DSI seeks arrest of Suthep over 2010 deadly crackdown on Redshirts

[dyertribe]

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

Nice spin ... Was I wrong in what I said about the difference between the actions?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

One had live fire zones and gave warnings to the protestors they'd be shot if they violated the live fire zones. The other sent their troops in without any warnings and killed protestors without any warning whatsoever. Yes you're right, there is a difference.

I'm not going to argue with you Gerry, I'm not that interested.

I'm fairly certain the government announced they were going to take the rally sites ...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[TVGerry]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

I may be wrong (I often am) but I think the main legal difference is that Suthep ordered and had "live fire zones" set up, which seems to almost ensure people will get shot.

As an example ... If I order someone to throw a rock off a bridge and it kills someone, would I not be implicated in their murder?

If I order someone to fix a bridge and a rock drops and it kills someone, am I still implicated in a murder?

I use the analogy just to try to take away any emotional color blindness

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Case I yes a murder

Case 2 possibly man slaughter it would depend on your accountability in the chain of events

Case 2 in most countries would return accidental death unless negligence could be proven.

At least you could understand what I was getting at ... They are different cases and circumstances ... Both involve a bridge, a rock and a death.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

A good lawyer could argue whatever but when you send armed police in to disperse a crowd, you know people are going to die.

And unfortunately, that's how it is in situations like these. You can't really blame the people in charge. However, if the DSI wants to charge Suthep and Abhisit then they better charge their own PM and her drunk dog also. After all, double standards are bad.

[TVGerry]

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

Nice spin ... Was I wrong in what I said about the difference between the actions?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

One had live fire zones and gave warnings to the protestors they'd be shot if they violated the live fire zones. The other sent their troops in without any warnings and killed protestors without any warning whatsoever. Yes you're right, there is a difference.

I'm not going to argue with you Gerry, I'm not that interested.

I'm fairly certain the government announced they were going to take the rally sites ...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes they did. But protestors didn't expect to get shot did they? Unlike the 2010 ones who were given ample warning.

[rubl]

I guess Chief of the DSI, Mr. Tharit Pengdit applying for the arrest warrant at the Criminal Court tomorrow will be able to give precise details as to why k. Suthep is chargeble for premeditated murder as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team.

[chainarong]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

What exactly are they trying to charge him with? The orders were given in an official capacity, there isn't anything he could be legitimately charged with that's within the jurisdiction of the DSI or the criminal court.

The Question needs to be asked , would the Red shirts have left piece-fully, on the strength of evidence to date and their attitude , I would say no , so force would be needed , that out come is entirely in the hands of the commanders on the ground

[Spalpeen]

So now he's leading PCAD? Wasn't it PRDC or something else last week? Isn't this the same guy who thought he could shut down Bangkok a few months ago?

[Fat Haggis]

To prove it was a case of murder, you have to prove there was an intent to commit it.

The case of the Police and the protesters will be interesting, as the intent was not to go there and use deadly force, this will have been covered in their Rules of Engagement, Sure they went there to remove the protestors, and it was during this act that shots were exchanged, whoever fired first is irrelevant a good Lawyer will argue that in their case, whislt conducting their duties (rightly or wrongly) they had the right to defend themselvesm, as did the protestors I might add also.

Both sides responded with exchanges of Fire, the result was fatalities on both sides, if you're holding Yingluck accountable, then you must also hold the armed protesters under the banner of the PDRC accountable as well, and that means Mr. Suthep, they were on his payroll, he has a duty of care and responsibility on their behalf.

The Police lawyer could argue they were only carrying out their duty, and were within their legal rights to respond with deadly forces.. someone threw that grenade at the cops.. if it wasn't for the copper kicking it away, there possibly could have been more deaths..

The protestors lawyers will also argue you case they were within their rights to protest peacefully and also had the right to defend themselves, but just how legal their case for carrying loaded weapons in public is yet to be determined, someone has to be accountable for their actions and responses, and if they were on the payroll of the PDRC, then that puts Khun Suthep at the very top.

Lots of grey areas, and of course there will be plenty of documentation to support all the claims, accusations and counter accusations, and not hearsay and "well he told me to do it, so I just did as I was told" probably wont stand up in court, even a Thai one .

[Basil B]

Mr Tharit and his colleagues should be sitting on the bench now answering about the 2014 deaths.

And I agree to what he suggested that any further delay is unacceptable.

Mr Tharit and his colleagues should be sitting on the bench in the dock now answering about the 2014 deaths.

[HiSoLowSoNoSo]

Suthep take note and learn from Yingluck: this is how you handle protests... not with a bloodbath.

So in your opinion throwing grenades at kids and spraying old ladies homes with bullets is an improvment?

[Suriya4]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

I may be wrong (I often am) but I think the main legal difference is that Suthep ordered and had "live fire zones" set up, which seems to almost ensure people will get shot.

As an example ... If I order someone to throw a rock off a bridge and it kills someone, would I not be implicated in their murder?

If I order someone to fix a bridge and a rock drops and it kills someone, am I still implicated in a murder?

I use the analogy just to try to take away any emotional color blindness

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

It was actually "Life Firing Zone", ordered by Mark/Suthep.

Mark could not have made the spelling mistake, he is British.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Suriya4

[Jonmarleesco]

Well, it seems as though Tarit, who should have been at least as much the subject of an arrest warrant as Suthep but wriggled out of it, is now himself on the hook over 2013 protest deaths.

[PepperMe]

Suthep take note and learn from Yingluck: this is how you handle protests... not with a bloodbath.

Go down to Trat and explain that to the people there.... they might understand and agree with you.

Well.... maybe that poor guy who had his tiny children blown apart and forgave their murderers might understand your words.

[Robby nz]

Great how the DSI is charging Abhisit and Suthep with all the deaths in 2010 when at least 30% and probably a much higher percentage, of those deaths were directly caused by armed reds shooting and lobbing grenades at the army and protesters.

Like for instance the lady who was killed by the grenade attack on the sky train station an attack on something and someone who had nothing to do with the army of the protests.

The term 'deadly crackdown' is also a load of BS for most of the deaths and injuries came before the army were forced to remove the last few of the protesters and their brave leaders who vowed to fight to the last drop of their supporters blood.

The most deadly part was when the men in black shot into the temple killing those who were helping their own people.

No the court did not say the army did it, they said the people in the temple were killed with military style weapons as we saw in the hands of the men in black in numerous photos and videos.

[fab4]

rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:04, said:

I guess Chief of the DSI, Mr. Tharit Pengdit applying for the arrest warrant at the Criminal Court tomorrow will be able to give precise details as to why k. Suthep is chargeble for premeditated murder as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team.

suthep was not part of the CRES team, he was Head of it. He was the one who first authorized the carrying and use of live ammunition and he also authorized the use of snipers

Quote

‘In the case when [the authorities] find flagrant offences in which the perpetrators are using firearms against officials, or use weapons or explosives against military positions and important premises as specified by the CRES, the authorities are authorized to use firearms against the perpetrators to stop their actions. But, if the perpetrators are mingling among the protesters to the extent that such use of firearms might endanger innocent people, the use of firearms is prohibited, except in cases where military units have already deployed marksmen sufficiently able to shoot to stop the activities. In addition, if military units find targets but cannot themselves carry out the shooting, for example, because the targets are shielded, etc., the units can ask for support from snipers from the CRES.’

The document was approved by the CRES on 18 April 2010, signed by then Deputy Prime Minister and CRES Director Suthep Thaugsuban, among other high-ranking military officers.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3330

Of course, the ever friendly Army Chief denied there were any snipers. In his interview with the media on 16 Aug, Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha denied that the army had employed any snipers during the crackdown.

