Witness of 2010 temple crackdown deaths 'abducted by military'

[NCFC]

Yes, but who can believe those damn foreigners. Just because there are lots of video of Thai soldiers shooting protesters, and thousands of rounds were expended, and their are no pictures of red shirts with guns, alive or dead, doesn't mean the red shirts didn't concoct this whole story. Surely at the behest of Thaksin they were ordered to run into bullets to gain sympathy for the cause? And of course the Red Shirts, with Thaksin's backing, can operate anywhere in the country, and impersonate soldiers with impunity. We should all be very afraid...

Yet there are plenty of pictures of redshirts who are armed and they did kill people. Knowingly posting lies breaks the forum rules.

As you know very well there is not a single picture nor a single video clip of a dead, armed protester. They were all 100% unarmed. Don't say that maybe their weapons were removed by other protesters because there is plenty of real-time video of these people being killed. And not one of them was armed.

[heybruce]

"..The soldiers said they didn’t need a warrant to detain Nattathida because they were acting under martial law" Yep, and as others have said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without checks and balances and agreed to laws, i.e. constitution and civil authorities in charge, Coups are never good things. They can and in Thailand's case, keep on happening over and over again

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

[NCFC]

It's all over twitter now with a video on youtube. She was being held in military custody. Tweet by @KhaosodEnglish

'Missing' witness of 2010 crackdown deaths was in military custody after all. Footage: Details forthcoming.

Thanks for that video. Shows very clearly that she was indeed in (military? - I only see police) custody.

Interesting to note however her zeal to use the 3-finger salute - obviously not a fan of the army, which may be a result of her detention (maybe her detention was the result of criticising or even slandering the army). Either way I would wonder how impartial/true her witness account would be, although the 3-finger salute doesn't necessarily mean she is affiliated with the Red Shirts.

As we don't know why she was detained, we don't know much really. All we know is she was one of those going on record saying the army was firing into the temple. (There are also witness accounts saying the MiB and RTA had a firefight nearby earlier in the day.) I somehow suspect she was picked up by the RTA because they know something about her that we don't yet know. She has "defiance" written all over her - understandable given the circumstances at face value, but this defiant look might also be a long-standing hatred of Thaksin opponents. We all know how much love, trust & tears your average UDD supporter puts into supporting the Shin crowd.

Still though, "abduction of key witnesses" is obviously not in the best interests of transparency or justice. I have to wonder why the RTA initially denied it.

For one there seems to have been no abduction as the latest report state the family said the lady was arrested by five soldiers.

Also apart from identifying the lady as being 'a key witness' there is no explanation why that should have any relation with her being arrested. The possible relation with people involved in the recent bomb attacks seems a more likely reason.

PS excuse my sense of humour. Looking at the lady, apart from a three finger salute she might also provoke with underboob selfies

Shameful comment.

[halloween]

As you know very well there is not a single picture nor a single video clip of a dead, armed protester. They were all 100% unarmed. Don't say that maybe their weapons were removed by other protesters because there is plenty of real-time video of these people being killed. And not one of them was armed.

I remember a video of soldiers being dragged from a truck and beaten, and while one was lying on the ground, shot. Which makes your claim that the protesters were 100% unarmed seem really silly.

In fact, your post sounds like typical red-shirt propaganda BS.

[whybother]

Yes, but who can believe those damn foreigners. Just because there are lots of video of Thai soldiers shooting protesters, and thousands of rounds were expended, and their are no pictures of red shirts with guns, alive or dead, doesn't mean the red shirts didn't concoct this whole story. Surely at the behest of Thaksin they were ordered to run into bullets to gain sympathy for the cause? And of course the Red Shirts, with Thaksin's backing, can operate anywhere in the country, and impersonate soldiers with impunity. We should all be very afraid...

Yet there are plenty of pictures of redshirts who are armed and they did kill people. Knowingly posting lies breaks the forum rules.

As you know very well there is not a single picture nor a single video clip of a dead, armed protester. They were all 100% unarmed. Don't say that maybe their weapons were removed by other protesters because there is plenty of real-time video of these people being killed. And not one of them was armed.

Have you seen photos of every dead protester? No. Were there even photos of every dead protester? No. There were photos of maybe 10 of the 80 protesters killed.

[rubl]

For one there seems to have been no abduction as the latest report state the family said the lady was arrested by five soldiers.

Also apart from identifying the lady as being 'a key witness' there is no explanation why that should have any relation with her being arrested. The possible relation with people involved in the recent bomb attacks seems a more likely reason.

PS excuse my sense of humour. Looking at the lady, apart from a three finger salute she might also provoke with underboob selfies

Shameful comment.

Only when you disagree it would seem. Lots of little white lies by the usual and no comment from you.

PS I already made excuses for my sense of humour, and to show sincerity I now wave a few fingers at you.

[rubl]

"..The soldiers said they didn’t need a warrant to detain Nattathida because they were acting under martial law" Yep, and as others have said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without checks and balances and agreed to laws, i.e. constitution and civil authorities in charge, Coups are never good things. They can and in Thailand's case, keep on happening over and over again

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

[AleG]

I did not give the theory that these attacks were a setup.... until now. The sentence for the people that threw the grenades at the courthouse was 5 months.... really 5 months for a terrorist attack? The only reason I can see for such a light sentence is that the incident was actually a frame for political reasons.

The five months prison sentence is for the charge of contempt of court only, the other charges still have to be put through the judicial system and will certainly add to a much longer stay in prison.

[heybruce]

"..The soldiers said they didn’t need a warrant to detain Nattathida because they were acting under martial law" Yep, and as others have said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without checks and balances and agreed to laws, i.e. constitution and civil authorities in charge, Coups are never good things. They can and in Thailand's case, keep on happening over and over again

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

Ok, so your statement should have read "The Martial Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."

I assume you are alluding to the suggestion by the interim government before the coup to use martial law to ensure the scheduled July election would take place without the violence and disruption used by Suthep's anti-democracy forces during the February elections.

The martial law currently in place was implemented to facilitate the coup and left in place for the convenience of the junta. How many people agreed to that?

[jdinasia]

"..The soldiers said they didn’t need a warrant to detain Nattathida because they were acting under martial law" Yep, and as others have said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without checks and balances and agreed to laws, i.e. constitution and civil authorities in charge, Coups are never good things. They can and in Thailand's case, keep on happening over and over again

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

Ok, so your statement should have read "The Martial Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."

I assume you are alluding to the suggestion by the interim government before the coup to use martial law to ensure the scheduled July election would take place without the violence and disruption used by Suthep's anti-democracy forces during the February elections.

The martial law currently in place was implemented to facilitate the coup and left in place for the convenience of the junta. How many people agreed to that?

The actual Martial Law

http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

The law (civilian) enabling the proclamation of Martial Law is 101 years old this year.

Edited March 18, 2015 by jdinasia

[Puwa]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

[jdinasia]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

[SoilSpoil]

Yes, but who can believe those damn foreigners. Just because there are lots of video of Thai soldiers shooting protesters, and thousands of rounds were expended, and their are no pictures of red shirts with guns, alive or dead, doesn't mean the red shirts didn't concoct this whole story. Surely at the behest of Thaksin they were ordered to run into bullets to gain sympathy for the cause? And of course the Red Shirts, with Thaksin's backing, can operate anywhere in the country, and impersonate soldiers with impunity. We should all be very afraid...

Yet there are plenty of pictures of redshirts who are armed and they did kill people. Knowingly posting lies breaks the forum rules.

As you know very well there is not a single picture nor a single video clip of a dead, armed protester. They were all 100% unarmed. Don't say that maybe their weapons were removed by other protesters because there is plenty of real-time video of these people being killed. And not one of them was armed.

There are hundreds of photos and footage of armed red shirts.

[Puwa]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

That's a great suggestion and is one advantage of the Wikipedia format. Readers can see for themselves what has gone into the finished product. Once again, this stands in contrast to categorical and strident opinions aired on the forum; it's anyone's guess what might have gone into forming individual views.

[Jai Dee]

A troll post has been removed from this thread.

[jdinasia]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

That's a great suggestion and is one advantage of the Wikipedia format. Readers can see for themselves what has gone into the finished product. Once again, this stands in contrast to categorical and strident opinions aired on the forum; it's anyone's guess what might have gone into forming individual views.

Yes... Wiki is awesome!?!?! Anyone can arbitrarily change the pages. Anyone can make it look accurate and count on people never looking at the references. Any reference source can be used even if it has been debunked...... Edited March 18, 2015 by jdinasia

[Puwa]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

That's a great suggestion and is one advantage of the Wikipedia format. Readers can see for themselves what has gone into the finished product. Once again, this stands in contrast to categorical and strident opinions aired on the forum; it's anyone's guess what might have gone into forming individual views.

Yes... Wiki is awesome!?!?! Anyone can arbitrarily change the pages. Anyone can make it look accurate and count on people never looking at the references. Any reference source can be used even if it has been debunked......

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426666873.842601.jpgImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426666906.575051.jpg

Well I suppose there is a grain of truth in your criticism of Wikipedia. However, I prefer to point people towards information and encourage them to evaluate it for themselves. I guess my basic predisposition is to have faith in the common man to learn and think and decide for himself, without being force-fed or led by those who presume to know more.

Reading your contributions to this topic, I'm afraid that you prefer to stifle differing views and discourage access to information. Given the positions you take on the issues at hand, such an elitist view is puzzling, maybe amusing, and certainly ironic. I also note that you like to have the last word; so on this ironic note I shall bow out from the discussion and allow you and other readers of this topic to carry on as you wish.

[96tehtarp]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

Good point, That's the key to using Wikipedia. Watch the changes and look at the history.

[jdinasia]

For anyone interested in a more comprehensive, and less partisan, account of the events in 2010, the Wikipedia page "2010 Thai Politcal Protests" provides quite a lot of information. It's not perfect, I'm sure, but the authors seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, a distinction that often gets lost in Internet forums.

I suggest you look at the history of changes made to that page

That's a great suggestion and is one advantage of the Wikipedia format. Readers can see for themselves what has gone into the finished product. Once again, this stands in contrast to categorical and strident opinions aired on the forum; it's anyone's guess what might have gone into forming individual views.

Yes... Wiki is awesome!?!?! Anyone can arbitrarily change the pages. Anyone can make it look accurate and count on people never looking at the references. Any reference source can be used even if it has been debunked......

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426666873.842601.jpgImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1426666906.575051.jpg

Well I suppose there is a grain of truth in your criticism of Wikipedia. However, I prefer to point people towards information and encourage them to evaluate it for themselves. I guess my basic predisposition is to have faith in the common man to learn and think and decide for himself, without being force-fed or led by those who presume to know more.

Reading your contributions to this topic, I'm afraid that you prefer to stifle differing views and discourage access to information. Given the positions you take on the issues at hand, such an elitist view is puzzling, maybe amusing, and certainly ironic. I also note that you like to have the last word; so on this ironic note I shall bow out from the discussion and allow you and other readers of this topic to carry on as you wish.

Hmmmm

You might want to look at the definition of irony too.

I have not discouraged access to information. I simply pointed out that Wikipedia is flawed by its own nature when looking at information on anything remotely controversial. I never assume people will look deeper than the article itself on Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia but try never to cite it. I use it for the reference link list.

[rubl]

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

Ok, so your statement should have read "The Martial Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."

I assume you are alluding to the suggestion by the interim government before the coup to use martial law to ensure the scheduled July election would take place without the violence and disruption used by Suthep's anti-democracy forces during the February elections.

The martial law currently in place was implemented to facilitate the coup and left in place for the convenience of the junta. How many people agreed to that?

And as usual you never know when your comments only seem to be written to drag the discussion further off topic. gk100200 started dragging the coup into this and had a remark on the Martial Law I corrected. No need to go further into the coup and why it happened, even if that's a favourite for you. Enough topics where you can write your opinions on that.

Oh, by the way, as democracy lover you should be appalled that the whatever status MoFA even suggested to have elections while under Martial Law. Even the previous junta lifted the Martial Law completely at least 60 days before the December 2007 general election.

So back to the topic, the lady who was arrested is now charged. The originator of the news article was just a bit liberal with his/her interpretation and description it would seem. There was no abduction, but an arrest under Martial Law. The 'nurse', 'witness' part is unrelated unless one would like to use that to explain why she joined the bombers.

Have a nice day.

Edited March 18, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

Ok, so your statement should have read "The Martial Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."

I assume you are alluding to the suggestion by the interim government before the coup to use martial law to ensure the scheduled July election would take place without the violence and disruption used by Suthep's anti-democracy forces during the February elections.

The martial law currently in place was implemented to facilitate the coup and left in place for the convenience of the junta. How many people agreed to that?

And as usual you never know when your comments only seem to be written to drag the discussion further off topic. gk100200 started dragging the coup into this and had a remark on the Martial Law I corrected. No need to go further into the coup and why it happened, even if that's a favourite for you. Enough topics where you can write your opinions on that.

Oh, by the way, as democracy lover you should be appalled that the whatever status MoFA even suggested to have elections while under Martial Law. Even the previous junta lifted the Martial Law completely at least 60 days before the December 2007 general election.

So back to the topic, the lady who was arrested is now charged. The originator of the news article was just a bit liberal with his/her interpretation and description it would seem. There was no abduction, but an arrest under Martial Law. The 'nurse', 'witness' part is unrelated unless one would like to use that to explain why she joined the bombers.

Have a nice day.

First I had to correct your statement:

"The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."\

then I challenged you to clarify the "agreed upon claim".

You haven't clarified who agreed upon martial law, but you have dragged the thread further off-topic. But since you've already dragged it there, I'll answer you question. No, I'm not appalled over the suggestion to use martial law in order to hold an election in July. The police had shown in February that they were unable to keep order, and an election was warranted. Also, martial law can be implemented in many different ways, and there is a huge difference between martial law used to protect peaceful political gatherings and the election process, and martial law used to preserve a military government by banning political gatherings and calls for elections. Most people understand that.

[heybruce]

"..The soldiers said they didn’t need a warrant to detain Nattathida because they were acting under martial law" Yep, and as others have said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without checks and balances and agreed to laws, i.e. constitution and civil authorities in charge, Coups are never good things. They can and in Thailand's case, keep on happening over and over again

The Military Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect.

You do know there is a difference between Military Law and Martial Law, don't you?

You're right. My mistake. I meant and should have written Martial Law.

Ok, so your statement should have read "The Martial Law was an agreed to law and upon the suggestion of the caretaker or so Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong put into effect."

I assume you are alluding to the suggestion by the interim government before the coup to use martial law to ensure the scheduled July election would take place without the violence and disruption used by Suthep's anti-democracy forces during the February elections.

The martial law currently in place was implemented to facilitate the coup and left in place for the convenience of the junta. How many people agreed to that?

The actual Martial Law

http://www.thailawforum.com/laws/Martial%20Law.pdf

The law (civilian) enabling the proclamation of Martial Law is 101 years old this year.

Interesting, but I'm not sure what your point is. The proclamation says the military can declare martial law in a variety of circumstances and implement it pretty much however they want to. I think everyone already knew that.