Slain Thai general's widow vows to continue fight for justice

[Morch]

No not arrogant just confident that my arguments are better than yours, which wouldn't be hard.

You posted the photo with a one-sided rant about how your 'side' is holy of holies and the other is making political capital, quote: One "side" pointing out that the making of political capital from the unfortunate death of an Army Officer is perhaps not appropriate on this "anniversary". the other, well sadly, par for the course:

Your pretence of not making political capital (which is precisely what it was) is just dishonest to add to the hypocrisy.

You can make the same 'political capital' as those you accuse of doing the same or are you a self-appointed oracle?

You're talking out of your oracle as far as I'm concerned.

One person is making political capital out of her husbands death by making unsubstantiated allegations about who was responsible for that death, to any media outlet that will listen to her.

I am partaking in a debate on an internet forum. You appear to have a misguided opinion of how important this forum is in Thai politics.

Unless she's a candidate or political activist - what political capital is she making?

I think most of her issues are with the non-investigation and politicians making political gains by using her husband's death.

Recalling my post, I'd said she's a cultural absolutist, political extremist, a true believer, so she's making capital on a number of fronts that are central to her moral paradigm. Add to that her husband was killed in a conflict that occurred during a period of civil disorder which was political to the core of it and which was directly connected to the 2006 martial law military mutiny coup d'etat. Around here that's as political as it gets.

I'm sure she's got political opinions, although not knowing her personally I wouldn't go so far as defining them as you have.

Of course the circumstances of her husband's death had to do with politics, but to me, unless she's a candidate or an activist - then expressing her political opinions is pretty much like any other citizen being interviewed on national media. Not quite "political capital" as such. Same goes for families of red shirt demonstrators who got shot.

I think most of these people are motivated by anger and grief, rather than a quest for political gains.

[whybother]

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

What is a proportional response to attack by military weaponry?

[Publicus]

Unless she's a candidate or political activist - what political capital is she making?

I think most of her issues are with the non-investigation and politicians making political gains by using her husband's death.

Recalling my post, I'd said she's a cultural absolutist, political extremist, a true believer, so she's making capital on a number of fronts that are central to her moral paradigm. Add to that her husband was killed in a conflict that occurred during a period of civil disorder which was political to the core of it and which was directly connected to the 2006 martial law military mutiny coup d'etat. Around here that's as political as it gets.

I'm sure she's got political opinions, although not knowing her personally I wouldn't go so far as defining them as you have.

Of course the circumstances of her husband's death had to do with politics, but to me, unless she's a candidate or an activist - then expressing her political opinions is pretty much like any other citizen being interviewed on national media. Not quite "political capital" as such. Same goes for families of red shirt demonstrators who got shot.

I think most of these people are motivated by anger and grief, rather than a quest for political gains.

To be yet more precise, the colonel's widow is not seeking personal or individual political capital for her own purposes, intents, goals, to do or to be something or someone political whether in elective or appointed public office. She is promoting the ideology and the philosophical paradigm of a world view (if being Thai and having a world view is literally possible) and in respect of her own personal, socio-cultural value systems which all of us have and which become manifest via career choices, political views, party affiliations, personal actions and the like.

When anyway had the Nation granted a 15 paragraph platform to a red, UDD or "ordinary" civilian citizen who lost a family member to the ongoing civil, political, cultural and socio-economic conflict?

The woman deserves and gets our human sympathy and support due to her terrible personal loss.

Nonetheless, she is the widow of a high ranking career military officer who was engaged in live fire hostilities connected to or associated with the 2010 civil disturbances and also riots. She is not the mother of a career nurse who was an unarmed, impartial civilian citizen volunteer during the civil disturbance and who lost her life while standing on the grounds of a temple sorting out aid bandages. The mother has herself been combing Bangkok in search of an honest public official and seeking due justice. She's filed suit in court so the matter is (precariously) in the hands of higher ups.

Neither do I have any personal involvement or interest in these matters as I don't know anyone from either family and didn't attend either funeral.

[whybother]

To be yet more precise, the colonel's widow is not seeking personal or individual political capital for her own purposes, intents, goals, to do or to be something or someone political whether in elective or appointed public office. She is promoting the ideology and the philosophical paradigm of a world view (if being Thai and having a world view is literally possible) and in respect of her own personal, socio-cultural value systems which all of us have and which become manifest via career choices, political views, party affiliations, personal actions and the like.

