Bloomberg interview with Abhisit: 'It's time for reform. Why can't the govt accept that'

[fab4]

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

Well you must have missed this then

A court in Thailand has ruled that six unarmed people who were killed inside a Buddhist temple were shot dead by troops using high-velocity rounds who had taken up positions on railway tracks overlooking the site. The Thai military has always denied its troops fired into the temple.

In a ruling that could lead to the prosecution of the troops who took part in the operation, the Bangkok South Criminal Court said four men and one woman were killed by troops located on the elevated Skytrain, which passes nearby. Another man was shot by soldiers on the ground.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/troops-killed-six-unarmed-people-in-temple-during-thai-red-shirt-protests-court-rules-8747943.html

Or you most likely prefer to rely on the word of Gen. Prayuth, who has no biased views whatsoever, why would he , it's not as if his soldiers were involved. They can't have been.

Let's face it who could pick holes in a "bulletproof" statement like this

"None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian"

No, we really should believe the General, I mean, you obviously have

The chief of Royal Thai Army insisted that the military was not involved in the deaths of 6 civilians shot dead as they sought shelter inside a temple during the 2010 military crackdown.

His comment contradicts the recent court inquest which confirmed that the 6 victims, including a volunteer nurse, were killed by soldiers stationed near Wat Pathumwanararm Temple. The military has always denied any involvement, despite stacks of evidences and witness′ accounts.

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

He acknowledged that the court decision has to be accepted and the process should proceed ‘in accordance with the legal system’. Nonetheless, the army chief insisted that he never gave order to kill civilians. None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian, he added.

“What happened during the protest was that the army only tried to keep the situation under control” said Gen.Prayuth, “We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.”

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/659744-thai-army-chief-says-soldiers-did-not-kill-6-wat-pathum-victims/

So there we have it, his army troops have been misunderstood, they are the victims here. As a plausible denial, it was laughable then, and it's laughable now.

The Inquest results (unofficial translation part)

The post mortem inquest of six deaths inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn

Black Case No. C5/2555

At 09.00, the South Bangkok Criminal Court read an order after completing the post mortem inquest of six deaths that occurred inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn as a result of the demonstrations on the Rama I Road.

At the request of the public prosecutors of the Office of Attorney General for an inquest on the death of six persons inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn as it was possible that the deaths have been caused by the act of competent officials who claimed to have performed their official duties. The Court was asked to investigate and rule on who the deceased were, where they died, when they died, causes and circumstances around their deaths as per Section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

After reviewing evidence submitted by the petitioners and relatives of the six deceased including eye-witnesses and other experts, the Court was convinced that the first and the third to the sixth deceased were shot dead by high velocity .223 or 5.56 mm bullets which had been fired by competent officials who were military officials under the charge of Ranger Battalion, Special Force Group 2, Erawan Military Camp while the officials were stationed on the BTS rail tracks. The second deceased was shot dead by high velocity .223 or 5.56 mm bullets which had been fired by competent officials who were military officials under the charge of the 2nd Infantry Battalion, 31st Infantry Division the King’s Guard while the officials were stationed on the BTS rail tracks.

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3663

Still in denial?

Edited February 9, 2014 by fab4

[heybruce]

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

If something is still under investigation, that means it hasn't be proven, and so it is wrong to go around pretending that it has, as JAG did.

Furthermore, if you've been here any length of time, you would know that court cases do generally go at a snail's pace, and there are a multitude of examples, in cases against persons from all sides, that demonstrate that.

The insinuation you make therefore, that the courts are protecting one particular side, is a nonsense.

The last I heard, which was some time ago (it dropped out of the news because nothing was happening) the army was investigating itself.

Regarding Thai courts, they can be quick when influential people and organizations want them too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/9900745/British-human-rights-activist-faces-Thai-jail-threat.html

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/624318-british-activist-fighting-to-avoid-thai-jail-term/?hl=%20activist

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/690813-thai-navy-sues-phuketwancom-website-over-rohingya-report-editor/?hl=%2Bnavy+%2Blibel

It's not surprising that the February 7 issue of "The Economist" was not distributed in Thailand. You can read some well researched stories written by professional journalists regarding the current situation in the country at http://www.economist.com/. Spoiler alert: They have ample criticism and little praise for both sides in the situation, but come down on the side of democracy.

[billd766]

@ Alwyn post #134

Sorry to do it this way but there were too many quotes to allow me to reply directly.

AFAIR murder is a premeditated act where one or more persons deliberately set out to end the life of a particular person. If somebody employs others to do the dirty deed then that one person would certainly be guilty of perhaps incitement or collaboration but possibly not murder.

In Abhisit and Sutheps case the charge of murder doesn't really stand up because as far as I can see no particular persons were chosen to be killed on their direct orders and without knowledge of the full evidence it will be hard to prove.

They most probably gave the order for weapons and live ammunition to be issued but would have deferred to the military as to what, when, where and how the weapons were to be used. The top army leaders would have given general instructions when, where and how much which would have gone down the chain of command to whoever was in charge at the scene.

They in turn would have passed the orders on to the local troop leaders who would or should have been the ones to give the actual orders to the troops who for the most part were and are conscripts. If one of the conscripts or regulars panicked or misunderstood the instruction then they could easily have opened fire without orders which may or may not have been the problem.

Whilst in my time in the RAF I was given basic training in riot control but I was a regular and in the line of men behind me were sergeants etc who I feared far more than any rioters and our officers and SNCOs were for the most part experienced troops who knew their job but that was many years ago. Now riot control is mostly a police job with specially trained police even in Thailand but at that time the police had disappeared and the job was dumped on the army as there was no other choice.

Yes but then why the use of snipers?

Most of those killed were taken out through high velocity headshots.

It was much commented on at the time that when abhisit announced the use of "marksmen" this was viewed as a political decision rather than a military one.

It could reasonably be regarded as a terror tactic.

The thai army were brought in in the full knowledge that their only responce ultimately could be lethal.

Furthermore by this time abhisit was describing the red shirts as just terrorists or like a dog that had to be put down and put down they were.

In a recent interview abhisit in his soundbite mode to western press spoke about the use of chemicals on the PDRC supporters, implying obliquely the possible use of chemicals/ weaponry or something dastardly, just planting the thought when in fact some protestors got hysterical because water cannon was used on them that had dye ostensibly to identify those sprayed.

Either he was just speaking off the cuff or more certainly planting a story unknown at the time to the western press. Either way it was totally irresponsible.

I think the eton, Oxford veneer is beginning to wear off leaving only the thai rich boy, aloof and spoilt.

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

Who should the government at the time have called on? Ghostbusters, the US/UK/UN, the Boy Scouts of Thailand?

Using snipers at any time is when precision work is needed as it often is in so many wars.

It could never be called a terror tactic because if that is what YOU call it then many countries in the world have done the same including the USA and the UK though that was hundreds of years ago.

How many times were the Red Shirt protesters asked to leave peacefully and kept there by the Red Shirt leaders? How many tyre barricades and sharpened bamboo spears, how many weapons were at the sites, how many times did their leaders shout that they would always be in the forefront of every battle againt the government including the DL Thaksin?

When the Army started to clear the barricades where were all the Red Shirt leaders, gone like rats deserting a sinking ship leaving their fellow protesters behind to face the Army.

Now some of those Red Shirt "leaders" are part of the caretaker government as a "reward" and where are their loyal supporters, tossed aside like unwanted garbage.

[fab4]

That's because it's still under investigation. In every instance where there was strong evidence that an innocent person was shot by a bullet fired from a government position, an investigation was begun and never finished.

If something is still under investigation, that means it hasn't be proven, and so it is wrong to go around pretending that it has, as JAG did.

Furthermore, if you've been here any length of time, you would know that court cases do generally go at a snail's pace, and there are a multitude of examples, in cases against persons from all sides, that demonstrate that.

The insinuation you make therefore, that the courts are protecting one particular side, is a nonsense.

The last I heard, which was some time ago (it dropped out of the news because nothing was happening) the army was investigating itself.

Regarding Thai courts, they can be quick when influential people and organizations want them too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/9900745/British-human-rights-activist-faces-Thai-jail-threat.html

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/624318-british-activist-fighting-to-avoid-thai-jail-term/?hl=%20activist

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/690813-thai-navy-sues-phuketwancom-website-over-rohingya-report-editor/?hl=%2Bnavy+%2Blibel

It's not surprising that the February 7 issue of "The Economist" was not distributed in Thailand. You can read some well researched stories written by professional journalists regarding the current situation in the country at http://www.economist.com/. Spoiler alert: They have ample criticism and little praise for both sides in the situation, but come down on the side of democracy.

Absolutely nothing to do with the OP, but with regard to the Andy Hall case, you may be interested to learn who owns the company that is trying to get Mr.Hall locked up............

Here’s some very interesting information about the ownership of Natural Fruit Co., Ltd.

Natural Fruit’s owners are in Democrat Party’s General Secretary Chalermchai Sri-on’s family

http://andyjhall.wordpress.com/case/natural-fruit/

No strangers to the Court are the dems, nor even their immediate families it seems.

[Spalpeen]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

.

.

I remember there was a story a few days ago about how the army refused to provide troops to protect government ministers, and the govt. had to rely on some Dads Army troops from the air force instead. The excuse offered by the army was that if the govt. wanted troops they had to fill in the correct forms, in triplicate, with lots of stamps, sent through the proper channels, and then the army would consider the request at the next weekly meeting.

Now it seems that the army can move quickly when it suits their own purposes, but not when it involves supporting the elected government.

[billd766]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

.

.

I remember there was a story a few days ago about how the army refused to provide troops to protect government ministers, and the govt. had to rely on some Dads Army troops from the air force instead. The excuse offered by the army was that if the govt. wanted troops they had to fill in the correct forms, in triplicate, with lots of stamps, sent through the proper channels, and then the army would consider the request at the next weekly meeting.

Now it seems that the army can move quickly when it suits their own purposes, but not when it involves supporting the elected government.

But what authority does a CARETAKER government have?

[Gweiloman]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

.

.

I remember there was a story a few days ago about how the army refused to provide troops to protect government ministers, and the govt. had to rely on some Dads Army troops from the air force instead. The excuse offered by the army was that if the govt. wanted troops they had to fill in the correct forms, in triplicate, with lots of stamps, sent through the proper channels, and then the army would consider the request at the next weekly meeting.

Now it seems that the army can move quickly when it suits their own purposes, but not when it involves supporting the elected government.

But what authority does a CARETAKER government have?

Are you seriously saying that even in such troubled times, the Army does not have a duty to protect senior members of the govt, whether in a caretaker capacity or not?

The Army's responsibility is to the Head of State and to the country. Imagine if YL, even in her capacity as caretaker PM is assassinated or "accidentally" killed. What do you think the consequences for the country would be?

[rixalex]

Well you must have missed this then

Findings in hearings are different from prosecutions and convictions. Nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been convicted. Until that happens, until the actual individuals who took the shots are named, there are still too many unknowns and question marks about exactly what happened on that fateful day and who was behind it.

[fab4]

Well you must have missed this then

Findings in hearings are different from prosecutions and convictions. Nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been convicted. Until that happens, until the actual individuals who took the shots are named, there are still too many unknowns and question marks about exactly what happened on that fateful day and who was behind it.

Read the inquest .

Edited February 9, 2014 by Scott

[BlueNoseCodger]

Well you must have missed this then

A court in Thailand has ruled that six unarmed people who were killed inside a Buddhist temple were shot dead by troops using high-velocity rounds who had taken up positions on railway tracks overlooking the site. The Thai military has always denied its troops fired into the temple.

In a ruling that could lead to the prosecution of the troops who took part in the operation, the Bangkok South Criminal Court said four men and one woman were killed by troops located on the elevated Skytrain, which passes nearby. Another man was shot by soldiers on the ground.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/troops-killed-six-unarmed-people-in-temple-during-thai-red-shirt-protests-court-rules-8747943.html

Or you most likely prefer to rely on the word of Gen. Prayuth, who has no biased views whatsoever, why would he , it's not as if his soldiers were involved. They can't have been.

Let's face it who could pick holes in a "bulletproof" statement like this

"None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian"

No, we really should believe the General, I mean, you obviously have

The chief of Royal Thai Army insisted that the military was not involved in the deaths of 6 civilians shot dead as they sought shelter inside a temple during the 2010 military crackdown.

His comment contradicts the recent court inquest which confirmed that the 6 victims, including a volunteer nurse, were killed by soldiers stationed near Wat Pathumwanararm Temple. The military has always denied any involvement, despite stacks of evidences and witness′ accounts.

Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha said the court decision is not final, and the court is still investigating further details pertaining to the case. Only witnesses from the victims′ side had been present at the court, he said, and the army had not had their chance to defend themselves.

He acknowledged that the court decision has to be accepted and the process should proceed ‘in accordance with the legal system’. Nonetheless, the army chief insisted that he never gave order to kill civilians. None of his commanding officers ever admitted they had shot any civilian, he added.

“What happened during the protest was that the army only tried to keep the situation under control” said Gen.Prayuth, “We have our legal team to closely observe the issue. And please stop looking at the army as the accused.”

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/659744-thai-army-chief-says-soldiers-did-not-kill-6-wat-pathum-victims/

So there we have it, his army troops have been misunderstood, they are the victims here. As a plausible denial, it was laughable then, and it's laughable now.

The Inquest results (unofficial translation part)

The post mortem inquest of six deaths inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn

Black Case No. C5/2555

At 09.00, the South Bangkok Criminal Court read an order after completing the post mortem inquest of six deaths that occurred inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn as a result of the demonstrations on the Rama I Road.

At the request of the public prosecutors of the Office of Attorney General for an inquest on the death of six persons inside Wat Pathum Wanaram Ratcha Worawiharn as it was possible that the deaths have been caused by the act of competent officials who claimed to have performed their official duties. The Court was asked to investigate and rule on who the deceased were, where they died, when they died, causes and circumstances around their deaths as per Section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

After reviewing evidence submitted by the petitioners and relatives of the six deceased including eye-witnesses and other experts, the Court was convinced that the first and the third to the sixth deceased were shot dead by high velocity .223 or 5.56 mm bullets which had been fired by competent officials who were military officials under the charge of Ranger Battalion, Special Force Group 2, Erawan Military Camp while the officials were stationed on the BTS rail tracks. The second deceased was shot dead by high velocity .223 or 5.56 mm bullets which had been fired by competent officials who were military officials under the charge of the 2nd Infantry Battalion, 31st Infantry Division the King’s Guard while the officials were stationed on the BTS rail tracks.

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3663

Still in denial?

You know the army snipers were filmed firing into the temple from the BTS track. I see the posts where I point to the youtube videos get deleted by moderators, but footage exists, you can watch it on youtube, Google for it.

Edited February 9, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[heybruce]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

Who should the government at the time have called on? Ghostbusters, the US/UK/UN, the Boy Scouts of Thailand?

Using snipers at any time is when precision work is needed as it often is in so many wars.

It could never be called a terror tactic because if that is what YOU call it then many countries in the world have done the same including the USA and the UK though that was hundreds of years ago.

How many times were the Red Shirt protesters asked to leave peacefully and kept there by the Red Shirt leaders? How many tyre barricades and sharpened bamboo spears, how many weapons were at the sites, how many times did their leaders shout that they would always be in the forefront of every battle againt the government including the DL Thaksin?

When the Army started to clear the barricades where were all the Red Shirt leaders, gone like rats deserting a sinking ship leaving their fellow protesters behind to face the Army.

Now some of those Red Shirt "leaders" are part of the caretaker government as a "reward" and where are their loyal supporters, tossed aside like unwanted garbage.

Yeah, that justifies shooting civilians taking refuge in a temple.

I'm curious though; Suthep and his minions were asked repeated to leave peacefully, and have erected barricades, and some have clearly been carrying weapons. Why won't the army do anything?

[heybruce]

Well you must have missed this then

Findings in hearings are different from prosecutions and convictions. Nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been convicted. Until that happens, until the actual individuals who took the shots are named, there are still too many unknowns and question marks about exactly what happened on that fateful day and who was behind it.

Even if the Thai justice system wanted to pursue this to a conclusion (there's some doubt about that), you set a high standard. You also seem to want all guilt to fall on those who pulled the triggers, not their commanders. Do you apply similar standards for redshirts implicated in violence?

[rixalex]

Well you must have missed this then

Findings in hearings are different from prosecutions and convictions. Nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been convicted. Until that happens, until the actual individuals who took the shots are named, there are still too many unknowns and question marks about exactly what happened on that fateful day and who was behind it.

Even if the Thai justice system wanted to pursue this to a conclusion (there's some doubt about that), you set a high standard. You also seem to want all guilt to fall on those who pulled the triggers, not their commanders. Do you apply similar standards for redshirts implicated in violence?

Funny to see people only questioning the Thai justice system and its willingness to pursue certain cases. If the Dems were in power right now, we would be hearing all about how it was down to them that certain cases were going nowhere. PTP and their supporters are always expressing disgust at the close relationship they perceive the Dems and the military enjoy, but since PTP got back in power, post 2010, they have done nothing whatsoever to go after the military for their involvement in what happened. Quite the reverse actually. As soon as they got in power they basically gave the military a free pass and told them, don't worry, we won't go after you, we're only interested in going after Abhisit and the Dems. And why was it so important to go after Abhisit and the Dems? Because they were the ones in a position to block Thaksin's amnesty, and they needed leverage against them. So much for getting justice for those temple victims. Thaksin getting out of a two year jail sentence that would probably only ever amount to a few months behind bars, comes first, way ahead of those people's lives.

As far as your comment about me wanting all guilt to fall on those who pulled the triggers, don't know where you get that from. Would have thought from my comment about not knowing who was behind it told you otherwise.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of this forum rule has been removed:

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[rubl]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

Who should the government at the time have called on? Ghostbusters, the US/UK/UN, the Boy Scouts of Thailand?

Using snipers at any time is when precision work is needed as it often is in so many wars.

It could never be called a terror tactic because if that is what YOU call it then many countries in the world have done the same including the USA and the UK though that was hundreds of years ago.

How many times were the Red Shirt protesters asked to leave peacefully and kept there by the Red Shirt leaders? How many tyre barricades and sharpened bamboo spears, how many weapons were at the sites, how many times did their leaders shout that they would always be in the forefront of every battle againt the government including the DL Thaksin?

When the Army started to clear the barricades where were all the Red Shirt leaders, gone like rats deserting a sinking ship leaving their fellow protesters behind to face the Army.

Now some of those Red Shirt "leaders" are part of the caretaker government as a "reward" and where are their loyal supporters, tossed aside like unwanted garbage.

Yeah, that justifies shooting civilians taking refuge in a temple.

I'm curious though; Suthep and his minions were asked repeated to leave peacefully, and have erected barricades, and some have clearly been carrying weapons. Why won't the army do anything?

You mean 'why don't the police give better protection to the anti-government protesters so they don't feel a need to protect themselves instead' ?

[jayboy]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

I don't think anyone seriously now suggests the army was not responsible for shootings at the temple.Do you?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bigbamboo]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

.

.

I remember there was a story a few days ago about how the army refused to provide troops to protect government ministers, and the govt. had to rely on some Dads Army troops from the air force instead. The excuse offered by the army was that if the govt. wanted troops they had to fill in the correct forms, in triplicate, with lots of stamps, sent through the proper channels, and then the army would consider the request at the next weekly meeting.

Now it seems that the army can move quickly when it suits their own purposes, but not when it involves supporting the elected government.

But what authority does a CARETAKER government have?

Are you seriously saying that even in such troubled times, the Army does not have a duty to protect senior members of the govt, whether in a caretaker capacity or not?

The Army's responsibility is to the Head of State and to the country. Imagine if YL, even in her capacity as caretaker PM is assassinated or "accidentally" killed. What do you think the consequences for the country would be?

In a democracy it's the police's duty to protect senior members of the government. In a dictatorship then the army usually has that role.

I do agree that the army's responsibility is to the Head of State and to the country but what has that to do with the government? The king is the Head of State not the PM.

[rixalex]

I don't think anyone seriously now suggests the army was not responsible for shootings at the temple.Do you?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Probably not. No more than anyone seriously suggests soldiers either took it upon themselves, or were instructed to, out of the blue, and for no reason whatsoever, start firing and killing unarmed people taking shelter in a temple.

[gemini81]

I very much suspect that the troops who were involved in the temple shootings from the sky train tracks were very carefully selected and briefed. I doubt that they were conscripts. Those shootings were sending a clear and emphatic signal to the redshirts, it was carefully planned and executed. It worked. The message still stands today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I must have missed the news in which the courts announced it proven that it was the troops responsible for the temple shooting.

But then again, I don't watch much Truth Today TV so that might explain why I missed it and you didn't.

I don't think anyone seriously now suggests the army was not responsible for shootings at the temple.Do you?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

And the point you like to evade- why were they forced to do that? In response to what? Hippies throwing peace signs, giving kisses and roses? C'mon. No other armed force in the world would have tallied up such a low number for a capital city under siege. Get out of denial. Playing victim/martyr is just the ploy of old square face...and by defending it, you play into his hand as a duped expat living here.

[billd766]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

.

.

I remember there was a story a few days ago about how the army refused to provide troops to protect government ministers, and the govt. had to rely on some Dads Army troops from the air force instead. The excuse offered by the army was that if the govt. wanted troops they had to fill in the correct forms, in triplicate, with lots of stamps, sent through the proper channels, and then the army would consider the request at the next weekly meeting.

Now it seems that the army can move quickly when it suits their own purposes, but not when it involves supporting the elected government.

But what authority does a CARETAKER government have?

Are you seriously saying that even in such troubled times, the Army does not have a duty to protect senior members of the govt, whether in a caretaker capacity or not?

The Army's responsibility is to the Head of State and to the country. Imagine if YL, even in her capacity as caretaker PM is assassinated or "accidentally" killed. What do you think the consequences for the country would be?

Just exactly how many bodyguards and police does she have at present that she NEEDS the Army as well?

10, 20, 50 or more on a 24/7 basis and don't forget she has Thidas' Red Shirt army too.

[billd766]

The Thai army was brought in because the Thai police were nowhere to be seen. At the first sign of trouble they disappeared like rats up a drainpipe, abandoning everybody and ignoring the fact that it IS/WAS their job.

The Army were brought in because there was NO other alternative.

Who should the government at the time have called on? Ghostbusters, the US/UK/UN, the Boy Scouts of Thailand?

Using snipers at any time is when precision work is needed as it often is in so many wars.

It could never be called a terror tactic because if that is what YOU call it then many countries in the world have done the same including the USA and the UK though that was hundreds of years ago.

How many times were the Red Shirt protesters asked to leave peacefully and kept there by the Red Shirt leaders? How many tyre barricades and sharpened bamboo spears, how many weapons were at the sites, how many times did their leaders shout that they would always be in the forefront of every battle againt the government including the DL Thaksin?

When the Army started to clear the barricades where were all the Red Shirt leaders, gone like rats deserting a sinking ship leaving their fellow protesters behind to face the Army.

Now some of those Red Shirt "leaders" are part of the caretaker government as a "reward" and where are their loyal supporters, tossed aside like unwanted garbage.

Yeah, that justifies shooting civilians taking refuge in a temple.

I'm curious though; Suthep and his minions were asked repeated to leave peacefully, and have erected barricades, and some have clearly been carrying weapons. Why won't the army do anything?

Because it IS the problem of the Thai police to sort out.

The reason that the Army were called in during 2010 was that the police had abdicated their responsibility and scuttled away like rats up a drainpipe and were nowhere to be seen, heard or found.

In 2014 they have no excuse not to do the job they are PAID to do.