Abhisit launches new English version book "The Simple Truth"

[fab4]

Both the armed and the unarmed people, who weren't there by choice, who were there legally in some official capacity, be it soldiers, medics or whoever, are the ones who my sympathies go out to, and the ones who deserve justice. The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate.

Of course though we live in a day and age when anything bad that happens to a person, is never their own fault, it's always someone else's.

"The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate."

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Coward? Who ran to dubai like a b*tch dog with its tail between its legs?

Who is brave and stays here and stands up for his actions and is transparent?

The drivel in your troll posts is like a boy with both fingers in the cookie jar telling his mom, "Mom I don't have my fingers in the cookie jar" You're taking all the facts and what is on record and saying the opposite; it looks silly with a total lack of reasoning, sensibility or regard for the truth.

You're saying people who are breaking the law and told to leave, and continue violence, should not be punished in any way?

How would you like illegal squatters on your property shutting down your way of life? That is ok? Kiss their butts & don't hurt them, but send you away to jail like you want to see done to Abhisit for finally, after months, saying no more? If you opposed the squatters on your private property, then by your reasoning, you should be off to court too. See the silliness in your statements yet?

You make no practical, rational nor common sense.Is your old lady putting something in your drink?

Its a reflex action on this board by certain posters - hear something you don't want to hear, an alternative viewpoint to yours and it's out with the

"Troll" rebutall. Pathetic.

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

Abhisit said he made “a very good choice in terms of my duty to restore order” after he negotiated with demonstrators and they rejected his offer for November elections. “I’m willing to face the charges and fight and prove my innocence in court. And I will respect the verdict,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

He'll never have to rely on the Emergency Decree get out clause, more's the pity. However I hope to look forward to him defending the use of live fire zones and snipers as a proportionate response.

There's an interesting line in the forward of his book - apparently he can tell the simple truth because he "could see it all going on". Well he must have had "Superman" vision to "see it all" from rooms in the 11th Armoureds barracks.

Brave and transparent my A!

[gemini81]

Its a reflex action on this board by certain posters - hear something you don't want to hear, an alternative viewpoint to yours and it's out with the

"Troll" rebutall. Pathetic

____________________________________________________________________________________

If you had something meaningful to add, and not just names and false claims, maybe you'd have some credibility.

When you get your wish, for Thaksin fiefdom under dictatorship, if you don't escape here, but stay on to endure if not deported, report back to us how you're enjoying it.

[rixalex]

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Nothing remotely pathetic or unpleasant about the argument that people account for their own actions. Being part of a group that very clearly included members who were armed, some with slingshots, rocks, batons and molotov cocktails, some more heavily, with guns, grenades and rocket launchers, and staying around amongst these armed people, whilst they took pot shots at armed soldiers, was a very stupid thing to have done. Wasn't as if things spiraled out of control in a matter of hours before people had the chance to leave. Wasn't as if they weren't repeatedly warned by authorities to leave for their own safety. And it wasn't even as if buses weren't laid on by authorities to take people back to the safety of their homes.

People who stuck around despite all that (not including medics and people not part of the protest), did so because of stupidity, and for some of them, that stupidity cost them their lives. That is the sad truth, just as every day, around the world, people die because of their own stupid actions, be it drink driving, using the hairdryer in the bath or whatever. As i say though, in this day and age, it's always someone else's fault.

[Thai at Heart]

No, the big question is why were there so many unarmed civilian casualties,

I suspect that when the average army soldier is given the "Big Book of War" aka his ROE it is assumed that that soldier can tell the difference between an armed civilian (i.e a potential threat) and an unarmed civilian. Maybe pictures like yours above would help. This is an unarmed civilian who was no threat to soldiers. I think we all know what happened to her and who was responsible, and No, it wasn't Thaksin.

At the end of the day, it is the army that should be on the hook line and sinker for this. If the orders were in line with international and Thai protocol, and the shootings happened within those orders, then there is such a thing as lawful killing. You genuinely think Abhisit ordered anyone to shoot medical staff?

That aside, reading the review by Baker, it does seem that the book may well be a very general rehash of his side of events, trying to be portrayed as a potted history of events. At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks, hardly a place to obtain impartial stories. This book is just a part of the whole history of events, and can't in any way be the definitive history of those days.

[waza]

"The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate."

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Coward? Who ran to dubai like a b*tch dog with its tail between its legs?

Who is brave and stays here and stands up for his actions and is transparent?

The drivel in your troll posts is like a boy with both fingers in the cookie jar telling his mom, "Mom I don't have my fingers in the cookie jar" You're taking all the facts and what is on record and saying the opposite; it looks silly with a total lack of reasoning, sensibility or regard for the truth.

You're saying people who are breaking the law and told to leave, and continue violence, should not be punished in any way?

How would you like illegal squatters on your property shutting down your way of life? That is ok? Kiss their butts & don't hurt them, but send you away to jail like you want to see done to Abhisit for finally, after months, saying no more? If you opposed the squatters on your private property, then by your reasoning, you should be off to court too. See the silliness in your statements yet?

You make no practical, rational nor common sense.Is your old lady putting something in your drink?

Its a reflex action on this board by certain posters - hear something you don't want to hear, an alternative viewpoint to yours and it's out with the

"Troll" rebutall. Pathetic.

Abhisit has dismissed the case as political retribution and said he’d sue the DSI for violating the law in bringing the charges. An emergency decree in place during the protests provides him immunity if the actions were not discriminatory or disproportionate, he said, adding that a court confirmed that armed people were among the protesters.

Abhisit said he made “a very good choice in terms of my duty to restore order” after he negotiated with demonstrators and they rejected his offer for November elections. “I’m willing to face the charges and fight and prove my innocence in court. And I will respect the verdict,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/abhisit-defends-thai-army-actions-in-fighting-murder-charges.html

He'll never have to rely on the Emergency Decree get out clause, more's the pity. However I hope to look forward to him defending the use of live fire zones and snipers as a proportionate response.

There's an interesting line in the forward of his book - apparently he can tell the simple truth because he "could see it all going on". Well he must have had "Superman" vision to "see it all" from rooms in the 11th Armoureds barracks.

Brave and transparent my A!

Don't forget the actions of the brave redshirt leadership, who without any concern for the safety of the people they had led, abandoned their peaceful supporters to their fate. While they looked after themselves and had a security detail escort them to the safety nearest police station.

While these leaderless people floundered confused and dazed, caught in a hell of looting, violence and choking acrid smoke from burning buildings, subject to gun battle and clashes between hired mercenaries and security forces.

Where is their accountability? Where was their humanity?

Edited October 25, 2013 by waza

[Robby nz]

At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

Probably not.

He was there with his family because his and his families lives had been threatened from the red shirt stage.

There can never be any reconsiliation in this country until the red leadership and their controller admit responsibility for their actions in the 2010 riots.

That of course will never happen.

Thaksin can never let Abhisit and Suthep be taken to court as the defense they would mount against the charges against them would clearly point to him.

[rixalex]

Don't forget the actions of the brave redshirt leadership, who without any concern for the safety of the people they had led, abandoned their peaceful supporters to their fate. While they looked after themselves and had a security detail escort them to the safety nearest police station.

While these leaderless people floundered confused and dazed, caught in a hell of looting, violence and choking acrid smoke from burning buildings, subject to gun battle and clashes between hired mercenaries and security forces.

Where is their accountability? Where was their humanity?

Speaking of the brave red shirt leadership, i seem to recall when the 2010 protests first swung into gear, dear leader proclaiming during one of his on stage phone ins to whip up the crowd, that the moment there was a fatality, he would, without hesitation, return back, join arms and fight together with them.

[jayboy]

 

 At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

 

 

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

 

 

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[EricBerg]

Its a reflex action on this board by certain posters - hear something you don't want to hear, an alternative viewpoint to yours and it's out with the

"Troll" rebutall. Pathetic

____________________________________________________________________________________

If you had something meaningful to add, and not just names and false claims, maybe you'd have some credibility.

When you get your wish, for Thaksin fiefdom under dictatorship, if you don't escape here, but stay on to endure if not deported, report back to us how you're enjoying it.

Whatever views, political or non-political, one wants to share here, it would be best done with a minimum of civilisation. Even with an iq of 81 it should be possible.

[fab4]

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Nothing remotely pathetic or unpleasant about the argument that people account for their own actions. Being part of a group that very clearly included members who were armed, some with slingshots, rocks, batons and molotov cocktails, some more heavily, with guns, grenades and rocket launchers, and staying around amongst these armed people, whilst they took pot shots at armed soldiers, was a very stupid thing to have done. Wasn't as if things spiraled out of control in a matter of hours before people had the chance to leave. Wasn't as if they weren't repeatedly warned by authorities to leave for their own safety. And it wasn't even as if buses weren't laid on by authorities to take people back to the safety of their homes.

