Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit

[jbrain]

UPDATE

POLITICS

Abhisit, Suthep could face 700 attempted murder charges

PIYANUT TUMNUKASETCHAI

THE NATION

Thailand, Hub of murder charges.

[Ferangled]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

[Nickymaster]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

And the only way PT can form a coalition is by Thaksin buying (promising them very lucrative positions in his government) the smaller parties.

[bigbamboo]

Oh dear, if only the fugitive PM hadn't systematically dismantled the checks and balances put in place by the 1997 constitutuion in order to establish his own feifdom aka Thailand the LOS would still be just that and none of the ensuing mess would have occurred.

Everyone has made mistakes since but the root cause of the mayhem as so often in history is one man's personal lust for power.

[Nickymaster]

AV is guilty of taking a leading role in siding with Army Chief Poajinda to force a coalition of the unwilling, that he knew would be widely despised and cause serious social unrest, but for the sake of power (and it was his only way to power) he underhandedly carried through with the undemocratic deed. He, the elite backers and the army are responsible for the consequent mayhem. He shouldn't have done it in the first place, but certainly at the first sign of serious civil unrest, for the sake of his country he should have dissolved parliament immediately. Shame on his greedy lust for power and efforts to pervert democracy for the sake of those who he and his privileged associates see as being worthy.

So what your saying is he should give in to mob rule. Let the thugs win when they threaten violence, and burn the city?

Sent from my GT-P6200 using Thaivisa Connect App

No, I am saying he shouldn't have caused the whole situation by deliberately perverting democracy, and that when he was caught red-handed he should have stepped down. He knew perfectly well the electorate did not want him to be the head of government. Shameless // Thia script removed //

So we could go back a few years before that and look at where this red/yellow crap started and say that a particular person shouldn't have been a greedy p.o.s.

Sent from my HTC phone.

Correct. If Thaksin would not have been the corrupt and evil sob he is, we would never have ended up in this situation.

We love democracy and we love our corrupt leader. Yeah right!!

[koosdeboer]

It doesn't really matter if people think that the protesters were right or wrong in what they were trying to achieve, if Abhisit gave orders that they should be killed or attempted to be killed to stop the demonstrations then he should be tried as such but of course there are political motives involved in this also.

Governments get away with murdering their own people every year in demonstrations such as this and it is about time they were brought into account for their actions

We are talking about murder and attempted murder of his own people here, I hope he is brought to justice if the allegations are true.

You think he is that stupid? He would have signed an order authorizing lethal force under certain circumstances to achieve a goal.

So then it comes down to proving what was actually conveyed to the troops on the ground. You think Abhisit would sign a shoot to kill order?

And what about his motive? I can't see any reason why he would want people killed.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Moruya]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

It was decided by MPs. Did you miss that bit?

[smedly]

I can only see one motive for this insanity - Thaksin wants to create mayhem in Thailand, he is trying to destabalise the whole country - take it down a rat hole, I suspect there is something behind the scenes that when revealed will show just what a mess this government has made of the economy and the extent of corruption that has taken place by the people in office - cloak and daggers at it's best

I honestly believe time is rapidly running out for this government, the army will step in and put an end to this madness, the Dems need to take the DSI to court now and challenge the legality this bullshite head on.

[Nickymaster]

Oh dear, if only the fugitive PM hadn't systematically dismantled the checks and balances put in place by the 1997 constitutuion in order to establish his own feifdom aka Thailand the LOS would still be just that and none of the ensuing mess would have occurred.

Everyone has made mistakes since but the root cause of the mayhem as so often in history is one man's personal lust for power.

Of course. Anybody with a few brain cells knows that ..I hope.. but I am not convinced reading some posts here.

[Pimay1]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.

You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...

A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;

All eight points equals the bottom line statement "peaceful red shirts holding a peaceful rally".

[Ferangled]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.

You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...

A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

[whybother]

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?

[Ferangled]

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

It was decided by MPs. Did you miss that bit?

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

[whybother]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

[Ferangled]

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Edited December 19, 2012 by Ferangled

[Ferangled]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...

[Nickymaster]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.

You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...

A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Who then was attacking the police and why?

An out of control red mob. Why, because they were out of control. Why were they out of control, too much pep talk from their leaders I guess..You can call it collateral damage if you want.

Please don't waste my time trying to argue that the Reds were acting peacefully. Please show some respect for the normal hardworking people whose lives were terrorized by this mob. An election within 6 months, as promised by AV, was a peaceful way out. PERIOD.

This is the last time I am replying to you and I won’t comment on any of your posts too. Please ad me to the list of people that are not interested in having a discussion with you.

[whybother]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...

I didn't say that. You seemed to indicate that Newin was forced to back Abhisit.

[Ferangled]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.

You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...

A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Who then was attacking the police and why?

An out of control red mob. Why, because they were out of control. Why were they out of control, too much pep talk from their leaders I guess..You can call it collateral damage if you want.

Please don't waste my time trying to argue that the Reds were acting peacefully. Please show some respect for the normal hardworking people whose lives were terrorized by this mob. An election within 6 months, as promised by AV, was a peaceful way out. PERIOD.

This is the last time I am replying to you and I won’t comment on any of your posts too. Please ad me to the list of people that are not interested in having a discussion with you.

Great response Nickymaster. A hint of petulance with a good dollop of false morality. I haven't tried to argue that the Reds were acting peacefully, I simply raised some points and noted some conflict in the views being aired. I guess "PERIOD" is what we'd call a full stop and would be your way of saying there's no debating your opinions, talk to your hand etc. Please take your moral high horse and ride it off into the sunset.. hi ho!

[Ferangled]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...

I didn't say that. You seemed to indicate that Newin was forced to back Abhisit.

No but that was the premise to which I was actually responding. You joined in to counter that response, if you actually concurred, why the post?!

[gl555]

I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...

They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?

There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?

Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

[Rich teacher]

The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?

The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."

http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva

Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...

"Alleged"

The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.

Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...

I didn't say that. You seemed to indicate that Newin was forced to back Abhisit.

Yes

[Rich teacher]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

No, with his head deeply buried in the sand

[Ferangled]

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?

I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.

[Thaddeus]

Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?

No, with his head deeply buried in the sand

While you're all down there maybe a group hug is in order.

[whybother]

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Riot shields and batons are used when protesters are just being rowdy. Rubber bullets, water cannons, and tear gas is used when protesters get a bit more violent.

It's a bit hard to compare how other countries deal with protesters when they're armed with guns and grenades since it rarely happens. Certainly, when the police are dealing with armed criminals, they don't go in unarmed.

Compare that to 2010. The army used riot shields and batons at Government house when the red shirts stormed that. They used tear gas and water cannons when the red shirts were using molotov cocktails when they stormed Thaicom.

During the day on April 10, they used rubber bullets. On the evening of April 10, they initially had shields and batons, which from everything I saw, were unused, as everything went to crap after Romklao was blown up by a grenade and a number of soldiers were killed in the ensuing gun fight with the red shirts.

The army were used instead of the police for most crowd control from the start. I don't know the reasoning for that, but it may have had something to do with the "bring a bottle" speech and the numbers that were expected. It was probably easier to get the thousands of personnel that they needed from the army than from the police.

As far as police are concerned, the only time I remember them being involved was when they allowed the red shirts to set up a stage at Ratchaprasong days before April 10, and when they let Arisman escape out the hotel window.

[muttley]

are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?

The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely

Only in the minds of the ignorant.

The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it seems. Still alive and well on this forum.

Even the Nation accepted the Army had a role in Abhisits coming to power.

Democrat govt a shotgun wedding?

By [email protected]

Published on December 10, 2008

The shadow of the military hovers over moves to form a new government, which will see the Democrats team up with minor parties who agreed to swap sides "for the sake of the nation."

A key leader of one of the former coalition parties said most parties had moved to the Democrat camp due to a request by a senior military figure, who was conveying a message from a man who could not be refuted.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Democrat-govt-a-shotgun-wedding--30090626.html

[gl555]

Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.

Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?

I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.

The fact remains the police did little to nothing to contain the protests. Whether they are are loyal to Thaksin or not doesn't matter. They failed in their job and therefore the Army had to come in and do their jobs for them. You talk about strangeness? Nothing is 'strange' when you're dealing with the red shirts. Nothing makes sense about these people.

[Ferangled]

Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...

Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?

No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...

Riot shields and batons are used when protesters are just being rowdy. Rubber bullets, water cannons, and tear gas is used when protesters get a bit more violent.

It's a bit hard to compare how other countries deal with protesters when they're armed with guns and grenades since it rarely happens. Certainly, when the police are dealing with armed criminals, they don't go in unarmed.

Compare that to 2010. The army used riot shields and batons at Government house when the red shirts stormed that. They used tear gas and water cannons when the red shirts were using molotov cocktails when they stormed Thaicom.

During the day on April 10, they used rubber bullets. On the evening of April 10, they initially had shields and batons, which from everything I saw, were unused, as everything went to crap after Romklao was blown up by a grenade and a number of soldiers were killed in the ensuing gun fight with the red shirts.

The army were used instead of the police for most crowd control from the start. I don't know the reasoning for that, but it may have had something to do with the "bring a bottle" speech and the numbers that were expected. It was probably easier to get the thousands of personnel that they needed from the army than from the police.

As far as police are concerned, the only time I remember them being involved was when they allowed the red shirts to set up a stage at Ratchaprasong days before April 10, and when they let Arisman escape out the hotel window.

I understand that to just reply with a one sided narrative depicting the violent aspect of the Reds, while ignoring the violent response - 700 seriously injured, 800 significantly injured and 91 dead, is far easier than actually addressing the points raised. I just don't think that these disingenuous posts help anyone or further our understanding of the events of 2010.

[muttley]

I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.

If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "

The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"

The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.

You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...

A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:

1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;

"There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived"

Were you just hoping that nobody would notice while you threw this in the ring? Are you prepared to back up this up with any facts?

It's also interesting to note that while most of your peers suggest that the Police have stepped back into the shadows and never engaged in fighting with anybody " having run away" apparently someone is going around killing and injuring them.