flaunt his ROE. Where is your proof of this statement you make? You then make a mockery of your own statement by saying:

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just what do you think rules of engagement are?? How about a rule of engagement to a soldier would be 'son, you are to stand here and defend this position. You are not to open fire unless you are fired upon. You are here to protect civilian life and the infrastructure of this city, you are permitted to defend your own life, the lives of your colleagues and the lives of innocent civilians by the use of lethal force only if you or those you are protecting are under fire and in danger of mortal injury. The rule of minimum force should be adhered to at all times unless your life, those you are protecting or the infrastructure you are protecting is in danger from the use of lethal force'.

Soldiers will not flaunt that! Thai soldiers and buddhist soldiers will not open fire on innocent Thai civilians running around the city, they just won't do it.

"What knowledge gives you the right to say that?"

It's called intellectual honesty.

Off the top of my head I can think of the case of the journalist that was shot in the legs, repeatedly when obviously he was no threat or valid target to the soldiers.

Here I found a video, his name was Nelson Rand and, contrary to what the video claims, my recollection is that he was shot by soldiers, not Red Shirts.

Besides that, as I said, TiT. Are you to pretend that the norm in this country is strict adherence to rules and regulations?

[GentlemanJim]

"The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed."

I would love to see AV locked up for murder, but I would prefer he stays as leader of the Dems because as long as he does this ensures they won't be in power.

It takes a special person to be able to distort reality to such an extent that they come up with the conclusions that you do.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Rimmer

[AleG]

"The [Abhisit] government says those who died were terrorists but in the evidence we gathered, we discover no traces of gunpowder on the hands of any of those killed."

I would love to see AV locked up for murder, but I would prefer he stays as leader of the Dems because as long as he does this ensures they won't be in power.

So you'd prefer political games to justice? I'm shocked...

[Mosha]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

The answer he wrote in poor english language shows how he sees the thai countrymen and the respect he has for them...a bit racist IMO

It's how the 'Yoof in Ingerland' talk.

[GentlemanJim]

A difference, IMHO, would be that in those countries the Army (or whichever state organism charged with the operation) would had stuck to the Rules Of Engagement much more strictly. I have no doubt that soldiers flaunted those rules left and right . TiT after all

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just why do you have no doubt that the soldiers flaunted their rules of engagement? What knowledge gives you the right to say that? It is very very rare for a soldier to flaunt his ROE. Where is your proof of this statement you make? You then make a mockery of your own statement by saying:

Of course recognizing that doesn't absolve the Red Shirts from their responsibility of instigating the chaos in the first place. Without their armed comrades running about taking potshots at soldiers, police, civilians and infrastructure (you know, as in an actual peaceful protest) nobody ought to have died.

Just what do you think rules of engagement are?? How about a rule of engagement to a soldier would be 'son, you are to stand here and defend this position. You are not to open fire unless you are fired upon. You are here to protect civilian life and the infrastructure of this city, you are permitted to defend your own life, the lives of your colleagues and the lives of innocent civilians by the use of lethal force only if you or those you are protecting are under fire and in danger of mortal injury. The rule of minimum force should be adhered to at all times unless your life, those you are protecting or the infrastructure you are protecting is in danger from the use of lethal force'.

Soldiers will not flaunt that! Thai soldiers and buddhist soldiers will not open fire on innocent Thai civilians running around the city, they just won't do it.

"What knowledge gives you the right to say that?"

It's called intellectual honesty.

Off the top of my head I can think of the case of the journalist that was shot in the legs, repeatedly when obviously he was no threat or valid target to the soldiers.

Here I found a video, his name was Nelson Rand and, contrary to what the video claims, my recollection is that he was shot by soldiers, not Red Shirts.

Besides that, as I said, TiT. Are you to pretend that the norm in this country is strict adherence to rules and regulations?

How funny, so you say that although the video shows nothing and claims it was red shirts, your recollection is it was soldiers! Just what is your recollection based on?

I don't care if this is Thailand. Soldiers will follow their rules of engagement.

You say that you are sure the soldiers flaunted their rules of engagement because you have intellectual honesty !! it seems more like an intellectual disability.

[OzMick]

Q: Do you accept that some people in the protest group were illegally carrying weapons, and that these were used to kill and injure security personnel?

A: we dun nuffink rong.

I can't recall you ever condemining the military / security forces for killing unarmed people. You must be aware it happened. Your riposte, the pathetic "we dun nuffink rong" or variations on that theme

Yet here you are , once again, on your high horse of "truth and the democratic way" and accusing others of something you are just as guilty of.

The usual suspects - the usual mantra. Have you ever considered an alternative viewpoint to the one that you hold might have some merit?

Do you have any sensible comment at all on the observation from yet another group of people that maintain that people were shot who were unarmed and were not posing a threat to the armed forces or that the government/military combined tactics used against those people protesting was way and beyond an "proportional response" as opined by the HRW in one of its less partisan moments.?

Actually I think it is quite likely that unarmed people were caught in the crossfire, but they lose the claim to innocence and "peaceful protest" when they remain part of an illegally armed group.

BUT have you or the red shirts ever admitted that if the protesters had not arrived after a torrent of violent and vitriolic rhetoric and carrying weapons, there would be no need for the army or an armed response?

As soon as weapons were used against security personnel, it was inevitable that a harsh response was coming and justified. Not admitting that they had overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest and wisely retreating to reform was the height of stupidity. But fuelled by lies and ignorance of the democratic process, they demanded "rights" to which they had no claim.

And you can keep your HRW - they have a default position that violence is NEVER justified, even in response to illegal violent attacks.

Edited September 2, 2012 by OzMick

[whybother]

People died because perps were creating mayhem on the street. Doesn't need a rocket scientist to work it out really. End of.

The Dems were a military installed government that should never have been in power. They should have stood down long before the reds came to Bangkok. End of.

No. The Democrats were an elected government. A majority of MPs elected Abhisit as PM, and Abhisit formed government.

Elected governments shouldn't step down just because a few thousand people come out and protest.

Sent from my HTC phone.