People who stuck around despite all that (not including medics and people not part of the protest), did so because of stupidity, and for some of them, that stupidity cost them their lives. That is the sad truth, just as every day, around the world, people die because of their own stupid actions, be it drink driving, using the hairdryer in the bath or whatever. As i say though, in this day and age, it's always someone else's fault.

Of the inquests that have taken place the "situation" you quote above

"Being part of a group that very clearly included members who were armed, some with slingshots, rocks, batons and molotov cocktails, some more heavily, with guns, grenades and rocket launchers, and staying around amongst these armed people, whilst they took pot shots at armed soldiers,"

does not in any way describe the reality of the situation that the people were killed in.

Should abhisit ever see the inside of a court he will be asked about the proportionate response he allowed the RTA to take in response to the "threat" they faced. I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Actually I take that back about people posting on here - the majority of you see nothing wrong with shooting civilians in these circumstances.

[rixalex]

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

Edited October 25, 2013 by rixalex

[rixalex]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

[jayboy]

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

[rixalex]

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

Why is a safe house a different matter? Amounts to exactly the same thing. A place of safety is a place of safety, and you choose the one that offers you most, if you are at all intelligent. And as i say, i think any leader in Abhisit's situation would have done something similar, at least during the period when things were most out of control.

As a side note, when you get into all this sort of immature, playground, tabloid-like language when referring to Abhisit, such as, "what a scaredy cat", "what a frightened schoolgirl", "what a nipple nuzzler" (forgive my paraphrasing), i'm sure it wins you some smirks and chuckles from your red shirted Thaksin supporting audience, and i'm sure you enjoy the thought of that, but i do believe there is a cost to your credibility. Just my opinion...

[EricBerg]

You mean apart from the fact he was a scared little rabbit? I suppose because it was a convenient spot to take orders from his masters.

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

However you look at it, downhill the violence was announced, organised, payed for and ordered by this missunderstood fugitive. If there is one person responsible for killings of civilians and setting buildings on fire in Bangkok back then, then it is this compulsive person who seems to have one aim in life: destroy what he cannot have back. And I am very convinced that person will be held accountable for his doings.

[centrala]

I think with the level of lawlessness that had ensued at the time, with the hopelessness of the police, and considering the attacks that had already occurred, any leader would have done what Abhisit did, in seeking a safe house from which to govern. Perhaps someone like the President of America, or another leader of a major first world nation, is able to entrust in their own massive, professionally trained personal security team, to the extent whereby they would still be able to get out and about, but for the Prime Minister of Thailand, can they really, in the sorts of extreme circumstances we saw in 2010, put their lives in the hands of their security team? I rather think not... well not if they have their senses about them.

There is indeed however a time and a place when a leader should put their life on the line, for the good of the nation... but i don't think this was one of them... not when a disgruntled and disgraced former PM was using an armed militia to try and violently topple those who had succeeded him, and when taking out the new leader would have been their and his ultimate goal.

A safe house is a different matter and logistically straight forward to organize, particularly since the "red peril" was so localised.That would have been understandable.But to hide away in the barracks like a frightened schoolgirl doesn't suggest he is a man of courage.To hide away whimpereing in the army barracks doesn't suggest much political astuteness either since the accusation of his critics was that he was ushered into power nuzzling at the army's tit.

Why is a safe house a different matter? Amounts to exactly the same thing. A place of safety is a place of safety, and you choose the one that offers you most, if you are at all intelligent. And as i say, i think any leader in Abhisit's situation would have done something similar, at least during the period when things were most out of control.

As a side note, when you get into all this sort of immature, playground, tabloid-like language when referring to Abhisit, such as, "what a scaredy cat", "what a frightened schoolgirl", "what a nipple nuzzler" (forgive my paraphrasing), i'm sure it wins you some smirks and chuckles from your red shirted Thaksin supporting audience, and i'm sure you enjoy the thought of that, but i do believe there is a cost to your credibility. Just my opinion...

It's just a meaningless and inaccurate keyboard warrior effort. The attack on Abhisit's vehicle in Pattaya, for example, would have resulted in the utter annihilation of the attackers by security personnel for leaders in other countries.

Faced with anywhere near a similar occurrence, the tough guy writer would have permanently vacated the country on the first available flight.

[bigbamboo]

I suspect that when the average army soldier is given the "Big Book of War" aka his ROE it is assumed that that soldier can tell the difference between an armed civilian (i.e a potential threat) and an unarmed civilian. Maybe pictures like yours above would help. This is an unarmed civilian who was no threat to soldiers. I think we all know what happened to her and who was responsible, and No, it wasn't Thaksin.

Both the armed and the unarmed people, who weren't there by choice, who were there legally in some official capacity, be it soldiers, medics or whoever, are the ones who my sympathies go out to, and the ones who deserve justice. The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate.

Of course though we live in a day and age when anything bad that happens to a person, is never their own fault, it's always someone else's.

"The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate."

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Once the armed men in black showed up that coupled with army's presence should have been warning enough that things could turn nasty and that it might be good idea to stay as far away from the danger zone as possible.

Even Thaksin had the sense to do that.

[waza]

I suspect that when the average army soldier is given the "Big Book of War" aka his ROE it is assumed that that soldier can tell the difference between an armed civilian (i.e a potential threat) and an unarmed civilian. Maybe pictures like yours above would help. This is an unarmed civilian who was no threat to soldiers. I think we all know what happened to her and who was responsible, and No, it wasn't Thaksin.

Both the armed and the unarmed people, who weren't there by choice, who were there legally in some official capacity, be it soldiers, medics or whoever, are the ones who my sympathies go out to, and the ones who deserve justice. The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate.

Of course though we live in a day and age when anything bad that happens to a person, is never their own fault, it's always someone else's.

"The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate."

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

Once the armed men in black showed up that coupled with army's presence should have been warning enough that things could turn nasty and that it might be good idea to stay as far away from the danger zone as possible.

Even Thaksin had the sense to do that.

True but at least Abihist stood firm while Thaksin ran further away to Paris to shop while his misguided supporters died and killed for him in the streets of Bangkok.

[Skywalker69]

Maybe that title should be The Sample Truth-interesting that its been launched in English so fewer Thais can read it . No question it is throwing down the gauntlet to the current regime-provocative huh?

Try to read the OP again! This time a little s l o w e r !

Translated from Thai...

Whoops.

[Dr Robert]

gotta take the pain on this one!

[JAG]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

[waza]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

They look like blackshirts with m16s firing into the temple to me

[15Peter20]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

Black shirt snipers at temple.jpg They look like blackshirts with m16s firing into the temple to me

Strange, the way they look like soldiers to me...

[billd766]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

2.500 "drug dealer" murders, Tak Bai and Krue Se all happened on Thaksins watch and surprise surprise he remained in office too.

Can you please explain where the difference is apart from the numbers of murdered men and women?

[centrala]

I can't wait for him or you or anybody else on here justify firing live rounds at a person even he is "armed" with a slingshot, rock or even a molotov cocktail.

Try walking out onto the street tomorrow with any one of those weapons, and aim it at either an armed soldier or an armed policeman.

If you aren't in Thailand, not to worry, pretty much anywhere in the world will do. Report back tomorrow on how you got on.

Perhaps so in some countries. However very few countries ( or commentators away from this forum) would see that as justification for opening fire from an elevated railway track on unarmed civilians, sheltering in a temple.

It was premeditated cold blooded murder. And it happened on Abhisits watch. We will probably never know who ordered it, but Abhisit was the Prime Minister when it happened, and he remained in office afterwards.

2.500 "drug dealer" murders, Tak Bai and Krue Se all happened on Thaksins watch and surprise surprise he remained in office too.

Can you please explain where the difference is apart from the numbers of murdered men and women?

.

Fab4 is also failing to include the other part of the post he replied to. Namely, that in addition to his listed slingshots and whatnot, there were repeated instances where grenade launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, and wanton use of general explosives were used again and again by the red shirts.

For frick's sake, they were blowing up apartment complexes in nonthaburi with their ineptitude and killing innocent neighbors along with themselves.

Also included in their arsenal were fully automatic, high-velocity automatic weapons of various descriptions.

When the omitted heavy war weaponry is included in the context, it obliterates jags' points as most other countries if faced with such a heavily-armed insurrection would have responsded with an all-out assault resulting in red shirt casualties numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands.

.

Edited October 26, 2013 by centrala

[Thai at Heart]

At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

Probably not.

He was there with his family because his and his families lives had been threatened from the red shirt stage.

There can never be any reconsiliation in this country until the red leadership and their controller admit responsibility for their actions in the 2010 riots.

That of course will never happen.

Thaksin can never let Abhisit and Suthep be taken to court as the defense they would mount against the charges against them would clearly point to him.

Neither side is blameless. But it is the army that should be up front for what went wrong that day, along with the red leadership.

But, abhisit claiming that his book is the simple truth is stretching the truth a very long way.

[Robby nz]

Robby nz, on 25 Oct 2013 - 19:14, said:

Quote

At the end of the day, he was holed up in an army barracks

Have you any idea why he was in an army barracks ?

Probably not.

He was there with his family because his and his families lives had been threatened from the red shirt stage.

There can never be any reconsiliation in this country until the red leadership and their controller admit responsibility for their actions in the 2010 riots.

That of course will never happen.

Thaksin can never let Abhisit and Suthep be taken to court as the defense they would mount against the charges against them would clearly point to him.

Neither side is blameless. But it is the army that should be up front for what went wrong that day, along with the red leadership.

But, abhisit claiming that his book is the simple truth is stretching the truth a very long way.

How do you know the army were not up front?

Their testimony was discarded during the inquest so we don't know what they said.

Anyway it wouldn't matter what they said it would immediately be cried down by the reds.

If I remember rightly there was an interview with an army officer who led one of the patrols on the sky train track and he told of his patrol chasing men in black off.

He was called a liar and vilified for speaking out.

I would think that if someone in an army patrol (remember soldiers were not there as individuals) had fired into the temple someone else in that patrol would by now have come out with, or let slip that they had fired the shots.

That sort of thing must be pretty hard to keep quiet among a group, some of whom were probably conscripts.

One of them only had to tell a family member or friend, possibly during a drinking session and it would be spread around.

It would seem by your comment that you have read Abhisits book, I have not so cant comment on the content.

[marcusd]

English book? Who cares, this is Thailand and Thai's normally don't read English book. I guess the book is more for those TV Democrat fanatics.  

I would not flatter tv persons so as if in English it is a call to greater nations as there are many tensions brewing here in LOS which could

soon be land of sorrows

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk

[marcusd]

these reds on here are sooo touchy....oh and a very little minority..bet that hurts...and so few likes..and fewer friends no doubt,,except for there virtual ones on here...if they all meet up for a get together ,they could hire out an old bt telephone box...with room for another few...... 

there are many failed lives on here and living here and many sheep wanting to follow powerful figures because they too have no mind of their own.

Loving those other sheep in power led by a mastermind criminal is sad. Very bloody sad. You should know better coming from ANY other nation

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk

[marcusd]

 

I suspect that when the average army soldier is given the "Big Book of War" aka his ROE it is assumed that that soldier can tell the difference between an armed civilian (i.e a potential threat) and an unarmed civilian. Maybe pictures like yours above would help. This is an unarmed civilian who was no threat to soldiers. I think we all know what happened to her and who was responsible, and No, it wasn't Thaksin.

Both the armed and the unarmed people, who weren't there by choice, who were there legally in some official capacity, be it soldiers, medics or whoever, are the ones who my sympathies go out to, and the ones who deserve justice. The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate.

Of course though we live in a day and age when anything bad that happens to a person, is never their own fault, it's always someone else's.

 

 

"The remaining people, and the vast majority, who were there illegally and of their own free will, and who formed part of a group that included armed militants, have themselves to blame for their fate."

 

That is a pathetic and particularly unpleasant "argument' all to often seen on here, usually forwarded by those of the "hard of thinking" persuasion.

 

Have you never heard of a reasoned response to a perceived threat aka "a proportional response". In the unlikely event of getting that coward Abhisit into court it's likely you'll be hearing that phrase a lot - it's all that stands between him and sentencing (well that and usual suspects intervening)

oh. I get it now. Lets assume I am in charge of those 7700nukes in the US arsenal. Hmmmm. Those buggers in nth Korea really piss me off.

whoosh. A couple of hundred less nukes and no more piss off.

I guess the millions around the crazy people there in nth Korea deserved it too? Just because they are there?

No one deserves to be killed acting peacefully, no matter protesting or not

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk