Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Blocked by Red Shirt Government

From the same report

"PM Abhisit appeared on national TV late April 6 to affirm the right of peaceful protest but to warn that authorities would not allow the situation to get out of hand. We have emphasized directly to both fugitive former PM Thaksin and red-shirt leaders in recent days the need to keep the red protests peaceful"

And they were peaceful at Phan Fah until the Military turned up.......for what purpose do you think?

these cables are apparently pre-biased

comments on a different cable from one of the participants.

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5331694

Now, I can easily imagine that some people on the red shirt side would think that provoking the military would be a good idea. There were incidents around bangkok before 10/4 and always away from the protest site.

This is a stupid strategy. It would have been even more stupid for the government - who clearly would have known the same information, right? - to react to any provocations.

Then came 10/4. The dispersal attempted on 10/4 was - at the very best - done at the wrong time of day... just before sundown. A less kind summary would be that the military screwed it up completely not only putting themselves at risk but allowing casualties on their side and causing casualties themselves among the protesters. In any case, right or wrong, the effort to clear protesters should have been done during daylight hours and not at a time when it risked going into the night.

But May 15th is a long time later. The government / military at that time was conducting the final "clearing" of the sites and it was being done with live fire zones and assault weapons - not with normal, internationally accepted methods for crowd control / dispersal.

Geo, the thing about the discussions on 2010 here is that people want it to be black and white, government good, red shirts bad. There were some really bad moments, but there were some amazingly courageous moments during the conflict as well. I think that people don't give the Thai people who were in the thick of it enough credit - be it soldier, police, or protester. There is the moment when the soldiers came out of the apparently abandoned APC on 10/4 and found themselves surrounded by angry protesters. The red guards protected them and escorted them back to where their own military were located. There were the examples of the red shirt protesters who helped and took care of injured security personnel.

What is striking about the debates here is the level of de-humanization that occurs. IMO it is a mental game people play with themselves to justify positions and opinions which are untenable. I'd add that another characteristic is the inability of posters to recognize that basic events actually occurred.

Instead they just chalk up all the problems to Thaksin's grand plan from Dubai and the dumb red buffalo who followed orders because they were paid to. Oops, did I just take a dig at my fellow posters? Sorry guys - not all of you do that.

Why would it had been dangerous to disperse a peaceful protests after sundown? You repeat this argument over and over but don't give a rationale.

Besides that Nick Nostitz himself said here in TV that at the time the shooting began the army was preparing to leave the area.

I think you need to think about your question regarding the crowd dispersal timing and tell me why it might be better to have daylight vs darkness during the operation.

[AleG]

these cables are apparently pre-biased

comments on a different cable from one of the participants.

http://www.thaivisa....25#entry5331694

Now, I can easily imagine that some people on the red shirt side would think that provoking the military would be a good idea. There were incidents around bangkok before 10/4 and always away from the protest site.

This is a stupid strategy. It would have been even more stupid for the government - who clearly would have known the same information, right? - to react to any provocations.

Then came 10/4. The dispersal attempted on 10/4 was - at the very best - done at the wrong time of day... just before sundown. A less kind summary would be that the military screwed it up completely not only putting themselves at risk but allowing casualties on their side and causing casualties themselves among the protesters. In any case, right or wrong, the effort to clear protesters should have been done during daylight hours and not at a time when it risked going into the night.

But May 15th is a long time later. The government / military at that time was conducting the final "clearing" of the sites and it was being done with live fire zones and assault weapons - not with normal, internationally accepted methods for crowd control / dispersal.

Geo, the thing about the discussions on 2010 here is that people want it to be black and white, government good, red shirts bad. There were some really bad moments, but there were some amazingly courageous moments during the conflict as well. I think that people don't give the Thai people who were in the thick of it enough credit - be it soldier, police, or protester. There is the moment when the soldiers came out of the apparently abandoned APC on 10/4 and found themselves surrounded by angry protesters. The red guards protected them and escorted them back to where their own military were located. There were the examples of the red shirt protesters who helped and took care of injured security personnel.

What is striking about the debates here is the level of de-humanization that occurs. IMO it is a mental game people play with themselves to justify positions and opinions which are untenable. I'd add that another characteristic is the inability of posters to recognize that basic events actually occurred.

Instead they just chalk up all the problems to Thaksin's grand plan from Dubai and the dumb red buffalo who followed orders because they were paid to. Oops, did I just take a dig at my fellow posters? Sorry guys - not all of you do that.

Why would it had been dangerous to disperse a peaceful protests after sundown? You repeat this argument over and over but don't give a rationale.

Besides that Nick Nostitz himself said here in TV that at the time the shooting began the army was preparing to leave the area.

I think you need to think about your question regarding the crowd dispersal timing and tell me why it might be better to have daylight vs darkness during the operation.

So, no answer. Gee, I'm surprised.

[TheKrayTriplet]

Snip

And then a long list of half-truths and misinterpretations etc.

Ok just for the sake of interest here is a link to the report in full. I won't reproduce it here as it is fairly long but it also contains some very graphic images of the head wounds.

http://www.scribd.co...y-Joe-Ray-Witty

Could you please point out the long list of half truths and misinterpretations etc that you are saying it contains. I have seen many comments about this report generally disregarding it as tainted evidence because it happens to have been provided by an expert witness who has been paid for his work. Most if not all witnesses are paid for their input. The fact that they are paid does not detract from their input (though I'm sure that those to whom the very sight of "amsterdam" in print brings on apoplexy, will disagree).

I have not seen a rational point by point rebuttal of the report so I look forward to your clarification of the "half-truths and misinterpretations etc".

You'll need to consult first with TAWP whose words you are quoting in the post I extracted from that thread.

Short of that, there's any number of shortcomings highlighted in the thread where that Amsterdam report is the topic. Amsterdam's stammering in the Al Jazeera interview regarding the financing of the Reds and other issues in Post # 4 is noteworthy.

Additionally, a review of Post # 298 in this thread can provide insight into the partiality which comes along with Witty's Words.

.

Really your posts are quite convoluted but it seems as though you agree with TAWP. Do you? If so the question still stands. I'm not sure how Amsterdam stammering regarding the financing of the UDD has anything to do with the credibility of Sergeant Witty, but anyway. As far as post 298 goes:

"How can in one breath you decry the lack of impartiality of the Nation, and then, in the next, be putting weight behind Witty?

It's not impartiality per say that you have a problem with, it's impartiality that doesn't go in the direction of your argument"

By that do you mean in your view the expert witness is worth nothing as well? If so it seems as if you are just demonstrating the type of impartiality that you , or rather your proxy, rivalex, decries.

What actually do you believe, seeing that you seem to be disowning the words in your original post? There were rather a lot jumbled around so its difficult to see what you actually believe - is Sergeant Witty a credible expert witness or not - If he isn't can you tell me where you think he's wrong? Simple as that.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TheKrayTriplet

[473geo]

The report came from an American military specialist not Amsterdam.

How can in one breath you decry the lack of impartiality of the Nation, and then, in the next, be putting weight behind Witty?

It's not impartiality per say that you have a problem with, it's impartiality that doesn't go in the direction of your argument

I understand what you mean Rixalex so no need to pull you up on your spelling.....

Do you think Witty is not reliable in his 'findings' or is it because it does not "Go in the direction of your argument"