Abhisit, Suthep Face More Murder Charges Over 2010 Strife

[MikeOboe57]

The ardent red shirt supporter Nick Nostitz calls his main witness to the stand, the journalist Nick Nostitz. And amazingly the journalist Nick Nostitz can confirm all statements of the red shirt supporter Nick Nostitz. And, even more amazingly, the journalist Nick Nostitz, although claiming to have been eye witness to nearly all major events, cannot recall seeing anything that is not perfectly in line with the statements of the red shirt supporter Nick Nostitz.

That is what I call "all bases covered". Evil minded people might say that a journalist who openly sides with one party in a conflict has lost his credibility.

[sbk]

Lets drop the personal attacks.

And lets stop making this thread about Nick Nostitz. and that applies to Nick as well, thanks.

This thread is about Abhisit and Suthep. cheers

[rubl]

"What is you point with this stupid questioning?"

To (try to) understand and to (try to) find the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to try to find out the truth i would suggest to go to the rallies instead of stalking me.

Stalking? I ask for explanations when I do not understand, or wonder about a possible inconsistency. Many years in the Dutch Educational System have made me so. Stalking? You seem to put more value on your statements than others.

Now back to the OP where obviously Abhisit/Suthep can be charged for murder as the army just shot up some unarmed protesters.

BTW with "Black Shirts, a radical faction under the Red Shirts, started firing grenades" so clinically described, the other side should be described as "he Army when returning fire after terrorists started to fire grenades, unfortunately caused some collateral damage".

Edited May 8, 2013 by rubl

[Pi Sek]

<snip>

Now back to the OP where obviously Abhisit/Suthep can be charged for murder as the army just shot up some unarmed protesters.

BTW with "Black Shirts, a radical faction under the Red Shirts, started firing grenades" so clinically described, the other side should be described as "he Army when returning fire after terrorists started to fire grenades, unfortunately caused some collateral damage".

You can look at it in two ways, unless I am being unfairly tunnel-visioned:

1) A faction of the Red Shirt movement opened fire on the army and the army were over-zealous, scared, poorly prepared, or whatever other reason when responding in kind in later-date operations.

2) The army were correct to respond in kind as they were faced with an armed threat when attempting to restore order.

Note that there are arguments for and against bringing the army into the equation in the first place.

As regards Suthep/Abhisit, their exact involvement and their orders behind closed doors are not public knowledge - but their official orders were quite clearly stated pubicly on television almost every day, and their official orders were not the "kill 'em all" that Jatuporn and his ilk would have us believe, they were to follow internationally-accepted guidelines to deal with civil strife. That means that, even if it is judged in a court of Law that soldiers were shooting-to-kill, there is not a court in the world that would (or could) convict Abhisit & Suthep of murder.