NACC threatened with lawsuit for delay in 2010 crackdown case

[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

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.

Somehow I get the impression that you want to justify the innocent deaths , and blame others

The thai army recieves training from the usa so I dismiss your conclusion that they are not disciplined. No matter how much you try to dress it up the package is what it is ,

[rubl]

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?

Ah, so that's why you keep asking all kind of interesting questions like

"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."

and at the same time make all kinds of suggestions who's to be blamed?

Anyway, did you already manage to discover at which court the relatives of the 'temple deaths' will drop the charge against the NACC?

[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.

Somehow I get the impression that you want to justify the innocent deaths , and blame others

The thai army recieves training from the usa so I dismiss your conclusion that they are not disciplined. No matter how much you try to dress it up the package is what it is ,

Somehow you seem to want to blame without understanding, but maybe I've told you a few times already.

[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

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.

Somehow I get the impression that you want to justify the innocent deaths , and blame others

The thai army recieves training from the usa so I dismiss your conclusion that they are not disciplined. No matter how much you try to dress it up the package is what it is ,

Somehow you seem to want to blame without understanding, but maybe I've told you a few times already.

Aye , whatever

[heybruce]

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?

Ah, so that's why you keep asking all kind of interesting questions like

"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."

and at the same time make all kinds of suggestions who's to be blamed?

Anyway, did you already manage to discover at which court the relatives of the 'temple deaths' will drop the charge against the NACC?

It's not a question, it's on-topic, and I would suggests a thorough, competent investigation is warranted, ideally starting five years ago.

I'm not concerned with which court, why don't you find out for yourself?

[heybruce]

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.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

[tbthailand]

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.

you are perfectly shameless... And now I know that you are not just a junta cheerleader but an army cheerleader in general....

this little gem shows that rather clearly:

...19th of May, 2010. Again the army was met with heavy gunfire and grenades. In such situations soldiers will first shoot and then ask.

when of course - how could you be unaware of the facts, right?? - the army were the ones who launched a full-blown military assault on the protesters ....

Although at the very least, I will give you credit for your statement, 'soldiers will shoot first' is 100% correct. At least it's correct if I don't include the rest of your extremely warped context that surrounds it.

I feel like throwing up.

[chooka]

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.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

But, but, but oh hang on I'II get back to you as you're not playing fair with facts. Thaksin sent in his operatives to take over the military, they gave Abashit and Suthep mind altering drugs which forced them to give the order. The reds drugged us.

[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.

you are perfectly shameless... And now I know that you are not just a junta cheerleader but an army cheerleader in general....

this little gem shows that rather clearly:

...19th of May, 2010. Again the army was met with heavy gunfire and grenades. In such situations soldiers will first shoot and then ask.

when of course - how could you be unaware of the facts, right?? - the army were the ones who launched a full-blown military assault on the protesters ....

Although at the very least, I will give you credit for your statement, 'soldiers will shoot first' is 100% correct. At least it's correct if I don't include the rest of your extremely warped context that surrounds it.

I feel like throwing up.

Twisting the truth again and calling others shameless?

The government had warned many times that the protesters would be forcefully removed if they didn't go voluntarily. Buses were provided, free of charge. If those protesters had been only peaceful protesters the government might have let them be, without the bamboo and tyre wall of course. The fact is that the peaceful protesters had heavily armed militants amongst them, terrorists one may say. The 19th of May, when the army started towards Ratchaprasong the grenades dropped on soldiers again. Only those terrorists used grenades. There were many gun fights and fire exchanges which are difficult to explain with only peaceful protesters.

Blame the cowardly terrorists for the many deaths and include the UDD leaders who still have a problem to acknowledge even the very existance of those cowards.

So, after cleaning yourself up again, I hope you can still look at yourself in the mirror.

[rubl]

But, but, but oh hang on I'II get back to you as you're not playing fair with facts. Thaksin sent in his operatives to take over the military, they gave Abashit and Suthep mind altering drugs which forced them to give the order. The reds drugged us.

Why would you even suggest I would make up something like that?

[rubl]

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?

Ah, so that's why you keep asking all kind of interesting questions like

"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."

and at the same time make all kinds of suggestions who's to be blamed?

Anyway, did you already manage to discover at which court the relatives of the 'temple deaths' will drop the charge against the NACC?

It's not a question, it's on-topic, and I would suggests a thorough, competent investigation is warranted, ideally starting five years ago.

I'm not concerned with which court, why don't you find out for yourself?

So, it's a musing of a finer spirit?

Anyway the topic has

"The brother of a volunteer medic killed in the 2010 crackdown on Redshirt protesters has vowed to file a lawsuit against Thailand’s national anti-graft agency for its slow progress in prosecuting those responsible for the violence."

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

[chooka]

But, but, but oh hang on I'II get back to you as you're not playing fair with facts. Thaksin sent in his operatives to take over the military, they gave Abashit and Suthep mind altering drugs which forced them to give the order. The reds drugged us.

Why would you even suggest I would make up something like that?

I didn't

[rubl]

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.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

Ah, so the bodies were found in the temple complex, not the temple. At times I take writings too literal.

Anyway, preliminary we had

"New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch says the shooting was most likely carried out by soldiers, as does a preliminary report by the government's Department of Special Investigations — Thailand's equivalent of the FBI."

http://news.yahoo.com/one-protests-thailand-still-divided-093307480.html

During the inquest we even had

"A witness who was staying at Wat Pathum Wanaram during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters has told an inquest that fighting between “armed men” and the military took place in front of the temple."

https://soclaimon.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/witness-describes-temple-shootings-to-inquest/

The HRW report ""Descent into Chaos : Thailand's 2010 Redshirt Protesters and the Government Crackdown"" was rejected by the UDD as biassed. Also the other side didn't agree with it.

"The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/19/hrw-fires-a-few-grenades/

Interestingly there seems to be as much evidence that soldiers wilfully killed a nurse as there is evidence that some 'unknowns' by accident lost a grenade which dropped on soldiers and vanderGrift that same 19th of May.

BTW on the 18th of May 2011 the mother of the nurse vowed to sue the government (caretaker by that time). Then in 2012 she only accepted a cheque and signed a document under the express understanding (i.e. vocal explanation) that she only promissed not to sue the Yingluck government.

Somehow cases haven't emerged or progressed? So, again the question, according to the topic 'vow to sue', but with what court?

[rubl]

But, but, but oh hang on I'II get back to you as you're not playing fair with facts. Thaksin sent in his operatives to take over the military, they gave Abashit and Suthep mind altering drugs which forced them to give the order. The reds drugged us.

Why would you even suggest I would make up something like that?

I didn't

I mistook your post for a certain literary style. I should have understood you meant you yourself trying to construct another nice story.

Misunderstanding my fault, excuses

[heybruce]

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.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

Ah, so the bodies were found in the temple complex, not the temple. At times I take writings too literal.

Anyway, preliminary we had

"New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch says the shooting was most likely carried out by soldiers, as does a preliminary report by the government's Department of Special Investigations — Thailand's equivalent of the FBI."

http://news.yahoo.com/one-protests-thailand-still-divided-093307480.html

During the inquest we even had

"A witness who was staying at Wat Pathum Wanaram during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters has told an inquest that fighting between “armed men” and the military took place in front of the temple."

https://soclaimon.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/witness-describes-temple-shootings-to-inquest/

The HRW report ""Descent into Chaos : Thailand's 2010 Redshirt Protesters and the Government Crackdown"" was rejected by the UDD as biassed. Also the other side didn't agree with it.

"The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/19/hrw-fires-a-few-grenades/

Interestingly there seems to be as much evidence that soldiers wilfully killed a nurse as there is evidence that some 'unknowns' by accident lost a grenade which dropped on soldiers and vanderGrift that same 19th of May.

BTW on the 18th of May 2011 the mother of the nurse vowed to sue the government (caretaker by that time). Then in 2012 she only accepted a cheque and signed a document under the express understanding (i.e. vocal explanation) that she only promissed not to sue the Yingluck government.

Somehow cases haven't emerged or progressed? So, again the question, according to the topic 'vow to sue', but with what court?

You post quotes that show...what? Do they somehow show that army soldiers did not kill the nurse?

[heybruce]

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?

Ah, so that's why you keep asking all kind of interesting questions like

"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."

and at the same time make all kinds of suggestions who's to be blamed?

Anyway, did you already manage to discover at which court the relatives of the 'temple deaths' will drop the charge against the NACC?

It's not a question, it's on-topic, and I would suggests a thorough, competent investigation is warranted, ideally starting five years ago.

I'm not concerned with which court, why don't you find out for yourself?

So, it's a musing of a finer spirit?

Anyway the topic has

"The brother of a volunteer medic killed in the 2010 crackdown on Redshirt protesters has vowed to file a lawsuit against Thailand’s national anti-graft agency for its slow progress in prosecuting those responsible for the violence."

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

So instead of broad ranging "allegedly" and what-might-have-been speculation, which you insisted were on-topic, you now are only interested in the legal technicalities of where the case will be filed?

[rubl]

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.

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

Ah, so the bodies were found in the temple complex, not the temple. At times I take writings too literal.

Anyway, preliminary we had

"New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch says the shooting was most likely carried out by soldiers, as does a preliminary report by the government's Department of Special Investigations — Thailand's equivalent of the FBI."

http://news.yahoo.com/one-protests-thailand-still-divided-093307480.html

During the inquest we even had

"A witness who was staying at Wat Pathum Wanaram during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters has told an inquest that fighting between “armed men” and the military took place in front of the temple."

https://soclaimon.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/witness-describes-temple-shootings-to-inquest/

The HRW report ""Descent into Chaos : Thailand's 2010 Redshirt Protesters and the Government Crackdown"" was rejected by the UDD as biassed. Also the other side didn't agree with it.

"The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/19/hrw-fires-a-few-grenades/

Interestingly there seems to be as much evidence that soldiers wilfully killed a nurse as there is evidence that some 'unknowns' by accident lost a grenade which dropped on soldiers and vanderGrift that same 19th of May.

BTW on the 18th of May 2011 the mother of the nurse vowed to sue the government (caretaker by that time). Then in 2012 she only accepted a cheque and signed a document under the express understanding (i.e. vocal explanation) that she only promissed not to sue the Yingluck government.

Somehow cases haven't emerged or progressed? So, again the question, according to the topic 'vow to sue', but with what court?

You post quotes that show...what? Do they somehow show that army soldiers did not kill the nurse?

Goh, interesting question. Why did you post those many quotes? To show soldiers did shoot down the nurse?

BTW 'army soldiers' ? You mean as opposed to red-shirt soldiers (aka MiB) ?

Anyway, the NACC may get sued, or maybe not. No news today, maybe tomorrow. At least when the relatives sue we'll know at which court.

[rubl]

Ah, so that's why you keep asking all kind of interesting questions like

"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."

and at the same time make all kinds of suggestions who's to be blamed?

Anyway, did you already manage to discover at which court the relatives of the 'temple deaths' will drop the charge against the NACC?

It's not a question, it's on-topic, and I would suggests a thorough, competent investigation is warranted, ideally starting five years ago.

I'm not concerned with which court, why don't you find out for yourself?

So, it's a musing of a finer spirit?

Anyway the topic has

"The brother of a volunteer medic killed in the 2010 crackdown on Redshirt protesters has vowed to file a lawsuit against Thailand’s national anti-graft agency for its slow progress in prosecuting those responsible for the violence."

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

So instead of broad ranging "allegedly" and what-might-have-been speculation, which you insisted were on-topic, you now are only interested in the legal technicalities of where the case will be filed?

Zig -zag - zig -zag -zigzag.

You started the show with #24 broadening the topic to allow your usual nonsense.

"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?"

The topic is not on the army shooting, the topic is on the lack of progress of the investigation of the incident.

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

[heybruce]

Because I'm such a nice guy, I checked for you. I found these:

"BANGKOK: Six Thais, including a nurse and two rescue volunteers, shot dead while sheltering in a Bangkok temple declared a safe zone during 2010 protests were killed by army bullets, a court ruled Tuesday.

Soldiers firing from elevated train tracks in the Thai capital gunned down five of those killed, while the sixth was shot by security forces on the ground during an army crackdown on anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies, an inquest found.

"The court ruled that they were killed during the day on May 19 in Pathum Wanaram temple by bullets which were fired from the direction of security forces stationed on (train) rails and in front of the temple," Bangkok's Southern Criminal Court said in a statement.

It said troops employed "high-velocity machine gun" fire to target the victims, including 25-year-old Kamonkate Akkahad -- dubbed "Nurse Kate" in a high profile campaign by her family to find answers about her death as she gave medical help to an injured protester.

The court said soldiers were acting on orders from a taskforce put together by the then-government." http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/mh370/news/army-shot-dead-six-thais/767370.html

also:

"Six unarmed people killed at a Buddhist temple during the military crackdown on anti-government protesters in Bangkok three years ago were hit by bullets fired by Thai soldiers, an inquest has found.

The inquest at the Bangkok south criminal court on Tuesday said four men and one woman, mostly Red Shirt protesters who took refuge in Pathum Wanaram temple near the protest site, were killed by high-velocity bullets from the Thai army soldiers who were on the city's elevated train tracks, while another man was shot by soldiers from the ground."

"The inquest dismissed claims by a soldier that there was an unidentified armed group near the temple when the shootings happened, saying there was not enough evidence. It also said the six people were not using any weapons when they were killed.

Abhisit's government approved the use of live ammunition under limited conditions and deployed snipers during the demonstration."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/six-killed-thai-soldiers-crackdown-protesters

and:

"The preliminary investigation, seen by Reuters, concluded that Thai special forces on an elevated railway track fired into the grounds of a temple where several thousand protesters had taken refuge on 19 May. A separate leaked report concluded that the bullet that killed a Reuters cameraman in protests the following month was also probably fired by a Thai soldier.

The findings of the investigation flatly contradict statements by the Thai military, which has denied soldiers were responsible for the temple deaths.

The report from Thailand's department of special investigation (DSI) said there was not enough evidence to determine who was responsible for three further deaths in the temple, but said all six victims were hit by high velocity bullets.

"There is a reasonable amount of facts, evidence and witness accounts to believe that [three] deaths resulted from security officials' actions on duty," Reuters quoted investigators as saying. The report recommended that police investigate the deaths further." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/thai-protest-deaths-military-may

I also found an interesting Human Rights Watch report on the entire 2010 protest, but I'm afraid it might be on the junta's censored list, so I won't provide a link.

Your welcome.

Ah, so the bodies were found in the temple complex, not the temple. At times I take writings too literal.

Anyway, preliminary we had

"New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch says the shooting was most likely carried out by soldiers, as does a preliminary report by the government's Department of Special Investigations — Thailand's equivalent of the FBI."

http://news.yahoo.com/one-protests-thailand-still-divided-093307480.html

During the inquest we even had

"A witness who was staying at Wat Pathum Wanaram during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters has told an inquest that fighting between “armed men” and the military took place in front of the temple."

https://soclaimon.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/witness-describes-temple-shootings-to-inquest/

The HRW report ""Descent into Chaos : Thailand's 2010 Redshirt Protesters and the Government Crackdown"" was rejected by the UDD as biassed. Also the other side didn't agree with it.

"The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/19/hrw-fires-a-few-grenades/

Interestingly there seems to be as much evidence that soldiers wilfully killed a nurse as there is evidence that some 'unknowns' by accident lost a grenade which dropped on soldiers and vanderGrift that same 19th of May.

BTW on the 18th of May 2011 the mother of the nurse vowed to sue the government (caretaker by that time). Then in 2012 she only accepted a cheque and signed a document under the express understanding (i.e. vocal explanation) that she only promissed not to sue the Yingluck government.

Somehow cases haven't emerged or progressed? So, again the question, according to the topic 'vow to sue', but with what court?

You post quotes that show...what? Do they somehow show that army soldiers did not kill the nurse?

Goh, interesting question. Why did you post those many quotes? To show soldiers did shoot down the nurse?

BTW 'army soldiers' ? You mean as opposed to red-shirt soldiers (aka MiB) ?

Anyway, the NACC may get sued, or maybe not. No news today, maybe tomorrow. At least when the relatives sue we'll know at which court.

You asked:

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

You seemed to be questioning evidence indicating that the nurse was shot by the army. I wanted to clarify things for you.

[heybruce]

It's not a question, it's on-topic, and I would suggests a thorough, competent investigation is warranted, ideally starting five years ago.

I'm not concerned with which court, why don't you find out for yourself?

So, it's a musing of a finer spirit?

Anyway the topic has

"The brother of a volunteer medic killed in the 2010 crackdown on Redshirt protesters has vowed to file a lawsuit against Thailand’s national anti-graft agency for its slow progress in prosecuting those responsible for the violence."

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

So instead of broad ranging "allegedly" and what-might-have-been speculation, which you insisted were on-topic, you now are only interested in the legal technicalities of where the case will be filed?

Zig -zag - zig -zag -zigzag.

You started the show with #24 broadening the topic to allow your usual nonsense.

"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?"

The topic is not on the army shooting, the topic is on the lack of progress of the investigation of the incident.

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

Right. You posted speculation about negotiations and how the protest might have ended before the shooting, but now insist the OP is not about the shooting, and apparently no longer about the legal technicalities of where the charges were filed (your recent view of the OP topic), but now is about an investigation following the investigation pinning responsibility for the shooting on the army.

You're all over the place and accuse me of zig-zagging. But at least you are no longer implying that fault for the shooting has not been determined.

[tbthailand]

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.

you are perfectly shameless... And now I know that you are not just a junta cheerleader but an army cheerleader in general....

this little gem shows that rather clearly:

...19th of May, 2010. Again the army was met with heavy gunfire and grenades. In such situations soldiers will first shoot and then ask.

when of course - how could you be unaware of the facts, right?? - the army were the ones who launched a full-blown military assault on the protesters ....

Although at the very least, I will give you credit for your statement, 'soldiers will shoot first' is 100% correct. At least it's correct if I don't include the rest of your extremely warped context that surrounds it.

I feel like throwing up.

Twisting the truth again and calling others shameless?

The government had warned many times that the protesters would be forcefully removed if they didn't go voluntarily. Buses were provided, free of charge. If those protesters had been only peaceful protesters the government might have let them be, without the bamboo and tyre wall of course. The fact is that the peaceful protesters had heavily armed militants amongst them, terrorists one may say. The 19th of May, when the army started towards Ratchaprasong the grenades dropped on soldiers again. Only those terrorists used grenades. There were many gun fights and fire exchanges which are difficult to explain with only peaceful protesters.

Blame the cowardly terrorists for the many deaths and include the UDD leaders who still have a problem to acknowledge even the very existance of those cowards.

So, after cleaning yourself up again, I hope you can still look at yourself in the mirror.

you are a polite liar, but a liar none the less.

and you apparently have none of the other traits of fairness, respect for human life, for human rights and for self-governance that others from your home country have.

Have a good night.

[TheDiva]

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

He was the army spokesman, what do you expect him to do - he was/is paid to spread propaganda the military version of the truth.

Here's the courts finding, so don't bother coming up with any "news items about shady people mingling around the wat" - they're weren't any.

The South Bangkok Criminal Court ruled that six persons died in Wat Pathum Wanaram during May 2010 political violence were shot by the soldiers; five were shot by the soldiers situated on the BTS sky train track while the other one was shot by soldiers stationed on Rama I Rd.

The results from Central Institute of Forensic Science Thailand did not find gunshot residue in the hands of the six victims, therefore the inquest concluded that they were not using any weapons.

The court reading also stated that no "black-shirted men" were present in the area.

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

[rubl]

Ah, so the bodies were found in the temple complex, not the temple. At times I take writings too literal.

Anyway, preliminary we had

"New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch says the shooting was most likely carried out by soldiers, as does a preliminary report by the government's Department of Special Investigations — Thailand's equivalent of the FBI."

http://news.yahoo.com/one-protests-thailand-still-divided-093307480.html

During the inquest we even had

"A witness who was staying at Wat Pathum Wanaram during the May 19, 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters has told an inquest that fighting between “armed men” and the military took place in front of the temple."

https://soclaimon.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/witness-describes-temple-shootings-to-inquest/

The HRW report ""Descent into Chaos : Thailand's 2010 Redshirt Protesters and the Government Crackdown"" was rejected by the UDD as biassed. Also the other side didn't agree with it.

"The report is by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and I should temper my ‘independent’ claim with the reaction of many who think it is far from that. If the test of the report’s independence is that all sides hate it, then it must pass that test with flying colours."

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/05/19/hrw-fires-a-few-grenades/

Interestingly there seems to be as much evidence that soldiers wilfully killed a nurse as there is evidence that some 'unknowns' by accident lost a grenade which dropped on soldiers and vanderGrift that same 19th of May.

BTW on the 18th of May 2011 the mother of the nurse vowed to sue the government (caretaker by that time). Then in 2012 she only accepted a cheque and signed a document under the express understanding (i.e. vocal explanation) that she only promissed not to sue the Yingluck government.

Somehow cases haven't emerged or progressed? So, again the question, according to the topic 'vow to sue', but with what court?

You post quotes that show...what? Do they somehow show that army soldiers did not kill the nurse?

Goh, interesting question. Why did you post those many quotes? To show soldiers did shoot down the nurse?

BTW 'army soldiers' ? You mean as opposed to red-shirt soldiers (aka MiB) ?

Anyway, the NACC may get sued, or maybe not. No news today, maybe tomorrow. At least when the relatives sue we'll know at which court.

You asked:

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

You seemed to be questioning evidence indicating that the nurse was shot by the army. I wanted to clarify things for you.

I seemed to question evidence? Did you forget you called me disrespectful because I gave reasoning why the army was shooting in the first place? That's not to say they did shoot those six, but it is not impossible. 'Shady figures' remember or do you rather not remember? It would seem you only bother digging up news items which stated the army shot the nurse with possible insinuation they did it on purpose.

Furthermore you seemed intrigued by what went on IN the temple and I suggested it was just outside the temple. Seems I was right.

Doesn't really matter though, as it would seem that till now there's still no lawsuit filed against the NACC, or did I miss a news item?

[rubl]

So, it's a musing of a finer spirit?

Anyway the topic has

"The brother of a volunteer medic killed in the 2010 crackdown on Redshirt protesters has vowed to file a lawsuit against Thailand’s national anti-graft agency for its slow progress in prosecuting those responsible for the violence."

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

So instead of broad ranging "allegedly" and what-might-have-been speculation, which you insisted were on-topic, you now are only interested in the legal technicalities of where the case will be filed?

Zig -zag - zig -zag -zigzag.

You started the show with #24 broadening the topic to allow your usual nonsense.

"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?"

The topic is not on the army shooting, the topic is on the lack of progress of the investigation of the incident.

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

Right. You posted speculation about negotiations and how the protest might have ended before the shooting, but now insist the OP is not about the shooting, and apparently no longer about the legal technicalities of where the charges were filed (your recent view of the OP topic), but now is about an investigation following the investigation pinning responsibility for the shooting on the army.

You're all over the place and accuse me of zig-zagging. But at least you are no longer implying that fault for the shooting has not been determined.

Well thank you for this lesson in how to confuse, twist and turn around. And I'm still implying that it has not been determined without doubt the six deaths are on account of the army shooting.

As usual you still seem to ignore that the topic is on a relative vowing to sue the NACC. What keeps him? No news, not known which court. What's going on?

[rubl]

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.

you are perfectly shameless... And now I know that you are not just a junta cheerleader but an army cheerleader in general....

this little gem shows that rather clearly:

...19th of May, 2010. Again the army was met with heavy gunfire and grenades. In such situations soldiers will first shoot and then ask.

when of course - how could you be unaware of the facts, right?? - the army were the ones who launched a full-blown military assault on the protesters ....

Although at the very least, I will give you credit for your statement, 'soldiers will shoot first' is 100% correct. At least it's correct if I don't include the rest of your extremely warped context that surrounds it.

I feel like throwing up.

Twisting the truth again and calling others shameless?

The government had warned many times that the protesters would be forcefully removed if they didn't go voluntarily. Buses were provided, free of charge. If those protesters had been only peaceful protesters the government might have let them be, without the bamboo and tyre wall of course. The fact is that the peaceful protesters had heavily armed militants amongst them, terrorists one may say. The 19th of May, when the army started towards Ratchaprasong the grenades dropped on soldiers again. Only those terrorists used grenades. There were many gun fights and fire exchanges which are difficult to explain with only peaceful protesters.

Blame the cowardly terrorists for the many deaths and include the UDD leaders who still have a problem to acknowledge even the very existance of those cowards.

So, after cleaning yourself up again, I hope you can still look at yourself in the mirror.

you are a polite liar, but a liar none the less.

and you apparently have none of the other traits of fairness, respect for human life, for human rights and for self-governance that others from your home country have.

Have a good night.

Nice coming from you.

So pray tell where did I lie?

And why do you try to insult me? You don't agree with me and therefore I'm not fair, have no respect for human life and no respect for self-governance? You continuously display this negative attitude and admiration of the 'old' Thai democracy and you talk about fairness?

Here I think you are only trying to bait me and make me lose my temper. Not only is that not nice, but it kills any meaningful discussion we might have been able to set up. Thanks for that.

In the mean time we have no case filed against the NACC it would seem. Pity really.

[rubl]

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

He was the army spokesman, what do you expect him to do - he was/is paid to spread propaganda the military version of the truth.

Here's the courts finding, so don't bother coming up with any "news items about shady people mingling around the wat" - they're weren't any.

The South Bangkok Criminal Court ruled that six persons died in Wat Pathum Wanaram during May 2010 political violence were shot by the soldiers; five were shot by the soldiers situated on the BTS sky train track while the other one was shot by soldiers stationed on Rama I Rd.

The results from Central Institute of Forensic Science Thailand did not find gunshot residue in the hands of the six victims, therefore the inquest concluded that they were not using any weapons.

The court reading also stated that no "black-shirted men" were present in the area.

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

As I and others already told you at that time, there was gun fire exchange still going on. The "no MiB" around did not match with at least one eye witness nor with foreign reporter reports.

As I wrote before with those terrorists around mingling with peaceful protesters, with contineous gunfights it should not be a surprise that innocents died. While being shot at frequently any sudden spark if only from a flashlight can cause the reaction to shoot at the spark. Those soldiers were being harassed for five days, harassed by cowardly terrorists hiding amongst the peaceful protesters. Cowards who dropped grenades, cowards who shot at them and you expect them not to shoot back?

Anyway, no case filed against the NACC it would seem. I wonder why?

[heybruce]

You post quotes that show...what? Do they somehow show that army soldiers did not kill the nurse?

Goh, interesting question. Why did you post those many quotes? To show soldiers did shoot down the nurse?

BTW 'army soldiers' ? You mean as opposed to red-shirt soldiers (aka MiB) ?

Anyway, the NACC may get sued, or maybe not. No news today, maybe tomorrow. At least when the relatives sue we'll know at which court.

You asked:

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

You seemed to be questioning evidence indicating that the nurse was shot by the army. I wanted to clarify things for you.

I seemed to question evidence? Did you forget you called me disrespectful because I gave reasoning why the army was shooting in the first place? That's not to say they did shoot those six, but it is not impossible. 'Shady figures' remember or do you rather not remember? It would seem you only bother digging up news items which stated the army shot the nurse with possible insinuation they did it on purpose.

Furthermore you seemed intrigued by what went on IN the temple and I suggested it was just outside the temple. Seems I was right.

Doesn't really matter though, as it would seem that till now there's still no lawsuit filed against the NACC, or did I miss a news item?

I repeatedly wrote "temple courtyard" or "temple compound", posts #42 and #52 being examples. You responded by suggesting that the bodies were found "outside the temple, at the entrance". Within the context of the posts you were replying to you were suggesting the bodies were found outside the entire temple area. I clarified that for you by giving references to the 2013 investigation and court ruling that stated that the bodies were definitely in the temple courtyard and the army was responsible for the deaths.

Since you currently seem more interested in legal technicalities, why don't you just accept that six unarmed people were killed by army bullets in a temple courtyard that was a no-fire zone agreed upon by all parties, and get on with your who filed what, where and why questions?

[heybruce]

So instead of broad ranging "allegedly" and what-might-have-been speculation, which you insisted were on-topic, you now are only interested in the legal technicalities of where the case will be filed?

Zig -zag - zig -zag -zigzag.

You started the show with #24 broadening the topic to allow your usual nonsense.

"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?"

The topic is not on the army shooting, the topic is on the lack of progress of the investigation of the incident.

So as we had at least ones or twice a year reports on relatives vowing to file lawsuits (except against Yingluck's government of course, they promissed when they signed for the money), I'm only wondering which court will be bothered this time. We wouldn't like to see lack of progress because the wrong court is addressed (again), now would we?

Right. You posted speculation about negotiations and how the protest might have ended before the shooting, but now insist the OP is not about the shooting, and apparently no longer about the legal technicalities of where the charges were filed (your recent view of the OP topic), but now is about an investigation following the investigation pinning responsibility for the shooting on the army.

You're all over the place and accuse me of zig-zagging. But at least you are no longer implying that fault for the shooting has not been determined.

Well thank you for this lesson in how to confuse, twist and turn around. And I'm still implying that it has not been determined without doubt the six deaths are on account of the army shooting.

As usual you still seem to ignore that the topic is on a relative vowing to sue the NACC. What keeps him? No news, not known which court. What's going on?

"And I'm still implying that it has not been determined without doubt the six deaths are on account of the army shooting."

Right, just as it's not been determined without a doubt that the men in black were Thaksin supporters. Obviously your "allegedly" statements also have not been determined without a doubt. But I can at least cite an investigation and court ruling assigning responsibility for the temple deaths to the army.

Regarding confusing, twisting, turning, zig-zagging, etc., this is the topic in which you posted comments such as:

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

and historical might-have-been speculation such as:

"It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully."

before concluding that legal specifics were the only on-topic subjects.

Of course there's a reason for your "random" changes in views regarding what is appropriate to post; you're constantly looking for ways to divert attention from the actions of the army.

[rubl]

I repeatedly wrote "temple courtyard" or "temple compound", posts #42 and #52 being examples. You responded by suggesting that the bodies were found "outside the temple, at the entrance". Within the context of the posts you were replying to you were suggesting the bodies were found outside the entire temple area. I clarified that for you by giving references to the 2013 investigation and court ruling that stated that the bodies were definitely in the temple courtyard and the army was responsible for the deaths.

Since you currently seem more interested in legal technicalities, why don't you just accept that six unarmed people were killed by army bullets in a temple courtyard that was a no-fire zone agreed upon by all parties, and get on with your who filed what, where and why questions?

I know you repeatedly write and every time with just a slightly different phrasing or angle.

The six were killed by bullets of the type used in military grade ammunition. correct. In a courtyard were shady figures were sighted, correct. The type of figures who liked to shoot at soldiers, correct. The type that liked to 'borrow' military grade weapons and ammunition, correct.

Now I would like to go on with the topic which you are so anxious to avoid. The relative vowed to sue the NACC, said so four days ago. I guess it's too early to expect any progress?

Mind you, some of the article seems to indicate some political motive

""It's been almost five years since the crackdown in 2010, but there has been no progress at all," Nattapat said yesterday. "It is obvious that many civilians were killed by soldiers. It's not complicated like the corruption case of the rice-pledging scheme.""

Edited February 17, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

"And I'm still implying that it has not been determined without doubt the six deaths are on account of the army shooting."

Right, just as it's not been determined without a doubt that the men in black were Thaksin supporters. Obviously your "allegedly" statements also have not been determined without a doubt. But I can at least cite an investigation and court ruling assigning responsibility for the temple deaths to the army.

Regarding confusing, twisting, turning, zig-zagging, etc., this is the topic in which you posted comments such as:

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

and historical might-have-been speculation such as:

"It illustrates that under different circumstances the nurse might not have been killed as an agreement would have all go peacefully."

before concluding that legal specifics were the only on-topic subjects.

Of course there's a reason for your "random" changes in views regarding what is appropriate to post; you're constantly looking for ways to divert attention from the actions of the army.

Come on, Brucy. Why pick on my with all your 'only reacting' posts.

So any news on the case to be filed ?

Nothing to do with politics as usual?

""Such discrimination by the NACC has made me decide to file a lawsuit," Nattapat said. He said he will accuse the agency of violating Section 157 of the Criminal Codes, the same dereliction of duty charge that the NACC filed against Yingluck."