Personally I would take the word of people at the site (aka witnesses) waaay before some remotely located and obviously biased sycophant.

Indeed you should.

And it just so happens that Robert Amsterdams dossier contains numerous eyewitness evidence statements of "people at the site".

I'm sure that , like you, the war crimes committee in the Hague , will also take the word of the people at the site (aka witnesses)

I'm sure the ICC will be very impressed with the statement from "Anonymous Witness No. 22" — described as an amalgamation of testimony from several active-duty officers in the Thai military, who would be in grave danger if their identities were exposed, though the lawyers say they will provide all names to the court's prosecutors. Just like I'm (almost) convinced the ICC will truly appreciate the suggestion of a one-off recognition of their jurisdiction over a possibly clearly defined (confined?) part of the March - May 2010 peaceful protests centered on 'our death'

I never cease to wonder what so many farangs on this board have got to gain perpetuating the body of lies of the Royal Thai Army ?

You can't win when some idiot quotes this can you!!! --- When asking the motorbike boys at the end of our soi who they thought responsible for the damage in our area the following morning, they replied with "Tahan sua daeng". A pro-red market stall seller in the local market cackled with glee at the damage done, saying something to the effect of "this is the power Thaksin can unleash when you cross him!", much to the dismay of other market stall sellers and customers listening to her.

I mean motorbike boys and a cackling market trader - such damning evidence - just as the writers attempts to sparkle us with his mastery of Thai.

Personally I would take the word of people at the site (aka witnesses) waaay before some remotely located and obviously biased sycophant.

Indeed you should.

And it just so happens that Robert Amsterdams dossier contains numerous eyewitness evidence statements of "people at the site".

I'm sure that , like you, the war crimes committee in the Hague , will also take the word of the people at the site (aka witnesses)

You should include a few statements from Chalerm to improve your credibility rating, currently seriously negative.

BTW did you miss my post #304? I seriously would like to know the evidence you use to back your sentiments.

And it just so happens that Robert Amsterdams dossier contains numerous eyewitness evidence statements of "people at the site".

Apt use of inverted commas.

Well, according to the other paper, FM Surpong has asked the ICC to investigate the events of early 2010. The article implies that the ICC is willing to do such an investigation if a country officially requests it, even if the country has not ratified the authority of the ICC! So, if this is true, then Thaksin can have his cake (get the Democrats and the Army prosecuted) and eat it too! (not have any of his own actions investigated)

However, if this does proceed, will the government simply ignore the court if they find that the Black Shirts had a role in instigating the violence?