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

[carra]

Issuing live rounds when you have told the public that you haven't done such a thing is extremely relevant. Lying about when you signed an order for 2 years (claiming not signed until the 13th April 2010 as Suthep did in this case) is doubly extremely relevant when you claim "your" troops didn't shoot anybody and it was the red/black shirts killing each other. Or have I missed some point.

Your last sentence is beyond belief by the way. Did you not know that the troops started firing at the protesters first in the late afternoon as reportedby foreign tv and news reporters.

Where were they firing at protesters that early in proceedings? A lot of reports showed the red shirts dancing into the early evening with the soldiers standing by doing nothing.

Good to see the truth finally comes out

"so tomorrow,the police and the military fight" clearly, the word fight indicates that the red shirt started the war. The late Ace Preston (as told to him from a Redshirt Protestor}

Opinion, not truth, how do you guess the word fight means the reds started it?

Pure hyperbole

[carra]

Oh dear,

There is a massive difference between murdering an unarmed protestor, or in this case an unarmed bystander, and a few bruises while trying to force through a police line.

If however the police injured someone that was not a threat to them then they would be in the wrong and should be dealt with, but trying to compare the two just reeks of desperation and not a real grasp of the circumstances.

LOL, You really are a class act.

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

or but wait, it is ok to injury a few trying to break through the police line, but is not ok to kill armed ones trying to burn down the city

Perhaps it is time to say good bye and leave the discussion for people with more sanity

Awwwwww shucks, you make me blush, but I am a class act though.

As for him being a protestor, have you read the case and the circumstances?

As for burning down the city, is that what the journalists were doing, or the nurses, or the soldier shot and killed by other soldiers firing at him while he was riding to them to help, posing no immediate threat.

I have no issue with the army shooting armed men that were putting their life in immediate danger by the way, I do have a problem with unarmed people being murdered by them.

And I guess you have had so much experience in your life in controlling unruly mobs... Qudo's to you ma friend ... you're a super trooper then and know all the facts and angles huh??... And have had numerous adventures and experiences in this field to be able to firmly conclude this ... I admire you I must say !

I am an ex UK police officer, so yes I do have experience, other posters can confirm this before you go down the route of doubting this or calling me a liar.

[waza]

Issuing live rounds when you have told the public that you haven't done such a thing is extremely relevant. Lying about when you signed an order for 2 years (claiming not signed until the 13th April 2010 as Suthep did in this case) is doubly extremely relevant when you claim "your" troops didn't shoot anybody and it was the red/black shirts killing each other. Or have I missed some point.

Your last sentence is beyond belief by the way. Did you not know that the troops started firing at the protesters first in the late afternoon as reportedby foreign tv and news reporters.

Where were they firing at protesters that early in proceedings? A lot of reports showed the red shirts dancing into the early evening with the soldiers standing by doing nothing.

Good to see the truth finally comes out

"so tomorrow,the police and the military fight" clearly, the word fight indicates that the red shirt started the war. The late Ace Preston (as told to him from a Redshirt Protestor}

Opinion, not truth, how do you guess the word fight means the reds started it?

Pure hyperbole

Its not the 'fight' word, its the fact that he knew about the battle the night before...

(ps: What happened to Ace Preston?)

Edited December 8, 2012 by waza

[siampolee]

Carra the spin doctor.

Indeed you are a blinkered soul no doubt you would be more at home in a society illustrated below which seems to be the political obedience model for Thai society that Thaksin and his brown nosing acolytes along with you and others of your ilk approve of and wish to enforce upon Thailand and its peoples

No doubt though like many of your political persusion if such a society came into being you would be on the first plane out..

Blind obedience to the despot.Thaksin and the truth be dammed.

.

Edited December 8, 2012 by siampolee

[rixalex]

Sorry yes i mispoke. Tarit was a member of the CRES, not director. He was still a part of the team.

But purely in an administrative role I recall him stating i.e nothing to do with making operational decisions which is a valid point on his behalf. And as for standing down what would be the point if he didn't / couldn't influence any outcomes. Maybe he's the professional he says he is? It's possible http://www.nationmul...g-30192890.html

If what Tarit tells us is true, when he was part of the CRES team, he thought that the director was committing murder. It's one thing if your boss is doing certain things you disagree with, like mismanaging, for you to accept that they are the boss, to bite your lip, and to go along with things, continuing doing your job, but if you believe your boss is committing murder, well in that situation, i think saying that "well yes, my boss was committing murder, but it really wasn't my place to say anything, i had to continue obeying him" is a little weak to put it mildly. He thought people were being murdered for goodness sake!!! And you ask what would have been the point of standing down?! Well for one there is the point of not wanting to be involved with murder, and for two, if that is not sufficient for you, there is the point of being able to tell the press, when they ask you why you are standing down, the evil things you think are going on. Going public could have made all the difference. Certainly a lot more difference than staying silent and doing nothing.

Unless of course Tarit never actually had those thoughts at the time but has suddenly decided in the current political climate that to say now that he did, could do wonders for his career prospects....

[marshbags]

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.

It was the red shirts that escalated at every point.

First, they talked about bringing bottles to fill with petrol to burn the city.

There first couple of protests were peaceful.

After their protest was ignored, they collected blood and spread it around parliament and Abhisit's house.

Then when that was ignored, they went on there mobile rallies.

Then they went and confronted the troops that were stationed away from the protest areas. The troops withdrew back to their barracks.

When the government continued to let them do what they want (how dare they let protesters protest), they decided to occupy Ratchaprasong.

When there was no crackdown by the government, the red shirts decided to head to parliament and storm it forcing MPs to flee over the back fences. (how dare the red shirts storm parliament. Only the yellow shirts do that).

Storming parliament wasn't enough. They decided to storm Thaicom as well. But this time they used molotov cocktails and overran the army. The tear gas and water cannons were useless in stopping them.

That was when the government decided the protests needed to be dispersed. Videos show the red shirts dancing and the army just standing there. No video of the army attacking the protesters.

Then all hell breaks loose. Witnesses on site don't know where the first shots come from.

Apparently, a protester is the first killed, but it wasn't near the army and there is no evidence that the army killed him.

A grenade blows up the commanding colonel. Mysterious "men in black" turn up, shooting at the soldiers. Most of the video of the soldiers is of them retreating.

The following days, the red shirts move to the Ratchaprasong area. Under Seh Daeng (supposedly), they set up petrol soaked bamboo and tyre barricades encircling the Ratchaprasong area. (Rama IV. Ratchapraprop, MBK intersection)

But that's not good enough for the red shirts. They don't fight the army from behind the barricades that they have set up. They actually go out further along Sathorn and on the other side into the Ratchaprarop area and set up burning tyre barricades and shoot/throw things at the soldiers.

Every step of the way, the red shirts put the pressure on the government. Every time they were ignored, they would increase the pressure. When the government decided it was time to shut down the protest, the red shirts brought out their militia.

So, if anyone was escalating to violence, it could ONLY have been the red shirts.

Agree totally.

Then the reds on pre arranged orders moved on to the burning of many city halls throughout the country, along with the gutting and plundering of Central world ect. ect.

There are other videos covering the governmental offices in various cities around Thailand providing evidence of the terror they then stared to cowardly inflict on the rest of the country.

Me I witnessed the Udonthani destruction at first hand and I can assure you it was frightening how they indicrimately went about their evil while the police and local governmental officials stood by and let them get on with it.

Amazingly most of the people responsible for the above are now on indefinite bail and unless their is a change of government will never be held to account for their horrendous actions, also of course the leaders are now feted by this government as heroes and have been well rewared for their loyalty to their leader in exile.

I remember also observing day after day how they continued to escalate the protest from one extreme to another.

I can assure those who think the reds were not offered opportunities to calm down and stop there terroristic actions, that they were many, many times asked to stop yet they totally ignored advice offered along with warnings of the consequences if they did not.

Indeed quite the opposite continued to take place as they were hell bent on destruction, motivated and paid to do so by Thaksin in his desperate attempts to forcefully take over the country, along with installing a government who he could use to his advantage while in possible further exile.....AKA the PTP as is now.

I also remember thinking why doesn,t the government use / utilise the forces to put a stop to it all.... long before it got to the point it ended up in.

Ect. ect. ect.

marshbags

Edited December 8, 2012 by marshbags

[Moruya]

Sorry yes i mispoke. Tarit was a member of the CRES, not director. He was still a part of the team.

But purely in an administrative role I recall him stating i.e nothing to do with making operational decisions which is a valid point on his behalf. And as for standing down what would be the point if he didn't / couldn't influence any outcomes. Maybe he's the professional he says he is? It's possible http://www.nationmul...g-30192890.html

If what Tarit tells us is true, when he was part of the CRES team, he thought that the director was committing murder. It's one thing if your boss is doing certain things you disagree with, like mismanaging, for you to accept that they are the boss, to bite your lip, and to go along with things, continuing doing your job, but if you believe your boss is committing murder, well in that situation, i think saying that "well yes, my boss was committing murder, but it really wasn't my place to say anything, i had to continue obeying him" is a little weak to put it mildly. He thought people were being murdered for goodness sake!!! And you ask what would have been the point of standing down?! Well for one there is the point of not wanting to be involved with murder, and for two, if that is not sufficient for you, there is the point of being able to tell the press, when they ask you why you are standing down, the evil things you think are going on. Going public could have made all the difference. Certainly a lot more difference than staying silent and doing nothing.

Unless of course Tarit never actually had those thoughts at the time but has suddenly decided in the current political climate that to say now that he did, could do wonders for his career prospects....

My guess is that Tarit believes himself to be absolved of charges at the moment. He's playing a very dangerous game as he could quite easily be sucked into his own fire.

[ratcatcher]

Sorry yes i mispoke. Tarit was a member of the CRES, not director. He was still a part of the team.

But purely in an administrative role I recall him stating i.e nothing to do with making operational decisions which is a valid point on his behalf. And as for standing down what would be the point if he didn't / couldn't influence any outcomes. Maybe he's the professional he says he is? It's possible http://www.nationmul...g-30192890.html

If what Tarit tells us is true, when he was part of the CRES team, he thought that the director was committing murder. It's one thing if your boss is doing certain things you disagree with, like mismanaging, for you to accept that they are the boss, to bite your lip, and to go along with things, continuing doing your job, but if you believe your boss is committing murder, well in that situation, i think saying that "well yes, my boss was committing murder, but it really wasn't my place to say anything, i had to continue obeying him" is a little weak to put it mildly. He thought people were being murdered for goodness sake!!! And you ask what would have been the point of standing down?! Well for one there is the point of not wanting to be involved with murder, and for two, if that is not sufficient for you, there is the point of being able to tell the press, when they ask you why you are standing down, the evil things you think are going on. Going public could have made all the difference. Certainly a lot more difference than staying silent and doing nothing.

Unless of course Tarit never actually had those thoughts at the time but has suddenly decided in the current political climate that to say now that he did, could do wonders for his career prospects....

"Unless of course Tarit never actually had those thoughts at the time but has suddenly decided in the current political climate that to say now that he did, could do wonders for his career prospects...."

And that is the point! +1

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksin has some interesting idea on who started the fires...........

TONY JONES: Amongst the peaceful Red Shirt demonstrators there was a hard-core of armed militants. The same men who evidently set fire to dozens of buildings in Bangkok...

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: No... I think..

TONY JONES: and the other places after the army moved in to break up the demonstration. Who were these men? Who do you say they were?

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: If you look at it, you know, why, the Red Shirts burn the central, why not other sites, the central, if you look at many analysis in Thailand you will understand better that the Red Shirts, they are not sophisticated enough to burn the whole building down.

They may angry to create fires, here and there a small fires, but not the big fires. The big fire is, must be the work of professional. Is not be a Red Shirt definitely and it must be well planned ahead. I can assure you, as an ex-police I can assure you that this is a well planned and professionally done is not really, I can say is that it's a set up, it's a set up. http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2910366.htm

However, he had nothing to do with it because he doesnt know the redshirts............

He (Thaksin) insisted he is not advising members of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the formal name for the Red Shirts, who enjoy wide support among Thailand’s rural poor and working class.

“I don’t know them,” he said. http://asiancorrespo...-or-real-grass/

Wasn't it reported that the sprinkler system had been switched off, or in some way disabled to stop the protesters getting access to water during the protest.

In a clothing store, with no sprinklers, filled to bursting to stock, I wouldn't think it too hard for any fire to burn down the whole building.

[waza]

Thaksin has some interesting idea on who started the fires...........

TONY JONES: Amongst the peaceful Red Shirt demonstrators there was a hard-core of armed militants. The same men who evidently set fire to dozens of buildings in Bangkok...

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: No... I think..

TONY JONES: and the other places after the army moved in to break up the demonstration. Who were these men? Who do you say they were?

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: If you look at it, you know, why, the Red Shirts burn the central, why not other sites, the central, if you look at many analysis in Thailand you will understand better that the Red Shirts, they are not sophisticated enough to burn the whole building down.

They may angry to create fires, here and there a small fires, but not the big fires. The big fire is, must be the work of professional. Is not be a Red Shirt definitely and it must be well planned ahead. I can assure you, as an ex-police I can assure you that this is a well planned and professionally done is not really, I can say is that it's a set up, it's a set up. http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2910366.htm

However, he had nothing to do with it because he doesnt know the redshirts............

He (Thaksin) insisted he is not advising members of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the formal name for the Red Shirts, who enjoy wide support among Thailand’s rural poor and working class.

“I don’t know them,” he said. http://asiancorrespo...-or-real-grass/

Wasn't it reported that the sprinkler system had been switched off, or in some way disabled to stop the protesters getting access to water during the protest.

In a clothing store, with no sprinklers, filled to bursting to stock, I wouldn't think it too hard for any fire to burn down the whole building.

Yes but the emergency system wasnt switched off by the government it was breached by the redshirts to provide the protestors with showers and toilets

[Thai at Heart]

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.

It was the red shirts that escalated at every point.

First, they talked about bringing bottles to fill with petrol to burn the city.

There first couple of protests were peaceful.

After their protest was ignored, they collected blood and spread it around parliament and Abhisit's house.

Then when that was ignored, they went on there mobile rallies.

Then they went and confronted the troops that were stationed away from the protest areas. The troops withdrew back to their barracks.

When the government continued to let them do what they want (how dare they let protesters protest), they decided to occupy Ratchaprasong.

When there was no crackdown by the government, the red shirts decided to head to parliament and storm it forcing MPs to flee over the back fences. (how dare the red shirts storm parliament. Only the yellow shirts do that).

Storming parliament wasn't enough. They decided to storm Thaicom as well. But this time they used molotov cocktails and overran the army. The tear gas and water cannons were useless in stopping them.

That was when the government decided the protests needed to be dispersed. Videos show the red shirts dancing and the army just standing there. No video of the army attacking the protesters.

Then all hell breaks loose. Witnesses on site don't know where the first shots come from.

Apparently, a protester is the first killed, but it wasn't near the army and there is no evidence that the army killed him.

A grenade blows up the commanding colonel. Mysterious "men in black" turn up, shooting at the soldiers. Most of the video of the soldiers is of them retreating.

The following days, the red shirts move to the Ratchaprasong area. Under Seh Daeng (supposedly), they set up petrol soaked bamboo and tyre barricades encircling the Ratchaprasong area. (Rama IV. Ratchapraprop, MBK intersection)

But that's not good enough for the red shirts. They don't fight the army from behind the barricades that they have set up. They actually go out further along Sathorn and on the other side into the Ratchaprarop area and set up burning tyre barricades and shoot/throw things at the soldiers.

Every step of the way, the red shirts put the pressure on the government. Every time they were ignored, they would increase the pressure. When the government decided it was time to shut down the protest, the red shirts brought out their militia.

So, if anyone was escalating to violence, it could ONLY have been the red shirts.

Agree totally.

Then the reds on pre arranged orders moved on to the burning of many city halls throughout the country, along with the gutting and plundering of Central world ect. ect.

There are other videos covering the governmental offices in various cities around Thailand providing evidence of the terror they then stared to cowardly inflict on the rest of the country.

Me I witnessed the Udonthani destruction at first hand and I can assure you it was frightening how they indicrimately went about their evil while the police and local governmental officials stood by and let them get on with it.

Amazingly most of the people responsible for the above are now on indefinite bail and unless their is a change of government will never be held to account for their horrendous actions, also of course the leaders are now feted by this government as heroes and have been well rewared for their loyalty to their leader in exile.

I remember also observing day after day how they continued to escalate the protest from one extreme to another.

I can assure those who think the reds were not offered opportunities to calm down and stop there terroristic actions, that they were many, many times asked to stop yet they totally ignored advice offered along with warnings of the consequences if they did not.

Indeed quite the opposite continued to take place as they were hell bent on destruction, motivated and paid to do so by Thaksin in his desperate attempts to forcefully take over the country, along with installing a government who he could use to his advantage while in possible further exile.....AKA the PTP as is now.

I also remember thinking why doesn,t the government use / utilise the forces to put a stop to it all.... long before it got to the point it ended up in.

Ect. ect. ect.

marshbags

It is worth saying that at the moment that the reds started burning down government buildings up country, i know that the army were poised to mobilise nationwide, and thank god they resisted the temptation. They were simply sitting in barracks waiting for the orders, and that would have been one unholy mess.

[whybother]

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.

Were they shooting live bullets at that point?

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksin has some interesting idea on who started the fires...........

TONY JONES: Amongst the peaceful Red Shirt demonstrators there was a hard-core of armed militants. The same men who evidently set fire to dozens of buildings in Bangkok...

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: No... I think..

TONY JONES: and the other places after the army moved in to break up the demonstration. Who were these men? Who do you say they were?

THAKSIN SHINAWATRA: If you look at it, you know, why, the Red Shirts burn the central, why not other sites, the central, if you look at many analysis in Thailand you will understand better that the Red Shirts, they are not sophisticated enough to burn the whole building down.

They may angry to create fires, here and there a small fires, but not the big fires. The big fire is, must be the work of professional. Is not be a Red Shirt definitely and it must be well planned ahead. I can assure you, as an ex-police I can assure you that this is a well planned and professionally done is not really, I can say is that it's a set up, it's a set up. http://www.abc.net.a...10/s2910366.htm

However, he had nothing to do with it because he doesnt know the redshirts............

He (Thaksin) insisted he is not advising members of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the formal name for the Red Shirts, who enjoy wide support among Thailand’s rural poor and working class.

“I don’t know them,” he said. http://asiancorrespo...-or-real-grass/

Wasn't it reported that the sprinkler system had been switched off, or in some way disabled to stop the protesters getting access to water during the protest.

In a clothing store, with no sprinklers, filled to bursting to stock, I wouldn't think it too hard for any fire to burn down the whole building.

Yes but the emergency system wasnt switched off by the government it was breached by the redshirts to provide the protestors with showers and toilets

Well exactly. So, in a building packed to the roof with textiles and no sprinkler system, it would be very easy to gut the builiding.

[waza]

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.

It was the red shirts that escalated at every point.

First, they talked about bringing bottles to fill with petrol to burn the city.

There first couple of protests were peaceful.

After their protest was ignored, they collected blood and spread it around parliament and Abhisit's house.

Then when that was ignored, they went on there mobile rallies.

Then they went and confronted the troops that were stationed away from the protest areas. The troops withdrew back to their barracks.

When the government continued to let them do what they want (how dare they let protesters protest), they decided to occupy Ratchaprasong.

When there was no crackdown by the government, the red shirts decided to head to parliament and storm it forcing MPs to flee over the back fences. (how dare the red shirts storm parliament. Only the yellow shirts do that).

Storming parliament wasn't enough. They decided to storm Thaicom as well. But this time they used molotov cocktails and overran the army. The tear gas and water cannons were useless in stopping them.

That was when the government decided the protests needed to be dispersed. Videos show the red shirts dancing and the army just standing there. No video of the army attacking the protesters.

Then all hell breaks loose. Witnesses on site don't know where the first shots come from.

Apparently, a protester is the first killed, but it wasn't near the army and there is no evidence that the army killed him.

A grenade blows up the commanding colonel. Mysterious "men in black" turn up, shooting at the soldiers. Most of the video of the soldiers is of them retreating.

The following days, the red shirts move to the Ratchaprasong area. Under Seh Daeng (supposedly), they set up petrol soaked bamboo and tyre barricades encircling the Ratchaprasong area. (Rama IV. Ratchapraprop, MBK intersection)

But that's not good enough for the red shirts. They don't fight the army from behind the barricades that they have set up. They actually go out further along Sathorn and on the other side into the Ratchaprarop area and set up burning tyre barricades and shoot/throw things at the soldiers.

Every step of the way, the red shirts put the pressure on the government. Every time they were ignored, they would increase the pressure. When the government decided it was time to shut down the protest, the red shirts brought out their militia.

So, if anyone was escalating to violence, it could ONLY have been the red shirts.

Agree totally.

Then the reds on pre arranged orders moved on to the burning of many city halls throughout the country, along with the gutting and plundering of Central world ect. ect.

There are other videos covering the governmental offices in various cities around Thailand providing evidence of the terror they then stared to cowardly inflict on the rest of the country.

Me I witnessed the Udonthani destruction at first hand and I can assure you it was frightening how they indicrimately went about their evil while the police and local governmental officials stood by and let them get on with it.

Amazingly most of the people responsible for the above are now on indefinite bail and unless their is a change of government will never be held to account for their horrendous actions, also of course the leaders are now feted by this government as heroes and have been well rewared for their loyalty to their leader in exile.

I remember also observing day after day how they continued to escalate the protest from one extreme to another.

I can assure those who think the reds were not offered opportunities to calm down and stop there terroristic actions, that they were many, many times asked to stop yet they totally ignored advice offered along with warnings of the consequences if they did not.

Indeed quite the opposite continued to take place as they were hell bent on destruction, motivated and paid to do so by Thaksin in his desperate attempts to forcefully take over the country, along with installing a government who he could use to his advantage while in possible further exile.....AKA the PTP as is now.

I also remember thinking why doesn,t the government use / utilise the forces to put a stop to it all.... long before it got to the point it ended up in.

Ect. ect. ect.

marshbags

It is worth saying that at the moment that the reds started burning down government buildings up country, i know that the army were poised to mobilise nationwide, and thank god they resisted the temptation. They were simply sitting in barracks waiting for the orders, and that would have been one unholy mess.

The watermelon threat was a real one at the time, the government didnt know how much of the military would defect to Thaksin if a civil war erupted.

[Thai at Heart]

The watermelon threat was a real one at the time, the government didnt know how much of the military would defect to Thaksin if a civil war erupted.

That was one of the issues, but no one knew how bad it could get up country. For example where I was at the time, they went to city hall and burnt it down pretty much with no effort to stop them, then once that was done, they marched to the Central, and were only stopped by the employees blocking the entrances, and the manager begging them not to do it. So they started to go to the local tessaban buildings which are very much down town. Then they ransacked a Bangkok Bank

I know for a fact that the army whose barracks are only a couple of km from the downtown were getting ready to go because in reality, the mayhem could have been much worse than it was. How commited the army would have been I have no idea, but at the end of it, in a medium sized downtown area where the local population were absolutely not prepared for this, if the army had come out to attempt crowd control, it would have been catastrophic.

Deep down inside, there would have been a hell of a lot of local support for the army, despite being a commited red shirt area geographically. Having a couple of thousand looters runnind around the city would have been crazy. Fortunately, they burnt only City Hall.

[rixalex]

I think the further this hatchet job goes, the more self-inflicted damage that PTP will bring on itself. All but the most extremist red sympathisers know that Abhisit on a murder charge is just silly, and the longer it goes on, the more damage it will do to the credence of all other cases that may be pursued.

It also could potentially reflect badly on Thaksin: if Abhisit defiantly stands his ground and faces up to charges that potentially could result in a death penalty, rather than cowardly fleeing off overseas or rushing into making some sort of whitewash pact, it could turn Abhisit into some sort of courageous victim in all this and give him the moral high ground.

youre dreaming

its about time he faced charges

the man was responsible as head of the government and he sent out snipers

it was a stupid irresponsible move at the time and 3 years doesnt change that

i love this denial

As i say, there are a small percentage of extremist red sympathisers that will be fully behind this nonsense. No surprise to see you step forward as one.

[Fozfromoz]

Given that the murder charge ( I think) refers to the death of the taxi driver, they would need to prove that Abhisit was directly responsible. I would hardly think that he was sitting in a command bunker, full of live feed, advising, "shoot that one, let that one go"

Yes the Army came in. Yes they had live bullets. They probably shot some innocents/ non combatants, but they have to ( well in most courts that I know) prove that Abhisit was directly responsible for murder.

Just a bunch of trumped up charges, which he would be right in thinking are politically motivated IMHO. Just bang the gavel, case dismissed and get on with a real case on the docket.

There are many layers of command between the PM and the soldier on the ground pulling the trigger. In this thread there are comparisons between this and the recent PS rally where there were some violent clashes, fortunately not resulting in death. Now, in agreement with those that drew comparisons, @ Lemon cake, I think, I concur.

The precedent has now been set with this charge, so by direct application of the same logic, then the current PM was responsible over the policing/ security at that rally. Yes, a different scope, time and outcome, fortunately no one was killed.

Given that journalists stated that they were attacked, bought to ground where they were kicked ( seems a favourite here to sink the slipper in when someone is down), fortunately none of the kicks resulted in death.

I really don't think Abhisit should worry too much, unless some background antics, which I won't/ can't state, occur.

I also think, and hope that this backfires, and those bringing the charges, go down like a wrought iron hang glider.

[otherstuff1957]

[

Wouldn't like to get in the way of the shopping eh, bit inconvenient having to go past all those upcountry plebs on the way to Prada.

Actually, the occupation of Ratchaprasong interfered with more than just hi-so shoppers. There were thousands of working-class people who were put out of work during the duration of the protests.

A friend of mine was dating a woman who owned a couple of small clothes shops in that area. She had started out with a small stall in Jatujak and had worked hard enough to open and run about 5 small shops in various areas. She had become through her own efforts well-off, but it was new Toyota well-off, not new Mercedes well-off.

When the protests started, her employees failed to show up for word. You see, they could earn 300 baht a day selling clothes or they could earn 500 baht a day attending the protest. She got them back by offering to match the 500 baht per day protesters' pay during the duration of the protest.

Unfortunately, so many customers were scared off by the protesters that she wasn't making enough money to keep the shops open. She, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other small business owners had to close their shops and send their workers home. Most of the small shops in that area are owned by small businesspeople, not big corporations with big cash reserves. They simply could not afford to pay their workers when there were few customers. A few shops survived by selling to the Redshirts, but the protesters didn't spend as much money as other customers (they were being supplied with free food, drinks and entertainment after all), so most shops did not have that option.

So, the pressure on the government to end the protest didn't come from inconvenienced shoppers, it came from thousands of working people who had lost their livelihoods.

[Thai at Heart]

[

Wouldn't like to get in the way of the shopping eh, bit inconvenient having to go past all those upcountry plebs on the way to Prada.

Actually, the occupation of Ratchaprasong interfered with more than just hi-so shoppers. There were thousands of working-class people who were put out of work during the duration of the protests.

A friend of mine was dating a woman who owned a couple of small clothes shops in that area. She had started out with a small stall in Jatujak and had worked hard enough to open and run about 5 small shops in various areas. She had become through her own efforts well-off, but it was new Toyota well-off, not new Mercedes well-off.

When the protests started, her employees failed to show up for word. You see, they could earn 300 baht a day selling clothes or they could earn 500 baht a day attending the protest. She got them back by offering to match the 500 baht per day protesters' pay during the duration of the protest.

Unfortunately, so many customers were scared off by the protesters that she wasn't making enough money to keep the shops open. She, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other small business owners had to close their shops and send their workers home. Most of the small shops in that area are owned by small businesspeople, not big corporations with big cash reserves. They simply could not afford to pay their workers when there were few customers. A few shops survived by selling to the Redshirts, but the protesters didn't spend as much money as other customers (they were being supplied with free food, drinks and entertainment after all), so most shops did not have that option.

So, the pressure on the government to end the protest didn't come from inconvenienced shoppers, it came from thousands of working people who had lost their livelihoods.

I don't think the livelihoods of the small business owners was the government or army's major concern some how. I think they were pretty concerned for their own professional futures.

[Rich teacher]

there are a small percentage of extremist red sympathisers that will be fully behind this nonsense. No surprise to see you step forward as one.

I believe every red shirt in the country will be fully behind this nonsense.

[Rich teacher]

Actually, the occupation of Ratchaprasong interfered with more than just hi-so shoppers. There were thousands of working-class people who were put out of work during the duration of the protests.

A friend of mine was dating a woman who owned a couple of small clothes shops in that area. She had started out with a small stall in Jatujak and had worked hard enough to open and run about 5 small shops in various areas. She had become through her own efforts well-off, but it was new Toyota well-off, not new Mercedes well-off.

When the protests started, her employees failed to show up for word. You see, they could earn 300 baht a day selling clothes or they could earn 500 baht a day attending the protest. She got them back by offering to match the 500 baht per day protesters' pay during the duration of the protest.

Unfortunately, so many customers were scared off by the protesters that she wasn't making enough money to keep the shops open. She, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other small business owners had to close their shops and send their workers home. Most of the small shops in that area are owned by small businesspeople, not big corporations with big cash reserves. They simply could not afford to pay their workers when there were few customers. A few shops survived by selling to the Redshirts, but the protesters didn't spend as much money as other customers (they were being supplied with free food, drinks and entertainment after all), so most shops did not have that option.

So, the pressure on the government to end the protest didn't come from inconvenienced shoppers, it came from thousands of working people who had lost their livelihoods.

Don't you just love these hearsay accounts of reality? The amount of times posts on this site have relied upon, 'my g/f's uncle' or 'my mate's g/f's sister said' is tiresome.

I could go on to say that I know many red shirts who regularly attended the protests and did not receive or even get offered cash, apart from the initial reimbursements for transport costs, which the UDD widely advertised (& of which the videos showing the distribution of these reimbursements have been widely used as false evidence of regular payment for attendance).

I could go on to say that I know many Thai people who have said they would love to receive some election bribe money, but have never been exposed to it.

But I'm not going to waste people's time.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Rich teacher

[waza]

[

Wouldn't like to get in the way of the shopping eh, bit inconvenient having to go past all those upcountry plebs on the way to Prada.

Actually, the occupation of Ratchaprasong interfered with more than just hi-so shoppers. There were thousands of working-class people who were put out of work during the duration of the protests.

A friend of mine was dating a woman who owned a couple of small clothes shops in that area. She had started out with a small stall in Jatujak and had worked hard enough to open and run about 5 small shops in various areas. She had become through her own efforts well-off, but it was new Toyota well-off, not new Mercedes well-off.

When the protests started, her employees failed to show up for word. You see, they could earn 300 baht a day selling clothes or they could earn 500 baht a day attending the protest. She got them back by offering to match the 500 baht per day protesters' pay during the duration of the protest.

Unfortunately, so many customers were scared off by the protesters that she wasn't making enough money to keep the shops open. She, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other small business owners had to close their shops and send their workers home. Most of the small shops in that area are owned by small businesspeople, not big corporations with big cash reserves. They simply could not afford to pay their workers when there were few customers. A few shops survived by selling to the Redshirts, but the protesters didn't spend as much money as other customers (they were being supplied with free food, drinks and entertainment after all), so most shops did not have that option.

So, the pressure on the government to end the protest didn't come from inconvenienced shoppers, it came from thousands of working people who had lost their livelihoods.

I don't think the livelihoods of the small business owners was the government or army's major concern some how. I think they were pretty concerned for their own professional futures.

I think they were concerned that the country wasnt given over to an unruly violent mob, as there wasnt an active oposition party and the army was loath to mount a coup. They accepted the Redshirts demand for early elections, but once the redshirt withdrew their demand the governments hands were tied.

Edited December 8, 2012 by waza

[Pimay1]

Actually, the occupation of Ratchaprasong interfered with more than just hi-so shoppers. There were thousands of working-class people who were put out of work during the duration of the protests.

A friend of mine was dating a woman who owned a couple of small clothes shops in that area. She had started out with a small stall in Jatujak and had worked hard enough to open and run about 5 small shops in various areas. She had become through her own efforts well-off, but it was new Toyota well-off, not new Mercedes well-off.

When the protests started, her employees failed to show up for word. You see, they could earn 300 baht a day selling clothes or they could earn 500 baht a day attending the protest. She got them back by offering to match the 500 baht per day protesters' pay during the duration of the protest.

Unfortunately, so many customers were scared off by the protesters that she wasn't making enough money to keep the shops open. She, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other small business owners had to close their shops and send their workers home. Most of the small shops in that area are owned by small businesspeople, not big corporations with big cash reserves. They simply could not afford to pay their workers when there were few customers. A few shops survived by selling to the Redshirts, but the protesters didn't spend as much money as other customers (they were being supplied with free food, drinks and entertainment after all), so most shops did not have that option.

So, the pressure on the government to end the protest didn't come from inconvenienced shoppers, it came from thousands of working people who had lost their livelihoods.

Don't you just love these hearsay accounts of reality? The amount of times posts on this site have relied upon, 'my g/f's uncle' or 'my mate's g/f's sister said' is tiresome.

I could go on to say that I know many red shirts who regularly attended the protests and did not receive or even get offered cash, apart from the initial reimbursements for transport costs, which the UDD widely advertised (& of which the videos showing the distribution of these reimbursements have been widely used as false evidence of regular payment for attendance).

I could go on to say that I know many Thai people who have said they would love to receive some election bribe money, but have never been exposed to it.

But I'm not going to waste people's time.

RT you could say all these things but I believe you are an honest person therefore this prevents you from saying them. Good show.

[bhb]

Sorry yes i mispoke. Tarit was a member of the CRES, not director. He was still a part of the team.

But purely in an administrative role I recall him stating i.e nothing to do with making operational decisions which is a valid point on his behalf. And as for standing down what would be the point if he didn't / couldn't influence any outcomes. Maybe he's the professional he says he is? It's possible http://www.nationmul...g-30192890.html

If what Tarit tells us is true, when he was part of the CRES team, he thought that the director was committing murder. It's one thing if your boss is doing certain things you disagree with, like mismanaging, for you to accept that they are the boss, to bite your lip, and to go along with things, continuing doing your job, but if you believe your boss is committing murder, well in that situation, i think saying that "well yes, my boss was committing murder, but it really wasn't my place to say anything, i had to continue obeying him" is a little weak to put it mildly. He thought people were being murdered for goodness sake!!! And you ask what would have been the point of standing down?! Well for one there is the point of not wanting to be involved with murder, and for two, if that is not sufficient for you, there is the point of being able to tell the press, when they ask you why you are standing down, the evil things you think are going on. Going public could have made all the difference. Certainly a lot more difference than staying silent and doing nothing.

Unless of course Tarit never actually had those thoughts at the time but has suddenly decided in the current political climate that to say now that he did, could do wonders for his career prospects....

All of the above would be valid if Tarit had as you state "thought that the director was committing murder". Unfortunately for your "argument" there is nowhere that Tarit states that viewpoint at the time he was in CRES. From my clipping

In relation to the 2010 violence, there have been more than 200 cases in four categories: terrorism, coercion of government; abuse of state weaponry and fatal attacks against civilians and state officials. In the latter category, cases have not yet been filed with the court because state officials first must file autopsy cross-examination statements with the court in accordance with Article 150 of the criminal code.

Tarit rejected as groundless the Democrats' allegation of a political motive for his department's plan to file murder charges against former premier Abhisit Vejjajiva and deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban for their involvement in the 2010 riots. He said the plan was being carried out not only by his department but also the police and the attorney-general.

Abhisit and Suthep did not like me and strongly criticised me. [but] what can I do? This is my duty. I am a civil servant. I am trained to be able to work in every situation. If I cannot withstand pressure, then I must leave,'' he said.

Tarit was referring to a court ruling last month that Pan Kamkong, a taxidriver killed on Rajprarob Road on May 15, 2010, was shot by Army personnel supervised by the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation. After the ruling, Tarit said the case set a precedent for others involving controversial actions by military officers.

"I explained to society that with this ruling we have to take action against those who issued the orders to military officers. This upset the opposition and they slammed me,'' he said.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/DSI-chief-Tarit-rejects-chameleon-tag-30192890.html

No mention in there about being aware at the time that murder was being committed. Instead the common sense ruling that such investigations/charges could not be made until after the results of the first autopsy were known, in this case some two and a half years after the event, making your argument above about "taking a stance" nonsense.

[rixalex]

there are a small percentage of extremist red sympathisers that will be fully behind this nonsense. No surprise to see you step forward as one.

I believe every red shirt in the country will be fully behind this nonsense.

And so steps forward another...

[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.

Were they shooting live bullets at that point?

Read all the clips - why do you need me to tell you what they say?

[carra]

Carra the spin doctor.

Indeed you are a blinkered soul no doubt you would be more at home in a society illustrated below which seems to be the political obedience model for Thai society that Thaksin and his brown nosing acolytes along with you and others of your ilk approve of and wish to enforce upon Thailand and its peoples

No doubt though like many of your political persusion if such a society came into being you would be on the first plane out..

Blind obedience to the despot.Thaksin and the truth be dammed.

.

Ahhhhh so you think I am a communist? You really have no idea do you? You make these pathetic guesses without even knowing me. A quick search through my posts will tell youwhat I believe in politically, but guessing that you would have trouble finding your own arse with both hands I will help you understand it.

I have no political affiliation in Thailand and no desire to have, it may seem I am a red as in the interest of fairness I find myself constantly trying to correct ridiculous posts from the forum yellows, posts full of hyperbole, personal abuse of other posters, and abuse of anyone that does not buy into their ideals.

So what is my belief? I believe in democracy and right now we have a democratically elected government, if they mess up then vote them out next election. I would suggest the yellows are more communist in their views, they don't want a vote each, they want to select who runs the country, and when that fails use the army to overthrow the will of the people, use force because th can't ge their way at the ballot box, I guess you can't even see th hypocrisy in your post or your beliefs.

Is that clear now or do you need pictures? Don't ever accuse and insult me again or accuse me of communism, if you have a problem with this then feel free to use the PM button.

Edited December 8, 2012 by carra

[otherstuff1957]

Forum rules prevent me from expressing my opinion of the _____ who just called me liar.

[Hugo6]

central world burning videos is just a stupid distraction from abhisit killing thai citizens

maybe the dsi is political - almost 300 cases against red shirts and now one against boy wonder and his evil uncle suthep - could be political, TIT

but could also be justice

hold boy wonders feet to the fire

its karma

[rixalex]

All of the above would be valid if Tarit had as you state "thought that the director was committing murder". Unfortunately for your "argument" there is nowhere that Tarit states that viewpoint at the time he was in CRES. From my clipping

No mention in there about being aware at the time that murder was being committed. Instead the common sense ruling that such investigations/charges could not be made until after the results of the first autopsy were known, in this case some two and a half years after the event, making your argument above about "taking a stance" nonsense.

My argument is not nonsense.

Tarit has stated that he never agreed with the action that was taken at the time and did not suggest to Abhisit or Suthep that they use weapons against the people. So he knew weapons were being used against the people, he disagreed with it, but he stayed in his job and continued carrying out the orders he was given. He was a part of it. He knew what was happening. He went along with it.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Abhisit-Suthep-to-be-charged-with-murder-30195737.html

Asked whether Tarit himself was at the time a member of the CRES, he said he never agreed with the tough action and did not suggest to Abhisit and Suthep that they use weapons against the people.