Quote

“What is a sniper? What person would use snipers? And do you know who the snipers are? Those who appeared to be soldiers [in the photographs or video clips] were just equipped with an enhanced scope. And the enhanced scope and the gun are not a sniper type. If you say what you don’t know, you’d better shut up. These things, which are used for marksmanship and are available for sale at informal markets for the purpose of shooting birds, are not sniper stuff. Don’t just ramble on.”

http://asiancorrespondent.com/87517/thai-army-chief-blames-the-media-for-everything-again/

As to why Tharit is not facing pre meditated murder charges, his explanation follows

Quote

DSI Director General Tharit Pendit told Matichon Online on 20 Aug that, although he was a committee member of the now defunct CRES, he had only recently learned of the CRES order about snipers through the media.

As far as he was concerned, he was only aware that the CRES was divided into 4 sections: key politicians including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of national security and other relevant cabinet members; police as the law enforcement authority; military personnel as the key security forces; and civil servants, including Permanent Secretaries of all Ministries and Directors-General of relevant government departments.

On a daily basis, the CRES would hold one or two plenary meetings, and also have separate meetings with the security personnel, he said.

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings, he said.

‘Only the separate meetings [with CRES sections] were considered important. As far as I know, there were meetings with the Military Operations Section, Intelligence Section and others. The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants. Therefore, I only participated in the plenary meetings. As far as I know, after each meeting of the Military Operations Section, written orders would be issued dealing with each topic, which should probably include orders to use force in different operations,’ he said.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3330

[fab4]

Robby nz, on 04 Mar 2014 - 21:19, said:Robby nz, on 04 Mar 2014 - 21:19, said:

Great how the DSI is charging Abhisit and Suthep with all the deaths in 2010 when at least 30% and probably a much higher percentage, of those deaths were directly caused by armed reds shooting and lobbing grenades at the army and protesters.

Like for instance the lady who was killed by the grenade attack on the sky train station an attack on something and someone who had nothing to do with the army of the protests.

The term 'deadly crackdown' is also a load of BS for most of the deaths and injuries came before the army were forced to remove the last few of the protesters and their brave leaders who vowed to fight to the last drop of their supporters blood.

The most deadly part was when the men in black shot into the temple killing those who were helping their own people.

No the court did not say the army did it, they said the people in the temple were killed with military style weapons as we saw in the hands of the men in black in numerous photos and videos.

Robby rights wrongs.

Robby:

Like for instance the lady who was killed by the grenade attack on the sky train station an attack on something and someone who had nothing to do with the army of the protests.

Alternative viewpoint:

Aela Callan, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in the Silom area, said that such small M-79 grenades had been used on government buildings around Bangkok in recent months.

She said that very quickly after the blasts the army had spoken on loud speakers in the area and blamed the red shirts for the attacks.

"Many fear that it has set up the situation for a crackdown on the red shirts," she added.

The red shirt leaders have condemned the attacks. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2010/04/2010422132155545330.html

Robby:

The term 'deadly crackdown' is also a load of BS for most of the deaths and injuries came before the army were forced to remove the last few of the protesters and their brave leaders who vowed to fight to the last drop of their supporters blood.

Alternative viewpoint:

On the evening of 13 May, Khattiya Sawasdiphol ("Seh Daeng"), security advisor to the protesters and leader of the armed "Ronin" guards known as the black shirts, was shot in the head by a sniper's bullet while he was giving an interview to press. It is unclear who fired the shot; speculation was it was ordered either by the Army, by Thaksin to keep him quiet, or was simply a stray bullet. Thereafter, the state of emergency was expanded to 17 provinces and the military commenced an extended crackdown, dubbed by the Thai media as "Savage May" An additional 41 civilians deaths occurred (including one Italian journalist) and more 250 were injured by 8.30 pm, including soldiers. One military death occurred, apparently from accidental friendly fire.

Taken from Wiki because I couldn't be bothered tracking down the dates of every last death just to prove robby is talking out of his ass. You'll note the phrase "extended crackdown", the dates: from May 13th until May 19th, and the number of deaths 41civilians plus 1 army (friendly fire) and another 5 on the last day.

These figures aren't totally accurate (there were more than this) but even the most myopic can work out that there were 25 deaths on April 10th so another 47 deaths plus in 7 days is 1) A deadly crackdown and 2) not BS

Robby:

The most deadly part was when the men in black shot into the temple killing those who were helping their own people.

