Bangkok Police To Probe 9 More Deaths During 2010 Crackdown

[hellodolly]

Why not get the police to look into why they did not do there job and put a end to it before it got out of hand and the army had to come in and do their job for them?

[hellodolly]

Before the election, the DSI was investigating a large number of red/black shirt crimes. Since the change of government, all red shirt related investigations have been dropped in favour of RTA cases. Prosecution as a political tool.

Unfortunately for the red MPs and other leaders, investigations had already been largely concluded and charges laid. Other reds have had their cases heard and been convicted, some on minor charges released on time served. The current tactic seems to be releasing those convicted on government paid bail and delaying court cases as much as possible, both for appeals and unheard cases.

The major delaying tactic was appointing red leaders as party list MPs with prosecution immunity. There is no reason except financial why cases for Arisman, Jatuporn and Yosaworit (?) could not be heard immediately. Terrorism convictions might finally convince some of the red mob that their actions were not totally blame-free.

I've asked you before in another thread and didn't get an answer. I'll ask again - What are the details of these large number of red / blackshirt cases that were supposedly being investigated but have now been put aside. Will it take you long to post a reply?

Speaking of asking questions in other threads I asked you.

I am sure you realize that it took a lot of civilians without guns and rocket launchers to hold down town Bangkok as a hostage. You can't really believe the barricades were only built by armed men? That only armed men did the washing and cooking. That only armed men brought in all the supplies?

They all knew what was going on and out of their own choice choose to stay there where they knew gunfire would occur. Were you standing there with them or did you choose to stay away from them because they were shooting at soldiers and the soldiers were shooting back at them? The result being that naturally people were killed on both sides.

Do you think Thaksin putting up most of the funds for the red shirts was OK?

I will agree it was up to a point. But they went way beyond that point. You are a business man or so you claim. Would you feel the same way if your business was in the red shirt camp and got closed down and turned into a garbage dump?

My money says you stayed far away from it and were very grateful your business wasn't there.

But then I wonder you as a business man have never shown any remorse for the small ones that got shut down or the big ones that were burned down. No remorse for the honest citizens who lost their life savings in some cases and in others over a months wages. Why is that? The big businesses probably recouped their losses by insurance which will affect the cost of all insurances and by raising their prices.

I await your answer. But I will not hold my breath.

[phiphidon]

If you repeated your stupid question in the right thread you may get an answer, However seeing as that kind of question is regularly asked in one form or another you'll probably find an answer using the amazingly forensic TV search function.

Here's another stupid question to ask:

How many goverments having presided over a badly botched first crackdown on a protest resulting in 25 deaths and a couple of hundred or so injured would consider upping the ante to include live fire zones and snipers and spend another 9 days ensuring that the death toll reached 83 and over 2,500 injured, including innocents, journalists,cameramen, and medics?

Shouldn't take long to get and answer to that one

Yes, that is a truly stupid question - good of you to say so.

The 'crackdown' was a last resort by the government after offering the occupant's leaders a way out.

'Ensuring the death toll reached 83......'. This is more than stupid - it just reveals how your hatred is clouding your judgement.

If you really believe that the government at the time was actually wanting death, I'm sorry for you.

You're telling me that the government authorises the use of live ammunition, announces an emergency decree that provides amnesty to all security forces, kills 20 civilians in one botched crowd control operation but still goes on to set up live fire zones and deploy snipers, is suprised when the death toll rises?

Then we on this forum are regularly told that the red shirt leadership, but mainly Thaksin, deliberately caused confrontation so as to cause red shirt deaths so that the government of the day could be wrongfully accused. Meanwhile, back in reality we have the "democrat" party MP's actually accuse them of doing so.

Thats not stupid, thats Criminal

[phiphidon]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

[hellodolly]

If you repeated your stupid question in the right thread you may get an answer, However seeing as that kind of question is regularly asked in one form or another you'll probably find an answer using the amazingly forensic TV search function.

Here's another stupid question to ask:

How many goverments having presided over a badly botched first crackdown on a protest resulting in 25 deaths and a couple of hundred or so injured would consider upping the ante to include live fire zones and snipers and spend another 9 days ensuring that the death toll reached 83 and over 2,500 injured, including innocents, journalists,cameramen, and medics?

Shouldn't take long to get and answer to that one

Yes, that is a truly stupid question - good of you to say so.

The 'crackdown' was a last resort by the government after offering the occupant's leaders a way out.

'Ensuring the death toll reached 83......'. This is more than stupid - it just reveals how your hatred is clouding your judgement.

If you really believe that the government at the time was actually wanting death, I'm sorry for you.

You're telling me that the government authorises the use of live ammunition, announces an emergency decree that provides amnesty to all security forces, kills 20 civilians in one botched crowd control operation but still goes on to set up live fire zones and deploy snipers, is suprised when the death toll rises?

Then we on this forum are regularly told that the red shirt leadership, but mainly Thaksin, deliberately caused confrontation so as to cause red shirt deaths so that the government of the day could be wrongfully accused. Meanwhile, back in reality we have the "democrat" party MP's actually accuse them of doing so.

Thats not stupid, thats Criminal

Once again you are rite it is Criminal do you think Thaksin will ever come back to take his punishment for it.

I bet you are just waiting for them to white wash him. And then claim the red shirts had nothing to do with it.

Even when they have him white washed he will not be coming back. He values his life to highly for that. He knows he has enemies more powerful than him here and they are capable of sinking as low as Thaksin.

Is this going to be another question you don't answer? Remember you were the one who opened the door for it now follow through on it.

Edited September 8, 2012 by hellodolly

[rubl]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

It's not strange to see a single member here talking about death toll of 83, whereas all others talk about 91 or possibly 94. The funny thing (as far as we could say so with death that is) is a member talking about 83 and explains 'yes after the initial 25'. BTW nine days after 10th of April doesn't really get us to May 19th.

Of course it's the government to blame, they should have killed all grenade lobbing red-shirt militants to avoid really peaceful protesters to be injured or even killed.

As for the question of 'do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.', with UDD leader Jatuporn wearing a Ghandi Tshirt what was I supposed to think? With shoutcasts from the main stage braodcasted on PTV and repeated sufficiently, what was I supposed to think? We didn't really mean it, we were somewhat carried away? Are you old enough to remember communist indoctrination?

Edited September 8, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

Perhaps the UDD leaders really meant 'last drop of blood', who knows. Who am I to think they meant it, maybe it was just said for fun, like the 'bring your bottle remark'. Of course reasonable people would never ever take them at face value, now would they?

BTW was it you who spinned a tale to explain what another member might have ment, literary aliteration or something similar? Now that spin applies to UDD leader speaches, those broadcasted by PTV and saved for posterity lest we forget?

Deep down do you really believe all the rubbish you spin?

PS answering after four days, were you on holiday again?

Edited September 8, 2012 by rubl

[FOODLOVER]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

"As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humorous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?"

Were the election slogans figurative? Were the promises of no flooding figurative? Please explain how a government makes these figurative statements and then gets upset because they were taken literally( Or just you )? Probably just cute little white lies, right? Of course that suits your purpose to come up with a humorous little line like it was "Figuritive".

[AleG]

Perhaps the UDD leaders really meant 'last drop of blood', who knows. Who am I to think they meant it, maybe it was just said for fun, like the 'bring your bottle remark'. Of course reasonable people would never ever take them at face value, now would they?

BTW was it you who spinned a tale to explain what another member might have ment, literary aliteration or something similar? Now that spin applies to UDD leader speaches, those broadcasted by PTV and saved for posterity lest we forget?

Deep down do you really believe all the rubbish you spin?

PS answering after four days, were you on holiday again?

Reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, words having the meaning he wishes them to have.

[phiphidon]

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

Perhaps the UDD leaders really meant 'last drop of blood', who knows. Who am I to think they meant it, maybe it was just said for fun, like the 'bring your bottle remark'. Of course reasonable people would never ever take them at face value, now would they?

BTW was it you who spinned a tale to explain what another member might have ment, literary aliteration or something similar? Now that spin applies to UDD leader speaches, those broadcasted by PTV and saved for posterity lest we forget?

Deep down do you really believe all the rubbish you spin?

PS answering after four days, were you on holiday again?

Is flaming or trolling a definition of what you do rubl, either way it ill becomes you.

[whybother]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

Besides having a problem with time lines, you also seem to have a problem counting.

[phiphidon]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

Besides having a problem with time lines, you also seem to have a problem counting.

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

Edited September 9, 2012 by phiphidon

[whybother]

Strange to see ppd write 'death toll reached 83'. Surely all know it's about 91 + 2/3 succumbing later. Not strange the 'including innocents, journalists, cameramen, and medics?'. Oh wait, he dropped the dead policemen and security forces and possibly other non-red-shirts. Well, that's fair, they weren't peaceful protesters.

Anyway, seeing we're in the silly question stage, Does the answer on ppd's question vary if we add the assumption that UDD leader Jatuporn was just joking when he said ""We are not afraid of such pressure. After the death of many protesters, nothing can stop the red people," he said. "How can we stop as the murderers are walking freely."". Again what if we include the full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood'?

It's not strange at all rubl 15 security forces killed , one of them at the hands of his own trigger happy comrades at an army barricade. I'm allowing for the fact that the government wouldn't want to see their own soldiers killed, apart from Sae Daeng that is, but I didn't include him.

So yes after the initial death toll of 25, 5 security forces, 20 civilians I was suprised to see that the government allowed the killing to go on for another 9 days.

As for your silly question stage it seems to be a common trait for you anti reds PTP or whatever that everybodies speech or comment has to be taken literally. From election slogans to quotes about flooding to rally rhetoric, you just have to take it literally. Of course that suits your purpose, it's so much easier to come up with a humerous little line like the "full of fun statement of 'fight till our (your?) last drop of blood?".

But deep down, do you really think they meant it (think as you would do normally, like when you're not writing something on the forum) do you really think they meant those men woman and children to fight to their last drop of blood.

Perhaps I'm missing something here , perhaps they did mean it - that way it makes it so much more easier to accept that the army were killing their own citizens, they had it coming, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. <deleted>.

Besides having a problem with time lines, you also seem to have a problem counting.

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

You forgot the multi-coloureds and by-stander at Silom.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[rubl]

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

From PPD's original September 4th post:

"How many goverments having presided over a badly botched first crackdown on a protest resulting in 25 deaths and a couple of hundred or so injured would consider upping the ante to include live fire zones and snipers and spend another 9 days ensuring that the death toll reached 83 and over 2,500 injured, including innocents, journalists,cameramen, and medics?"

IN a topic on 2010 crackdown to say "'ensuring a death toll', amazing. Did you accuse me a few times of being callous about 'collateral damage'? And now you want to concenstrate on 'civilians' which in your context seems to include red-shirts only, those peaceful protesters. The others weren't red-shirts, so who cares? Like those who died through grenade attacks. All of a sudden we also seem to have nine days between April 10th and May 19th, plus a few dead thrown in from after all was over for good measure.

What can I say but clearly a case of phiphidon

[Thait Spot]

As us Welsh rugby supporters say, PPD is on song here............

An accurate description of the horrific government incompetence and needless army violence / ineptitude that made a bad situation a thousand times worse.

Rourke's Drift comes to mind. Dwp.

[Thait Spot]

If you repeated your stupid question in the right thread you may get an answer, However seeing as that kind of question is regularly asked in one form or another you'll probably find an answer using the amazingly forensic TV search function.

Here's another stupid question to ask:

How many goverments having presided over a badly botched first crackdown on a protest resulting in 25 deaths and a couple of hundred or so injured would consider upping the ante to include live fire zones and snipers and spend another 9 days ensuring that the death toll reached 83 and over 2,500 injured, including innocents, journalists,cameramen, and medics?

Shouldn't take long to get and answer to that one

Yes, that is a truly stupid question - good of you to say so.

The 'crackdown' was a last resort by the government after offering the occupant's leaders a way out.

'Ensuring the death toll reached 83......'. This is more than stupid - it just reveals how your hatred is clouding your judgement.

If you really believe that the government at the time was actually wanting death, I'm sorry for you.

You're telling me that the government authorises the use of live ammunition, announces an emergency decree that provides amnesty to all security forces, kills 20 civilians in one botched crowd control operation but still goes on to set up live fire zones and deploy snipers, is suprised when the death toll rises?

Then we on this forum are regularly told that the red shirt leadership, but mainly Thaksin, deliberately caused confrontation so as to cause red shirt deaths so that the government of the day could be wrongfully accused. Meanwhile, back in reality we have the "democrat" party MP's actually accuse them of doing so.

Thats not stupid, thats Criminal

How many live rounds were fired?

[phiphidon]

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

You forgot the multi-coloureds and by-stander at Silom.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Forgot how?

[Thait Spot]

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

You forgot the multi-coloureds and by-stander at Silom.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Forgot how?

Your HTC Phone seems to be talking to itself.

Is that available at Google Play? Or is it a plug-in to the TV app?

[whybother]

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

You forgot the multi-coloureds and by-stander at Silom.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Forgot how?

(fix your quotes)

Are you suggesting that they were killed by the military?

Edited September 9, 2012 by whybother

[phiphidon]

96 in total with the 5 red shirts killed up north after the 19th. Take away 15 security forces (actually 14 as one army guy was definitely shot by his own comrades) That leaves 82 - add in the 1 guy who recently died in hospital from his wounds. That to me adds up to 83 civilians more than likely shot by the security forces. My case stands.

From PPD's original September 4th post:

"How many goverments having presided over a badly botched first crackdown on a protest resulting in 25 deaths and a couple of hundred or so injured would consider upping the ante to include live fire zones and snipers and spend another 9 days ensuring that the death toll reached 83 and over 2,500 injured, including innocents, journalists,cameramen, and medics?"

IN a topic on 2010 crackdown to say "'ensuring a death toll', amazing. Did you accuse me a few times of being callous about 'collateral damage'? And now you want to concenstrate on 'civilians' which in your context seems to include red-shirts only, those peaceful protesters. The others weren't red-shirts, so who cares? Like those who died through grenade attacks. All of a sudden we also seem to have nine days between April 10th and May 19th, plus a few dead thrown in from after all was over for good measure.

What can I say but clearly a case of phiphidon

Did you want me to say the government were responsible for murdering their own citizens? I'm not aware that the government was responsible for murdering their own security services (well 2 cases probably) and seeing as my post was about the government upping the ante by involving the security forces in a more and more aggressive way my figures stand and that is why the security forces deaths were not included - do you understand that?

As for your petty point about the number of days between April 10th and May 19th, have you never made a mistake in your posting or is it just comprehension you have problems with?

[phiphidon]

(fix your quotes)

Are you suggesting that they were killed by the military?

Well for a start I'm not aware of multi shirts being killed. I am aware of one woman who was killed at the BTS station by a grenade.

I do not who fired that grenade. I know that the army have the lions share of the deaths on their collective conscience (yeah, right) but we cannot blame them for all deaths.

Do you know who fired the grenade, of course not, so why on earth you think I could tell you whether the army had fired it?

(sorry quote system on here is a crock)

[whybother]

Are you suggesting that they were killed by the military?

Well for a start I'm not aware of multi shirts being killed. I am aware of one woman who was killed at the BTS station by a grenade.

I do not who fired that grenade. I know that the army have the lions share of the deaths on their collective conscience (yeah, right) but we cannot blame them for all deaths.

Do you know who fired the grenade, of course not, so why on earth you think I could tell you whether the army had fired it?

You are correct. The grenade blasts killed 1 and injured 86.

You don't know who killed the 83, but you seem intent on blaming them directly on the Army.

[phiphidon]

Are you suggesting that they were killed by the military?

Well for a start I'm not aware of multi shirts being killed. I am aware of one woman who was killed at the BTS station by a grenade.

I do not who fired that grenade. I know that the army have the lions share of the deaths on their collective conscience (yeah, right) but we cannot blame them for all deaths.

Do you know who fired the grenade, of course not, so why on earth you think I could tell you whether the army had fired it?

You are correct. The grenade blasts killed 1 and injured 86.

You don't know who killed the 83, but you seem intent on blaming them directly on the Army.

In the balance of things it seems likely they were responsible for the majority of deaths. I believe that it will probably be the case that they were responsible, yes.

[rubl]

Did you want me to say the government were responsible for murdering their own citizens? I'm not aware that the government was responsible for murdering their own security services (well 2 cases probably) and seeing as my post was about the government upping the ante by involving the security forces in a more and more aggressive way my figures stand and that is why the security forces deaths were not included - do you understand that?

As for your petty point about the number of days between April 10th and May 19th, have you never made a mistake in your posting or is it just comprehension you have problems with?

Post #8 NNT 2012-09-04:

"According to DSI Chief Tharit Pengdit, there has been much progress in the investigation on the deaths of 91 people, comprising civilians, policemen and soldiers, during the red-shirt protest in 2010. He said the latest findings have been submitted to the Metropolitan Police Bureau and will be forwarded to the Criminal Court later on."

Time surely goes slowly when you're having fun

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

MacBeth, Scene V, William Shakespeare