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

[carra]

You want truth and responsibility abhisit? Then tell the truth and take responsibility for the orders you gave and the unarmed people that died at the hands of the army, it's all well and good just pointing the finger at the other side and tell them what to do for reconciliation, but take a look at your own actions and man up and face the consequences.

Who will take responsibility for the unarmed people that died at the hands of the red shirts?

Which unarmed people died at the hands of the red shirts? If there is any proof of this then the offender should be charged for the offence and take his/her punishment. I still find it strange that no men in black have been arrested or even identified even during the dems reign so we can't be surprised if PTP can't find them or identify them, or is there a conspiracy and the PTP hired them?

You are so disillusioned that you are beyond the sympathy stage, now you are just a laughing-stock.

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. Posts that were for the most part on topic but ended with an off topic comments to distract the topic have been removed. Settle down and stop with some of the hyperbole.

[lemoncake]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

[carra]

You want truth and responsibility abhisit? Then tell the truth and take responsibility for the orders you gave and the unarmed people that died at the hands of the army, it's all well and good just pointing the finger at the other side and tell them what to do for reconciliation, but take a look at your own actions and man up and face the consequences.

Isn't that what he is doing?

Is he? I think he has no choice in the matter, he isn't volunteering to be charged. We will see if he faces up to it by telling the truth in court and accepting responsibility for either giving the orders or not recalling the army if his orders were being disobeyed.

[Moruya]

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

But Abhisit denied the accusation, saying the pair's "honest intention" was to "restore peace and order without a crackdown".

yeah right. they just happen to take out the rebel general and the next day begin a 6 day, deadly & bloody crackdown

as if that wasnt not planned. abhisit must think everybodys a moron.

What proof do you have that Abhisit "sent" snipers?

More lies from you I suspect

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[bhb]

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.

[Moruya]

You want truth and responsibility abhisit? Then tell the truth and take responsibility for the orders you gave and the unarmed people that died at the hands of the army, it's all well and good just pointing the finger at the other side and tell them what to do for reconciliation, but take a look at your own actions and man up and face the consequences.

Isn't that what he is doing?

Is he? I think he has no choice in the matter, he isn't volunteering to be charged. We will see if he faces up to it by telling the truth in court and accepting responsibility for either giving the orders or not recalling the army if his orders were being disobeyed.

You're obviously so shocked that Abhisit has such powerful morals that he should refuse to be bribed and take the high ground.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[carra]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

So it's taken a few years to charge abhisit, yet yingluk and charm should be charged in one week for breaking up a protest that was aimed at forcing a coup, where the protestors became violent and the police dealt with that admirably without any loss of life or serious injury and cut short what could have been another lengthy protest.

Let me guess you probably criticse the police for not reacting in 2010 and now criticize them for acting now.

But I am disillusioned and a laughing stock????

Go and stand in the corner and think about this.

[bhb]

When has Tarit ever been or claimedd to be Director of Cres? That has always been Suthep.

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

I like the last two sentences of this team player

"Summarising his expectations as the cases wind up, the DSI chief said people from both sides would be prosecuted. "It is about people quarrelling and then crossing a line. The red shirts crossed a line, the CRES also had the tendency to cross a line. It is a big issue that happened right in the heart of the city; nobody can fake evidence and the court will decide, not me,'' he said."

Very political phrased. He was there, he didn't like what he had to do, he didn't step down, he was a loyal civil servant. Who in his right mind would even think of apportioning part of the blame to him

Well unless he was signing operational orders or making operational decisions why would you apportion blame to him?

If Abhisit or Suthep didn't like the resulting deaths from their orders why did they not call a halt then, not escalate the potentional for deaths by declaring "live fire zones" and assigning snipers?

Who is more culpable?

[Moruya]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

So it's taken a few years to charge abhisit, yet yingluk and charm should be charged in one week for breaking up a protest that was aimed at forcing a coup, where the protestors became violent and the police dealt with that admirably without any loss of life or serious injury and cut short what could have been another lengthy protest.

Let me guess you probably criticse the police for not reacting in 2010 and now criticize them for acting now.

But I am disillusioned and a laughing stock????

Go and stand in the corner and think about this.

So why is Thaksin's brother in law Somchai's trial so slow?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[lemoncake]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

So it's taken a few years to charge abhisit, yet yingluk and charm should be charged in one week for breaking up a protest that was aimed at forcing a coup, where the protestors became violent and the police dealt with that admirably without any loss of life or serious injury and cut short what could have been another lengthy protest.

Let me guess you probably criticse the police for not reacting in 2010 and now criticize them for acting now.

But I am disillusioned and a laughing stock????

Go and stand in the corner and think about this.

What is the difference when anyone was charged? your response is a perfect example of which corner you should be put.

Since you see a problem with army injuring people, how is it that you do not see a problem with police injuring people?

You think calling for coup is justifiable cause to hurt people, but calling to burn down the city and attack hospitals is not?

And you still want to argue your disillusion's?

[metisdead]

If the back and forth bickering doesn't stop, I may have to clean out the sand box.

[carra]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

So it's taken a few years to charge abhisit, yet yingluk and charm should be charged in one week for breaking up a protest that was aimed at forcing a coup, where the protestors became violent and the police dealt with that admirably without any loss of life or serious injury and cut short what could have been another lengthy protest.

Let me guess you probably criticse the police for not reacting in 2010 and now criticize them for acting now.

But I am disillusioned and a laughing stock????

Go and stand in the corner and think about this.

What is the difference when anyone was charged? your response is a perfect example of which corner you should be put.

Since you see a problem with army injuring people, how is it that you do not see a problem with police injuring people?

You think calling for coup is justifiable cause to hurt people, but calling to burn down the city and attack hospitals is not?

And you still want to argue your disillusion's?

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.

[lemoncake]

Well unless he was signing operational orders or making operational decisions why would you apportion blame to him?

If Abhisit or Suthep didn't like the resulting deaths from their orders why did they not call a halt then, not escalate the potentional for deaths by declaring "live fire zones" and assigning snipers?

Who is more culpable?

I still fail to see how so many can not comprehend the most obvious.

Order was given to clear out the mob.

Who ever was in charge of military on the ground athorized the use and issued live ammunition.

Military commander should be the one responsible even assuming someone had to be charged.

But this government is well aware that even if they so much as drop a hint to investigate the military, they will be overthrown on the same day.

Charging ex PM is a political ploy, which Ex PM has already stated to pass the bill to bring Thaksin back.

This ploy may and i have a feeling WILL backfire badly for PTP, because once the trial begins some high ranked military officials will be dragged into it and the consequences........, well i do not need to repeat myself

[bhb]

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.

By the way issuing live round is largely irrelevant. Police carry them every minute of every day.

Who orders, and how and when they shoot is the issue. If they weren't acting in self defence, it is the commander there who is on breach, not the person who signed the order.

If the reds had left, not fought back or surrendered to the law, would the army have shot anyone?

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.

[lemoncake]

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

[bhb]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

Abhisit and Suthep have/will be charged with murder. Your "counter argument" against the current PM and Chalerm is hardly in the same league not to mention irrelevant and off topic.

[lemoncake]

Oh personal abuse, how about countering my comments or are you struggling to so you resort to this crap?

Let me try to counter that for you, what charges have been laid against current PM and Chalerm for seriously injuring 13 people just the other week? Those were also unarmed and outnumbered by police like 1-100.

So will PM be charged and should she be charged for ordering violent crackdown causing injury's

Abhisit and Suthep have/will be charged with murder. Your "counter argument" against the current PM and Chalerm is hardly in the same league not to mention irrelevant and off topic.

really? and why is it irrelevant and not in the same league? so you also believe that Grievous bodily harm is acceptable as oppose to murder? or do you believe those alive need less justice than the dead ones?

[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.

Edited December 7, 2012 by carra

[rubl]

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

I like the last two sentences of this team player

"Summarising his expectations as the cases wind up, the DSI chief said people from both sides would be prosecuted. "It is about people quarrelling and then crossing a line. The red shirts crossed a line, the CRES also had the tendency to cross a line. It is a big issue that happened right in the heart of the city; nobody can fake evidence and the court will decide, not me,'' he said."

Very political phrased. He was there, he didn't like what he had to do, he didn't step down, he was a loyal civil servant. Who in his right mind would even think of apportioning part of the blame to him

Well unless he was signing operational orders or making operational decisions why would you apportion blame to him?

If Abhisit or Suthep didn't like the resulting deaths from their orders why did they not call a halt then, not escalate the potentional for deaths by declaring "live fire zones" and assigning snipers?

Who is more culpable?

Somehow I think this re-hashing we've done before. Maybe even with the same people here

You have to look at the complete March to May 2010 period to understand why violence excalated as it did. If k. Abhisit had set up the 'live fire zone' on day one every one would decry that level of heavihandednes, even most members here. As it is violence crept in slowly with steps and UDD leaders kept hammering at 'fighting till the last drop of blood', 'we will not surrender'. After the renegade general Seh Daeng was shot violence really broke out, by his 'friendly' fighters who wanted to show their displeasure. The government repeatedly asked the protesters to go, warned about the encirclement, waned about the final crackdown. More violence, grenades dropped on the army and even some police and a few 'bystanders' like reporter vanderGrift. Sure, k. Abhisit could have giving the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' what they wanted, sure. Most governments would just roll over to militants who want an early election because they think they deserve it rather than waiting a bit till the legal term ended.

The UDD leaders just said 'it's over, please go home' and surrendered, leaving their supporters disillusioned, leaderless behind. Talk about culpability,

Anyway, k. Abhisit will hear charges related to the death of that taxi driver who according to the criminal court run out to see who was shooting. Obviously a stupid act to be blamed to Abhisit. If only a good soap had been on television that evening, the man would have stayed inside

Edited December 7, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

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

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

Edited December 7, 2012 by nurofiend

[lemoncake]

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 hiring 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.

Do you honestly and really believe soldiers were targeting nurses? and do you really and honestly believe Abhisist gave the order to target and kill the nurses?

But wait Thaksin, PTP will not dare to charge or investigate the military because the consequences..... overthrown and more......

[lemoncake]

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

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

quote from the link "Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI)"

DSI are the most honest, not corrupt agency led by Thaksins proxy, so their leaked reports must be true, just as 3 witnesses.

PS. He may of been shot by accident and not being targeted , and again i have serious doubt Abhisist gave an order to shoot a taxi driver

Edited December 7, 2012 by lemoncake

[rubl]

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

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

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).

[nurofiend]

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

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

quote from the link "Three witnesses concurred that Pan was a bystander, according to a leaked report from the Department of Special Investigation (DSI)"

DSI are the most honest, not corrupt agency led by Thaksins proxy, so they leaked reports must be true, just as 3 witnesses.

PS. He may of been shot by accident and not being targeted , and again i have serious doubt Abhisist gave an order to shoot a taxi driver

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.

[nurofiend]

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

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

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.

[bhb]

Well unless he was signing operational orders or making operational decisions why would you apportion blame to him?

If Abhisit or Suthep didn't like the resulting deaths from their orders why did they not call a halt then, not escalate the potentional for deaths by declaring "live fire zones" and assigning snipers?

Who is more culpable?

I still fail to see how so many can not comprehend the most obvious.

Order was given to clear out the mob.

Who ever was in charge of military on the ground athorized the use and issued live ammunition.

Military commander should be the one responsible even assuming someone had to be charged.

But this government is well aware that even if they so much as drop a hint to investigate the military, they will be overthrown on the same day.

Charging ex PM is a political ploy, which Ex PM has already stated to pass the bill to bring Thaksin back.

This ploy may and i have a feeling WILL backfire badly for PTP, because once the trial begins some high ranked military officials will be dragged into it and the consequences........, well i do not need to repeat myself

Daily Telegraph (UK)

Former Thailand prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to be charged with murder

Mr Abhisit and his deputy premier Mr Suthep signed orders allowing the military to use live ammunition to break up the demonstrations.

http://www.telegraph...ith-murder.html

CNN

Former Thai prime minister faces murder charge over 2010 crackdown

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said Thursday that the charges against Abhisit and Suthep Thaungsuban concern orders to soldiers to use live ammunition in the area were Pan was shot. If convicted, they would face the punishment of death or life in prison.

The Court of Justice ruled in September that the taxi driver's death resulted from acts carried out by the military under instructions from the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation, a temporary task force set up by Abhisit.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rged/?hpt=hp_t2

Suthep and the use of live rounds against red shirts

Finally, former deputy prime minister for security and one-time head of the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) Suthep Thaugsuban has admitted that a leaked document showing that the center had ordered security officers to use live rounds during last year’s protests is in fact authentic. This is important as it may be the first time the usually tenacious politician has conceded to such a controversial revelation.

http://news.4amexpat...nst-red-shirts/

Now will you believe?

[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

[lemoncake]

Well unless he was signing operational orders or making operational decisions why would you apportion blame to him?

If Abhisit or Suthep didn't like the resulting deaths from their orders why did they not call a halt then, not escalate the potentional for deaths by declaring "live fire zones" and assigning snipers?

Who is more culpable?

I still fail to see how so many can not comprehend the most obvious.

Order was given to clear out the mob.

Who ever was in charge of military on the ground athorized the use and issued live ammunition.

Military commander should be the one responsible even assuming someone had to be charged.

But this government is well aware that even if they so much as drop a hint to investigate the military, they will be overthrown on the same day.

Charging ex PM is a political ploy, which Ex PM has already stated to pass the bill to bring Thaksin back.

This ploy may and i have a feeling WILL backfire badly for PTP, because once the trial begins some high ranked military officials will be dragged into it and the consequences........, well i do not need to repeat myself

Daily Telegraph (UK)

Former Thailand prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to be charged with murder

Mr Abhisit and his deputy premier Mr Suthep signed orders allowing the military to use live ammunition to break up the demonstrations.

http://www.telegraph...ith-murder.html

CNN

Former Thai prime minister faces murder charge over 2010 crackdown

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said Thursday that the charges against Abhisit and Suthep Thaungsuban concern orders to soldiers to use live ammunition in the area were Pan was shot. If convicted, they would face the punishment of death or life in prison.

The Court of Justice ruled in September that the taxi driver's death resulted from acts carried out by the military under instructions from the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation, a temporary task force set up by Abhisit.

http://www.cnn.com/2...rged/?hpt=hp_t2

Suthep and the use of live rounds against red shirts

Finally, former deputy prime minister for security and one-time head of the Center for the Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) Suthep Thaugsuban has admitted that a leaked document showing that the center had ordered security officers to use live rounds during last year’s protests is in fact authentic. This is important as it may be the first time the usually tenacious politician has conceded to such a controversial revelation.

http://news.4amexpat...nst-red-shirts/

Now will you believe?

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

[bhb]

unarmed bystander in the middle of the mob

from the other thread: http://thailand.asia...otest-crackdown

the only mention i've seen of him being armed (with a slingshot) is from someone elses reading of a nick nostitz article, which when i read it, i don't know where they got it from.

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.