Sane viewpoint

Where do you start with someone so plainly in denial that they come up with this kind of remark even after all the evidence that has been presented. I'm not going to waste my breath.

Edited March 4, 2014 by fab4

[Thait Spot]

With any luck he should be going down and taking his bed fellows with him.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Its all nonsense.

PTP lackeys trying to appease irate and unpaid red shirt rice farmers. The real families of those people who lost their lives are fully paid up and have signed disclaimers.

The bed fellows are all yours

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Mackie]

Robby nz, on 04 Mar 2014 - 21:19, said:Robby nz, on 04 Mar 2014 - 21:19, said:

Great how the DSI is charging Abhisit and Suthep with all the deaths in 2010 when at least 30% and probably a much higher percentage, of those deaths were directly caused by armed reds shooting and lobbing grenades at the army and protesters.

Like for instance the lady who was killed by the grenade attack on the sky train station an attack on something and someone who had nothing to do with the army of the protests.

The term 'deadly crackdown' is also a load of BS for most of the deaths and injuries came before the army were forced to remove the last few of the protesters and their brave leaders who vowed to fight to the last drop of their supporters blood.

The most deadly part was when the men in black shot into the temple killing those who were helping their own people.

No the court did not say the army did it, they said the people in the temple were killed with military style weapons as we saw in the hands of the men in black in numerous photos and videos.

Robby rights wrongs.

Robby:

Like for instance the lady who was killed by the grenade attack on the sky train station an attack on something and someone who had nothing to do with the army of the protests.

Alternative viewpoint:

Aela Callan, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in the Silom area, said that such small M-79 grenades had been used on government buildings around Bangkok in recent months.

She said that very quickly after the blasts the army had spoken on loud speakers in the area and blamed the red shirts for the attacks.

"Many fear that it has set up the situation for a crackdown on the red shirts," she added.

The red shirt leaders have condemned the attacks. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2010/04/2010422132155545330.html

Robby:

The term 'deadly crackdown' is also a load of BS for most of the deaths and injuries came before the army were forced to remove the last few of the protesters and their brave leaders who vowed to fight to the last drop of their supporters blood.

Alternative viewpoint:

On the evening of 13 May, Khattiya Sawasdiphol ("Seh Daeng"), security advisor to the protesters and leader of the armed "Ronin" guards known as the black shirts, was shot in the head by a sniper's bullet while he was giving an interview to press. It is unclear who fired the shot; speculation was it was ordered either by the Army, by Thaksin to keep him quiet, or was simply a stray bullet. Thereafter, the state of emergency was expanded to 17 provinces and the military commenced an extended crackdown, dubbed by the Thai media as "Savage May" An additional 41 civilians deaths occurred (including one Italian journalist) and more 250 were injured by 8.30 pm, including soldiers. One military death occurred, apparently from accidental friendly fire.

Taken from Wiki because I couldn't be bothered tracking down the dates of every last death just to prove robby is talking out of his ass. You'll note the phrase "extended crackdown", the dates: from May 13th until May 19th, and the number of deaths 41civilians plus 1 army (friendly fire) and another 5 on the last day.

These figures aren't totally accurate (there were more than this) but even the most myopic can work out that there were 25 deaths on April 10th so another 47 deaths plus in 7 days is 1) A deadly crackdown and 2) not BS

Robby:

The most deadly part was when the men in black shot into the temple killing those who were helping their own people.

Sane viewpoint

Where do you start with someone so plainly in denial that they come up with this kind of remark even after all the evidence that has been presented. I'm not going to waste my breath.

The sane point of view would be that you simply stop posting your propaganda nonsense on this forum and consult independent sources such as hrw.org Descent into Chaos - Thailand. A little bit of poetry.

There will be blood on the street if the government does not call off the dispersal operations. Our patience is running out. We will take more serious measures to retaliate. The dark sky will turn red, red like blood.

Jatuporn Prompan, Red Shirt leader, Bangkok, April 10, 2010

How everything started:

After a month of largely peaceful rallies, the protests took a violent turn on April 7 when UDD leader Arisman Pongruangrong led protesters in storming the Parliament building while the Parliament was in session, forcing the deputy prime minister and other ministers to flee the site. The government responded by declaring a state of emergency. Using powers put into place by Thaksin, it created a civilian military crisis center empowered to impose curfews, ban public gatherings, detain suspects without charge, and censor the media.

M79 grenade launchers seem to be their favourite weapon even today.

As night fell, renewed clashes erupted when the army attempted to move in on the Phan Fa camp and were confronted by well-armed and organized groups of armed militants affiliated with the UDD. Known as the “Black Shirts,” they fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at soldiers, and used M79 grenade launchers and M67 hand grenades at the Khok Wua junction and at the Democracy Monument, devastating army troops in the process. The army unit’s commanding officer, Col. Romklao Thuwatham, was among the first to be killed, apparently in a targeted M79 grenade attack. Many senior officers were wounded. Panicked and leaderless, the troops withdrew into backstreets, often firing directly at UDD protesters massed before them. The result was Bangkok’s deadliest violence in decades, which left 26 people dead, including five soldiers, and more than 860 wounded.

[ratcatcher]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

I may be wrong (I often am) but I think the main legal difference is that Suthep ordered and had "live fire zones" set up, which seems to almost ensure people will get shot.

As an example ... If I order someone to throw a rock off a bridge and it kills someone, would I not be implicated in their murder?

If I order someone to fix a bridge and a rock drops and it kills someone, am I still implicated in a murder?

I use the analogy just to try to take away any emotional color blindness

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

It was actually "Life Firing Zone", ordered by Mark/Suthep.

Mark could not have made the spelling mistake, he is British.

life_firing_zone.jpg

i think you will find that Abhisit Vejjajjiva is a Thai citizen with Thai parents who just happens to have been born in Newcastle U.K. Will that do it for you?

[fab4]

Mackie, on 04 Mar 2014 - 22:14, said:

The sane point of view would be that you simply stop posting your propaganda nonsense on this forum and consult independent sources such as hrw.org Descent into Chaos - Thailand. A little bit of poetry.

There will be blood on the street if the government does not call off the dispersal operations. Our patience is running out. We will take more serious measures to retaliate. The dark sky will turn red, red like blood.

Jatuporn Prompan, Red Shirt leader, Bangkok, April 10, 2010

How everything started:

QuoteAfter a month of largely peaceful rallies, the protests took a violent turn on April 7 when UDD leader Arisman Pongruangrong led protesters in storming the Parliament building while the Parliament was in session, forcing the deputy prime minister and other ministers to flee the site. The government responded by declaring a state of emergency. Using powers put into place by Thaksin, it created a civilian military crisis center empowered to impose curfews, ban public gatherings, detain suspects without charge, and censor the media.

M79 grenade launchers seem to be their favourite weapon even today.

Quote

As night fell, renewed clashes erupted when the army attempted to move in on the Phan Fa camp and were confronted by well-armed and organized groups of armed militants affiliated with the UDD. Known as the “Black Shirts,” they fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles at soldiers, and used M79 grenade launchers and M67 hand grenades at the Khok Wua junction and at the Democracy Monument, devastating army troops in the process. The army unit’s commanding officer, Col. Romklao Thuwatham, was among the first to be killed, apparently in a targeted M79 grenade attack. Many senior officers were wounded. Panicked and leaderless, the troops withdrew into backstreets, often firing directly at UDD protesters massed before them. The result was Bangkok’s deadliest violence in decades, which left 26 people dead, including five soldiers, and more than 860 wounded.

If you don't like what you read come up with some credible counter argument, don't just skirt round the actual issues by obfuscating with soundbites.

I wouldn't rely too much on the HRW report. Sunai Phasuk, a senior researcher on Thailand at Human Rights Watch had this to say about it

Mr. Sunai Phasuk, the senior researcher for the Thailand′s chapter of the Human Right Watch, said that the NHRC should strive to be an independent organization, and should not present such a "biased" report against any party involved in the 2010 violence, particularly the UDD and its supporters.

Mr. Sunai believed that the NHRC report is flawed because its authors did not apply the same standard when they assessed the actions of the government and the Redshirts. Other critics and activists have voiced similar displeasure at the NHRC report, 92 pages long and based on interviews of around 180 individuals.

“The report criticised how the UDD protesters violated the law, but failed to criticise the government when it exceeds the boundary of the law by using military force against the protesters, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 100 people,” said Mr. Sunai.

Mr. Sunai believed that both issues deserve equal attention, particularly when there are proves that soldiers perched on such higher ground were responsible for deaths of 2 volunteer medics and 4 other civilians in Wat Pathumwanaram Temple, as the court inquest ruled recently.

Moreover, Mr. Sunai said that the NHRC was determined to believe that there are members of ‘the Black Shirt’ militants among the protesters and spent much of the report talking about the shadowy group. But at the same time, it avoided mentioning the existence of the snipers, who had been positioned on top of many buildings.

http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNM05qSXpOVGN4TWc9PQ==&subcatid=

But then again this is a report in Khaosod so you'll probably say the interview didn't even take place, seems to be the latest MO on this forum

[rubl]

rubl, on 04 Mar 2014 - 14:04, said:

I guess Chief of the DSI, Mr. Tharit Pengdit applying for the arrest warrant at the Criminal Court tomorrow will be able to give precise details as to why k. Suthep is chargeble for premeditated murder as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team.

suthep was not part of the CRES team, he was Head of it. He was the one who first authorized the carrying and use of live ammunition and he also authorized the use of snipers

As to why Tharit is not facing pre meditated murder charges, his explanation follows

Quote

DSI Director General Tharit Pendit told Matichon Online on 20 Aug that, although he was a committee member of the now defunct CRES, he had only recently learned of the CRES order about snipers through the media.

As far as he was concerned, he was only aware that the CRES was divided into 4 sections: key politicians including the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of national security and other relevant cabinet members; police as the law enforcement authority; military personnel as the key security forces; and civil servants, including Permanent Secretaries of all Ministries and Directors-General of relevant government departments.

On a daily basis, the CRES would hold one or two plenary meetings, and also have separate meetings with the security personnel, he said.

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings, he said.

‘Only the separate meetings [with CRES sections] were considered important. As far as I know, there were meetings with the Military Operations Section, Intelligence Section and others. The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants. Therefore, I only participated in the plenary meetings. As far as I know, after each meeting of the Military Operations Section, written orders would be issued dealing with each topic, which should probably include orders to use force in different operations,’ he said.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3330

"I only followed orders. I'm not responsible. I wasn't present at all meetings. As far as I know."

Well, that clears the sky of course.

BTW even the head of CRES is part of it, like Pol. Captain Chalerm is head and part of CMPO.

[ikke]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

I may be wrong (I often am) but I think the main legal difference is that Suthep ordered and had "live fire zones" set up, which seems to almost ensure people will get shot.

As an example ... If I order someone to throw a rock off a bridge and it kills someone, would I not be implicated in their murder?

If I order someone to fix a bridge and a rock drops and it kills someone, am I still implicated in a murder?

I use the analogy just to try to take away any emotional color blindness

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

Damned , now I understand, They got themselves killed, so nobody to blame and I thought it where the bad guys who did it.

Tell me why you use double standards, because when the acting color changes , you change mind.

Edited March 5, 2014 by ikke

[ikke]

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

Nice spin ... Was I wrong in what I said about the difference between the actions?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

One had live fire zones and gave warnings to the protestors they'd be shot if they violated the live fire zones. The other sent their troops in without any warnings and killed protestors without any warning whatsoever. Yes you're right, there is a difference.

I am 100% against the violence used by the Red's , but you are so blind.... "without any warning" ???? we all know the violence could/would escalate, so I think they did warn them.