When anyway had the Nation granted a 15 paragraph platform to a red, UDD or "ordinary" civilian citizen who lost a family member to the ongoing civil, political, cultural and socio-economic conflict?

The woman deserves and gets our human sympathy and support due to her terrible personal loss.

Nonetheless, she is the widow of a high ranking career military officer who was engaged in live fire hostilities connected to or associated with the 2010 civil disturbances and also riots. She is not the mother of a career nurse who was an unarmed, impartial civilian citizen volunteer during the civil disturbance and who lost her life while standing on the grounds of a temple sorting out aid bandages. The mother has herself been combing Bangkok in search of an honest public official and seeking due justice. She's filed suit in court so the matter is (precariously) in the hands of higher ups.

Neither do I have any personal involvement or interest in these matters as I don't know anyone from either family and didn't attend either funeral.

"a high ranking career military officer who was engaged in live fire hostilities"

At the time he was killed, exactly how much live fire hostilities had he been involved in?

Answer: None.

[Publicus]

The army had been and was still in gunfights with those unarmed protesters. That's when you get these very unfortunate incidents.

Only the thai army could get into gunfights with unarmed protesters. You're not saying the that the civilians killed at the temple were involved in a gunfight with the army are you? Good grief, your blind acceptance of anything the army does as beyond criticism is frightening.

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Based on the OP, what broadly and specifically is the justice the comprehensibly distressed widow seeks? Based on the OP, it's clear only that her husband - who BTW was a colonel, as has been corrected by another poster - was killed. Does she have any idea of who may have killed him, where, when, why, how, based on the OP?

Based on the OP, what does anyone know of who may have killed her husband the colonel? Based on the OP, is her case and its pursuits entirely personal or are politics involved? Whom, based on the OP, has she seen and when, what has she been told, by whom; what to date does she know about the specific circumstances involving her husband's unfortunate death in the line of duty?

What are her specific complaints against the "system," and against the government, the police, the army, the courts, MSM and whomever else, based on the OP? Has she spoken to Suthep? Abhisit? Yingluck or YS's representative? Ministry of Justice? Attorney General? The army?

Based on the OP.

[Morch]

Unless she's a candidate or political activist - what political capital is she making?

I think most of her issues are with the non-investigation and politicians making political gains by using her husband's death.

Recalling my post, I'd said she's a cultural absolutist, political extremist, a true believer, so she's making capital on a number of fronts that are central to her moral paradigm. Add to that her husband was killed in a conflict that occurred during a period of civil disorder which was political to the core of it and which was directly connected to the 2006 martial law military mutiny coup d'etat. Around here that's as political as it gets.

I'm sure she's got political opinions, although not knowing her personally I wouldn't go so far as defining them as you have.

Of course the circumstances of her husband's death had to do with politics, but to me, unless she's a candidate or an activist - then expressing her political opinions is pretty much like any other citizen being interviewed on national media. Not quite "political capital" as such. Same goes for families of red shirt demonstrators who got shot.

I think most of these people are motivated by anger and grief, rather than a quest for political gains.

To be yet more precise, the colonel's widow is not seeking personal or individual political capital for her own purposes, intents, goals, to do or to be something or someone political whether in elective or appointed public office. She is promoting the ideology and the philosophical paradigm of a world view (if being Thai and having a world view is literally possible) and in respect of her own personal, socio-cultural value systems which all of us have and which become manifest via career choices, political views, party affiliations, personal actions and the like.

When anyway had the Nation granted a 15 paragraph platform to a red, UDD or "ordinary" civilian citizen who lost a family member to the ongoing civil, political, cultural and socio-economic conflict?

The woman deserves and gets our human sympathy and support due to her terrible personal loss.

Nonetheless, she is the widow of a high ranking career military officer who was engaged in live fire hostilities connected to or associated with the 2010 civil disturbances and also riots. She is not the mother of a career nurse who was an unarmed, impartial civilian citizen volunteer during the civil disturbance and who lost her life while standing on the grounds of a temple sorting out aid bandages. The mother has herself been combing Bangkok in search of an honest public official and seeking due justice. She's filed suit in court so the matter is (precariously) in the hands of higher ups.

Neither do I have any personal involvement or interest in these matters as I don't know anyone from either family and didn't attend either funeral.

Fair enough, guess we have somewhat different notions of what political capital is, but now understand better what you meant.

The Nation is (generally speaking) not politically unbiased, there are other media platforms which lean the other way. Thaivisa forums are limited to English language sources (excluding the Bangkok Post), can sometimes give a wrong idea of how Thai media as a whole presents things. Pretty sure that her social status helped getting more exposure, but that would be true for most newspapers - they all prefer higher profile interviews. There weren't that many lengthy interviews with "ordinary" civilians who lost family members, regardless of political affiliation.

For all her perceived social status & connections - she's no closer to getting any answers regarding her husband's death.

[fab4]

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

What is a proportional response to attack by military weaponry?

Who said anything about being attacked by military weaponry? The courts (hopefully) will rule if the use of live ammunition and snipers and live fire zones were an appropriate response to the threat faced - that includes the death of unarmed civilians. All the inquests of civilians killed so far were of people who were unarmed. That is not a proportionate response in my book.

I'm not so sure about your "values", perhaps you feel that's a justified response.....................

[khunken]

You're very sure of yourself, aren't you, to the point of arrogance.

I posted the photograph in response to claims that apparently only the army colonel is human. It pointed out that the relatives and their slain relatives were human too despite claims to the contrary and had been demonised almost daily on this forum. I then posted a selection of comments that illustrated that fact.

and this is your response

"an idiotic list of selective quotes from your opponents."

Opponents? I am discussing this event on an internet forum - what political capital can I make?

No not arrogant just confident that my arguments are better than yours, which wouldn't be hard.

You posted the photo with a one-sided rant about how your 'side' is holy of holies and the other is making political capital, quote: One "side" pointing out that the making of political capital from the unfortunate death of an Army Officer is perhaps not appropriate on this "anniversary". the other, well sadly, par for the course:

Your pretence of not making political capital (which is precisely what it was) is just dishonest to add to the hypocrisy.

You can make the same 'political capital' as those you accuse of doing the same or are you a self-appointed oracle?

You're talking out of your oracle as far as I'm concerned.

One person is making political capital out of her husbands death by making unsubstantiated allegations about who was responsible for that death, to any media outlet that will listen to her.

I am partaking in a debate on an internet forum. You appear to have a misguided opinion of how important this forum is in Thai politics.

Ignoring the disguised insult - the lady was expressing her personal opinion about who was responsible (& she is most likely correct) for the death of her husband. You seemingly would deny her that right which others have also been given a forum to do the same.

You also included that idiotic list of comments from other posters which was both one-sided and political in content. This thread is a debate about politics which you want to deliberately deny and opinions expressed are very much political in nature.

I never expressed any view on the importance of TV threads - once again your assumptions (like your original post) are way off beam.

[fab4]

You're very sure of yourself, aren't you, to the point of arrogance.

I posted the photograph in response to claims that apparently only the army colonel is human. It pointed out that the relatives and their slain relatives were human too despite claims to the contrary and had been demonised almost daily on this forum. I then posted a selection of comments that illustrated that fact.

and this is your response

"an idiotic list of selective quotes from your opponents."

Opponents? I am discussing this event on an internet forum - what political capital can I make?

No not arrogant just confident that my arguments are better than yours, which wouldn't be hard.

You posted the photo with a one-sided rant about how your 'side' is holy of holies and the other is making political capital, quote: One "side" pointing out that the making of political capital from the unfortunate death of an Army Officer is perhaps not appropriate on this "anniversary". the other, well sadly, par for the course:

Your pretence of not making political capital (which is precisely what it was) is just dishonest to add to the hypocrisy.

You can make the same 'political capital' as those you accuse of doing the same or are you a self-appointed oracle?

You're talking out of your oracle as far as I'm concerned.

One person is making political capital out of her husbands death by making unsubstantiated allegations about who was responsible for that death, to any media outlet that will listen to her.

I am partaking in a debate on an internet forum. You appear to have a misguided opinion of how important this forum is in Thai politics.

Ignoring the disguised insult - the lady was expressing her personal opinion about who was responsible (& she is most likely correct) for the death of her husband. You seemingly would deny her that right which others have also been given a forum to do the same.

You also included that idiotic list of comments from other posters which was both one-sided and political in content. This thread is a debate about politics which you want to deliberately deny and opinions expressed are very much political in nature.

