Abhisit launches new English version book "The Simple Truth"

[marcusd]

We will NEVER know the full truth

Sent from my RM-892_apac_laos_thailand_219 using Tapatalk

[fab4]

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

You need to direct your ire at the right target.

My writing style in replying to a particular part of someones post is to quote that part and display it in italics. I then respond to it in normal text below. the quote in italics is not mine - it belongs to Rivalex and is his thoughts not mine, not by a long way!

[djjamie]

Abhisit and Suthep on hearing the proposed title of the

English translation of Khun Marks book

OR....

Abhisit and Suthep on hearing that Yingluck's book comes with a free set of coloring crayons.

OR.....

I remember that day. It was after Abhisit and Suthep saw the photo of Plodprasop Suraswadi dressed as a 13th century king.

[waza]

Abhisit and Suthep on hearing the proposed title of the

English translation of Khun Marks book

OR....

Abhisit and Suthep on hearing that Yingluck's book comes with a free set of coloring crayons.

OR.....

I remember that day. It was after Abhisit and Suthep saw the photo of Plodprasop Suraswadi dressed as a 13th century king.

Abihist: So anyway I see this book Suranan Vejjajiva is writing called "Pluay", for a joke I change a few words and add a stupid bitch or two. I couldn't believe it when they started printing the book before they pick up my editing.

Suthep: 5555555555555555555 I want a first edition 55555

Edited October 29, 2013 by waza

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Well, he could have quit, but do you honestly believe he is criminally responsible for every incident that involved the army that day? The commanding officers, and the soldiers on the ground bear ZERO responsiblity for how they carried out the orders? The head of the army is not in any way responsible for making sure that his soldiers follow orders correctly and within the law?

Or is Abhisit expected to have every single soldier's mobile phone number on speed dial to tell him in which way he may or may not act? As men of honour, the bloody army should stand up and put themselves up for scrutiny for their conduct. They are the rotten fruit making this whole barrel stink.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

I think you don't understand how these rules of engagement would be put together. There was a bit about it when they were creating them.

Army and Abhisit sit down,

Abhisit asks, "how can you clear these blokes out?",

Army says, "we need this and this on paper."

Abhisit asks lawyers "legal or not?"

Lawyers say "write it this way, and it's legal"

Paper created, ROE included, signed by Abhisit.

Now, the ROE were pretty clear, and no where did it give the army permission to fire indiscriminately into protestors. If that happened, then it is THE ARMY who are responsible, because they haven't acted in accordance with the ROE.

The only hope of getting Abhisit would be if the original ROE weren't legal, and as far as I remember reading, they weren't much more seriously written than that which an ordinary policeman would have in his hands during his daily duty. "If someone is going to shoot you, shoot back. If someone disobeys a direct order, is a threat, warn them, if they don't comply, shoot them. If someone is damaging property, warn them, if they don't comply, shoot them."

I am no expert on American policing, but I would think many would concur that if a copper screams at you to stop doing something illegal, he has a gun raised, and he warns you, and you don't stop what you are doing, he is within his rights to shoot you.