If armed troops are called in with live ammunition and they make the perimeter with protesters in, live fire zones without any chance to get out without being shot, this people where even slaughtered , so yes there is a difference.

[TVGerry]

Was there a crackdown during both times? Yes.

Did people die during both times? Yes.

After the live fire zones were established, the red protestors were warned not to go in there. At least they were given a warning. In essence, to make it sound cold, they got themselves killed.

Damned , now I understand, They got themselves killed, so nobody to blame and I thought it where the bad guys who did it.

Tell me why you use double standards, because when the acting color changes , you change mind.

There's always someone to blame. If they're going to try Abhisit and Suthep for the murder of the 2010 reds, they sure as hell better go after Poo and the alcoholic too. After all, while everyone else practices double standards, this government is saintly and above reproach so they shouldn't.

[fab4]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:27, said:

"I only followed orders. I'm not responsible. I wasn't present at all meetings. As far as I know."

Well, that clears the sky of course.

BTW even the head of CRES is part of it, like Pol. Captain Chalerm is head and part of CMPO.

You see rubl, that's why I italicized the word "part". It means "suthep is not merely part of CRES, he is Head of it".

The italics emphasise the word, not deny it but that's a subtlety in the English language which has likely passed you by, likewise the phrase "clears the air" .

Regarding your sarcasm wrt "I only followed orders": it was clearly pointed out that the plenary meetings that Tharit attended did not deal with orders regarding the implementation of orders.

Again

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings

The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants.

Of course if you're not going to believe it, you're not going to believe it.

I'd just ask you if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with suthep and abhisit why are you not clamouring for the other civilian members of CRES to be prosecuted also? How about the lying Army spokesman, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd. Why not everybody in CRES?

[Mackie]

So we have already established the irrefutable fact that red shirts started violence in 2010. Arisman stormed the parliament during the session. As for continuous nonsense how innocent people were killed. Some were but they shouldn't have been there in the first place. There were running battles going on around the city. Red shirts were armed and they fired back.

To cut the long story short, it is clear that the most responsible person for the carnage in 2010 is in Dubai. Armed militants clearly said that they represented Thaksin's interest.

LIVE-FIRE ZONES AND THE FINAL ASSAULT

In early May, the government and UDD almost reached an agreement to halt the protests and hold elections for a new government. However, UDD hardliners led by Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, claiming to represent Thaksin’s interests, blocked the deal with more demands. They also threatened to remove moderate UDD leaders, whom they said were collaborating with the government. Amid escalating tensions, the UDD reinforced its Ratchaprasong camp in Bangkok’s commercial district with barricades made of tires and sharp bamboo sticks. On May 12, Prime Minister Abhisit announced that negotiations had failed and warned that the protest camp would be dispersed imminently. On the evening of May 13, a sniper shot Khattiya in the head as he was being interviewed by a New York Times reporter near the UDD barricade at Saladaeng junction. Later that night, incensed armed Black Shirts began confronting security forces near the King Rama IV statue in Lumphini Park, firing assault weapons. A photographer described the scene:

They [black Shirts] started breaking as many light

They [black Shirts] started breaking as many lights in the area as they could to make the area darker so snipers couldn’t fire at them. Suddenly, I heard a lot of explosions and gunfire for about 20 minutes.

He said Black Shirts took garbage bags containing AK-47 assault rifles hidden behind tents behind the Rama VI statue and started shooting at security forces positioned at the Chulalongkorn Hospital and other buildings, who returned fire.

The assassination of Khattiya, who died from his wounds on May 17, led to rapidly escalating violence on both sides. Starting on May 14, groups comprised mostly of men and urban youth fought openly with security forces surrounding the Ratchaprasong camp, using flaming tires, petrol bombs, slingshot-fired projectiles, and powerful home-made explosives. On numerous occasions, the Red Shirt protesters were joined by better-armed and fast-moving Black Shirt militants armed with AK-47 and HK-33 rifles and M79 grenade launchers.

Please refer to Human Right Watch report, Descent into Chaos - Thailand.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mackie

[rubl]

rubl, on 05 Mar 2014 - 12:27, said:

"I only followed orders. I'm not responsible. I wasn't present at all meetings. As far as I know."

Well, that clears the sky of course.

BTW even the head of CRES is part of it, like Pol. Captain Chalerm is head and part of CMPO.

You see rubl, that's why I italicized the word "part". It means "suthep is not merely part of CRES, he is Head of it".

The italics emphasise the word, not deny it but that's a subtlety in the English language which has likely passed you by, likewise the phrase "clears the air" .

Regarding your sarcasm wrt "I only followed orders": it was clearly pointed out that the plenary meetings that Tharit attended did not deal with orders regarding the implementation of orders.

Again

The plenary meetings would always include daily reports on developments in the situation over the last 12 or 24 hours, and speculation about what would happen in the next 12-14 hours. No consultations, decisions or orders would have been made during the meetings

The meetings with the Military Operations Section would have been considered the most important, as they were supposed to issue orders to be implemented, and they’d involve only politicians, the police and the military, not including civil servants.

Of course if you're not going to believe it, you're not going to believe it.

I'd just ask you if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with suthep and abhisit why are you not clamouring for the other civilian members of CRES to be prosecuted also? How about the lying Army spokesman, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd. Why not everybody in CRES?

well, you see fab4, both Suthep and Tarit were part of CRES with Suthep even the head of it. In my original post I had "as like Suthep he was part of the CRES team". Than you replied "suthep was not part of the CRES team, he was Head of it".

Now of course if you want to imply that the head of CRES is not part of CRES ... ...

As for the 'Tharit' quote (from which you removed the first two lines which indicate Tharit is saying this), well I guess it's only in a real 'democracy' like Thailand that a member of an organisation is allowed to lead the investigation of that organisation after having excused himself of any wrongdoing. In other countries I know said 'member' would only be allowed as witness (or possibly whistle blower ).

The "if you're so convinced that Tharit should be charged with murder along with Suthep and Abhisit" is just your assumption as I've never said I think Tharit should be charged with murder.

BTW I meant "clears the sky", of flying pigs that is

Edited March 5, 2014 by rubl

[SICHONSTEVE]

What exactly are they trying to charge him with? The orders were given in an official capacity, there isn't anything he could be legitimately charged with that's within the jurisdiction of the DSI or the criminal court.

It happened on his shift he has to take the good?with the bad.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

OK, no double standards (as Yingluck has asked for) - under who's shift exactly did these current 20 or so murders happen to fall on???

[The Deerhunter]

Don't forget to add Poo and the drunk to the arrest warrants while you're at it. They did order the crackdown that claimed lives also. After all, as PM Poo said, there shouldn't be a double standard.

I may be wrong (I often am) but I think the main legal difference is that Suthep ordered and had "live fire zones" set up, which seems to almost ensure people will get shot.

As an example ... If I order someone to throw a rock off a bridge and it kills someone, would I not be implicated in their murder?

If I order someone to fix a bridge and a rock drops and it kills someone, am I still implicated in a murder?

I use the analogy just to try to take away any emotional color blindness

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where the current anti government protesters were looting & burning the city (like in 2010) and therefore deserve the same level of hard response as they got in 2010. THAT is the only reason why YL is not declaring live fire zones with them. There is no justification for her to do so you know damn well that Suthep has tried real hard to keep it that way.

[The Deerhunter]

Suthep take note and learn from Yingluck: this is how you handle protests... not with a bloodbath.

So in your opinion throwing grenades at kids and spraying old ladies homes with bullets is an improvment?

She is only showing restraint because she has no legal cause to use violence.

[taff33]

What exactly are they trying to charge him with? The orders were given in an official capacity, there isn't anything he could be legitimately charged with that's within the jurisdiction of the DSI or the criminal court.

It happened on his shift he has to take the good?with the bad.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

OK, no double standards (as Yingluck has asked for) - under who's shift exactly did these current 20 or so murders happen to fall on???

Are you thick or what ?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand