Ex-Thai Premier Abhisit Slams 'political' Protest Murder Charge

[nurofiend]

well you'll find that during the av administration a lot of our abhisit/suthep supporting posters were sourcing evidence from the dsi to back up their arguments.

it's correct when it suits them, it's incorrect when it doesn't.

May be because back then during av administration DSI was not led by Thaksin proxy

yes? who's side were they on then or were they neutral then but not now?

no offence but you seem a bit wet behind the ears regarding some aspects of this, i recall a post where you were asking for evidence of something that everyone and their soi dog knew about, i even gave you a couple of 'likes' for your persistence.

Edited December 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[Thai at Heart]

Why is he responsible for a soldier breaking the rules of engagement?

This ladies and gents is what happens when the military is not under the complete control if the civilian government and judiciary.

Who is responsible for the soldiers conduct and implementayion of the rules of engagement? The commanding officers.

You reckon abhisit signed a shoot to kill policy? Never

But who signed an order allowing the troops to carry and use live ammunition to two areas of peaceful demonstration, when no-one had been shot or killed up until that point on the 10th April? Suthep. Acting as Abhisits agent in charge of CRES.

The rules of engagement were reportedly self defence. So, if someone breaks them, is the person who signs the order responsible?

Do you not see that the escalation of potential violence was planted by this action and then burst forth once the supposed international standards of crowd control were disregarded entirely by the troops . The violence didn't start at the time of the killing of Romklao, troops had been firing on civilians since late afternoon and they weren't blanks despite the lies put out at the time by the government and the army.

So yes, if as the rules of engagement in self defense were broken Suthep and ultimately Abhisit are responsible. They were responsible for the pressure on the army to carry out the operation regardless of the operation not being able to finish in daylight and therefore the resulting mayhem.

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

[lemoncake]

well you'll find that during the av administration a lot of our abhisit/suthep supporting posters were sourcing evidence from the dsi to back up their arguments.

it's correct when it suits them, it's incorrect when it doesn't.

May be because back then during av administration DSI was not led by Thaksin proxy

yes? who's side were they on then or were they neutral then but not now?

no offence but you seem a bit wet behind the ears regarding some aspects of this, i recall a post where you were asking for evidence of something that everyone and their soi dog knew about, i even gave you a couple of 'likes' for your persistence.

thank you for the likes, i do not know whose side they were on, but i sure know it was not led by a Thaksin proxy

[bhb]

Not sure if you have trouble reading or comprehending.

I never disputed the fact that they are both charged, what i said was, i can not believe how some people, ie you, can not see or understand the political motives behind it.

PS. Quoting UK news is even more irrelevant than most of your posts, unless of course you do not even reside in Thailand and are just bored .....so post on TV

Neither. I was using the UK and CNN news as background to the important info which seems to have passed you by - provided by Khao Sod. I take it you may have heard of it. Dont you think there may be some reason why suthep denied for 2 years the fact that the orders to use live ammunition where signed 3 days earlier than he had said they had done. Doesn't look to clever in a court of law does it when you insisted at the time that your troops were not firing live ammunition and you knew that was the case because the order wasn't signed until the 13th, 3 days after the deaths. Oops.

Political Motives? How about Human Rights, you believe in those dont you?

“It’s historic, this is a new standard for accountability in Thailand . . . to see legal consequences if a government decides to use lethal force against protesters and when that force is excessive and unnecessary,” said Sunai Phusak of Human Rights Watch.

Oh and what does where you think I live have to do with the relevance of my posting?

[lemoncake]

No crossfire, only soldiers firing at the minivan which had strayed into military controlled area, inquest words not Nation speak. In other words there was no speeding vans trying to break through an army barricade whilst the army were slugging it out with armed protesters (hence the crossfire) as some posters on here would have you believe and the taxi driver was shot after they had fired at the mini van according to witnesses testifying at the inquest.

The reference to the nick nostitz article and the slingshot guy who was shot in the stomach by soldiers and subsequently died was a mistake someone had made in this thread. Not suprising with the amount of misinformation here. What I was told about here seems to be turning out just as they said.

So Abhisit or Suthep gave the order to fire at a van, right?

[rubl]

According to the verdict read by the criminal court on the 17th of September, the taxi driver run out of the house to see who was shooting and got caught in crossfire. No mention of him carrying any arms (or brain for that matter).

classy rubl, very classy.

anyway, yes all info i've seen says he was unarmed.

No crossfire, only soldiers firing at the minivan which had strayed into military controlled area, inquest words not Nation speak. In other words there was no speeding vans trying to break through an army barricade whilst the army were slugging it out with armed protesters (hence the crossfire) as some posters on here would have you believe and the taxi driver was shot after they had fired at the mini van according to witnesses testifying at the inquest.

The reference to the nick nostitz article and the slingshot guy who was shot in the stomach by soldiers and subsequently died was a mistake someone had made in this thread. Not suprising with the amount of misinformation here. What I was told about here seems to be turning out just as they said.

2012-09-17

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

http://www.thaivisa....-death-inquest/

2012-09-19 AFP article quoted by thaiintelligence

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in crossfire when he ran out of a Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after soldiers shot at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

https://thaiintellig...e-anti-thaksin/

[Thai at Heart]

No crossfire, only soldiers firing at the minivan which had strayed into military controlled area, inquest words not Nation speak. In other words there was no speeding vans trying to break through an army barricade whilst the army were slugging it out with armed protesters (hence the crossfire) as some posters on here would have you believe and the taxi driver was shot after they had fired at the mini van according to witnesses testifying at the inquest.

The reference to the nick nostitz article and the slingshot guy who was shot in the stomach by soldiers and subsequently died was a mistake someone had made in this thread. Not suprising with the amount of misinformation here. What I was told about here seems to be turning out just as they said.

So Abhisit or Suthep gave the order to fire at a van, right?

Indeed. The biggest issue here is that the army will never allow itself to be held accountable for anything it does

They will never serve up or punish one if its own for breaking the rules.

[lemoncake]

Not sure if you have trouble reading or comprehending.

I never disputed the fact that they are both charged, what i said was, i can not believe how some people, ie you, can not see or understand the political motives behind it.

PS. Quoting UK news is even more irrelevant than most of your posts, unless of course you do not even reside in Thailand and are just bored .....so post on TV

Neither. I was using the UK and CNN news as background to the important info which seems to have passed you by - provided by Khao Sod. I take it you may have heard of it. Dont you think there may be some reason why suthep denied for 2 years the fact that the orders to use live ammunition where signed 3 days earlier than he had said they had done. Doesn't look to clever in a court of law does it when you insisted at the time that your troops were not firing live ammunition and you knew that was the case because the order wasn't signed until the 13th, 3 days after the deaths. Oops.

Political Motives? How about Human Rights, you believe in those dont you?

“It’s historic, this is a new standard for accountability in Thailand . . . to see legal consequences if a government decides to use lethal force against protesters and when that force is excessive and unnecessary,” said Sunai Phusak of Human Rights Watch.

Oh and what does where you think I live have to do with the relevance of my posting?

And you have any evidence or proof that he did give the order to use live ammunition? NOW why would someone sign an order to use live ammunition and then deny it, you do not think something does not add up?

Human rights you speak about, how about human rights for the rest of us mere mortals(yes us, those who reside here permanently who had to live blockaded for 2 months? how about those who lost money, businesses, jobs, offices, and more?

Edited December 7, 2012 by lemoncake

[rubl]

Not sure if you have trouble reading or comprehending.

I never disputed the fact that they are both charged, what i said was, i can not believe how some people, ie you, can not see or understand the political motives behind it.

PS. Quoting UK news is even more irrelevant than most of your posts, unless of course you do not even reside in Thailand and are just bored .....so post on TV

Neither. I was using the UK and CNN news as background to the important info which seems to have passed you by - provided by Khao Sod. I take it you may have heard of it. Dont you think there may be some reason why suthep denied for 2 years the fact that the orders to use live ammunition where signed 3 days earlier than he had said they had done. Doesn't look to clever in a court of law does it when you insisted at the time that your troops were not firing live ammunition and you knew that was the case because the order wasn't signed until the 13th, 3 days after the deaths. Oops.

Political Motives? How about Human Rights, you believe in those dont you?

“It’s historic, this is a new standard for accountability in Thailand . . . to see legal consequences if a government decides to use lethal force against protesters and when that force is excessive and unnecessary,” said Sunai Phusak of Human Rights Watch.

Oh and what does where you think I live have to do with the relevance of my posting?

The quote with k. Sunai Phusak seems to come from the ft.com site. Interesting article, also has

"The US-based group concluded in an investigation of the 2010 upheaval, that both sides – government and protesters – initiated violence and has called for greater accountability by both."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bececff2-3f9b-11e2-b0ce-00144feabdc0.html

[nurofiend]

Not sure if you have trouble reading or comprehending.

I never disputed the fact that they are both charged, what i said was, i can not believe how some people, ie you, can not see or understand the political motives behind it.

PS. Quoting UK news is even more irrelevant than most of your posts, unless of course you do not even reside in Thailand and are just bored .....so post on TV

Neither. I was using the UK and CNN news as background to the important info which seems to have passed you by - provided by Khao Sod. I take it you may have heard of it. Dont you think there may be some reason why suthep denied for 2 years the fact that the orders to use live ammunition where signed 3 days earlier than he had said they had done. Doesn't look to clever in a court of law does it when you insisted at the time that your troops were not firing live ammunition and you knew that was the case because the order wasn't signed until the 13th, 3 days after the deaths. Oops.

Political Motives? How about Human Rights, you believe in those dont you?

“It’s historic, this is a new standard for accountability in Thailand . . . to see legal consequences if a government decides to use lethal force against protesters and when that force is excessive and unnecessary,” said Sunai Phusak of Human Rights Watch.

Oh and what does where you think I live have to do with the relevance of my posting?

And you have any evidence or proof that he did give the order to use live ammunition? NOW why would someone sign an order to use live ammunition and then deny it, you do not think something does not add up?

Human rights you speak about, how about human rights for the rest of us mere mortals(yes us, those who reside here permanently who had to live blockaded for 2 months? how about those who lost money, businesses, jobs, offices, and more?

"how about those who lost money, businesses, jobs, offices, and more?"

indeed it's a big aspect of peoples hatred for the reds and a big reason of why the government said enough is enough, let's get rid of these guys now.

[Thai at Heart]

Not sure if you have trouble reading or comprehending.

I never disputed the fact that they are both charged, what i said was, i can not believe how some people, ie you, can not see or understand the political motives behind it.

PS. Quoting UK news is even more irrelevant than most of your posts, unless of course you do not even reside in Thailand and are just bored .....so post on TV

Neither. I was using the UK and CNN news as background to the important info which seems to have passed you by - provided by Khao Sod. I take it you may have heard of it. Dont you think there may be some reason why suthep denied for 2 years the fact that the orders to use live ammunition where signed 3 days earlier than he had said they had done. Doesn't look to clever in a court of law does it when you insisted at the time that your troops were not firing live ammunition and you knew that was the case because the order wasn't signed until the 13th, 3 days after the deaths. Oops.

Political Motives? How about Human Rights, you believe in those dont you?

“It’s historic, this is a new standard for accountability in Thailand . . . to see legal consequences if a government decides to use lethal force against protesters and when that force is excessive and unnecessary,” said Sunai Phusak of Human Rights Watch.

Oh and what does where you think I live have to do with the relevance of my posting?

Organisations use lethal force against their own citizens every day all over the world to protect the law abiding majority.

Bank robbers, hostage takers, nut jobs, kids on killing sprees get killed all over the world because they pose a risk.

Yes, the actions of those involved should be thoroughly investigated to make sure they are in accordance with the law, that is a good thing.

But you don't hold the head of government responsible for it. The individual actions and decisions taken there in situ are the issue.

[bhb]

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/10/crackdown/comment-page-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/10/crackdown/comment-page-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Maybe the order was in place. I can't remember the exact timeline. were the protesters given warning?

[Thai at Heart]

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/10/crackdown/comment-page-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Maybe the order was in place. I can't remember the exact timeline. were the protesters given warning?

And on that basis, if the order wasn't in place then the army arbitrarily broke the law, because, if they can't prove suthep or abhisit ordered it, then someone else did....

Edited December 7, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[stoneyboy]

What's it all about huh.

[nurofiend]

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Maybe the order was in place. I can't remember the exact timeline. were the protesters given warning?

And on that basis, if the order wasn't in place then the army arbitrarily broke the law, because, if they can't prove suthep or abhisit ordered it, then someone else did....

we all know the reality, no government is going to go after the army to hold them accountable.

[Hugh Jarse]

Ug!?

[nurofiend]

What's it all about huh.

ha great pic, the facial expressions they used make them look like they're well on it

[Thai at Heart]

To neuro

I can hear that 100 ton elephant in the corner of the room. Unless there is a bit of paper with sutheps name on it, who ordered what?

[bhb]

2012-09-17

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

http://www.thaivisa....-death-inquest/

2012-09-19 AFP article quoted by thaiintelligence

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in crossfire when he ran out of a Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after soldiers shot at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

https://thaiintellig...e-anti-thaksin/

And on the 6th December AFP printed this

"The court found that the 43-year-old was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control."

http://www.thaivisa....s/#entry5907722

So whats your point, that the AFP are on a level with the Nation for reporting? Though I think it's safe to believe the Inquest Judge, Jitakorn Patanasiri, when he said

"There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel,” Mr Jitakorn said."

I suppose you could believe the army but they do dispute the findings of the inquest, Prayuth Chan-Ocha in particular despite HRW comments

HRW said Gen Prayuth on 16 August told the investigating committee to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators. He also told investigators not to publicly report findings, it added.

The group also accused Gen Prayuth of ordering an army official to file a criminal defamation case against a lawyer representing the red-shirts and Mr Thaksin.

"Abuses by soldiers took place in full view of the Thai public and the world's media, yet the Thai army chief is now trying to intimidate investigators and critics into silence," HRW Asia director Brad Adams said in a statement.

"The government should prosecute all those responsible for crimes during the 2010 violence, including members of the military, who should not be above the law," he added.

A spokesman from the Thai army said that there was "no way that we can interfere" in the investigation.

"How can the army intervene with ongoing cases? The army has no authority to do that," Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd told the Agence-France Presse news agency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-19355065

We all know how reliable Chan-Ochas word is and as for Col. (is he still only a colonel) Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, the army spokesman, well words fail me.

[nurofiend]

To neuro

I can hear that 100 ton elephant in the corner of the room. Unless there is a bit of paper with sutheps name on it, who ordered what?

i thought suthep admitted ordering the live fire zone?

i think the charge is based on "giving orders that led to the death of others with intent", as said by the DSI chief.

which could be translated as he gave the live fire zone order as head of the cres, and that led to the death of others... the question is of the intent i suppose, which would be hard to prove whether true or not.

i have no belief that they will be convicted for this whatsoever.

[bhb]

I don't see it that way at all. If the protesters are armed, and in breach of the law, you are entitled to break up the party.

You command the army or whatever force you need to carry out the job, with a paper order to say how they are entitled to do it.

Any organisation should follow the chain of command. Now if you tell them to use reasonable force and defend themselves, (a perfectly reasonable request), and someone shoots at them, they are entitled to shoot back.

This is a non case. The reds could have packed up and left, but they stayed to fight. A small percentage armed, but no force either police or army is going to risk themselves. So since, they have the overwhelming force, protesters are going to get hurt.

They had their chance to leave bit didn't. So, is abhisut guilty of murder? Of course not. Is a member of the armed forces responsible for excessive force. The court thinks so.

but when someone drives a car at a checkpoint and doesn't stop, bad things happen all over the world.

Are more soldiers guilty of excessive force, probably but very hard to prove? The reds broke the law, some of the army broke the law. Fingering abhisit for it is ridiculous

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Maybe the order was in place. I can't remember the exact timeline. were the protesters given warning?

And on that basis, if the order wasn't in place then the army arbitrarily broke the law, because, if they can't prove suthep or abhisit ordered it, then someone else did....

Well they can prove it , Suthep has already admitted signing the order on the 1oth which was what I was trying to point out the significance of to lemoncake.

[Thai at Heart]

To neuro

I can hear that 100 ton elephant in the corner of the room. Unless there is a bit of paper with sutheps name on it, who ordered what?

i thought suthep admitted ordering the live fire zone?

i think the charge is based on "giving orders that led to the death of others with intent", as said by the DSI chief.

which could be translated as he gave the live fire zone order as head of the cres, and that led to the death of others... the question is of the intent i suppose, which would be hard to prove whether true or not.

i have no belief that they will be convicted for this whatsoever.

Me neither. he ordered the allowance to use live rounds. Every copper in the country has a gun. since when does a soldier need legal permission to use his gun on home soil anyway, to prevent law breaking.

Ordering the permission to use live rounds means nothing. He didn't command the operation minute by minute.

[rubl]

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Many interesting posts there and usefull links. UDD leaders showing weapons seized from army, police shaking hands with protesters and promise to withdraw within 20 minutes, and of course some foreign newsreports

"Demonstrators clash with police in Bangkok.

Thai troops fired rubber bullets and teargas at thousands of demonstrators, who fought back with guns, grenades and petrol bombs in riots that killed at least 15 people in Bangkok's worst political violence in 18 years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/troops-fire-bangkok-protesters

"The situation seemed getting out of control as the "red-shirts" protesters and security forces started to exchange fire and throw grenades at Khokwua intersection, 700m away from Phan Fah Bridge, at about 8:10 p.m."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/11/c_13245738.htm

Anyway this topic is not on 'peaceful protesters' retaliating with grenades, but on k. Abhisit slamming the charge he'll face next week as political. The charge for murder of the taxi driver who run out of the house to see who was shooting

[Thai at Heart]

To bhb.

The Army were permitted to use in self defence or to fire in the air. Who is provably guilty of not sticking to the rules?

Edited December 7, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[bhb]

Well I differ from you - The troops started firing on protesters from 3.50pm on the 10th. Read the live timeline here

http://asiapacific.a...age-1/#comments

I'm not going to chang e any minds on this forum thats for sure.

Many interesting posts there and usefull links. UDD leaders showing weapons seized from army, police shaking hands with protesters and promise to withdraw within 20 minutes, and of course some foreign newsreports

"Demonstrators clash with police in Bangkok.

Thai troops fired rubber bullets and teargas at thousands of demonstrators, who fought back with guns, grenades and petrol bombs in riots that killed at least 15 people in Bangkok's worst political violence in 18 years."

http://www.guardian....gkok-protesters

"The situation seemed getting out of control as the "red-shirts" protesters and security forces started to exchange fire and throw grenades at Khokwua intersection, 700m away from Phan Fah Bridge, at about 8:10 p.m."

http://news.xinhuane.../c_13245738.htm

Anyway this topic is not on 'peaceful protesters' retaliating with grenades, but on k. Abhisit slamming the charge he'll face next week as political. The charge for murder of the taxi driver who run out of the house to see who was shooting

You didn't even look at the timescales did you? You realise the stories are from AFP and not even related to the timescales I was talking about so degrees of violence by that time were completely different but then again perhaps you did know about the time differences and just wanted to push your sarcastic "peaceful protester" angle. So long as you got that in everybody goes back on topic right? Is that how its done here?

[rubl]

2012-09-17

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

http://www.thaivisa....-death-inquest/

2012-09-19 AFP article quoted by thaiintelligence

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in crossfire when he ran out of a Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after soldiers shot at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control, a Thai criminal court found."

https://thaiintellig...e-anti-thaksin/

And on the 6th December AFP printed this

"The court found that the 43-year-old was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus that had strayed into an area under army control."

http://www.thaivisa....s/#entry5907722

So whats your point, that the AFP are on a level with the Nation for reporting? Though I think it's safe to believe the Inquest Judge, Jitakorn Patanasiri, when he said

"There is no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel,” Mr Jitakorn said."

... rest removed

For a moment just contemplate this: 'soldiers open fire at a minibus', 'was caught in a volley of gunfire', 'no report of a gunfight between other groups and military personnel'. To me that suggests that the army was shooting at a van for whatever reason, the taxi driver came looking and was caught in a volley of gunfire.

Consequently the army should have stopped shooting the moment they were aware this crazy civilian was getting in harms way. Actually they may have stopped shooting once they were aware of this innocent, rushing-in victim, but most likely too late.

Now the interesting part is that a search with yahoo gives me 19 websites with "caught in a volley of gunfire" and 3 with "caught in crossfire". Two of those three are from thaiintellicencenews.worldpress.com, one from thenational.ae. All end with the remark from k. Jitakorn. At first glance no other discrepancies. Interesting

[Insight]

Do the pro-reds on this thread really believe this is being done in the name of justice?

[Theoutsider]

The TVF bi@#%*&g match continues again

dems to to the left, ptp to the right.

"Abhisit slams charg as political" he is starting to sound like his nemesis.

If you can't stand the heat flee the country.

[bhb]

To bhb.

The Army were permitted to use in self defence or to fire in the air. Who is provably guilty of not sticking to the rules?

George

Posted April 10, 2010 at 7:58 PM

3:55PM Saturday afternoon April 11th in Bangkok: ThaiPBS Reporter at scene states that soldiers at firing guns into the air (from video though the guns are horizontal)………..

anthapan

Posted April 10, 2010 at 8:06 PM

From red stage at Rajaprasong Natthawut announcing that the army is using M-16 rifles to disperse crowds at Pan Fa, claims many injuries.

Now showing images of people injured, holding up bullets for cameras.

Would have thought that was provable. Don't forget at the time live fire by the army had / was being denied but there were casualties. So the Army are not working to their own stated MO.

The Army are not on trial here though, thats already been stated. As you say unless it is provable it's going to be hard to pin down an army OIC. However causality, if there is such a word can be pinned on the CRES for ordering the bringing live bullets to what was at the beginning a peaceful demo and then using them.