Army Behind Thai Protest Death: Inquest

[Moruya]

Philw. I see you still sniping away with your one liners, without ever letting people know what you would have done to get these people off the streets. People who were paralysing the city, people who invaded a hospital, people who eventually, after being let down by their leaders, set fire to the Mall they said they were occupying. People who had listened to their leaders talking up petrol bombs. People who were infiltrated by organised para military gangs. People who were told time and time again that their gathering was illegal. People who expressed a wish for early elections, which were granted, only for their so called leaders to turn down that concession. If they had gone home when their demands were met, there woud have been very few deaths. I asked you twice on another thread what you would have done to bring it to a peaceful conclusion, you didn't answer. I think you don't have any answer, you just troll these riot threads and get your kicks out of peopes outrage. A veritable keyboard warrior if ever there was one

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

Abhisit was upholding democracy under the laws of Thailand.

The reds were attempting a violent coup.

Abhisit was upholding democracy by shooting unarmed dissenters in the head.

Sure, way to go.

What are the statistics for head shots?

More hyperbole from you.

[Moruya]

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

In most civilized countries, crowd control is in the hands of police and riot police. Thailand, unfortunately, is not a very civilized country and law and order here is nearly non-existent. The government biggest mistake in 2010 is that the fact that they let this red menace grow and becoming worse and more aggressive by the day. And the red spin masters took full advantage of that.

yes, 2010 was all the fault of the protesters.

Bingo - should have seen that before.

Please don't go to that level. You are smarter than that.

I'm not convinced.

One by one the red iconoclasms come

[whybother]

Well, there is a fair request. And since I don't have a photobucket at hand with all the links and images that I've seen, I'll dig around again and see what is available during my breaks.

Would you care to reciprocate with some kind of a report that shows the police refusing to do their job? That would be appreciated.

I think this is a good example of the police not doing their job:

THE NATION: TNN reports that police are negotiating with leaders to have red shirts stop setting up the stage at the Rajprasong Intesection.

They have a good record of "negotiating" without actually doing anything.

[philw]

Moruya you posted

"What are the statistics for head shots?

More hyperbole from you."

My response is.....

Give in, you tell me, what are the statistics for head shots ??

Are you denying that it happened ??

Are you saying that there were no snipers / marksmen / sharpshooters taking out unarmed Thai citizens on the street ?

If you accept that there were, on whose orders might they be acting ??

Their officers, perhaps ?

And what branch of government is supposed to issue the directions to the army command to act in accordance with government intentions and requirements ??

Couldn't be the Prime Ministers office, could it ??

Unlikely to be the BOI.

[Nickymaster]

Moruya you posted

"What are the statistics for head shots?

More hyperbole from you."

My response is.....

Give in, you tell me, what are the statistics for head shots ??

Are you denying that it happened ??

Are you saying that there were no snipers / marksmen / sharpshooters taking out unarmed Thai citizens on the street ?

If you accept that there were, on whose orders might they be acting ??

Their officers, perhaps ?

And what branch of government is supposed to issue the directions to the army command to act in accordance with government intentions and requirements ??

Couldn't be the Prime Ministers office, could it ??

Unlikely to be the BOI.

Have you read post #127?

[philw]

Moruya again, you accuse me of using hyperbole in my comment about the government of the day using snipers.

The OED definition is below.

noun

[mass noun]

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally:

Sadly for you I intended to be taken quite literally.

The RTA used snipers, period.

Sorry, it's not hyperbole.

[Nickymaster]

Moruya again, you accuse me of using hyperbole in my comment about the government of the day using snipers.

The OED definition is below.

noun

[mass noun]

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally:

Sadly for you I intended to be taken quite literally.

The RTA used snipers, period.

Sorry, it's not hyperbole.

What a level.

The protestors were violent period.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[candid]

Moruya again, you accuse me of using hyperbole in my comment about the government of the day using snipers.

The OED definition is below.

noun

[mass noun]

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally:

Sadly for you I intended to be taken quite literally.

The RTA used snipers, period.

Sorry, it's not hyperbole.

Once again Philw, let me give you a chance to elequently elaborate on what actions YOU would have taken to get Bangkok back to normal at that time. You appear to be unwilling to accept the challenge that I have now posted 4 times on different threads. Come on, admit it, you would have done the same. As for the other poster who said Abhisit should have stood down, what utter garbage. There are regular anti government demonstrations in other democracies, I can't seem to think of any goverment who actually resigned and gave in to a bunch of bullies.

[Pi Sek]

The police were not doing a good job - I don't think I have to qualify this. The Thai police force are notorious for not doing their job anyway.

But they were not responsible for the army shooting at people. That fault lies with the militant wing of the red shirts whose actions directly led to the army shooting at people. Whoever decided on their introduction to the protest was primarily responsible for any deaths in my idealistic opinion (which is why Thaksin categorically denies any involvement in the protest) but, in practice, in each case one might also lay fault with those that trained the soldiers, those that deployed them, those that gave the instruction on their deployment and of course the soldiers who shot people.

I opine that the army was justified to shoot people in some cases (the case of Khun Phan here being one, tragic though it may have been), and justifiable given the circumstances but not justified in others, but I'm not a judge. All this is obviously more relevant to the civilians that died than it is to security forces that died.

The government was justified to deploy the army in both 2009 and 2010 in my honest opinion, due to the ascending levels of violence from the protest movement - which is greatly unfair to the tens of thousands of non-violent protesters. Unfortunately this move was exactly what the protest leaders wanted (best example that springs to my mind - the army operation on 10 April was a direct result of Kwanchai's attack on the 1st Infantry barracks that afternoon, and that was before the army went anywhere near the protest).

If Thida was sincere in her chairperson-ship of the UDD and her support of the grass-roots movement, she would be going after her hubby and his pals in court, particularly Nattawut, Arisaman and Jatuporn. I think this best reflects the hypocrisy of the setup.

[candid]

Moruya again, you accuse me of using hyperbole in my comment about the government of the day using snipers.

The OED definition is below.

noun

[mass noun]

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally:

Sadly for you I intended to be taken quite literally.

The RTA used snipers, period.

Sorry, it's not hyperbole.

Were the Men in Black definitely not snipers?

[Pi Sek]

<snip>

The RTA used snipers, period.

<snip>

Were the Men in Black definitely not snipers?

Yes, I would have raised this too. Whilst there were clearly RTA snipers, I also think there were Black Shirt snipers. I can't prove it, nor that they actually shot anyone, but then I don't think many of the sniper deaths can be positively pinned on the army (due to lack of disclosure in some cases, lack of truth in others).

e.g. The guy with the flag on April 10 that is quite easily found on Youtube - given the elevated areas around the protest site were occupied by Black Shirts firing M79s, I strongly doubt he was shot in the head by an army sniper. Otherwise the same snipers would probably have picked off a Black Shirt or two.

[tlansford]

Let's keep it simple, because you are not grasping the point of the argument. Did the police maintain Law and Order (as it's their job) during the Red Shirt protests, yes or no?

let's keep it simple - did the military shoot and kill the man or did they not?

Funny, that's neither Yes or No regarding the question.

Anyway, done here, obviously you are beyond arguments.

By the by, yes, the Army shot the man to which the OP refers to. See? it's so easy to answer questions honestly.

you're right.

And honestly, the army was completely and fully charged with security in the SOE.

See? It's so easy to answer questions honestly.

The whole police issue is just a diversion you see. The police are not responsible for the army and the army are not responsible for the police.

Did the army kill the man in the OP? Yes.

What did the police have to do with that? Nothing.

[Nickymaster]

The police were not doing a good job - I don't think I have to qualify this. The Thai police force are notorious for not doing their job anyway.

But they were not responsible for the army shooting at people. That fault lies with the militant wing of the red shirts whose actions directly led to the army shooting at people. Whoever decided on their introduction to the protest was primarily responsible for any deaths in my idealistic opinion (which is why Thaksin categorically denies any involvement in the protest) but, in practice, in each case one might also lay fault with those that trained the soldiers, those that deployed them, those that gave the instruction on their deployment and of course the soldiers who shot people.

I opine that the army was justified to shoot people in some cases (the case of Khun Phan here being one, tragic though it may have been), and justifiable given the circumstances but not justified in others, but I'm not a judge. All this is obviously more relevant to the civilians that died than it is to security forces that died.

The government was justified to deploy the army in both 2009 and 2010 in my honest opinion, due to the ascending levels of violence from the protest movement - which is greatly unfair to the tens of thousands of non-violent protesters. Unfortunately this move was exactly what the protest leaders wanted (best example that springs to my mind - the army operation on 10 April was a direct result of Kwanchai's attack on the 1st Infantry barracks that afternoon, and that was before the army went anywhere near the protest).

If Thida was sincere in her chairperson-ship of the UDD and her support of the grass-roots movement, she would be going after her hubby and his pals in court, particularly Nattawut, Arisaman and Jatuporn. I think this best reflects the hypocrisy of the setup.

Bravo!.

Are you Thai? (no need to answer if you don't want)

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

Let's keep it simple, because you are not grasping the point of the argument. Did the police maintain Law and Order (as it's their job) during the Red Shirt protests, yes or no?

let's keep it simple - did the military shoot and kill the man or did they not?

Funny, that's neither Yes or No regarding the question.

Anyway, done here, obviously you are beyond arguments.

By the by, yes, the Army shot the man to which the OP refers to. See? it's so easy to answer questions honestly.

you're right.

And honestly, the army was completely and fully charged with security in the SOE.

See? It's so easy to answer questions honestly.

The whole police issue is just a diversion you see. The police are not responsible for the army and the army are not responsible for the police.

Did the army kill the man in the OP? Yes.

What did the police have to do with that? Nothing.

OMG. You are really not a fair person. Gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier on but.....

[tlansford]

The 15th of May, when this event occurred, was after the shooting of the general and the beginning of the military crackdown on the protesters which was to go on for another 4 days.

You'll notice that there is a difference in descriptions of the events between the reports - The AFP quotes the judge as saying :

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri"

And The Nation paraphrases the court for us saying :

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now for me, driving into a restricted area and trying to break through a security checkpoint create vastly different images in my mind. But as the AFP points out,

"The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event."

so I am not surprised that the reporting of the pro-Abhisit media outlet, The Nation, might create one image for it's readers whereas a normal news source without a Thai agenda might create another. I am not drawing conclusions regarding the actual events from either, but I don't blinding accept a rather vivid image of a van bursting through an orderly army checkpoint and the military then opening fire.

As it happens, there is another eyewitness report, extremely vivid, documented, and easily available which is from the very same day and it does provide a full context of the situation for the reader. It shows the chaos that day and describes in detail a series of events, how they began, progressed, and ended specific details.

This is from the same day and the same area as the OP. There are no men in black, no police in this. Just some protesters, some reporter, other civilians, and the army.

I think people who read this account will understand just how dangerous it was on that day - not only for the "regular" protesters, but certainly for anyone who happened to find themselves close to the military operations on that day - like the van, like the gentleman who was shot and killed in the OP.

BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone.

Here is the article from Nick Nostitz, who was in the middle of it all on the 15th -

http://asiapacific.a...e-killing-zone/

(January), April and May, 2010 were very dangerous months indeed, ALSO for the security forces and the general public.

Let's highlight some events building up to the terrible crackdown on May 15, 2010:

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

- the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

- the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers (see Thairath).

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

As you stated correctly Mr. Tlansford:

"BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone".

Unfortunately she is not alone!

Absolutely. And I include the dead soldiers, police, and their families in my concerns every bit as much as the dead protesters, counter-protesters, reporters, medics and monks.

But please be fair and list all the violence from the Army and the people they are alleged to have killed and injured as well. Please - do the count. Do the math.

[birdpooguava]

And the situation Thaksin had been dreaming of happened: a deadly confrontation with the army. Even before any protestors were sadly killed, Thaksin was already telling the foreign media that AV killed innocent protestors.

Yes I can and will proof what I wrote. Just give me some time to find the applicable interviews.

ps. don't forget to read post # 127

Interesting that the man who has been harping on pedantically for TLansford to come up with 'evidence' then comes out with knowledge of TS's dreams. Please post any evidence you have of TS funding or organising the protests as is persistently claimed by the TV Army Apologists' Club.

[whybother]

The 15th of May, when this event occurred, was after the shooting of the general and the beginning of the military crackdown on the protesters which was to go on for another 4 days.

You'll notice that there is a difference in descriptions of the events between the reports - The AFP quotes the judge as saying :

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri"

And The Nation paraphrases the court for us saying :

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now for me, driving into a restricted area and trying to break through a security checkpoint create vastly different images in my mind. But as the AFP points out,

"The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event."

so I am not surprised that the reporting of the pro-Abhisit media outlet, The Nation, might create one image for it's readers whereas a normal news source without a Thai agenda might create another. I am not drawing conclusions regarding the actual events from either, but I don't blinding accept a rather vivid image of a van bursting through an orderly army checkpoint and the military then opening fire.

As it happens, there is another eyewitness report, extremely vivid, documented, and easily available which is from the very same day and it does provide a full context of the situation for the reader. It shows the chaos that day and describes in detail a series of events, how they began, progressed, and ended specific details.

This is from the same day and the same area as the OP. There are no men in black, no police in this. Just some protesters, some reporter, other civilians, and the army.

I think people who read this account will understand just how dangerous it was on that day - not only for the "regular" protesters, but certainly for anyone who happened to find themselves close to the military operations on that day - like the van, like the gentleman who was shot and killed in the OP.

BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone.

Here is the article from Nick Nostitz, who was in the middle of it all on the 15th -

http://asiapacific.a...e-killing-zone/

(January), April and May, 2010 were very dangerous months indeed, ALSO for the security forces and the general public.

Let's highlight some events building up to the terrible crackdown on May 15, 2010:

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

- the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

- the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers (see Thairath).

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

As you stated correctly Mr. Tlansford:

"BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone".

Unfortunately she is not alone!

Absolutely. And I include the dead soldiers, police, and their families in my concerns every bit as much as the dead protesters, counter-protesters, reporters, medics and monks.

But please be fair and list all the violence from the Army and the people they are alleged to have killed and injured as well. Please - do the count. Do the math.

Monks?

Sent from my HTC phone.

[birdpooguava]

I wonder how I would have reacted to the situation if I was a young conscript soldier. The escalating rhetoric of the Red Leaders would have played a big part in my reactions. After a few weks of all this, I would have been pretty tired and certainly nervous. I would have known about the "men in black", known they were probably all ex soldiers and used to weapons. I wouldn't have even thought of what discussions were going on behind closed doors. I could just about guarantee that any training I had in crowd control was pretty basic. My primary thoughts would have been of self preservation. The phrase "trigger happy" might just about sum up how I was feeling. Nervous, scared, tired. I would have been an accident waiting to happen.

And I sure wouldn't have though that 2 years later, a bunch of keyboard warriors, mostly foreigners with their own idea about Thailand's political awareness, would be discussing me in such a derogatory manner.

Or how about if you had been subjected to several weeks of daily brainwashing from your superiors about the existence of 500 heavily armed terrorists mingling and collaborating with the protesters and being shown 'proof' of the conspiracy to topple the monarchy directly linked to the protest leaders and Thaksin Shinawatra. Would "the phrase "trigger happy" just about sum up how (you were) feeling?"

[whybother]

I wonder how I would have reacted to the situation if I was a young conscript soldier. The escalating rhetoric of the Red Leaders would have played a big part in my reactions. After a few weks of all this, I would have been pretty tired and certainly nervous. I would have known about the "men in black", known they were probably all ex soldiers and used to weapons. I wouldn't have even thought of what discussions were going on behind closed doors. I could just about guarantee that any training I had in crowd control was pretty basic. My primary thoughts would have been of self preservation. The phrase "trigger happy" might just about sum up how I was feeling. Nervous, scared, tired. I would have been an accident waiting to happen.

And I sure wouldn't have though that 2 years later, a bunch of keyboard warriors, mostly foreigners with their own idea about Thailand's political awareness, would be discussing me in such a derogatory manner.

Or how about if you had been subjected to several weeks of daily brainwashing from your superiors about the existence of 500 heavily armed terrorists mingling and collaborating with the protesters and being shown 'proof' of the conspiracy to topple the monarchy directly linked to the protest leaders and Thaksin Shinawatra. Would "the phrase "trigger happy" just about sum up how (you were) feeling?"

Several weeks? Just how many weeks were the red shirts protesting?

[birdpooguava]

Several weeks? Just how many weeks were the red shirts protesting?

Yeah, but the brainwashing sessions only started after April 10, and they had to flush out many new conscripts, who refused to shoot their own family. Edited September 18, 2012 by birdpooguava

[whybother]

Several weeks? Just how many weeks were the red shirts protesting?

Yeah, but the brainwashing sessions only started after May 10, and they had to flush out many new conscripts, who refused to shoot their own family.

Right ... the brainwashing sessions went for several weeks but started after May 10. What a complete load of BS.

... as usual.

Edited September 18, 2012 by whybother

[birdpooguava]

Several weeks? Just how many weeks were the red shirts protesting?

Yeah, but the brainwashing sessions only started after May 10, and they had to flush out many new conscripts, who refused to shoot their own family.

Right ... the brainwashing sessions went for several weeks but started after May 10. What a complete load of BS.

... as usual.

Note the edit in original post

[whybother]

Several weeks? Just how many weeks were the red shirts protesting?

Yeah, but the brainwashing sessions only started after May 10, and they had to flush out many new conscripts, who refused to shoot their own family.

Right ... the brainwashing sessions went for several weeks but started after May 10. What a complete load of BS.

... as usual.

Note the edit in original post

Still BS.

[SomTumTiger]

The TV argument cycle goes on and on and on.

[SomTumTiger]

The TV argument cycle goes on and on and on.

[KireB]

Or how about if you had been subjected to several weeks of daily brainwashing from your superiors about the existence of 500 heavily armed terrorists mingling and collaborating with the protesters and being shown 'proof' of the conspiracy to topple the monarchy directly linked to the protest leaders and Thaksin Shinawatra. Would "the phrase "trigger happy" just about sum up how (you were) feeling?"

I guess you mixed the words brainwashing with brain bashing. These soldiers saw their colleagues being molested and slaughtered by red terrorists and were subject to a nice daily dose of grenades! If Thaksin's phone ins and calls for revolution, the involvement of all his relatives including darling Yingluck and above all the timing of the events taken in consideration, it's maybe not so strange that some of us highly suspect that Thakin was the main orchestrator! But maybe you think the earth is flat. .

Edited September 18, 2012 by KireB

[SomTumTiger]

The TV argument cycle goes on and on and on.

[KireB]

The TV argument cycle goes on and on and on.

Please feel free to visit the www.ilovebarbie.com website instead of this topic!

[birdpooguava]

I guess you mixed the words brainwashing with brain bashing. These soldiers saw their colleagues being molested and slaughtered by red terrorists and were subject to a nice daily dose of grenades! If Thaksin's phone ins and calls for revolution, the involvement of all his relatives including darling Yingluck and above all the timing of the events taken in consideration, it's maybe not so strange that some of us highly suspect that Thakin was the main orchestrator! But maybe you think the earth is flat. .

No there is proof that the earth is not flat unlike the claims that TS was responsible for the funding & organisation of the protests. Maybe you believe (sorry suspect) in ghosts too...

[AleG]

you're right.

And honestly, the army was completely and fully charged with security in the SOE.

See? It's so easy to answer questions honestly.

...

You call that an honest answer to the question of who is in charge of keeping Law and Order in Thailand?

Since I don't think you actually have a neurological disorder that inhibits you to give an honest, straight answer I'll have to go on with the alternative.