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

[Sayonarax]

UN the Puppet master speaks. They died cause they used violence to force their ideals on us city folk. Get over it and go sort out the south were 6,000 have died.

Surely there are more important things going on in the world? Mexican cartel war? South of Thailand insurgents? Refugees? Food?

They chose to come to the city and cause shit, and they paid the price. End of Story.

Do you think they'll come back anytime soon and try again? Hell no.

[OzMick]

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?

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

[Fozfromoz]

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.

I only referred to what was written, not what may be surmised. I did say MAY think. Cheers.

[OzMick]

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

You DO know who fired the 3 RPGs at the Dusit Thani Hotel? Here's a hint, he wore a red shirt.

[birdpooguava]

.... in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government ....

Generally I hate the use of smileys, but couldn't help it here...

[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?"

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

My opinion about anyone being held accountable from the government side doesn't matter much, but I doubt that this will happen.

As to your comment on the forum views, there are some posters who think that every red shirt was a guilty citizen, that there were no innocent citizens among the red shirts. A bizarre position. Others admit that the army killed innocents, but consider it completely justified. Others justify the use of lethal force, even the live-fire zones, but recognize that there was "collateral damage". I don't agree with or justify the use of lethal force at all by the government and I don't support the use of lethal force by the protesters either. But I understand the context of the events in 2010 and recognize that any other course by either the government or those elements of the protesters would have been extremely unlikely.

As for murder spree, or other word choices, it is clear from the events that the military was not in crowd-control mode from the 14th to the 19th. The military was in attack mode. As for word choice, I'll let jayboy defend himself if he is so inclined. He's more than able.

[AleG]

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

What were the orders and who gave them:

There were many, the relevant being "The government’s Rules of Engagement, as articulated by its Center for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) on 14 May, state that live rounds may only be used as warning shots fired into the air, in self-defence, or when forces can clearly see those the security forces consider as “terrorists”. On 16 May, CRES declared several areas just adjacent to the protest site as “live fire zones”.

Were the order carried out. In typical Thai style, yes, they were.

If the orders were disobeyed, who disobeyed them. The ones that disobeyed the orders, duh. Soldiers, perhaps commanders.

Now, can you give us the Black Shirts chain of command structure? Who issued what orders, who carried them out and who may have disobeyed them?

[rixalex]

.... in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government ....

Generally I hate the use of smileys, but couldn't help it here...

Smileys can indeed fill voids when reasoned argument fails you.

The people who laugh about Abhisit's coalition government being legitimate, are the very same people who stand behind such practices as billionaires buying up all the small parties in the land, to take power; the same people who have no problem with a coalition government being formed with the help of a smaller party, that in its election campaign, lied about promising to not work with certain other parties.

[473geo]

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?

Red glasses people have been asked to answer that question a hundred times.

When the Government and military decided to disperse the protest at Phan Fah, this should have been meticulously planned and executed, whybother states "but it didn't get violent until someone decided to take out the commander" leaving no doubt at this point the protest at Phan Fah was peaceful

To attempt to disperse the up until then 'peaceful' protest (according to whybother) with live ammunition and military vehicles carried the severe consequence of the possibility of a real escalation of violent conflicts, this action could only serve to remove all rational rules of confrontation......the dispersal had to be exactly that.

The military and the government failed.........

What would I have done...ensured success...filled bangkok with troops and police following the dispersal left the protestors with nowhere to go......

If my planning had been as piss poor as demonstrated by the dispersal attempt at Phan Fah, and my actions had instigated the deaths of 24 people and the injury of 800 others......well I think there is a real chance I would have dissolved the house and called an election....leaving the military to co-ordinate the return home of the red shirts before any further death and carnage occurred

Edited September 22, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

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

What were the orders and who gave them:

There were many, the relevant being "The government’s Rules of Engagement, as articulated by its Center for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) on 14 May, state that live rounds may only be used as warning shots fired into the air, in self-defence, or when forces can clearly see those the security forces consider as “terrorists”. On 16 May, CRES declared several areas just adjacent to the protest site as “live fire zones”.

Were the order carried out. In typical Thai style, yes, they were.

If the orders were disobeyed, who disobeyed them. The ones that disobeyed the orders, duh. Soldiers, perhaps commanders.

Now, can you give us the Black Shirts chain of command structure? Who issued what orders, who carried them out and who may have disobeyed them?

Seh Daeng would be one obvious choice so that door is closed for legal exploration.......now back to the Military....

[OzMick]

.... in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government ....

Generally I hate the use of smileys, but couldn't help it here...

I can only assume that you are American, and unused to the complexities of a multi-party (more than 2) Westminster system. It's a bit like a pupil always tested with True/False question suddenly aspiring to multiple choice.

Either that, or you have attended the red shirt democracy school, and drunk copiously of the Kool-Aid.Or both. How's your class envy level?

Edited September 22, 2012 by OzMick

[birdpooguava]

.... in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government ....

Generally I hate the use of smileys, but couldn't help it here...

I can only assume that you are American, and unused to the complexities of a multi-party (more than 2) Westminster system. It's a bit like a pupil always tested with True/False question suddenly aspiring to multiple choice.

Either that, or you have attended the red shirt democracy school, and drunk copiously of the Kool-Aid.Or both. How's your class envy level?

I can only assume you come from Burma, where it is the norm to have the military control parliament and the 'democratic' process.

[Buchholz]

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.

If you had just quoted my other post from 2 days ago.

your reply could have just been a brief:

"Spot on. Agreed. Plus 1."

.

[rixalex]

Smileys can indeed fill voids when reasoned argument fails you.

The people who laugh about Abhisit's coalition government being legitimate, are the very same people who stand behind such practices as billionaires buying up all the small parties in the land, to take power; the same people who have no problem with a coalition government being formed with the help of a smaller party, that in its election campaign, lied about promising to not work with certain other parties.

Unelected people, whether they be business men, generals, gentry or whoever, being involved in back room deals in bringing politicians together to form coalitions, is not in the spirit of democracy as i see it, but it doesn't make the resulting government illegitimate. Were that the case, virtually all coalition governments since democracy (supposed democracy i should say) existed in Thailand, would be deemed illegitimate.

Abhisit's government lacked a decent mandate. That was the problem with it. But it wasn't illegitimate. People that argue such, might as well just pin a big red flashing neon sign on their head declaring themselves a victim of red propaganda. Perhaps in your case though you are a distributor rather than victim?

[tinfoilhat]

I wonder how many innocent civilians would have been hurt or killed had the granade attack on Sala Deng BTS station had actually hit a train?

BANGKOK, 5 May 2010 (NNT) M79 grenade attacks at Sala Daeng Intersection on 22 April 2010 have been proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, according to the Central Institute of Forensic Science Director, Khunying MD Pornthip Rojanasunan.

The director stated that M79 grenades against protestors of the Alliance of Patriots that day could have been launched from either the seventh or the eighth floor of King Bhumibol Building in Chulalongkorn Hospital based on traces and damages found at the scene.

Ahh, Chula hospital, where they refuse to treat reds and allow army snipers access to their upper floors & then pull a (very successful to the gullible) publicity stunt of evacuating patients, putting their own patients at risk. Oh & let's not forget their most famous associate Dr. Dr. Tul Sithisomwong (old DNA Tul as I like to call him)

do you have a link for this news source? If not it will be deleted. Unattributed sources are not allowed

the same could be asked of his unattributed source in his other post, # 141.

.

Original link here, but it sems to have died. There is pleenty of evidence to suggest the link is genuine if you google the first sentence. I was quoted freequently on other forums and blogs when it cam out.

Ad for asking for attribution, I would have thought the (NNT) in brackets at the beginning of the article clearly identified the source

Sala Daeng grenades proven to be shot from Chulalongkorn Hospital

[tlansford]

.... in an attempt to unseat the legitimate government ....

Generally I hate the use of smileys, but couldn't help it here...

Smileys can indeed fill voids when reasoned argument fails you.

The people who laugh about Abhisit's coalition government being legitimate, are the very same people who stand behind such practices as billionaires buying up all the small parties in the land, to take power; the same people who have no problem with a coalition government being formed with the help of a smaller party, that in its election campaign, lied about promising to not work with certain other parties.

OK, sir, so you do think that Abhisit's government was legitimate. I certainly do not agree. But our opinion never counted anyway. The point of the protests in 2009 and 2010 was exactly this question. Many Thais viewed his government as illegitimate and the legitimate government as having been removed (again) by the military - this time with the help of the courts.

