U N Human Rights Commissioner Says Thailand Should Try Those Responsible For 2010 Deaths

[tlansford]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I'm not sure that you see just how cold and inhumane statements like yours, above, sound with regard to any of those killed in 2010.

That is without even considering that these dead citizens were protesting against a government which they saw as coming to power illegitimately through the machinations of the Thai political power brokers and replacing a government which had been elected with broad support by the Thai people.

[tlansford]

I believe that the soldiers were not in the vast majority of situations going in with the intention of using more force than was necessary, or with the intention of killing unnecessarily, but i do believe that the soldiers felt in very real threat of the lives, the soldiers had seen their colleagues getting injured and killed, and the job soldiers were being asked to perform was not a scientific job for which people judging from the safety of their sofas months after the event should be quick to judge. If it was your life on the line, or the life of your son, perhaps you would start appreciating things not only from the position of the law breaking violent mob, but from the position of the authorities and the soldiers trying to restore order in a capital city that had been brought on its knees, and doing so without the benefit of Western policing techniques, skills and equipment in riot control.

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

Reading NN's account from May 15th, which I understand was also caught on video, makes it clear that the army could have easily been described as being on a murder spree. In that incident, I forget if one of the shot protesters died later or not, but there were many points in that account where people were just plain lucky to escape with their lives.

So based on a documented, photographed and filmed incident during the crack-down, murder spree doesn't seem out of line. If it is disgusting, his choice of words, then perhaps you haven't read enough about the events.

Since this is TVF, I need to reiterate that I don't see the conflict as all/only the fault of the military. But I do feel the military and Abhisit should be accountable for their actions and their decisions as well as the protesters. And so far, it is not clear at all that this will ever happen.

[rixalex]

Two points : jayboy is not assuming anything as you claim.

So let me get this straight. Jayboy in the below is categorically stating that the army committed crimes and went on a murder spree, but at the same time, he is not assuming anything about their guilt. Wow. Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

[rixalex]

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I'm not sure that you see just how cold and inhumane statements like yours, above, sound with regard to any of those killed in 2010.

Opening your mind to the possibility that many of those killed, whilst arguably being undeserving of their fate, did play a part in it through their own actions and decisions, isn't being cold and inhumane, it's being realistic and accepting people's own personal responsibility.

[rixalex]

That is without even considering that these dead citizens were protesting against a government which they saw as coming to power illegitimately through the machinations of the Thai political power brokers and replacing a government which had been elected with broad support by the Thai people.

The government was not illegitimate. You can't justify actions based on a belief in things that aren't true or valid. Otherwise we could all go around doing all sorts of stupid things. Steal you neighbours car and then say you only stole it because you believed it was in fact yours.

[Pi Sek]

In that case I think there may be far more than a few cases of "very sad accidents" being proved to have occurred in the next few months of inquest results. Eventually, hopefully, then people will accept that the security forces acted in a wholly disproportionate manner and justice be meted out accordingly.

That to me depends on how many of the deaths involved people who had nothing to do with supporting the red riot, and who were not there in an active capacity of that support. If you think that accounts for a lot of the dead people, then you are right. I personally don't think it does, and i don't think you are.

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

Sorry but that's my whole point - it's the disproportionate response that brought about these deaths not the protesters actions (or medic, journalist, media personnel etc).

Firing a slingshot at authorities during a protest is an aggressive act designed to keep authorities at a safe distance. It is criminal, but a proportionate response would be to take photos and arrest & charge them appropriately after the protest had ended.

However, if the protest has caused serious injury, death or serious damage to property by use of more deadly weapons - and I'm not talking coshes & machetes here - then really the authorities have to make an effort to stop this... and I don't think you would disagree with that. The authorities' response must, however, be clearly announced - and, if I recall correctly, the response was announced, in each case.

Unfortunately the degree of violence from the protest meant that serious firepower was called for to counter the serious firepower that the protest movement was holding. So, they announced their live fire zones and the slingshot-firers decided to shoot their slingshots within these areas - to keep authorities at a distance from the heavily-armed elements within the protest. At that point they became protectors of the terrorist elements and, as such, in the eyes of the authorities became terrorists themselves.

The authorities' response may or may not have been disproportionate, depending on your point of view. Tragic, for them especially, but justifiable according to international Law. This of course has no bearing on the collateral deaths such as nurses, journalists, firefighters, etc that were shot at by both sides. But there was not a lot of visibility and a lot of agitated people with weapons.

[rixalex]

Reading NN's account from May 15th, which I understand was also caught on video, makes it clear that the army could have easily been described as being on a murder spree. In that incident, I forget if one of the shot protesters died later or not, but there were many points in that account where people were just plain lucky to escape with their lives.

So based on a documented, photographed and filmed incident during the crack-down, murder spree doesn't seem out of line. If it is disgusting, his choice of words, then perhaps you haven't read enough about the events.

Read plenty... plus was here to witness some of it.

Murder spree to me describes an act of going around willy-nilly, killing people for the sheer fun of it. If you think that accurately describes the attitude of the soldiers, sorry, you are plain wrong. Just my opinion of course.

[jayboy]

Two points : jayboy is not assuming anything as you claim.

So let me get this straight. Jayboy in the below is categorically stating that the army committed crimes and went on a murder spree, but at the same time, he is not assuming anything about their guilt. Wow. Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

Once again you have difficulty in grasping the point or indeed any kind of nuanced argument.Certainly there is prima facie evidence of criminality on the part of politicians and generals (and of course from some elements within the redshirt encampment).However there has never been a thorough investigation let alone a full judicial inquiry.If such a level of scrutiny came up with results that were at odds with my current understanding, I would certainly accept it.I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have got some things wrong or that I need to understand more elements of the situation.That is what distinguishes me and some others from the usual suspects. Edited September 21, 2012 by jayboy

[Pi Sek]

Once again you have difficulty in grasping the point or indeed any kind of nuanced argument. Certainly there is prima facie evidence of criminality on the part of politicians and generals (and of course from some elements within the redshirt encampment). However there has never been a thorough investigation let alone a full judicial inquiry. If such a level of scrutiny came up with results that were at odds with my current understanding, I would certainly accept it. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have got some things wrong or that I need to understand more elements of the situation. That is what distinguishes me and some others from the usual suspects.

I think that both sets of politicians, except the ones inciting violence on stage, were very careful to leave themselves in a position of plausible deniability. That makes it very difficult to pin any cases on likes of Suthep, Abhisit, Chalerm and Thaksin.

[rixalex]

Once again you have difficulty in grasping the point or indeed any kind of nuanced argument.Certainly there is prima facie evidence of criminality on the part of politicians and generals (and of course from some elements within the redshirt encampment).However there has never been a thorough investigation let alone a full judicial inquiry.If such a level of scrutiny came up with results that were at odds with my current understanding, I would certainly accept it.I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have got some things wrong or that I need to understand more elements of the situation.That is what distinguishes me and some others from the usual suspects.

The only thing i am struggling to grasp is your constant wriggling.

First you claim that you make no assumptions, despite making a lot of them, now you accept you do make them, but that your assumptions understanding could be revised... cos that's just the sort of guy you are.

[OzMick]

That is without even considering that these dead citizens were protesting against a government which they saw as coming to power illegitimately through the machinations of the Thai political power brokers and replacing a government which had been elected with broad support by the Thai people.

Your statement would be much more accurate if you included "mistakenly" before "saw as coming to power illegitimately" and you could also include that the false information supplied to them via the propaganda "democracy schools" also used to foment hatred and feelings of political dispossession.

[jayboy]

The only thing i am struggling to grasp is your constant wriggling.

If that's want you want to call it, so be it.What I believe you are struggling with is set out in my earlier post.

[tlansford]

Two points : jayboy is not assuming anything as you claim.

So let me get this straight. Jayboy in the below is categorically stating that the army committed crimes and went on a murder spree, but at the same time, he is not assuming anything about their guilt. Wow. Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

???

Like I said, his perspective is much more main-stream than the typical volleys against the UDD as expressed here. Secondly, any observer can look at the events and see that the army killed innocent civilians. That is typically a criminal act. And finally, he was even so reasonable as to suggest that they actually be investigated, tried, and - if found guilty - punished.

As you said, ... "Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?"

[KireB]

Like I said, his perspective is much more main-stream than the typical volleys against the UDD as expressed here. Secondly, any observer can look at the events and see that the army killed innocent civilians. That is typically a criminal act. And finally, he was even so reasonable as to suggest that they actually be investigated, tried, and - if found guilty - punished.

As you said, ... "Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?"

Any observer, or just observers like you? Most observers saw the army respond to a group of criminals trying to take the country over though.

[Fozfromoz]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I can see why someone may think that you said they deserved to die, as in your 3rd paragraph post 181 that's what is said. I am thinking (hoping) that it was just a typo, and you meant the word "not"

[tlansford]

Like I said, his perspective is much more main-stream than the typical volleys against the UDD as expressed here. Secondly, any observer can look at the events and see that the army killed innocent civilians. That is typically a criminal act. And finally, he was even so reasonable as to suggest that they actually be investigated, tried, and - if found guilty - punished.

As you said, ... "Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?"

Any observer, or just observers like you? Most observers saw the army respond to a group of criminals trying to take the country over though.

it seems to me that you are not adding anything coherent in your post which would make it seem more like baiting than debating.

I think most intelligent observers will notice the ample reports of the military killing unarmed civilians.

Edited September 21, 2012 by tlansford

[Pi Sek]

Like I said, his perspective is much more main-stream than the typical volleys against the UDD as expressed here. Secondly, any observer can look at the events and see that the army killed innocent civilians. That is typically a criminal act. And finally, he was even so reasonable as to suggest that they actually be investigated, tried, and - if found guilty - punished.

As you said, ... "Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?"

I don't think you'll find many people here saying that the army didn't kill innocent civilians. As you say, this "typically" is a criminal act... but obviously that depends on the context, which is why I get annoyed when I see these hyperbolic expressions like "murder" and "killing spree". It was no more than manslaughter, which is still a criminal offence, but could also be no more than a series of tragic accidents.

The other part is, who should be held responsible for the actions of security forces? You could argue Abhisit/Suthep/Gen Anupong, but they were pretty clear in public about instructions to shoot at legs, etc... so I think it's hard to hold them accountable. The higher-level officers? The squad leaders? The individual soldiers? I think it will be especially hard to get a straight answer from anyone - sorry to say, especially in Thailand - if it might incriminate themselves, but my gut feeling is that too many innocents were killed for there not to have been some suggestion from army officers to troops that they shouldn't worry about being careful when shooting at people. It makes me think of Staff Seargeant Barnes in the movie "Platoon".

edit - the penultimate sentence, confused myself with double negative

Edited September 21, 2012 by Pi Sek

[nurofiend]

well obviously not because that's exactly what you're doing in that reply.

you asked me what i'd do and i told you, i asked you so why won't you answer me?

You guys are the ones that are saying that they should have done something different.

We know what you would NOT do. But you haven't answered the question of what you WOULD do?

so 'you guys' are saying that they shouldn't have done anything different? it was handled the only way it could have been?

see, i have no idea what you would or would NOT do either but you still haven't answered the question of what you WOULD do?

[nurofiend]

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

According to a very close friend of mine who had to walk through Rachaprasong at the time and was threatened with guns every single time (he lived there) they were not unarmed. I would think that someone with a gun who pulls it on an unarmed foreigner would also be considered dangerous and threatening but this is why I never get involved in these political discussions. Its all armchair warriors who have never seen anything and only choose to believe what they want to believe.

"According to a very close friend of mine"

"this is why I never get involved in these political discussions. Its all armchair warriors who have never seen anything and only choose to believe what they want to believe."

hilarious!

[nurofiend]

Reading NN's account from May 15th, which I understand was also caught on video, makes it clear that the army could have easily been described as being on a murder spree. In that incident, I forget if one of the shot protesters died later or not, but there were many points in that account where people were just plain lucky to escape with their lives.

So based on a documented, photographed and filmed incident during the crack-down, murder spree doesn't seem out of line. If it is disgusting, his choice of words, then perhaps you haven't read enough about the events.

Read plenty... plus was here to witness some of it.

<snip

can you tell me, out of the 'some of it that you witnessed', is there anything that you seen yourself that proves anything against countless photographed and filmed incidents?

[Moruya]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I'm not sure that you see just how cold and inhumane statements like yours, above, sound with regard to any of those killed in 2010.

That is without even considering that these dead citizens were protesting against a government which they saw as coming to power illegitimately through the machinations of the Thai political power brokers and replacing a government which had been elected with broad support by the Thai people.

So they were dead already Tom?

That will change the case for sure.

[nurofiend]

A bit of a copout on your behalf I feel. You make the definition of what active support is. As far as I can tell that could mean being in possession of a catapult or firing a rocket and all bets are off. If you then get shot and killed by the security forces as far as some posters on here are concerned that's it, you deserved it.

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I'm not sure that you see just how cold and inhumane statements like yours, above, sound with regard to any of those killed in 2010.

That is without even considering that these dead citizens were protesting against a government which they saw as coming to power illegitimately through the machinations of the Thai political power brokers and replacing a government which had been elected with broad support by the Thai people.

So they were dead already Tom?

That will change the case for sure.

[rixalex]

I have already stated numerous times that stating that some of those killed - in my view a high number of those killed - have to accept their own role in their eventual fate because of illegal and immoral actions they took, bad decisions they made, does not mean stating "they deserved it". It means that they are likely not the blame-free innocent citizens you attempt to portray them as.

I can see why someone may think that you said they deserved to die, as in your 3rd paragraph post 181 that's what is said. I am thinking (hoping) that it was just a typo, and you meant the word "not"

Yes it was a typo. Thanks for pointing that out. But quite why, considering the context it was written in, the sentence that followed it, and considering my other posts such as the one above, you think someone else might be confused on my feelings, i'm not sure.

[rixalex]

Reading NN's account from May 15th, which I understand was also caught on video, makes it clear that the army could have easily been described as being on a murder spree. In that incident, I forget if one of the shot protesters died later or not, but there were many points in that account where people were just plain lucky to escape with their lives.

So based on a documented, photographed and filmed incident during the crack-down, murder spree doesn't seem out of line. If it is disgusting, his choice of words, then perhaps you haven't read enough about the events.

Read plenty... plus was here to witness some of it.

<snip

can you tell me, out of the 'some of it that you witnessed', is there anything that you seen yourself that proves anything against countless photographed and filmed incidents?

None of what i saw with my own eyes, and none of what i have seen photographed or videoed, showed to me that soldiers were going around shooting people willy-nilly for the fun of it, which is what people imply by saying that they went on a killing spree.

[backtonormal]

I think there is a point some people don't get when they compare the deaths from the war on drug and those from the 2010 events.

Thaksin never directly ordered to kill drug traffickers, there was an international trial and he was cleared of this accusation.

a couple of things.

1. You're saying Abhisit directly ordered to kill Red Shirts?

2. When and where was there ever an "international trial" that absolved Thaksin in his Drug War?

.

Having asked this question on here a zillion times I will ask again.... What were the orders. Who gave the order. Were the order carried out. If the orders were disobeyed, who disobeyed them. Once these answers are out in the public arena then some on here will be extremely quiet. Death by your own forces in your own capital city is most definately a crime against humanity

Edited September 22, 2012 by backtonormal

[backtonormal]

Reading NN's account from May 15th, which I understand was also caught on video, makes it clear that the army could have easily been described as being on a murder spree. In that incident, I forget if one of the shot protesters died later or not, but there were many points in that account where people were just plain lucky to escape with their lives.

So based on a documented, photographed and filmed incident during the crack-down, murder spree doesn't seem out of line. If it is disgusting, his choice of words, then perhaps you haven't read enough about the events.

Read plenty... plus was here to witness some of it.

<snip

can you tell me, out of the 'some of it that you witnessed', is there anything that you seen yourself that proves anything against countless photographed and filmed incidents?

None of what i saw with my own eyes, and none of what i have seen photographed or videoed, showed to me that soldiers were going around shooting people willy-nilly for the fun of it, which is what people imply by saying that they went on a killing spree.

A nieve post beyond belief. News agency workers were targeted, missiled in their hotel and there was no neutral coverage on TV in Thailand. The Thai government of the day blocking certain video content to suit their case. If this is the media you refer to then you will have seen no wrong doing. The Americans have denied the truth to the world, for several years, by controlling media content. I am sure it is possible to do it in Bangkok for a month or two

[rixalex]

Having asked this question on here a zillion times I will ask again.... What were the orders. Who gave the order. Were the order carried out. If the orders were disobeyed, who disobeyed them. Once these answers are out in the public arena then some on here will be extremely quiet.

Why are you asking questions zillions of times, the answers for which you purport to already know?

Death by your own forces in your own capital city is most definately a crime against humanity

What has your own forces and your own capital city got to do with it? Are you saying that if it's not your own forces and not your own capital city, it's not a crime against humanity?

[AleG]

...

Death by your own forces in your own capital city is most definately a crime against humanity

Man, the people from the Hague are going to be up to their eyeballs with police officers from all over the world.

Edited September 22, 2012 by AleG

[rixalex]

can you tell me, out of the 'some of it that you witnessed', is there anything that you seen yourself that proves anything against countless photographed and filmed incidents?

None of what i saw with my own eyes, and none of what i have seen photographed or videoed, showed to me that soldiers were going around shooting people willy-nilly for the fun of it, which is what people imply by saying that they went on a killing spree.

A nieve post beyond belief. News agency workers were targeted, missiled in their hotel and there was no neutral coverage on TV in Thailand. The Thai government of the day blocking certain video content to suit their case. If this is the media you refer to then you will have seen no wrong doing. The Americans have denied the truth to the world, for several years, by controlling media content. I am sure it is possible to do it in Bangkok for a month or two

Nurofiend was the one putting weight behind countless photographed and filmed incidents.

I happen to put weight behind them too - pictures not lying and all that - but as you say, things aren't always as they seem, or as they are reported, so i take what i saw with my own eyes as my first and primary source with which to form opinions. I take it with your scepticism of media outlets, your opinions are also based on first hand experience of being here during the protests?

[OzMick]

Having asked this question on here a zillion times I will ask again.... What were the orders. Who gave the order. Were the order carried out. If the orders were disobeyed, who disobeyed them. Once these answers are out in the public arena then some on here will be extremely quiet. Death by your own forces in your own capital city is most definately a crime against humanity

I'm afraid that leading an armed force into the capital in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government is also a crime. When security forces (be they police or army) are used to prevent that crime, your theory falls down badly.