I never expressed any view on the importance of TV threads - once again your assumptions (like your original post) are way off beam.

That list of idiotic comments came from this very thread. One sided of course. You still are having the greatest trouble, I see, in understanding the difference between what I say on a forum and the lady in question spreading her political views throughout the media in the real world. Seeing that your argument, such as it is, is based on comparing the statements of the widow and I and stating that both are "political" is beyond naive.

When I appear regularly in the Thai media posting the views I post here you may have a case. Until then, don't hold your breath on my account. May I refer you to metisdeads comments on another thread, to paraphrase:

Nothing you say on here is going to make a blind bit of difference, so stop taking yourself so seriously.

End of conversation.

Edited April 13, 2014 by fab4

[pmugghc]

The army had been and was still in gunfights with those unarmed protesters. That's when you get these very unfortunate incidents.

Only the thai army could get into gunfights with unarmed protesters. You're not saying the that the civilians killed at the temple were involved in a gunfight with the army are you? Good grief, your blind acceptance of anything the army does as beyond criticism is frightening.

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Based on the OP, what broadly and specifically is the justice the comprehensibly distressed widow seeks? Based on the OP, it's clear only that her husband - who BTW was a colonel, as has been corrected by another poster - was killed. Does she have any idea of who may have killed him, where, when, why, how, based on the OP?

Based on the OP, what does anyone know of who may have killed her husband the colonel? Based on the OP, is her case and its pursuits entirely personal or are politics involved? Whom, based on the OP, has she seen and when, what has she been told, by whom; what to date does she know about the specific circumstances involving her husband's unfortunate death in the line of duty?

What are her specific complaints against the "system," and against the government, the police, the army, the courts, MSM and whomever else, based on the OP? Has she spoken to Suthep? Abhisit? Yingluck or YS's representative? Ministry of Justice? Attorney General? The army?

Based on the OP.

Are you lazy? Why do you post if you didn't even bother to read the article this thread is based on? Here's from the article:

"The day that PM Yingluck [shinawatra] said she wasn't being treated fairly by the National Anti-Corruption Commission with regards to the rice-pledging scheme, I chuckled inside because when other people called on her for justice, she did not care.

"I personally asked her - as chief of the government - to give me justice, but she did nothing.

"There has been no progress in the investigation into the death of soldiers. The relatives of those who were killed in 2010 asked Yingluck to change the investigation team's leader from [Department of Special Investigation director general] Tarit Pengdith [but he has never been replaced].

"How many innocent people have lost their lives and not been given justice yet?" Nicha asked.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Based on the OP, what broadly and specifically is the justice the comprehensibly distressed widow seeks? Based on the OP, it's clear only that her husband - who BTW was a colonel, as has been corrected by another poster - was killed. Does she have any idea of who may have killed him, where, when, why, how, based on the OP?

Based on the OP, what does anyone know of who may have killed her husband the colonel? Based on the OP, is her case and its pursuits entirely personal or are politics involved? Whom, based on the OP, has she seen and when, what has she been told, by whom; what to date does she know about the specific circumstances involving her husband's unfortunate death in the line of duty?

What are her specific complaints against the "system," and against the government, the police, the army, the courts, MSM and whomever else, based on the OP? Has she spoken to Suthep? Abhisit? Yingluck or YS's representative? Ministry of Justice? Attorney General? The army?

Based on the OP.

Are you lazy? Why do you post if you didn't even bother to read the article this thread is based on? Here's from the article:

"The day that PM Yingluck [shinawatra] said she wasn't being treated fairly by the National Anti-Corruption Commission with regards to the rice-pledging scheme, I chuckled inside because when other people called on her for justice, she did not care.

"I personally asked her - as chief of the government - to give me justice, but she did nothing.

"There has been no progress in the investigation into the death of soldiers. The relatives of those who were killed in 2010 asked Yingluck to change the investigation team's leader from [Department of Special Investigation director general] Tarit Pengdith [but he has never been replaced].

"How many innocent people have lost their lives and not been given justice yet?" Nicha asked.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Re-read my post so you can see that she presents no specific injustices or allegedly wrongful actions by anyone. She only criticizes the prime minister who she can easily get a meeting with and wants the police investigator replaced. What does she know that the PM and police investigator don't know, if anything? What specifically and in particular does she want investigated? Yes, people died - I have read about it for years and so have many others. I have read how her husband died with his boots on. What more does she need or want to know?

Or is there a can of worms here?

Yes, re-read my post to see clearly that the OP is a moralistic lecture and a strict scolding rather than a specific account of her trials and tribulations in pursuit of an investigation, and that she never says specifically what she wants a determination or an exposition of. When one reads her lecturing and her scolding, she sounds like a lot of absolutist posters here.

[pmugghc]

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Based on the OP, what broadly and specifically is the justice the comprehensibly distressed widow seeks? Based on the OP, it's clear only that her husband - who BTW was a colonel, as has been corrected by another poster - was killed. Does she have any idea of who may have killed him, where, when, why, how, based on the OP?

Based on the OP, what does anyone know of who may have killed her husband the colonel? Based on the OP, is her case and its pursuits entirely personal or are politics involved? Whom, based on the OP, has she seen and when, what has she been told, by whom; what to date does she know about the specific circumstances involving her husband's unfortunate death in the line of duty?

What are her specific complaints against the "system," and against the government, the police, the army, the courts, MSM and whomever else, based on the OP? Has she spoken to Suthep? Abhisit? Yingluck or YS's representative? Ministry of Justice? Attorney General? The army?

Based on the OP.

Are you lazy? Why do you post if you didn't even bother to read the article this thread is based on? Here's from the article:

"The day that PM Yingluck [shinawatra] said she wasn't being treated fairly by the National Anti-Corruption Commission with regards to the rice-pledging scheme, I chuckled inside because when other people called on her for justice, she did not care.

"I personally asked her - as chief of the government - to give me justice, but she did nothing.

"There has been no progress in the investigation into the death of soldiers. The relatives of those who were killed in 2010 asked Yingluck to change the investigation team's leader from [Department of Special Investigation director general] Tarit Pengdith [but he has never been replaced].

"How many innocent people have lost their lives and not been given justice yet?" Nicha asked.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Re-read my post so you can see that she presents no specific injustices or allegedly wrongful actions by anyone. She only criticizes the prime minister who she can easily get a meeting with and wants the police investigator replaced. What does she know that the PM and police investigator don't know, if anything? What specifically and in particular does she want investigated? Yes, people died - I have read about it for years and so have many others. I have read how her husband died with his boots on. What more does she need or want to know?

Or is there a can of worms here?

Yes, re-read my post to see clearly that the OP is a moralistic lecture and a strict scolding rather than a specific account of her trials and tribulations in pursuit of an investigation, and that she never says specifically what she wants a determination or an exposition of. When one reads her lecturing and her scolding, she sounds like a lot of absolutist posters here.

What?? How can you say "no specific injustices or allegedly wrongful actions by anyone" when her husband was killed by someone, he was among the first if not the first during April 2010. So who killed her husband? Where is DSI on this case?

So should we apply the same logic to the 70 or so red protesters who died in May? "They died with their boots on? Warnings had been issued. Nothing to see here folks, just move on ..."

Your mind is just warped!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 13, 2014 by pmugghc

[Publicus]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

[djjamie]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

[geriatrickid]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

The fact is that you did not read his post. I am being compassionate in that regard, because if you had, then you did not comprehend what he wrote and that in turn would suggest another issue. You keep using the word condescending, when the reality is that you are not at the same level of intelligence as he is. It's not his fault. He is not condescending. You just don't comprehend. I understand him and I often disagree with his view. However, I take the time to consider his opinion and accept it for what it is. I don't have a hissy fit because we disagree.

He has no need to "prove you wrong". Again, this isn't a pissing contest. He has offered rational comments based upon fact and the real politik of Thailand. Instead you offer the shrill emotional invective of someone who is frustrated by the facts.

It is you who does not show others respect, constantly insulting and tossing cheap innuendo. You don't like the Prime Minister. I get it. However, there is no need to use all sorts of rude names in discussing her position, or in insulting and attacking others who do not share your opinion.

[djjamie]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

you are not at the same level of intelligence as he is.

The above is an example of the condescension I am talking about.

All I ask is that you treat other forum members with respect.

[northernjohn]

Well I will admit I did not read the responses How ever I did read in full her plea.

I noticed she was honest and up front with her speech.

She did not speak of legal and illegal she spoke of right and wrong.

A big difference She spoke of justice she did not speak of it is illegal or legal because the law says this or that.

A truly great lady not afraid to speak the truth.

[northernjohn]

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Based on the OP, what broadly and specifically is the justice the comprehensibly distressed widow seeks? Based on the OP, it's clear only that her husband - who BTW was a colonel, as has been corrected by another poster - was killed. Does she have any idea of who may have killed him, where, when, why, how, based on the OP?

Based on the OP, what does anyone know of who may have killed her husband the colonel? Based on the OP, is her case and its pursuits entirely personal or are politics involved? Whom, based on the OP, has she seen and when, what has she been told, by whom; what to date does she know about the specific circumstances involving her husband's unfortunate death in the line of duty?

What are her specific complaints against the "system," and against the government, the police, the army, the courts, MSM and whomever else, based on the OP? Has she spoken to Suthep? Abhisit? Yingluck or YS's representative? Ministry of Justice? Attorney General? The army?

Based on the OP.

Are you lazy? Why do you post if you didn't even bother to read the article this thread is based on? Here's from the article:

"The day that PM Yingluck [shinawatra] said she wasn't being treated fairly by the National Anti-Corruption Commission with regards to the rice-pledging scheme, I chuckled inside because when other people called on her for justice, she did not care.

"I personally asked her - as chief of the government - to give me justice, but she did nothing.

"There has been no progress in the investigation into the death of soldiers. The relatives of those who were killed in 2010 asked Yingluck to change the investigation team's leader from [Department of Special Investigation director general] Tarit Pengdith [but he has never been replaced].

"How many innocent people have lost their lives and not been given justice yet?" Nicha asked.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Re-read my post so you can see that she presents no specific injustices or allegedly wrongful actions by anyone. She only criticizes the prime minister who she can easily get a meeting with and wants the police investigator replaced. What does she know that the PM and police investigator don't know, if anything? What specifically and in particular does she want investigated? Yes, people died - I have read about it for years and so have many others. I have read how her husband died with his boots on. What more does she need or want to know?

Or is there a can of worms here?

Yes, re-read my post to see clearly that the OP is a moralistic lecture and a strict scolding rather than a specific account of her trials and tribulations in pursuit of an investigation, and that she never says specifically what she wants a determination or an exposition of. When one reads her lecturing and her scolding, she sounds like a lot of absolutist posters here.

In stead of covering up for the present administration at every chance you get why don't you read the Ladies post and then reread your retreating post. A great and honest speech and you have to deride it because it does not speak down to your low standards.

[northernjohn]

What was her husband doing in the conflict zone? Protecting the protesters (like the popcorn man); or for firing at the? Maybe France24 have the clip with answers.

He was protecting Bangkok from brute barbarians and arsonists.

True words.

Painful as all get out for the Thaksin employees.

Can't blame them who wants every one to know the man they work for is a morally bankrupt individual with no thought for human life. Yes he does have employees that have sank to his level so they don't mind.

They how ever don't want us to know the level they have sank to so they deny all accusations such as 2010 against their employer.

Not pointing fingers just stating facts.

Well one other thing some of them can't see past the puppets good looks so they also deny.

[northernjohn]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

I see he sent GK to do it for him and in just the way you predicted.

[djjamie]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

I see he sent GK to do it for him and in just the way you predicted.

They are as predictable as traffic lights.

[geriatrickid]

I said to re-read my post.

Take remedial reading if you need to, I can wait.

Another day, more condescension. The day the PTP is honest will be the day you can reply a post without being condescending.

I bet if you reply it will involve demonizing me, condescending me, quoting me out of context, changing the subject or cherry picking me.

If you don't reply then that shows you can't reply without doing the above.

​Go on…Prove me wrong.

All I ask is to treat other forum members with respect.

I see he sent GK to do it for him and in just the way you predicted.

They are as predictable as traffic lights.

Rational intelligent people can be expected to respond in a calm and logical manner, i.e a predictable manner.

It is the mentally deficient and those with behavioural dysfunction who will behave in an unpredictable manner.

Edited April 14, 2014 by geriatrickid

[djjamie]

I see he sent GK to do it for him and in just the way you predicted.

They are as predictable as traffic lights.

It is the mentally deficient and those with behavioural dysfunction who will behave in an unpredictable manner.

The above is the condescension I am talking about.

All I ask is that you treat other forum members with respect.

See John. Predictable as traffic lights.

[northernjohn]

I see he sent GK to do it for him and in just the way you predicted.

They are as predictable as traffic lights.

It is the mentally deficient and those with behavioural dysfunction who will behave in an unpredictable manner.

The above is the condescension I am talking about.

All I ask is that you treat other forum members with respect.

See John. Predictable as traffic lights.

Yes he is as predictable as traffic lights. How ever he stops on green and goes on red?

[Arkady]

What was her husband doing in the conflict zone? Protecting the protesters (like the popcorn man); or for firing at the? Maybe France24 have the clip with answers.

He was having a meeting with other senior officers just behind the army line at Kok Wia and they were hit with an explosive device. Gen Walit, now in charge of troops in the South was badly injured by the same blast. The hit was attributed to Seh Daeng which may explain why he is no longer around.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Suicide is not harmless, by which I mean the Thai army is incompetent. It is first and foremost its own worst enemy

At Kok Wia, an urban intersection live fire action zone, the general in command called a huddle of his senior operational commanders. Let's all group up guys, immediately behind the line and out in the open. Not a good idea, as an explosive device landed among the tightly gathered group and blew them away. The real disaster however was the mission, which is always the first priority because the line commanders and soldiers broke and scattered in all directions.

Seh Daeng, the Thai equivalent of a 2-star general, knew how to confuse his fellow Thai generals, knew how they would react and how to exploit all of it. He knew how to dissolve the army's advancing units and he did, completely. Clever guy. Except he absolutely failed to realize that after that he'd never be allowed to walk out of the red camp. Either that or, despite army snipers in any force being a dime a dozen, he considered that he wouldn't ever get popped.

This is a place where people can't find their ass while blindfolded.

I think you are right Publicus. The Burmese military say the Thais have fancy uniforms and equipment but can't fight to save themselves. They lost against Laos in 1988 after bombing their own troops and also shelled their own units in Vietnam, admittedly following the examples of their American mentirs. It is not a real fighting force - more of a expensive drag on the taxpayer.

At Kok Wua they were surprised by heavily armed red shirts no doubt but they should always be on the alert for this. There are examples they could study- N Ireland, Palestine. The Israelis don't behave like that when they come under fire.

Seh Daeng got too cocky. He should have known that the army's code of honour obliged them to take out any officer who deliberately killed a brother officer but must have thought the reds would win and he would get away with it. His statements at the time sounded Napoleonic and he had obviously got away with operating a criminal band of mercenary renegades for many years before he took on his last job.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[rubl]

Correct, I'm not saying that. Only, and not for the first time and not even for the first time this year to you, only that with the army involved in gunfights you are bound to get unfortunate incidents.

Now if I remember correctly you had no problem with the mother of the slain nurse to seek justice. May I assume you have no problem with the wife of the slain colonel to seek justice too?

Why would the the thai army need to use guns i.e in gunfights with unarmed people? The logic doesn't work - as a defence it'e even more pathetic as the court showed in the inquest of the deaths of the unarmed civilians in the temple, when they ruled the armys defence that they were in a gunfight with people in the temple was a lie.

The wife of the dead colonel can seek justice of course. It would just help if she didn't make political statements accusing the UDD of being responsible - there has been no definitive proof or court ruling which states who is responsible - unlike the RTA being responsible for the deaths of 6 civilians in the wat, including the nurse. That is the difference.

So, you'll stop accusing Abhisit/Suthep of being personally responsible as there has been no definitive proof or a court ruling which states who is responsible?

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

Yes I do. The UDD leaders were 'brought' to court to hear the charges of terrorism which seemed to cover some grenade lobbing fun as well.

"disproportionate response to the threat faced." --> grenades lobbed on military

Now I really understand that you'll wriggle like a worm on a hook or argue till the cows come home, so let it be. Hope you at least enjoyed Songkran.

[whybother]

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

What is a proportional response to attack by military weaponry?

Who said anything about being attacked by military weaponry? The courts (hopefully) will rule if the use of live ammunition and snipers and live fire zones were an appropriate response to the threat faced - that includes the death of unarmed civilians. All the inquests of civilians killed so far were of people who were unarmed. That is not a proportionate response in my book.

I'm not so sure about your "values", perhaps you feel that's a justified response.....................

Did you miss all the reports on military weaponry being used by the red shirt militia?

[fab4]

So, you'll stop accusing Abhisit/Suthep of being personally responsible as there has been no definitive proof or a court ruling which states who is responsible?

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

Yes I do. The UDD leaders were 'brought' to court to hear the charges of terrorism which seemed to cover some grenade lobbing fun as well.

"disproportionate response to the threat faced." --> grenades lobbed on military

Now I really understand that you'll wriggle like a worm on a hook or argue till the cows come home, so let it be. Hope you at least enjoyed Songkran.

Notwithstanding your obsession with grenades, may I draw your attention to the 16 odd inquests of civilians that have taken place so far

Amongst these civilians the deaths have included some UDD supporters. Grenade "incidents" have not figured in any of the inquests. The army were found responsible for their deaths. Ergo the army did not have the excuse of grenades being lobbed at them to cover up their "disproprtionate response to the threat faced". Were grenades being lobbed at them when they shot dead 6 civilians, including two medics, at the Wat?

And this is in the inquests carried out so far.Grenades caused 6 deaths, rubl, 5 army. 1 civilian in two separate incidents Yet you continue with this faintly nauseating defence of an army that killed 80 plus civilians. Do you think the use of snipers and live fire zones are an appropriate response? Sadly, I think you do.

I'm not wriggling, rubl, but you should be, with embarrassment, at the very least.

Edited April 19, 2014 by fab4

[kimamey]

Something wrong with grieving the loss of a family member to disseminate political inaccuracies.

>>>"Nicha's husband General Romklao Thuvatham was killed in a clash with red-shirt protesters at Khok Wua intersection in 2010. The red shirts were at the time protesting against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government"

The Red Shirts at the time were not protesting "against the Abhisit Vejjajiva government"...They were protesting a coup which had stolen their electoral choice and the imposition of a coup-rooted Govt....It was all about Electoral Democracy....Not about the Govt. in place at the time...Same as today.

>>>"Those who were responsible for the wrongdoings in 2010 are once again threatening the lives of innocent people in 2013-2014"

No they are not.

Trying to link the Lumpini coup-advocacy crowd with anti-coup protesters of 2010, is again an example of PAD-Dem's trying to contextualize historical events according to their spin. Everyone has their own take on who is the source of violence this time.

Articles of this nature ought to express concerns about all grieving relatives of those killed in 2010, not just one. What about the widow of Seh Daeng? What about the widows and parents of over 90 Red Shirts who were mowed down by the Coup-maker incited military...........Plus, it should not try to weave political innuendo into it. All those other's have political opinions as well, and perhaps more valid than this lady.

Let's separate Politics from grieving relatives, so one can sympathize with them, instead of being affronted by narrow political interests.

If you bothered to read the OP you'd see she mentioned the relatives of others killed in 2010 and the fact that Yingluck hadn't given justice to any of them. All the deaths and anyone who might be responsible for them should be investigated but that's not happening because the last government (sorry there's no way to make this non political) have been protecting the army. Does that mean that the PTP are coup backed by any chance?

Edited April 19, 2014 by kimamey

[fab4]

If they were not accused they wouldn't be going to court, so No, I will not stop accusing them of being personally responsible for signing orders for the use of live ammunition and the use of snipers which was a disproportionate response to the threat faced.

There have been no summonses to any members of the UDD as being responsible for the death of Romklao.

Now do you understand the difference?

What is a proportional response to attack by military weaponry?

Who said anything about being attacked by military weaponry? The courts (hopefully) will rule if the use of live ammunition and snipers and live fire zones were an appropriate response to the threat faced - that includes the death of unarmed civilians. All the inquests of civilians killed so far were of people who were unarmed. That is not a proportionate response in my book.

I'm not so sure about your "values", perhaps you feel that's a justified response.....................

Did you miss all the reports on military weaponry being used by the red shirt militia?

Did you miss all the inquests where the army were found responsible for killing unarmed civilians? Thats what I was talking about. When you come back with evidence that a civilian killed by the army was armed and posing a threat to the the soldiers that shot them I will condemn that person and rightly so.

In the meantime your argument lacks substance. Yes the army were attacked by people who were armed - the question is, was anyone of these armed people killed by the army or was it mainly unarmed civilians or peopled armed at the most with a catapult - are you suggesting they posed a big enough threat to be shot dead?