When people here claim that the UDD were trying to unseat the legitimate government, then they are starting with a false premise - at least as far as those protesting were concerned.

Were there ever 6 years of turmoil after past coups? Back when the elites were basically playing among themselves for control of the government, no. But IMO one of the things which changed after 1997 is that the Thai people are not only participating more in their country's democracy, they have come to expect their votes to count and their choices to stand rather than to see them discarded when the governments they elect don't suit the old-guard power base. After the coup, when they had the chance to go to the polls again, they chose a government. That government lasted how long?

The protesters in 2010 viewed their position as justified. That much seems very clear.

What you and I thought/think hardly matters at all.

[Buchholz]

do you have a link for this news source? If not it will be deleted. Unattributed sources are not allowed

the same could be asked of his unattributed source in his other post, # 141.

Original link here, but it sems to have died. There is pleenty of evidence to suggest the link is genuine if you google the first sentence. I was quoted freequently on other forums and blogs when it cam out.

The post you quoted was in not in reference to the first quoted post by birdpooguava. It was posted in relation to a different story that birdpooguava had posted (at the time it was Post # 141).

It was deleted as well as other posts he had made subsequently and that was followed by this post back on Page 7.

Ok I see yet another posting of a news article with no link and no attribution, keep that up and your posts will be deleted and you will be warned. We insist on FAIR USE in this forum and if you cannot follow this then do not post news articles.

so, first three sentences and A LIVE LINK. Thanks

Your unattributed news post a few back is now deleted as have your inaccurate discussions of moderation, birdpooguava. Dont do that again.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Buchholz

[Moruya]

Another red love fest starts

[nurofiend]

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?

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

[nurofiend]

Another red love fest starts

nah, i was just pointing out a personal observation.

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[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?

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

i'll just repeat the question

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?

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[nurofiend]

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

[Thaddeus]

Another red love fest starts

nah, i was just pointing out a personal observation.

Which is wrong anyway, a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others, a great comedian should be referred to as a comedic genius.

The upshot of which is.

Thaksin = Clown.

Followers = Amusing, but dangerous.

And I doubt that you would find a genius anywhere between the front and the back of the pack.

[nurofiend]

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

and also, the thaicom situation wasn't the mad max-esque scene that you'd like people to believe.

very few reds relative to the crowd that was there were involved in actual violence going by the evidence that we have.

still, i'm awaiting your answer to the original question.

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

You say you wouldn't have sent the army in while the protest was peaceful and then admit that the protests weren't peaceful, so it must have been ok to have the army there.

As to the question, you are the one saying they should have done things differently, but you avoid answering the question that you were asked first as to what you would have done.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[nurofiend]

Which is wrong anyway, a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others, a great comedian should be referred to as a comedic genius.

The upshot of which is.

Thaksin = Clown.

Followers = Amusing, but dangerous.

And I doubt that you would find a genius anywhere between the front and the back of the pack.

who said anything about a great comedian?

a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others

and where did you gather this valuable definition may i ask?

[Thaddeus]

still, i'm awaiting your answer to the original question.

Nope, sorry, the original question if memory serves was, what would you have done?

[Thaddeus]

Which is wrong anyway, a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others, a great comedian should be referred to as a comedic genius.

The upshot of which is.

Thaksin = Clown.

Followers = Amusing, but dangerous.

And I doubt that you would find a genius anywhere between the front and the back of the pack.

who said anything about a great comedian?

a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others

and where did you gather this valuable definition may i ask?

Oh, I don't know, it may have something to do with having more than a basic understanding of the English language, and not just copying in haste an image that suited an agenda at the time.

Why do you ask?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Thaddeus

[nurofiend]

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

You say you wouldn't have sent the army in while the protest was peaceful and then admit that the protests weren't peaceful, so it must have been ok to have the army there.

As to the question, you are the one saying they should have done things differently, but you avoid answering the question that you were asked first as to what you would have done.

Sent from my HTC phone.

how is it avoiding the question when i said what i would have done, re-read it.

and as for your first paragraph, i suggest stop twisting and re-read what i said again.

so i repeat for the umpteenth time, what would you have done?

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend