NACC threatened with lawsuit for delay in 2010 crackdown case

[tbthailand]

There is no court in Thailand that would hold anyone responsible for shooting red shirts. Those who oppose the red shirt movement have immunity and can slaughter as they see fit as they did with great joy and enthusiasm in 2010. Who will prosecute the NACC members? Who will prosecute the political leaders and senior Army figures who ordered the murders of 2010? Who will prosecute the army snipers who mowed down their own civilians in the great tradition of the Thai military? They are part of the establishment and the establishment have made heroes out of the villains and murderers of 2010. There is no justice on the horizon here.

I see you are new here. so I will tell you what happened. Thaksin Shinawatra a convicted criminal on the run from the law living in self imposed exile hired an army of scum to stage an armed attempted coup. When the coup army came to terms to end all the fighting Thaksin Shinawatra refused to accept it and insisted that they keep on fighting. To date Thaksin Shinawatra has not been brought to justice. Had he served his two year jail time and returned to the population and honest man none of the 2010 debacle would have happened.

On a side note he was convicted of his crimes while the parties he owned were in power.

so protesting against an unelected, military-imposed government (the Abhisit government, in case you miss the reference) and calling for elections is an attempted coup, where as a real coup is... ???

what would a real coup be in your world. Bringing democracy? That is what the General says that he is doing...

Maybe you buy his story...

[TheDiva]

This may surprise you, but not all did even seek recourse in the form of money.

I'm just surprised that it seems a few times a year a vow is made to file a lawsuit and somehow that doesn't seem to happen. I mean if a lawsuit happened there would be no need for another lawsuit by the same people concerning the same deaths ?

This is all about responsibility. As an old Yes Minister script might have it;

This isn't a lawsuit against those responsible for the deaths, this a lawsuit against the people who are responsible for making sure that those responsible for the deaths are held responsible.

In other words the perpetrators are getting away with murder, literally, with the tacit consent of the supposedly neutral NACC. What else are grieving family members supposed to do, soak it up and look the other way? Does the fact that the family accepted compensation detract from their need for the truth? Or is the settling of political scores more important than peoples lives, or in this case, deaths?

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

(New York) – The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

Edited February 14, 2015 by TheDiva

[rubl]

I see you are new here. so I will tell you what happened. Thaksin Shinawatra a convicted criminal on the run from the law living in self imposed exile hired an army of scum to stage an armed attempted coup. When the coup army came to terms to end all the fighting Thaksin Shinawatra refused to accept it and insisted that they keep on fighting. To date Thaksin Shinawatra has not been brought to justice. Had he served his two year jail time and returned to the population and honest man none of the 2010 debacle would have happened.

On a side note he was convicted of his crimes while the parties he owned were in power.

Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought it was the army that instigated the coups. So TS didn't win any elections? Thanks for pointing that one out. Those tanks on the street were sent by him were they? All these years I had it wrong and it was the army that won the election and Thaksin who sent in the soldiers? Well I never.

Army of scum? Hmmm. I think some of them may have been rather angry members of the electorate fed up at having their voting rights ignored.for, oh I dunno...about 70 years or so now.. The western (non Thai and non biased) journos reported things a certain way didn't they? But, hey...you know best, you know it all, so I bow down to your greater judgement.

and I hate sticking up for a worm like Thaksin...

So, the UDD didn't have armed militants and terrorists amongst them, helping them to terrorise the Bangkok population? Cowards creeping out of their hideouts in the night to shoot at non-red-shirts, lob a grenade or two?

Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal. Even that last day the 19th of May, 2010 the army saw heavy gunfire and grenades against them. Surely peaceful protesters, not terrorists don't do that ?

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

'inflammatory'? If you refer to my post please feel free to report to the mod. On the other hand telling the truth may be inflammatory to some and the mods know the difference.

The 'facts' you mention have nothing to do with the topic. Just like the weather condition has nothing to do with the topic, or an USA Envoy telling the government to work on perception.

Here we have relatives who may try to sue the NACC as suing various others didn't seem to give the 'right' result.

I understand there's still a long list of possibilities, many can still be sued. For instance the Senate which only tried a very last minute negotiation call which the UDD leaders 'accepted' on the 18th. Or maybe the UDD leaders which let previous negotiations founder by adding extra demands like PM Abhist and his Dept. PM Suthep put themselves under arrest for the April 10th deaths.

[rubl]

Can only speak for myself but armed people in the act of trying to overthrow a government who get shot by the Army. In my opinion their families do not deserve any thing. You pick up a gun to fight with and you deserve what you get. The people who were there supporting them are just as guilty. It is like any war. You are involved in it even if you are just the support. Which many of them were.

The topic is about an unarmed nurse who was killed by shots fired from military weapons fired from the direction where the army had troops stationed while she was attempting to help injured people in a temple courtyard. Do you have an opinion on that?

With the army still in fire fights with 'unknowns' who apart from shooting also lobbed grenades AND those 'unknowns' mingling with real peaceful protesters the army can only be recommended for the limited number of casualties.

Geez rubl, I don't expect a lot from you, but I expect better than this. There was no fire-fight going on where the nurse was shot, the injured were taken to the temple compound because people assumed it would be a safe place to treat them. A nurse trying to do the right thing and help these people was shot--if you can't respect the good woman and sympathize with her mother there is something very wrong with you. Indications are that the shot was fired by an army soldier. Try using a "renegade soldiers acting without orders" defense, don't use this BS.

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

[rubl]

There is no court in Thailand that would hold anyone responsible for shooting red shirts. Those who oppose the red shirt movement have immunity and can slaughter as they see fit as they did with great joy and enthusiasm in 2010. Who will prosecute the NACC members? Who will prosecute the political leaders and senior Army figures who ordered the murders of 2010? Who will prosecute the army snipers who mowed down their own civilians in the great tradition of the Thai military? They are part of the establishment and the establishment have made heroes out of the villains and murderers of 2010. There is no justice on the horizon here.

I see you are new here. so I will tell you what happened. Thaksin Shinawatra a convicted criminal on the run from the law living in self imposed exile hired an army of scum to stage an armed attempted coup. When the coup army came to terms to end all the fighting Thaksin Shinawatra refused to accept it and insisted that they keep on fighting. To date Thaksin Shinawatra has not been brought to justice. Had he served his two year jail time and returned to the population and honest man none of the 2010 debacle would have happened.

On a side note he was convicted of his crimes while the parties he owned were in power.

so protesting against an unelected, military-imposed government (the Abhisit government, in case you miss the reference) and calling for elections is an attempted coup, where as a real coup is... ???

what would a real coup be in your world. Bringing democracy? That is what the General says that he is doing...

Maybe you buy his story...

When PM Somchai had to step down but forgot to dissolve the House, MPs were in a position to elect a new PM from amongst their midst. That's constitutional. It might have been better to call for new general elections, but PM Somchai didn't.

No need to buy this story, the truth is free for all.

Of course there may be valid ground for the relatives of the May 19th deaths to sue the former PM Somchai for negligence.

Edited February 14, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

This is all about responsibility. As an old Yes Minister script might have it;

This isn't a lawsuit against those responsible for the deaths, this a lawsuit against the people who are responsible for making sure that those responsible for the deaths are held responsible.

In other words the perpetrators are getting away with murder, literally, with the tacit consent of the supposedly neutral NACC. What else are grieving family members supposed to do, soak it up and look the other way? Does the fact that the family accepted compensation detract from their need for the truth? Or is the settling of political scores more important than peoples lives, or in this case, deaths?

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

(New York) – The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

No, you mentioned money and I responded that for many that was NOT the aim.

Gen. Prayut was right. The DSI should not make frequent statements like that. Didn't posters here tell me the NACC should not talk about the RPPS without proof? Even the various courts of Inquiry were unable to point to soldiers of on-purpose killing peaceful protesters BTW 92 or 93 died, not at least 98 and 17 were non-protesters.

The Yingluck government pressure was on the DSI/OAG to get Abhisit/Suthep charged for terrible crimes to make them more agreeable to the blanket amnesty bill. "premeditated murder as private persons" sounds desperate.

BTW it's good practise to provide a link when you quote. You forgot this one

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

Edited February 14, 2015 by rubl

[city]

This has been doing the rounds for a few years. Its easy to ask "Who gave the orders", "What were the orders", "Where the ordersd obeyed" and if needed "Who disobeyed the orders". The PTP most probably knew the answer and used it as a lever against the culprits. Now the army is in the chair it is likely they will try to hide it under the already bulging carpet because its likely that Abhisits orders were not shoot to kill and the "heavy hitters" who finance coups and such hijacked the chain of command and dished out its own retribution to the great unwashed for daring to disrupt their Bangkok way of life.

[TheDiva]

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

(New York) – The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

No, you mentioned money and I responded that for many that was NOT the aim.

Gen. Prayut was right. The DSI should not make frequent statements like that. Didn't posters here tell me the NACC should not talk about the RPPS without proof? Even the various courts of Inquiry were unable to point to soldiers of on-purpose killing peaceful protesters BTW 92 or 93 died, not at least 98 and 17 were non-protesters.

The Yingluck government pressure was on the DSI/OAG to get Abhisit/Suthep charged for terrible crimes to make them more agreeable to the blanket amnesty bill. "premeditated murder as private persons" sounds desperate.

BTW it's good practise to provide a link when you quote. You forgot this one

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

If you or anybody else doesn't believe the quote is true to the extent that they need a link - presumably yo used your brain and C and P'd a phrase or so from my quote and google it to find the link I'm sure other people can but I'll provide links if you want - will you? Or will you just carry on making assumptions like this and pass them off as fact?

"The Yingluck government pressure was on the DSI/OAG to get Abhisit/Suthep charged for terrible crimes to make them more agreeable to the blanket amnesty bill"

Oh by the way this blind obeiscance to Prayuth: Didn't he just these last few days claim that he had told Yingluck there were problems with the Rice Pledging scheme - a stance that he had not expressed before until now, just before a Court hearing, isn't he being hypocritical bearing in mind his complaints about Tharit, which you, of course, uphold? Was he right in insisting that none of his troops were responsible for the deaths in 2010? Was he right in intimidating critics with defamation suits? Was he right to claim that the snipers shooting unarmed civilians were only shooting in self defence?

Don't bother to answer, your acceptance of the army line is understood.

[TheDiva]

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

Could you get more offensive if you tried? Ignoring the blind, deaf and dumb jibe, your excuse for the nurses, and five others, deaths being that anything can happen when you have "ruthless terrorists" "mingling"? In the government designated and agreed supposed safe haven of a wat? That's an explanation? Not only do you give an indication of disrespect, you exude it.

[rubl]

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

.. quote of HRW article removed, TVF forum software restriction, but here the link to the complete article --

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

No, you mentioned money and I responded that for many that was NOT the aim.

Gen. Prayut was right. The DSI should not make frequent statements like that. Didn't posters here tell me the NACC should not talk about the RPPS without proof? Even the various courts of Inquiry were unable to point to soldiers of on-purpose killing peaceful protesters BTW 92 or 93 died, not at least 98 and 17 were non-protesters.

The Yingluck government pressure was on the DSI/OAG to get Abhisit/Suthep charged for terrible crimes to make them more agreeable to the blanket amnesty bill. "premeditated murder as private persons" sounds desperate.

BTW it's good practise to provide a link when you quote. You forgot this one

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/08/23/thailand-army-chief-interfering-investigations

If you or anybody else doesn't believe the quote is true to the extent that they need a link - presumably yo used your brain and C and P'd a phrase or so from my quote and google it to find the link I'm sure other people can but I'll provide links if you want - will you? Or will you just carry on making assumptions like this and pass them off as fact?

"The Yingluck government pressure was on the DSI/OAG to get Abhisit/Suthep charged for terrible crimes to make them more agreeable to the blanket amnesty bill"

Oh by the way this blind obeiscance to Prayuth: Didn't he just these last few days claim that he had told Yingluck there were problems with the Rice Pledging scheme - a stance that he had not expressed before until now, just before a Court hearing, isn't he being hypocritical bearing in mind his complaints about Tharit, which you, of course, uphold? Was he right in insisting that none of his troops were responsible for the deaths in 2010? Was he right in intimidating critics with defamation suits? Was he right to claim that the snipers shooting unarmed civilians were only shooting in self defence?

Don't bother to answer, your acceptance of the army line is understood.

Reincarnation hasn't improved your style, I fear.

For one when you clearly quote you're supposed to provoke a link as well. Has to do with fair use. Has nothing to do with posters believing that's a real, unmodified quote, or whether or not posters can find it.

Gen Prayut was loyal to those under his command and rejected claims that his soldiers has just indiscriminedly killed red-shirts. As for intimidating critics, you mean the LM case against Robert A. who spoke at a UDD gathering while the Yingluck government stood by do nothing?

If Gen. Prayut was out of line why didn't the Minister of Defence call him on it? That would be Gen. Yutasak I think, Ms. Yingluck took the MoD cap a year later. It was said that Gen. Prayut didn't want to be MoD and Ms. Yingluck had such a good relation with him.

Of course that has nothing to do with the NACC probably soon charged. Somehow I seem to have missed in which court the NACC will be charged, but I'm sure they'll find a court they haven't bother yet.

Edited February 14, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought it was the army that instigated the coups. So TS didn't win any elections? Thanks for pointing that one out. Those tanks on the street were sent by him were they? All these years I had it wrong and it was the army that won the election and Thaksin who sent in the soldiers? Well I never.

Army of scum? Hmmm. I think some of them may have been rather angry members of the electorate fed up at having their voting rights ignored.for, oh I dunno...about 70 years or so now.. The western (non Thai and non biased) journos reported things a certain way didn't they? But, hey...you know best, you know it all, so I bow down to your greater judgement.

and I hate sticking up for a worm like Thaksin...

So, the UDD didn't have armed militants and terrorists amongst them, helping them to terrorise the Bangkok population? Cowards creeping out of their hideouts in the night to shoot at non-red-shirts, lob a grenade or two?

Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal. Even that last day the 19th of May, 2010 the army saw heavy gunfire and grenades against them. Surely peaceful protesters, not terrorists don't do that ?

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

'inflammatory'? If you refer to my post please feel free to report to the mod. On the other hand telling the truth may be inflammatory to some and the mods know the difference.

The 'facts' you mention have nothing to do with the topic. Just like the weather condition has nothing to do with the topic, or an USA Envoy telling the government to work on perception.

Here we have relatives who may try to sue the NACC as suing various others didn't seem to give the 'right' result.

I understand there's still a long list of possibilities, many can still be sued. For instance the Senate which only tried a very last minute negotiation call which the UDD leaders 'accepted' on the 18th. Or maybe the UDD leaders which let previous negotiations founder by adding extra demands like PM Abhist and his Dept. PM Suthep put themselves under arrest for the April 10th deaths.

You strayed off-topic with:

"Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal.".

Now that you've been called on your topic derailing diversion you want back on topic. Of course after that you didn't post anything about the unarmed nurse gunned down while helping injured people in a temple courtyard, which would be on-topic.

Edited February 14, 2015 by heybruce

[heybruce]

The topic is about an unarmed nurse who was killed by shots fired from military weapons fired from the direction where the army had troops stationed while she was attempting to help injured people in a temple courtyard. Do you have an opinion on that?

With the army still in fire fights with 'unknowns' who apart from shooting also lobbed grenades AND those 'unknowns' mingling with real peaceful protesters the army can only be recommended for the limited number of casualties.

Geez rubl, I don't expect a lot from you, but I expect better than this. There was no fire-fight going on where the nurse was shot, the injured were taken to the temple compound because people assumed it would be a safe place to treat them. A nurse trying to do the right thing and help these people was shot--if you can't respect the good woman and sympathize with her mother there is something very wrong with you. Indications are that the shot was fired by an army soldier. Try using a "renegade soldiers acting without orders" defense, don't use this BS.

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

"movments around the temple" warranted firing into the temple courtyard at injured people and a nurse trying to help them? Justifying the killing with an explanation that weak does strike me as disrespectful.

[northernjohn]

I see you are new here. so I will tell you what happened. Thaksin Shinawatra a convicted criminal on the run from the law living in self imposed exile hired an army of scum to stage an armed attempted coup. When the coup army came to terms to end all the fighting Thaksin Shinawatra refused to accept it and insisted that they keep on fighting. To date Thaksin Shinawatra has not been brought to justice. Had he served his two year jail time and returned to the population and honest man none of the 2010 debacle would have happened.

On a side note he was convicted of his crimes while the parties he owned were in power.

Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought it was the army that instigated the coups. So TS didn't win any elections? Thanks for pointing that one out. Those tanks on the street were sent by him were they? All these years I had it wrong and it was the army that won the election and Thaksin who sent in the soldiers? Well I never.

Army of scum? Hmmm. I think some of them may have been rather angry members of the electorate fed up at having their voting rights ignored.for, oh I dunno...about 70 years or so now.. The western (non Thai and non biased) journos reported things a certain way didn't they? But, hey...you know best, you know it all, so I bow down to your greater judgement.

and I hate sticking up for a worm like Thaksin...

So, the UDD didn't have armed militants and terrorists amongst them, helping them to terrorise the Bangkok population? Cowards creeping out of their hideouts in the night to shoot at non-red-shirts, lob a grenade or two?

Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal. Even that last day the 19th of May, 2010 the army saw heavy gunfire and grenades against them. Surely peaceful protesters, not terrorists don't do that ?

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

I may be wrong but if I remember correctly an electoral mandate should come from the majority 51% not the minority 49%.

Those numbers are a fact not an allegation.

[tbthailand]

This is all about responsibility. As an old Yes Minister script might have it;

This isn't a lawsuit against those responsible for the deaths, this a lawsuit against the people who are responsible for making sure that those responsible for the deaths are held responsible.

In other words the perpetrators are getting away with murder, literally, with the tacit consent of the supposedly neutral NACC. What else are grieving family members supposed to do, soak it up and look the other way? Does the fact that the family accepted compensation detract from their need for the truth? Or is the settling of political scores more important than peoples lives, or in this case, deaths?

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

(New York) – The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

and now this same person is 'PM', head of the 'NCPO', and has free rein of the country and it's institutions, so it is such a surprise that the NACC is doing nothing about 2010, but going full-speed on 2008 and 2014...

surprise, surprise, surprise

[rubl]

So, the UDD didn't have armed militants and terrorists amongst them, helping them to terrorise the Bangkok population? Cowards creeping out of their hideouts in the night to shoot at non-red-shirts, lob a grenade or two?

Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal. Even that last day the 19th of May, 2010 the army saw heavy gunfire and grenades against them. Surely peaceful protesters, not terrorists don't do that ?

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

'inflammatory'? If you refer to my post please feel free to report to the mod. On the other hand telling the truth may be inflammatory to some and the mods know the difference.

The 'facts' you mention have nothing to do with the topic. Just like the weather condition has nothing to do with the topic, or an USA Envoy telling the government to work on perception.

Here we have relatives who may try to sue the NACC as suing various others didn't seem to give the 'right' result.

I understand there's still a long list of possibilities, many can still be sued. For instance the Senate which only tried a very last minute negotiation call which the UDD leaders 'accepted' on the 18th. Or maybe the UDD leaders which let previous negotiations founder by adding extra demands like PM Abhist and his Dept. PM Suthep put themselves under arrest for the April 10th deaths.

You strayed off-topic with:

"Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal.".

Now that you've been called on your topic derailing diversion you want back on topic. Of course after that you didn't post anything about the unarmed nurse gunned down while helping injured people in a temple courtyard, which would be on-topic.

Of come on, Brucy, show some respect man. Don't try to insult my intelligence.

It's on topic. It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully. As such some alleged masterminds of the terrorist attacks should be brought to court, and obstructing the NACC would be one of the charges.

History shows us, read the wiki leaks.

Edited February 14, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

With the army still in fire fights with 'unknowns' who apart from shooting also lobbed grenades AND those 'unknowns' mingling with real peaceful protesters the army can only be recommended for the limited number of casualties.

Geez rubl, I don't expect a lot from you, but I expect better than this. There was no fire-fight going on where the nurse was shot, the injured were taken to the temple compound because people assumed it would be a safe place to treat them. A nurse trying to do the right thing and help these people was shot--if you can't respect the good woman and sympathize with her mother there is something very wrong with you. Indications are that the shot was fired by an army soldier. Try using a "renegade soldiers acting without orders" defense, don't use this BS.

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

"movments around the temple" warranted firing into the temple courtyard at injured people and a nurse trying to help them? Justifying the killing with an explanation that weak does strike me as disrespectful.

Movements in the twilight with gun fire still ringing in ones ears is suspects. Sudden glittering may lead to shot which might be a bit too hasty but after having been shot at can be excused.

Of course the 'fired at injured people and a nurse' are your words. The Court of Inquiry didn't say that. As such it would seem you're the one who shows disrespect by obfuscating, by insinuating, by near lying.

[rubl]

In other words you didn't see my "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" when you questioned if it upset me that some sought recourse other than money? I didn't even write about families accepting money, although I could write that some only accepted when they were told that the document they had to sign only meant they couldn't sue the Yingluck government.

The rest of your post is the usual political claptrap. The NACC was obstructed by DSI and the Yingluck government. They seemed to need pressure on Abhisit/Suthep to get support for their blanket amnesty plan. They had no problem to grant amnesty to those responsible for deaths and some MPs even voted for their own amnesty.

The Abhisit government was attacked by terrorists who sneakily dropped grenades on non-red-shirts, came out in the dark to shoot at people. The army was given permission to shoot back and even to declare 'live fire zone' to keep terrorists at bay. No wonder the NACC has a problem to determine if this was simple 'abuse of power' or possibly 'unfortunate accesses due to circumstances'.

BTW the relatives of some of the deaths seemed happy with the idiotic charge of "premeditated murder as private persons" dropped at the Criminal Court. Even if that meant the wrong court was addressed with the wrong charge.

So your phrase "not all did even seek recourse in the form of money" was not a pejorative statement at all, merely a means to separate those who had the "gall" to take compensation from the government and still wish to seek the prosecution of those responsible and those who didn't. Didn't mention families accepting money? Come on, who are you trying to kid, the inference is obvious, otherwise why would you make reference to it.

However it is pointless arguing with a person who regards the government and army response to the demonstrations of 2010 as a choice between "abuse of power" and "unfortunate accesses due to circumstances" whatever that means.

Oh just one more thing, this Yingluck government and the DSI obstruction / pressure "argument". If I'm not very much mistaken I believe that line of thinking arose from an article in the Bangkok Post (or do you have other sources?), an article based on information from Army sources? Nothing to do with the Army Chiefs activities described in this August 2012 statement from Brad Adams, HRW then?

(New York) – The Thai government should order the army commander-in-chief to cease interfering in the criminal investigations of the 2010 political violence. The army chief, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, should also stop trying to intimidate critics by filing criminal defamation cases.

On August 16, 2012, Prayuth told the Justice Ministry’s Department of Special Investigation to stop accusing soldiers of killing demonstrators during the government’s crackdown on the “Red Shirt” protest in 2010 and not to report publicly on the progress of its investigations. Prayuth has denied any army abuses during the violence in which at least 98 people died and more than 2,000 were injured, despite numerous accounts by witnesses and other evidence.

and now this same person is 'PM', head of the 'NCPO', and has free rein of the country and it's institutions, so it is such a surprise that the NACC is doing nothing about 2010, but going full-speed on 2008 and 2014...

surprise, surprise, surprise

What you seem to suggest may or may not be true. Mind you the Somchai 2008 case (that's about six years before 2014) was suddenly dismissed by the OAG in September 2012 it would seem. No news item about that.

Anyway, the NACC may be charged again for letting politicians obstruct their work and for failure to order people to come attest I guess.

Edited February 14, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

Could you get more offensive if you tried? Ignoring the blind, deaf and dumb jibe, your excuse for the nurses, and five others, deaths being that anything can happen when you have "ruthless terrorists" "mingling"? In the government designated and agreed supposed safe haven of a wat? That's an explanation? Not only do you give an indication of disrespect, you exude it.

When you have 'unknowns' with 'weapons' migle with peaceful protesters who have seen nothing, have heard nothing and know nothing, I think I may be excused to say "blind, deaf and dumb'.

There's no real excuse for deaths by being shot. Still when 'unknowns' mingle and do their 'business' while innocent people go about their work those innocent may get hurt. If the 'unknowns' had used the opportunity to flee they might have been let go to avoid innocent casualties, but with 'unknowns' still firing, those 'unknowns' used the innocents as human shields. Utterly despicable and putting said innocents at risk.

Your misrepresentation seems to show a total lack of respect for both victims and the truth. IMHO.

PS I would have expected The5divas, was that name taken?

[TheDiva]

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

Could you get more offensive if you tried? Ignoring the blind, deaf and dumb jibe, your excuse for the nurses, and five others, deaths being that anything can happen when you have "ruthless terrorists" "mingling"? In the government designated and agreed supposed safe haven of a wat? That's an explanation? Not only do you give an indication of disrespect, you exude it.

When you have 'unknowns' with 'weapons' migle with peaceful protesters who have seen nothing, have heard nothing and know nothing, I think I may be excused to say "blind, deaf and dumb'.

There's no real excuse for deaths by being shot. Still when 'unknowns' mingle and do their 'business' while innocent people go about their work those innocent may get hurt. If the 'unknowns' had used the opportunity to flee they might have been let go to avoid innocent casualties, but with 'unknowns' still firing, those 'unknowns' used the innocents as human shields. Utterly despicable and putting said innocents at risk.

Your misrepresentation seems to show a total lack of respect for both victims and the truth. IMHO.

PS I would have expected The5divas, was that name taken?

You do have a curious way with words and I'm being extremely polite there. Oh, your assertion that prayuth said that his troops didn't shoot "indiscriminately" is incorrect. He point blank denied that his troops had shot anyone. You want misrepresentation, read what you wrote above, supposedly the "truth"

If the 'unknowns' had used the opportunity to flee they might have been let go to avoid innocent casualties, but with 'unknowns' still firing, those 'unknowns' used the innocents as human shields.

Good grief, it's embarassing. No wonder Sansern was promoted, his propaganda has convinced you.

[heybruce]

Oh, I'm sorry. I always thought it was the army that instigated the coups. So TS didn't win any elections? Thanks for pointing that one out. Those tanks on the street were sent by him were they? All these years I had it wrong and it was the army that won the election and Thaksin who sent in the soldiers? Well I never.

Army of scum? Hmmm. I think some of them may have been rather angry members of the electorate fed up at having their voting rights ignored.for, oh I dunno...about 70 years or so now.. The western (non Thai and non biased) journos reported things a certain way didn't they? But, hey...you know best, you know it all, so I bow down to your greater judgement.

and I hate sticking up for a worm like Thaksin...

So, the UDD didn't have armed militants and terrorists amongst them, helping them to terrorise the Bangkok population? Cowards creeping out of their hideouts in the night to shoot at non-red-shirts, lob a grenade or two?

Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal. Even that last day the 19th of May, 2010 the army saw heavy gunfire and grenades against them. Surely peaceful protesters, not terrorists don't do that ?

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

I may be wrong but if I remember correctly an electoral mandate should come from the majority 51% not the minority 49%.

Those numbers are a fact not an allegation.

The parties that cooperated to form a government following elections had over 50% of the vote. What's your point?

[heybruce]

"Allededly". Good word, you can post anything without substantiating evidence if you precede it with "allegedly". And if your post is sufficiently inflammatory it might detract attention from the facts that the Thaksin affiliate parties consistently came to power by winning elections and the coups consistently toppled governments with an electoral mandate.

'inflammatory'? If you refer to my post please feel free to report to the mod. On the other hand telling the truth may be inflammatory to some and the mods know the difference.

The 'facts' you mention have nothing to do with the topic. Just like the weather condition has nothing to do with the topic, or an USA Envoy telling the government to work on perception.

Here we have relatives who may try to sue the NACC as suing various others didn't seem to give the 'right' result.

I understand there's still a long list of possibilities, many can still be sued. For instance the Senate which only tried a very last minute negotiation call which the UDD leaders 'accepted' on the 18th. Or maybe the UDD leaders which let previous negotiations founder by adding extra demands like PM Abhist and his Dept. PM Suthep put themselves under arrest for the April 10th deaths.

You strayed off-topic with:

"Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal.".

Now that you've been called on your topic derailing diversion you want back on topic. Of course after that you didn't post anything about the unarmed nurse gunned down while helping injured people in a temple courtyard, which would be on-topic.

Of come on, Brucy, show some respect man. Don't try to insult my intelligence.

It's on topic. It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully. As such some alleged masterminds of the terrorist attacks should be brought to court, and obstructing the NACC would be one of the charges.

History shows us, read the wiki leaks.

I see. So if I argue that Abhisit should have called elections at the earliest opportunity, thus ending the protest and preventing the crackdown, that would also be on-topic by your standards. A lot of people would disagree.

Of course i could also use the "under different circumstances" logic to argue that the protests would have never happened if there hadn't been a 2006 coup, so once again the army is responsible. Are you sure you want to extend the definition of on-topic to include "allegedly" and "under different circumstances" speculation?

[heybruce]

Geez rubl, I don't expect a lot from you, but I expect better than this. There was no fire-fight going on where the nurse was shot, the injured were taken to the temple compound because people assumed it would be a safe place to treat them. A nurse trying to do the right thing and help these people was shot--if you can't respect the good woman and sympathize with her mother there is something very wrong with you. Indications are that the shot was fired by an army soldier. Try using a "renegade soldiers acting without orders" defense, don't use this BS.

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

"movments around the temple" warranted firing into the temple courtyard at injured people and a nurse trying to help them? Justifying the killing with an explanation that weak does strike me as disrespectful.

Movements in the twilight with gun fire still ringing in ones ears is suspects. Sudden glittering may lead to shot which might be a bit too hasty but after having been shot at can be excused.

Of course the 'fired at injured people and a nurse' are your words. The Court of Inquiry didn't say that. As such it would seem you're the one who shows disrespect by obfuscating, by insinuating, by near lying.

You seem to be desperately trying to imagine some kind of scenario that justifies shooting into the temple compound. You're not doing a convincing job.

[rubl]

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

Could you get more offensive if you tried? Ignoring the blind, deaf and dumb jibe, your excuse for the nurses, and five others, deaths being that anything can happen when you have "ruthless terrorists" "mingling"? In the government designated and agreed supposed safe haven of a wat? That's an explanation? Not only do you give an indication of disrespect, you exude it.

When you have 'unknowns' with 'weapons' migle with peaceful protesters who have seen nothing, have heard nothing and know nothing, I think I may be excused to say "blind, deaf and dumb'.

There's no real excuse for deaths by being shot. Still when 'unknowns' mingle and do their 'business' while innocent people go about their work those innocent may get hurt. If the 'unknowns' had used the opportunity to flee they might have been let go to avoid innocent casualties, but with 'unknowns' still firing, those 'unknowns' used the innocents as human shields. Utterly despicable and putting said innocents at risk.

Your misrepresentation seems to show a total lack of respect for both victims and the truth. IMHO.

PS I would have expected The5divas, was that name taken?

You do have a curious way with words and I'm being extremely polite there. Oh, your assertion that prayuth said that his troops didn't shoot "indiscriminately" is incorrect. He point blank denied that his troops had shot anyone. You want misrepresentation, read what you wrote above, supposedly the "truth"

If the 'unknowns' had used the opportunity to flee they might have been let go to avoid innocent casualties, but with 'unknowns' still firing, those 'unknowns' used the innocents as human shields.

Good grief, it's embarassing. No wonder Sansern was promoted, his propaganda has convinced you.

It's indeed embarrassing to see a boss standup for his people, especially in Thailand.

As for the propaganda, well since we have this discussion for the fifth time or so since everytime you come back you seem to have lost all memory I feel less inclined to dig up the news items bout those shady people mingling around the Wat again.

Not really looking forward to have the discussion again with NotNumber6.

Cheers,

uncle rubl

[rubl]

Defense? I just try to explain. The situation on the 19th going into 20th was chaotic to say the least. Till early dawn there where fire fights. Tthose terrorists hiding amongst blind, deaf and dumb peaceful protesters didn't help either. There are reports of movements around the temple.

I regret the death of the nurse and any others, but when you have ruthless terrorists mingling then anything can happen.

BTW since when are explanations a sign of disrespect? Why do you write if I disrespect there's something wrong with me? Do I give any indication of disrespect?

"movments around the temple" warranted firing into the temple courtyard at injured people and a nurse trying to help them? Justifying the killing with an explanation that weak does strike me as disrespectful.

Movements in the twilight with gun fire still ringing in ones ears is suspects. Sudden glittering may lead to shot which might be a bit too hasty but after having been shot at can be excused.

Of course the 'fired at injured people and a nurse' are your words. The Court of Inquiry didn't say that. As such it would seem you're the one who shows disrespect by obfuscating, by insinuating, by near lying.

You seem to be desperately trying to imagine some kind of scenario that justifies shooting into the temple compound. You're not doing a convincing job.

I seem and with what you think seems I'm not doing a convincing job ?

You're like those Shinawatra and Pheu Thai engaged lawyers. When one track is blocked, you move to the next and then the next till you finally run out of arguments. The main difference is you intersparse with character assassination suggestions.

Oh and don't worry, I doubt even eye witness accounts from foreign reporters would convince you shady figures were seen around the temple.

[rubl]

'inflammatory'? If you refer to my post please feel free to report to the mod. On the other hand telling the truth may be inflammatory to some and the mods know the difference.

The 'facts' you mention have nothing to do with the topic. Just like the weather condition has nothing to do with the topic, or an USA Envoy telling the government to work on perception.

Here we have relatives who may try to sue the NACC as suing various others didn't seem to give the 'right' result.

I understand there's still a long list of possibilities, many can still be sued. For instance the Senate which only tried a very last minute negotiation call which the UDD leaders 'accepted' on the 18th. Or maybe the UDD leaders which let previous negotiations founder by adding extra demands like PM Abhist and his Dept. PM Suthep put themselves under arrest for the April 10th deaths.

You strayed off-topic with:

"Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal.".

Now that you've been called on your topic derailing diversion you want back on topic. Of course after that you didn't post anything about the unarmed nurse gunned down while helping injured people in a temple courtyard, which would be on-topic.

Of come on, Brucy, show some respect man. Don't try to insult my intelligence.

It's on topic. It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully. As such some alleged masterminds of the terrorist attacks should be brought to court, and obstructing the NACC would be one of the charges.

History shows us, read the wiki leaks.

I see. So if I argue that Abhisit should have called elections at the earliest opportunity, thus ending the protest and preventing the crackdown, that would also be on-topic by your standards. A lot of people would disagree.

Of course i could also use the "under different circumstances" logic to argue that the protests would have never happened if there hadn't been a 2006 coup, so once again the army is responsible. Are you sure you want to extend the definition of on-topic to include "allegedly" and "under different circumstances" speculation?

I thought it didn't matter what I thought, so why ask? You allege and say that would be on-topic according to me, followed up with 'a lot of people wouldn't agree'.

Your speculation seems to get into the ridiculous, so may I wonder about what would have happened if in 2001 a Court hadn't considered it difficult finding Thaksin guilty since he was just elected? What if the Communist activities hadn't forced the USA to accept Thailand as ally? What if Japan had won the war?

Anyway did you already find at which court the relatives of a few of the 2010 casualties want to charge the NACC in ?

[heybruce]

"movments around the temple" warranted firing into the temple courtyard at injured people and a nurse trying to help them? Justifying the killing with an explanation that weak does strike me as disrespectful.

Movements in the twilight with gun fire still ringing in ones ears is suspects. Sudden glittering may lead to shot which might be a bit too hasty but after having been shot at can be excused.

Of course the 'fired at injured people and a nurse' are your words. The Court of Inquiry didn't say that. As such it would seem you're the one who shows disrespect by obfuscating, by insinuating, by near lying.

You seem to be desperately trying to imagine some kind of scenario that justifies shooting into the temple compound. You're not doing a convincing job.

I seem and with what you think seems I'm not doing a convincing job ?

You're like those Shinawatra and Pheu Thai engaged lawyers. When one track is blocked, you move to the next and then the next till you finally run out of arguments. The main difference is you intersparse with character assassination suggestions.

Oh and don't worry, I doubt even eye witness accounts from foreign reporters would convince you shady figures were seen around the temple.

I'm not concerned with what happened around the temple, I'm concerned about what happened in the temple, and the fact that it appears it was never properly investigated. It was one of many deaths that were not properly investigated, but one that seems to indicate an out-of-control military action against civilians.

[heybruce]

You strayed off-topic with:

"Allegedly the almost reached agreement was interrupted as some shady criminal fugitive didn't think he got anything out of the deal.".

Now that you've been called on your topic derailing diversion you want back on topic. Of course after that you didn't post anything about the unarmed nurse gunned down while helping injured people in a temple courtyard, which would be on-topic.

Of come on, Brucy, show some respect man. Don't try to insult my intelligence.

It's on topic. It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully. As such some alleged masterminds of the terrorist attacks should be brought to court, and obstructing the NACC would be one of the charges.

History shows us, read the wiki leaks.

I see. So if I argue that Abhisit should have called elections at the earliest opportunity, thus ending the protest and preventing the crackdown, that would also be on-topic by your standards. A lot of people would disagree.

Of course i could also use the "under different circumstances" logic to argue that the protests would have never happened if there hadn't been a 2006 coup, so once again the army is responsible. Are you sure you want to extend the definition of on-topic to include "allegedly" and "under different circumstances" speculation?

I thought it didn't matter what I thought, so why ask? You allege and say that would be on-topic according to me, followed up with 'a lot of people wouldn't agree'.

Your speculation seems to get into the ridiculous, so may I wonder about what would have happened if in 2001 a Court hadn't considered it difficult finding Thaksin guilty since he was just elected? What if the Communist activities hadn't forced the USA to accept Thailand as ally? What if Japan had won the war?

Anyway did you already find at which court the relatives of a few of the 2010 casualties want to charge the NACC in ?

You've gone from "allegedly" to "under different circumstances" speculation to, well, I'm not sure what the above is.

How about this--the topic is "NACC threatened with lawsuit for delay in 2010 crackdown case". Can you discuss that without unsubstantiated "allegedly" statements or speculations about how history might have been different? Failing that, can you control your urge to call others for going off-topic when you yourself are guilty of wide-ranging speculation?

[rockingrobin]

The death of an innocent is inexcusable , regardless of which side you favour.

If I understand correctly we are talking about professional soldiers who are trained to act and conduct themselves under pressure firing indiscriminately

The person gave the order to use live ammo must bear some responsibility , for 2 reasons

It suggests there was an alternative to using Live ammo and secondly it is reasonable to assume that with the issue of that order it would be known that deaths would occur

Now I dont think any side is or has been a paragon of virtue for the past 10 years, but I cannot agree that the ends justify the means, as the past 70-80 years have repeatedly demonstrated

[rubl]

The death of an innocent is inexcusable , regardless of which side you favour.

If I understand correctly we are talking about professional soldiers who are trained to act and conduct themselves under pressure firing indiscriminately

The person gave the order to use live ammo must bear some responsibility , for 2 reasons

It suggests there was an alternative to using Live ammo and secondly it is reasonable to assume that with the issue of that order it would be known that deaths would occur

Now I dont think any side is or has been a paragon of virtue for the past 10 years, but I cannot agree that the ends justify the means, as the past 70-80 years have repeatedly demonstrated

Some have it that the army fired indiscriminately. We had the UDD report from Robert Amsterdam mentioning thousands of round fired into a densely packed mass of peaceful protesters on April 10th. A poster a day or so ago described "snipers mowing down".

Sure on April 10th when the army hastily retreated and fired to be able to retreat they may have been indiscriminate. The retreat from peaceful protesters lobbing grenades and shooting was somewhat disorganised.

The deaths related to the topic occurred on the 19th of May, 2010. Again the army was met with heavy gunfire and grenades. In such situations soldiers will first shoot and then ask. Thailand doesn't have disciplined Special Forces or SAS and the fire power of the 'peacefulls" would have given the police with special trained forces also a wee bit of a problem I would imagine. Since they were not available the government had to do with the army only.

[rubl]

You seem to be desperately trying to imagine some kind of scenario that justifies shooting into the temple compound. You're not doing a convincing job.

I seem and with what you think seems I'm not doing a convincing job ?

You're like those Shinawatra and Pheu Thai engaged lawyers. When one track is blocked, you move to the next and then the next till you finally run out of arguments. The main difference is you intersparse with character assassination suggestions.

Oh and don't worry, I doubt even eye witness accounts from foreign reporters would convince you shady figures were seen around the temple.

I'm not concerned with what happened around the temple, I'm concerned about what happened in the temple, and the fact that it appears it was never properly investigated. It was one of many deaths that were not properly investigated, but one that seems to indicate an out-of-control military action against civilians.

Weren't the six bodies found outside the temple, at the entrance if I remember correctly?

Now with sunset, shady figures and sudden flashes while around you there's shooting, I can imagine a lot, even that it seems those militants endangered innocents.