NACC threatened with lawsuit for delay in 2010 crackdown case

[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

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?

Do you not think that an official inquest has better access to evidence than you do? Yet you still make excuses for the soldiers shooting from overhead tracks and from Rama 1 Road. Why do you do that? The deceased were shot and killed unlawfully - end of, no excuses. If you had read the link I provided you would have read this, an excerpt from the official inquest findings.

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

I expect you to write off the deaths of Redshirts as righteous because you believe it's their fault for having terrorists mingling with them (a inane argument in my opinion) but it takes a special kind of callous to treat the deaths at Wat Pathum with the same disregard for humanity.

Edited February 17, 2015 by TheDiva

[heybruce]

"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."

After you accuse me of going well off-topic I reminded you of two of many times when you went well off-topic. You then insist on a very narrow interpretation of the topic, unlike your earlier posts on the OP.

[heybruce]

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.""

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

While you range far and wide in your attempts to derail topics and discussions that present the junta in an accurate, unflattering light.

I take it you continue to reject the results of the 2013 investigation that determined the army was responsible for the deaths in the temple courtyard. I understand why, it refutes you frequent blanket assertions that the only meaningful violence was committed by the red-shirt, pro-democracy, anti-junta sides.

[rubl]

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?

Do you not think that an official inquest has better access to evidence than you do? Yet you still make excuses for the soldiers shooting from overhead tracks and from Rama 1 Road. Why do you do that? The deceased were shot and killed unlawfully - end of, no excuses. If you had read the link I provided you would have read this, an excerpt from the official inquest findings.

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

I expect you to write off the deaths of Redshirts as righteous because you believe it's their fault for having terrorists mingling with them (a inane argument in my opinion) but it takes a special kind of callous to treat the deaths at Wat Pathum with the same disregard for humanity.

AS I wrote before we are going round and round in circles as we have done lots of time already. Even in your former lives.

The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy. Not saying that those others shot the six dead.

Still the 'no one around' remark of the court is strange. There were reports of foreign journalists having seen shady characters, there was one Thai eye witness and the army was still engaged in gun battles. So as I wrote before, who is surprised innocents died that day?

Now back to the speed up of an investigation by suing the NACC, allegedly, any day soon now. If that doesn't help they can still try to sue DSI/OAG for charging Abhisit/Suthep with the wrong court and wrong case. When the relatives signed the document and were assured that they only promised not to sue the Yingluck government, did they also get told about the DSI and OAG, or are they free targets?

As for callous and disregard for humanity, I guess you refer to those cowards hiding amongst the peaceful protesters. The cowards who came out in the night. The cowards who dropped the grenades on non-red-shirts. Maybe you refer to how your previous lives were ended?

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."

After you accuse me of going well off-topic I reminded you of two of many times when you went well off-topic. You then insist on a very narrow interpretation of the topic, unlike your earlier posts on the OP.

Terribly sorry. Of course quoting from the topic should be prohibited as off-topic.

Zigzag, zigzagzag, happily turning and twisting and still no lawsuit against the NACC. Pity really.

[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.""

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

While you range far and wide in your attempts to derail topics and discussions that present the junta in an accurate, unflattering light.

I take it you continue to reject the results of the 2013 investigation that determined the army was responsible for the deaths in the temple courtyard. I understand why, it refutes you frequent blanket assertions that the only meaningful violence was committed by the red-shirt, pro-democracy, anti-junta sides.

Still twisting? Still accusing me of your interpretation of what I wrote?

BTW I think you lost it when you wrote about "meaningful violence"

Better stick to finding out if the NACC is getting sued or not.

[heybruce]

"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."

After you accuse me of going well off-topic I reminded you of two of many times when you went well off-topic. You then insist on a very narrow interpretation of the topic, unlike your earlier posts on the OP.

Terribly sorry. Of course quoting from the topic should be prohibited as off-topic.

Zigzag, zigzagzag, happily turning and twisting and still no lawsuit against the NACC. Pity really.

rubl, you are in full-blown denial! I gave you specific off-topic posts made by you.

[sjaak327]

The nacc should be put out of It's misery, they have shown to be anything but independent.

Replace it with an agency that IS independent and that investigates and prosecutes all cases of political wrongdoing, not just the wrongdoing of a select few.

[heybruce]

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.""

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

While you range far and wide in your attempts to derail topics and discussions that present the junta in an accurate, unflattering light.

I take it you continue to reject the results of the 2013 investigation that determined the army was responsible for the deaths in the temple courtyard. I understand why, it refutes you frequent blanket assertions that the only meaningful violence was committed by the red-shirt, pro-democracy, anti-junta sides.

Still twisting? Still accusing me of your interpretation of what I wrote?

BTW I think you lost it when you wrote about "meaningful violence"

Better stick to finding out if the NACC is getting sued or not.

The 2013 investigation placed responsibility for the temple shootings on the army. You posted:

"The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy."

I interpret this as you rejecting the conclusion of the investigation. How would you have it interpreted?

[rubl]

Terribly sorry. Of course quoting from the topic should be prohibited as off-topic.

Zigzag, zigzagzag, happily turning and twisting and still no lawsuit against the NACC. Pity really.

rubl, you are in full-blown denial! I gave you specific off-topic posts made by you.

Oh boy, you're really only interested in zigzagging and accusing, now are you? No interest at all in the topic, just the usual step by step trying to wear down an honest poster.

Well, any news on the charging of the NACC?

[rubl]

Still twisting? Still accusing me of your interpretation of what I wrote?

BTW I think you lost it when you wrote about "meaningful violence"

Better stick to finding out if the NACC is getting sued or not.

The 2013 investigation placed responsibility for the temple shootings on the army. You posted:

"The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy."

I interpret this as you rejecting the conclusion of the investigation. How would you have it interpreted?

So, what was that about 'meaningful violence' ? You may interpret what you want and how you want it, that's up to you. Doesn't have to be correct either. Still, don't accuse me of what your conclude.

My conclusion is you're not interested in the topic. No progress and still no suing of the NACC. Strange.

[heybruce]

Terribly sorry. Of course quoting from the topic should be prohibited as off-topic.

Zigzag, zigzagzag, happily turning and twisting and still no lawsuit against the NACC. Pity really.

rubl, you are in full-blown denial! I gave you specific off-topic posts made by you.

Oh boy, you're really only interested in zigzagging and accusing, now are you? No interest at all in the topic, just the usual step by step trying to wear down an honest poster.

Well, any news on the charging of the NACC?

Are you absolutely sure you want to focus narrowly on the charging of the NACC? You don't want to expand on your earlier quote in this same topic:

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

I just want to be clear, you've gone from tenuously related to the topic, at best, to narrowly focused on the topic. Not that that's zigzagging, you'd never do that, would you?

[heybruce]

Still twisting? Still accusing me of your interpretation of what I wrote?

BTW I think you lost it when you wrote about "meaningful violence"

Better stick to finding out if the NACC is getting sued or not.

The 2013 investigation placed responsibility for the temple shootings on the army. You posted:

"The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy."

I interpret this as you rejecting the conclusion of the investigation. How would you have it interpreted?

So, what was that about 'meaningful violence' ? You may interpret what you want and how you want it, that's up to you. Doesn't have to be correct either. Still, don't accuse me of what your conclude.

My conclusion is you're not interested in the topic. No progress and still no suing of the NACC. Strange.

"meaningful", synonymous with important, significant, material, consequential. As I recall when it was pointed out to you that the anti-democracy forces used violence you insisted it was not as significant as the redshirt violence.

Are you going to continue to dispute the conclusions of the investigation of the temple shooting? If you are not disputing those conclusions, what are you doing?

[rubl]

Oh boy, you're really only interested in zigzagging and accusing, now are you? No interest at all in the topic, just the usual step by step trying to wear down an honest poster.

Well, any news on the charging of the NACC?

Are you absolutely sure you want to focus narrowly on the charging of the NACC? You don't want to expand on your earlier quote in this same topic:

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

I just want to be clear, you've gone from tenuously related to the topic, at best, to narrowly focused on the topic. Not that that's zigzagging, you'd never do that, would you?

So you're not interested in the topic? Just in taking things out of context, add your interpretation and use that to ask even more distracting questions.

No one seems interested in suing the NACC, not even the relatives of the 'temple' deaths. Makes you wonder

[rubl]

Still twisting? Still accusing me of your interpretation of what I wrote?

BTW I think you lost it when you wrote about "meaningful violence"

Better stick to finding out if the NACC is getting sued or not.

The 2013 investigation placed responsibility for the temple shootings on the army. You posted:

"The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy."

I interpret this as you rejecting the conclusion of the investigation. How would you have it interpreted?

So, what was that about 'meaningful violence' ? You may interpret what you want and how you want it, that's up to you. Doesn't have to be correct either. Still, don't accuse me of what your conclude.

My conclusion is you're not interested in the topic. No progress and still no suing of the NACC. Strange.

"meaningful", synonymous with important, significant, material, consequential. As I recall when it was pointed out to you that the anti-democracy forces used violence you insisted it was not as significant as the redshirt violence.

Are you going to continue to dispute the conclusions of the investigation of the temple shooting? If you are not disputing those conclusions, what are you doing?

Indeed as I recall you like to pick out bits and pieces, glue them together, state your opinion on what you constructed and accuse based on what you constructed to be able to form an opinion.

So I guess not even you are going to sue the NACC? I for one am still busy trying to understand which court will be used to sue the NACC. Mind you, with five days passed I wonder if the announcement was much more than some 'political' statement.

[heybruce]

Oh boy, you're really only interested in zigzagging and accusing, now are you? No interest at all in the topic, just the usual step by step trying to wear down an honest poster.

Well, any news on the charging of the NACC?

Are you absolutely sure you want to focus narrowly on the charging of the NACC? You don't want to expand on your earlier quote in this same topic:

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

I just want to be clear, you've gone from tenuously related to the topic, at best, to narrowly focused on the topic. Not that that's zigzagging, you'd never do that, would you?

So you're not interested in the topic? Just in taking things out of context, add your interpretation and use that to ask even more distracting questions.

No one seems interested in suing the NACC, not even the relatives of the 'temple' deaths. Makes you wonder

Yeah, it makes one wonder about the futility of suing a junta led by a general who is on record denying that the army is responsible for the temple deaths. http://thailandchatter.com/showthread.php?4296-Family-of-nurse-killed-in-2010-political-violence-arrested-for-protest

[heybruce]

The 2013 investigation placed responsibility for the temple shootings on the army. You posted:

"The six dead may have been shot by soldiers as I said. On the other hand also non-soldier types had access to 'war weapons' and were trigger happy."

I interpret this as you rejecting the conclusion of the investigation. How would you have it interpreted?

So, what was that about 'meaningful violence' ? You may interpret what you want and how you want it, that's up to you. Doesn't have to be correct either. Still, don't accuse me of what your conclude.

My conclusion is you're not interested in the topic. No progress and still no suing of the NACC. Strange.

"meaningful", synonymous with important, significant, material, consequential. As I recall when it was pointed out to you that the anti-democracy forces used violence you insisted it was not as significant as the redshirt violence.

Are you going to continue to dispute the conclusions of the investigation of the temple shooting? If you are not disputing those conclusions, what are you doing?

Indeed as I recall you like to pick out bits and pieces, glue them together, state your opinion on what you constructed and accuse based on what you constructed to be able to form an opinion.

So I guess not even you are going to sue the NACC? I for one am still busy trying to understand which court will be used to sue the NACC. Mind you, with five days passed I wonder if the announcement was much more than some 'political' statement.

No more "allegedly" speculation from you? No more questioning the results of the investigation of the 2010 temple killings? That's good enough for me.