Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Fat Haggis]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

[Shawn0001]

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

"You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere."

No, I haven't forgotten that, I am just concentrating on writing about the army as this is about Abhisit and Suthep, not about the Red Shirts. A lot of apologists on here keep coming back with the same weak argument, "but the Reds were doing it too". Well the military is supposed to have the honor not to retaliate in a similar fashion, they are supposed to keep their dignity and aim at legitimate targets. They went in there to demoralize by targeting the unarmed, non-violent protesters in the hope that all of them would give up and the armed and violent protesters would no longer be able to hide amongst them. You may think that is a good tactic but it is also an international crime.

The journalist may well have been shot by mistake, but why were they shooting people in the back who were running away whether they thought they were Red Shirts or not? He was certainly not armed, he was a photographer, so just why was this unarmed man who had not been seen committing any crime being shot at just because they thought he was a Red Shirt? Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?

Well if the cowardly militants hiding amongst unarmed real protesters and used any position to fire on the soldiers or drop the odd grenade, then obviously the chance of unarmed civilians being shot by soldiers defending themselves or even defending protesters would increase substantially.

Your opinion of 'explicit targeting' to draw out militants is not only your opinion only, but also somewhat disgusting. You then go on based on your opinion as if it's obvious fact.

The journalist you refer to may be the Japanese guy. That's from the 10th of April 2010 when the army having taken a few grenades on their Command Centre (killing the colonel in charge and four others) had to withdraw (some say in near panic) under heavy fire while returning fire. Peaceful those protesters, really.

BTW "Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?". I assume you refer to the 'life fire zones'? The areas where the soldiers were really getting into fire fights with lovable militants?

"Well if the cowardly militants hiding amongst unarmed real protesters and used any position to fire on the soldiers or drop the odd grenade, then obviously the chance of unarmed civilians being shot by soldiers defending themselves or even defending protesters would increase substantially."

You actually think it is "obvious" that the Thai military would be ordered to break international law and fire despite knowing that they may hit unarmed civilians? Well I don't, I find it shocking. Perhaps you come from one of the few countries such as the USA which are not afraid to break international law in this way but I come from one which respects the law and respects the lives of innocents.

[rubl]

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

"You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere."

No, I haven't forgotten that, I am just concentrating on writing about the army as this is about Abhisit and Suthep, not about the Red Shirts. A lot of apologists on here keep coming back with the same weak argument, "but the Reds were doing it too". Well the military is supposed to have the honor not to retaliate in a similar fashion, they are supposed to keep their dignity and aim at legitimate targets. They went in there to demoralize by targeting the unarmed, non-violent protesters in the hope that all of them would give up and the armed and violent protesters would no longer be able to hide amongst them. You may think that is a good tactic but it is also an international crime.

The journalist may well have been shot by mistake, but why were they shooting people in the back who were running away whether they thought they were Red Shirts or not? He was certainly not armed, he was a photographer, so just why was this unarmed man who had not been seen committing any crime being shot at just because they thought he was a Red Shirt? Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?

Well if the cowardly militants hiding amongst unarmed real protesters and used any position to fire on the soldiers or drop the odd grenade, then obviously the chance of unarmed civilians being shot by soldiers defending themselves or even defending protesters would increase substantially.

Your opinion of 'explicit targeting' to draw out militants is not only your opinion only, but also somewhat disgusting. You then go on based on your opinion as if it's obvious fact.

The journalist you refer to may be the Japanese guy. That's from the 10th of April 2010 when the army having taken a few grenades on their Command Centre (killing the colonel in charge and four others) had to withdraw (some say in near panic) under heavy fire while returning fire. Peaceful those protesters, really.

BTW "Because Abhisit gave the all clear to shoot unarmed civilians if they were in the area, that is why. And you want to defend that?". I assume you refer to the 'life fire zones'? The areas where the soldiers were really getting into fire fights with lovable militants?

Have you read the "secret document" quotes from which were submitted to the ICC? That is what I refer to. I feel that shooting someone who refuses a search, shooting someone who is providing medical attention to a militant, shooting someone who resists arrest, are all " somewhat disgusting" tactics. The tactic of targeting civilians to demoralize is one which has been used in many conflicts since the British thought of the idea in WWII. Nothing unusual, and it really would appear that that was exactly what they were doing going by the international journalists reports. There are countless reports and video evidence of the army firing from distance into a crowd of people and far less of snipers lawfully targeting legitimate targets. And I refer to Fabio Polenghi, the Italian journalist who the military tried to pretend had been killed by a Red Shirt grenade before the autopsy and report by a German journalist proved otherwise and it was determined that he was indeed shot in the back by the Thai Army as he ran for cover as they advanced shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

I've read the report submitted to the ICC. There doesn't seem to be a secret document in there, neither in the 'amalgated witness' report a year later.

So, I'm stuck. Should I accept that what you say was in there? Your long history on TVF doesn't help me to decide.

BTW Fabio was not shot in the back, but in chest and abdomen.Initial reports from that hectic day

2010-05-19

"Video footage Cox subsequently took of journalists and protesters who carried Polenghi's body out of the road and onto a motorcycle bound for a nearby local hospital appeared to show a bullet had entered Polenghi's body under his left armpit and exited through his side. "

http://cpj.org/killed/2010/fabio-polenghi.php

2010-05-19

"Of the five victims there is also an Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, 45, shot in the abdomen and chest by bullets fired during clashes between the army and demonstrators."

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Bangkok:-red-shirts-surrender.-An-Italian-reporter-killed-18444.html

and later

2014-05-19

"Fabio Polenghi, a freelance Italian journalist, was fatally shot in the chest while working near Lumpini Park, and died soon thereafter."

http://fccthai.com/items/1414.html

[Robby nz]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

He is being kept in jail, we were told that when a delegation of MP's visited political prisoners in the remand prison that one of those they talked to was the popcorn gunman.

[tbthailand]

You really are getting carried away with your silliness now.

If you are going to blame the 2014 protesters for creating the environment for all the deaths then you obviously must blame the reds in 2010 for all the deaths in the environment they created.

The army did step in in 2014 and stopped the killing.

Try reading the links I have posted just for you and get some education.

Yingluck was elected in 2011 and from that time until Suthep took to the streets in November 2013 there were ZERO politically inspired murders, from the time Suthep took to the streets until the coup there were 28 deaths and 800 casualties - you think that's a coincidence?

Yes, both groups of street mobs created very similar environments - the question is why did the army slaughter one group and, not just leave untouched, but actually go out of their way and protect the other group?

Why the double standard?

Think my friend think, for once you answer the above question you will have unravelled the mystery of the past 14 years of political turmoil in the LOS.

The reds were held to account because of what I stated above. The PDRC did not do that.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

And if you feel the army should have gone in then you can blame yingluck as the defense minister for not doing anything about it. She was the boss remember!

So you would seriously like to blame the PDRC for all the deaths by the red shirts because they were sat at Lumpini park after having to retreat there because of all the deaths the red shirts caused elsewhere? Seriously? Blame the PDRC for the red shirts killing them? Serious? Think about it...

That is like saying it is a coincidence that a woman happened to be present when the rape occurred. It defies logic and epitomizes the reds lack of any accountability and there is nothing that highlights further why reform is needed. It is as ludicrous as the other excuse of "The PDRC bombed themselves to make it look like red shirts did it". It seems logic and sanity are left at the door when defending the UDD.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

Fortunately they didn't. All they got for sitting in a park was 24 dead and 700 injured by the people that did do the above.

The rape victim is never to blame. It is always the rapists fault. If the rapist wore a red shirt it makes no difference. And I shake my head to even have to explain it and it is not due to shaky head syndrome.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

you would appear to be woefully or willingly ignorant of what the PDRC protesters did do...

here is one example:

Guns and grenade launchers were reportedly brandished near Phan Fah bridge in front of Bangkok’s U.N. compound where protesters were massed. Shortly before noon, police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowds, but were met with gunshots and grenades from beyond the barricades.

Erawan emergency medical services said a 52-year-old male civilian was killed by a wound to his head and a police officer died from a wound to his chest, reports the Associated Press. Another man also died but further details were not immediately divulged.

According to Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch, unidentified armed forces within the protest camp fired a military grade M-79 grenade launcher.

“This contradicts the pledges from [PDRC chief] Suthep [Thaugsuban] and other protest leaders that resistance to the government will be peaceful and unarmed,” he said. “Each time there was major confrontation, we see armed groups that operate in tandem with protesters.”

it's hard to continue to claim that only one side in this political conflict has ever been violent. Both red and yellow have had their moments... of course the military has killed so many more than both sides of protesters combined, so I stand by my earlier posts that Abhisit was correct to point out that the military still has questions to answer in this 2010 case.

[Docno]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

[djjamie]

You really are getting carried away with your silliness now.

If you are going to blame the 2014 protesters for creating the environment for all the deaths then you obviously must blame the reds in 2010 for all the deaths in the environment they created.

The army did step in in 2014 and stopped the killing.

Try reading the links I have posted just for you and get some education.

Yingluck was elected in 2011 and from that time until Suthep took to the streets in November 2013 there were ZERO politically inspired murders, from the time Suthep took to the streets until the coup there were 28 deaths and 800 casualties - you think that's a coincidence?

Yes, both groups of street mobs created very similar environments - the question is why did the army slaughter one group and, not just leave untouched, but actually go out of their way and protect the other group?

Why the double standard?

Think my friend think, for once you answer the above question you will have unravelled the mystery of the past 14 years of political turmoil in the LOS.

The reds were held to account because of what I stated above. The PDRC did not do that.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

And if you feel the army should have gone in then you can blame yingluck as the defense minister for not doing anything about it. She was the boss remember!

So you would seriously like to blame the PDRC for all the deaths by the red shirts because they were sat at Lumpini park after having to retreat there because of all the deaths the red shirts caused elsewhere? Seriously? Blame the PDRC for the red shirts killing them? Serious? Think about it...

That is like saying it is a coincidence that a woman happened to be present when the rape occurred. It defies logic and epitomizes the reds lack of any accountability and there is nothing that highlights further why reform is needed. It is as ludicrous as the other excuse of "The PDRC bombed themselves to make it look like red shirts did it". It seems logic and sanity are left at the door when defending the UDD.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

Fortunately they didn't. All they got for sitting in a park was 24 dead and 700 injured by the people that did do the above.

The rape victim is never to blame. It is always the rapists fault. If the rapist wore a red shirt it makes no difference. And I shake my head to even have to explain it and it is not due to shaky head syndrome.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

you would appear to be woefully or willingly ignorant of what the PDRC protesters did do...

here is one example:

Guns and grenade launchers were reportedly brandished near Phan Fah bridge in front of Bangkok’s U.N. compound where protesters were massed. Shortly before noon, police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowds, but were met with gunshots and grenades from beyond the barricades.

Erawan emergency medical services said a 52-year-old male civilian was killed by a wound to his head and a police officer died from a wound to his chest, reports the Associated Press. Another man also died but further details were not immediately divulged.

According to Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch, unidentified armed forces within the protest camp fired a military grade M-79 grenade launcher.

“This contradicts the pledges from [PDRC chief] Suthep [Thaugsuban] and other protest leaders that resistance to the government will be peaceful and unarmed,” he said. “Each time there was major confrontation, we see armed groups that operate in tandem with protesters.”

it's hard to continue to claim that only one side in this political conflict has ever been violent. Both red and yellow have had their moments... of course the military has killed so many more than both sides of protesters combined, so I stand by my earlier posts that Abhisit was correct to point out that the military still has questions to answer in this 2010 case.

A lot of "reportedly" in your reply to me.

I also remember that when the PDRC retreated from their camp sites due to the casualties inflicted by the red supporters there were "reportedly" weapons found there. Amazing that the PDRC who had all the time in the world to clear the camp site removed all their tents, all their belongings yet left guns and grenades there as incriminating evidence.

Did the PDRC do the below. No, they didn't. Ergo there was no need for deadly force against them.

Of course any person that committed acts of terrorism during the protests will get no sympathy from me and deserve to be held to account. One can be assured there will never ever be a "BUT" at the end of any sentence describing terrorism unlike so many red supporters seem to do.

Have a lovely evening my friend and I thank you for not following the UDD trait of belittling me or offering personal attacks against me.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

[Fat Haggis]

Firing live rounds into the air is a great idea... not, as these still have to come down, they can go as high as 1.5 miles straight up, losing their velocity in the climb, but on the way back down will still reach terminal velocity, and will kill anyone if it hits them on the head

[djjamie]

Shawn as a former military man I'm offering you answers here.

The M16 LMG isn't isues to the RTA it was never issued full stop.

The M4/16 are known as assault rifles/carbines they're Miltary designated weapons, not all M16s are fully automatic either some are semi automatic and just have 3 round burst. The definition of automatic is when you depress the trigger the rounds will continue to fire until the trigger is released.

The vehicle mounted weapons are either the 7.62mm GPMG And again this isn't classed as a heavy machine gun, that's the .50 calibre M2 that's.

You state you know the difference between weapons systems and their designations but your not displaying that knowledge, if you know weapons yo will know the difference between a heavy weapon and an assault rifle.

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

Love it.

If Prayut paid Amsterdam enough money he would be singing a different tune.

You realize Amsterdam is a paid representative of the PTP right? He is like a defense lawyer.

Rapists and murderers have defense lawyers too that defend them.

[Shawn0001]

Have you read the "secret document" quotes from which were submitted to the ICC? That is what I refer to. I feel that shooting someone who refuses a search, shooting someone who is providing medical attention to a militant, shooting someone who resists arrest, are all " somewhat disgusting" tactics. The tactic of targeting civilians to demoralize is one which has been used in many conflicts since the British thought of the idea in WWII. Nothing unusual, and it really would appear that that was exactly what they were doing going by the international journalists reports. There are countless reports and video evidence of the army firing from distance into a crowd of people and far less of snipers lawfully targeting legitimate targets. And I refer to Fabio Polenghi, the Italian journalist who the military tried to pretend had been killed by a Red Shirt grenade before the autopsy and report by a German journalist proved otherwise and it was determined that he was indeed shot in the back by the Thai Army as he ran for cover as they advanced shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

I've read the report submitted to the ICC. There doesn't seem to be a secret document in there, neither in the 'amalgated witness' report a year later.

So, I'm stuck. Should I accept that what you say was in there? Your long history on TVF doesn't help me to decide.

BTW Fabio was not shot in the back, but in chest and abdomen.Initial reports from that hectic day

2010-05-19

"Video footage Cox subsequently took of journalists and protesters who carried Polenghi's body out of the road and onto a motorcycle bound for a nearby local hospital appeared to show a bullet had entered Polenghi's body under his left armpit and exited through his side. "

http://cpj.org/killed/2010/fabio-polenghi.php

2010-05-19

"Of the five victims there is also an Italian photojournalist Fabio Polenghi, 45, shot in the abdomen and chest by bullets fired during clashes between the army and demonstrators."

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Bangkok:-red-shirts-surrender.-An-Italian-reporter-killed-18444.html

and later

2014-05-19

"Fabio Polenghi, a freelance Italian journalist, was fatally shot in the chest while working near Lumpini Park, and died soon thereafter."

http://fccthai.com/items/1414.html

The report was largely based on a secret government report, do you think Abhisit just handed over those ROE which just happened to be evidence capable of convicting him of international crimes against humanity? No, he tried to keep them a secret. LOL

To quote from Amsterdam;s letter to the prosecuter, "The secret government document setting out the rules of engagement under which the military crackdowns of 10 April 2010 took place explicitly mentions that the orders contained therein were issued at the request of the Prime Minister." Note the use of the wording "secret" and "document"?

When speaking to the Italian ambassador, Suthep said, "the Italian had "died side by side" with a Thai soldier when both were struck by an M-79 grenade of the type used by protesters." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/22/AR2010052203166.html

But sorry, I have mixed the two journalists up, the other was shot in the back, this one in the side. Rather a trivial point to hang on to, he was fatally shot as he ran unarmed for cover, an international crime by the way. The autopsy has never been made public despite repeated calls to do so from his family and from Reporters without Borders.

Perhaps these killings were accidental but, other journalists who were there and who were also fired upon thought differently.

Arnaud Dubas a reporter for the French daily Libération and Radio France Internationale, told Reporters Without Borders, "This is the first time in Thailand that I feel that foreign journalists are really targeted.”

Reporters Without Borders were themselves a little more liberal in their statement, “With two journalists killed and five wounded, the toll on the media has been heavy, while many others have only narrowly escaped death, we are stunned and outraged by the indiscriminate nature of this assault, which shows that the Thai authorities made little attempt to protect journalists in their desire to suppress the Red Shirt opposition.”

[Fat Haggis]

Jamie, whilst there might not have been any soldiers kicked to death, don't you remember the incident where an Army officer went out and moved some cones? He was beaten badly, and according to reports suffered GSW to the lower legs, all over a misunderstanding of the no go zones?

wake up kiddo, there were plenty of incidents where PDRC guards resorted to pretty violent acts, wasn't there a taxi driver killed in front of his wife?

please spare us the "but they were only doing it to protect others" .. beating a man is beating a man, two wrongs dont make a right, but keep being selective, and keep being a drama queen with your childlike UDD traits of belittling you, you are not that important in the bigger picture, actually not even in the smaller picture either, but you keep believing and one day you'll be playing baseball in a cornfield in Issan with Ghosts too

[Basil B]

I am sure there are may people who can bare witness to the fact that there was no intent of the Red Shirts for peaceful protest.

I recall a year earlier walking out the SkyTrain station at Silom on the afternoon of Saturday 11th of April to be meet by this gorilla with red polo shirt, blackberry, whistle and base ball bat lashing out at everybody.

[Robby nz]

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

Where is "photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple" from May 19th? Porkies!

Only one I can find at short notice, there was also a video but cant get it to load.

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

[Fat Haggis]

Love it.

If Prayut paid Amsterdam enough money he would be singing a different tune.

You realize Amsterdam is a paid representative of the PTP right? He is like a defense lawyer.

Rapists and murderers have defense lawyers too that defend them.

Was, he no longer represents them, I'm sure there was a thread about this a while back

Lawyers are not paid to question peoples backgrounds, their paid to do jobs, do you honestly believe that court appointed defence lawyers who have to defend kiddy fiddlers and rapists don't have to leave their morals behind and do a job that in some cases gets the guilty off, to repeat offend again, simply because they did their job well? .

[Shawn0001]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

Love it.

If Prayut paid Amsterdam enough money he would be singing a different tune.

You realize Amsterdam is a paid representative of the PTP right? He is like a defense lawyer.

Rapists and murderers have defense lawyers too that defend them.

How skeptical of you. Do you not know that it is criminal offense for a lawyer to enter an innocent plea if they believe their client to be guilty? Likewise it would be criminal for Amsterdam to present evidence to the ICC he believed to be false. I think you will find that you just committed libel against Amsterdam by saying that he would sing a different tune if the money came from other side.

[Fat Haggis]

You make a big thing about the weapons the army were carrying but somehow forget that the armed element of the rioters were equipped with the same weapons, some of which were stolen from the army others like the grenade launchers which were not army issue were obtained elsewhere.

We know this for a fact for these weapons were proudly displayed on the red shirt stage :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/589905-military-arms-seized-by-red-shirt-protesters-missing/ BANGKOK: -- Among the Army's weapons confiscated by red-shirt protesters in April 2010, only one M-16 rifle has been returned to the military, the rest are still missing, Army spokesman Sansern Kaewkam-nerd said in testimony yesterday.

The missing weapons included 25 Tavor rifles, four M-16 rifles and 39 shotguns, he said in testimony before the House of Representative's sub-committee on political development and mass communication.

There were also other weapons taken from soldiers at different times.

It has to this time not been determined who shot who.

However during the inquest into the death of the Italian Photographer it was concluded he was shot by the army in a tragic mistake.

It came out at the inquest that he was wearing black clothing and running from behind a barricade towards a group of reds, the only thing that identified him was PRESS written on the back of his helmet which could not have been seen from a distance and when he was running, the army did not deny they shot him, a tragic mistake.

The inquest into the temple deaths did not identify the shooters only that the victims were shot with military style weapons and that the shots came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol.

We also know from photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple, I have already covered that in a previous post and the fact that they had the same firearms.

Where is "photo and video that men in black were in a position where they could have shot into the temple" from May 19th? Porkies!

Only one I can find at short notice, there was also a video but cant get it to load.

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

men in black.jpg

Jesus Rob, if that's the best evidence you can produce, it's weak, it's so small, and if you can positively see or identify a weapon in that thumbnail, I'll buy you beer for a month!!

For an ardent and staunch supporter of the Governments course of action in 2010 , and stating many times you were there, I'd have expected you to have all the evidence to hand on a hard drive that you could produce at a moments notice, weak mate, really really weak evidence indeed, based on that picture alone.

As for the witness who stated they seen weapons pointing from the temple, why would they be anymore credible than the nurse? This witness took pictures on their smart phone to back this up?

This witness is to be credible, because it's against the claims about the men in black, and yet the claims from the bangkok grenade throwers torture claims, have to be dismissed out of hand because??

[rubl]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

Love it.

If Prayut paid Amsterdam enough money he would be singing a different tune.

You realize Amsterdam is a paid representative of the PTP right? He is like a defense lawyer.

Rapists and murderers have defense lawyers too that defend them.

How skeptical of you. Do you not know that it is criminal offense for a lawyer to enter an innocent plea if they believe their client to be guilty? Likewise it would be criminal for Amsterdam to present evidence to the ICC he believed to be false. I think you will find that you just committed libel against Amsterdam by saying that he would sing a different tune if the money came from other side.

As you probably know, lawyers never really lie, they just manage to convey a suggestion, almost a vision which puts the truth in a light seldom done by other more straightforward people. Robert A. doesn't lie, he just implies that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow, and accordingly it might be in the interest of people that the possibility would be investigated. With such 'skill' it's easy to phrase depending on what your client wants.

Even the ICC report has title "Application to investigate the situation in the Kingdom of Thailand with regards to the Commission for Crimes Against Humanity". Clear as mud.

[rubl]

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

You're right. Checking the 'application to investigate" there are some references. There are no statements the .50s were used on protesters, unarmed or armed.

Interesting is the statement from expert Ray Witty who states

"have read the Statement of Anonymous Witness No. 22 at ¶41, which states that “this activity was designed to provoke the crowd to violence so that the troops would have an excuse to open fire.” In my opinion, the events are entirely consistent with that statement."

"The Statement of Anonymous Witness No. 22 explains:

At approximately 19:15, two separate grenades exploded behind

the front lines of the Second Infantry Division on Dinso Road,

killing several soldiers, including Colonel Romklao. I do not know

who threw these grenades, although I suspect that they came from

someone in the First Infantry Division (the King’s Guard), which

has been involved for some time in a bitter rivalry with the Second

Infantry Division (the Queen’s Guard) over which division would

be considered the preferred path for advancement to the position

of Army Commander, which has historically belonged to the King’

Guard but has in recent years moved to the Queens’ Guard. Neither

would it surprise me if I were to learn that elements under General

Prayuth’s command had thrown the grenades to provide an excuse

for the troops to open fire on the crowds.

Regardless of who threw these grenades, the Second Infantry

Division took advantage and, in fact, opened fire on the crowd.

Hundreds of civilians were wounded and many were killed. A

gunner atop one of the Second Infantry Division’s APC, armed

with a .50 caliber machine gun, was ordered to open fire on the

civilians, but fortunately he refused.

Earlier, the troops from the Second Infantry Division deployed

on Tanao Road at the Khok Wua intersection had also opened

fire, shooting thousands of rounds of live ammunition into the

unarmed civilian crowd, although there had been no explosion on

Tanao Road."

So, there seem to be opinions which are deemed 'fact' and 'truth' to the point of being 'justified' to base further speculation on.

PS. thousands of rounds of live ammunition into the unarmed crowd?

[kimamey]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I'm not sure it was so violent but if it was then yes the army (since the police aren't weren't capable) should be sent in. We don't know why Yingluck didn't do this. It could have been concern over possible deaths and injuries. It might also have been because if the army did start shooting people then she would find herself in the same position as Abhisit. Accused of murder, allegedly committed by the military but without them being investigated.

Of course Abhisit and Suthep need to explain themselves and let's not forget Tarit as well since he was there but let's not have a farce like the previous investigations.

Of course the chances of that happening right now don't seem too good. Maybe Abhisit and Suthep will have to wait a while to have their say.

[rubl]

Of course apart from the Robert A. 'application to investigate' we also have

2010-04-12

"What happened next is unclear, and hotly disputed. Government and military officers say that troops came under fire as they were retreating along narrow streets near Bangkok's backpacker hub. When they returned fire they provoked a furious response from protesters on the other side of the barricades. The battle lasted only an hour or so. But the casualties came in thick and fast, as did the ambulances that carried them away. Some soldiers fired live rounds into the air and, it seems, towards the crowds in the darkened streets.

Red-shirt leaders say the army committed a massacre. Those red shirts that were armed bore only rocks and sharpened sticks. One confusing element is that the rogue firepower appeared to consist of a number of black-clad men who emerged from the shadows bearing assault rifles and explosives. Similar agents provocateurs played walk-on roles in May 1992 and in other eruptions of violence in Bangkok. Your correspondent watched a gunman step into a street where red shirts had taken cover and calmly aim a burst of automatic fire towards the army lines. On a parallel street, protesters overran a column of armoured personnel carriers; the crewmen were captured and later paraded on a rally stage. So were the corpses of two protesters, martyrs to a cause that has shaken Thailand to its conservative core."

http://www.economist.com/node/15868034

The 'rogue firepower' seems a reference to the renegade general "no one saw me" Seh Daeng. Somehow missing the few grenades which led to the hasty retreat from too peaceful protesters.

[kimamey]

Thanks, I am not a military man nor do I know much about guns. If you read my post you should see that I was not confused between heavy weapons and assault rifles but actually light machine guns and assault rifles, it appears from my quick Google search that assault rifles were, at least by Colt, once referred to as light machine guns anyway so I can't be that far off.

Anyway, my point was really just to raise the question about the potential for the fire to have been indiscriminate when from automatics. Is it possible to fire with accuracy into a crowd with an automatic weapon, whether fully automatic or from the three round bursts you mentioned? I am really just interested whether the soldiers were using weapons in a way which likely resulted in them causing accidental deaths of innocents or whether it is more likely to of been intentional assassinations taking place in the cases of the journalists and medics. I was kind of hoping that someone would tell me that these types of rifles are wildly inaccurate when used in automatic and the deaths were probably accidental.

I am not sure what the vehicle mounted guns were in 2010 but I can't see the GPMG on the list of weapons the Thai military use. They do appear to use both the M2 and the Type 54 HMG though, which I believe would both be classified as heavy weapons, both presumably are vehicle mounted but I have no idea if these were present in 2010.

Do you know what guns this armored vehicle pictured in the 2010 crackdown has? I believe this is the type of vehicle which was reported to have opened fire. http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000GTLe.KUFG3k

You believe, well that's nice.

More reliable seem the Robert Amsterdam and Peroff report submitted to the ICC, it doesn't mention 'your' facts' and I would have expected them to have this included, or if necessary put in the additional information provided.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

You're right. Checking the 'application to investigate" there are some references. There are no statements the .50s were used on protesters, unarmed or armed.

Interesting is the statement from expert Ray Witty who states

"have read the Statement of Anonymous Witness No. 22 at ¶41, which states that this activity was designed to provoke the crowd to violence so that the troops would have an excuse to open fire. In my opinion, the events are entirely consistent with that statement."

"The Statement of Anonymous Witness No. 22 explains:

At approximately 19:15, two separate grenades exploded behind

the front lines of the Second Infantry Division on Dinso Road,

killing several soldiers, including Colonel Romklao. I do not know

who threw these grenades, although I suspect that they came from

someone in the First Infantry Division (the Kings Guard), which

has been involved for some time in a bitter rivalry with the Second

Infantry Division (the Queens Guard) over which division would

be considered the preferred path for advancement to the position

of Army Commander, which has historically belonged to the King

Guard but has in recent years moved to the Queens Guard. Neither

would it surprise me if I were to learn that elements under General

Prayuths command had thrown the grenades to provide an excuse

for the troops to open fire on the crowds.

Regardless of who threw these grenades, the Second Infantry

Division took advantage and, in fact, opened fire on the crowd.

Hundreds of civilians were wounded and many were killed. A

gunner atop one of the Second Infantry Divisions APC, armed

with a .50 caliber machine gun, was ordered to open fire on the

civilians, but fortunately he refused.

Earlier, the troops from the Second Infantry Division deployed

on Tanao Road at the Khok Wua intersection had also opened

fire, shooting thousands of rounds of live ammunition into the

unarmed civilian crowd, although there had been no explosion on

Tanao Road."

So, there seem to be opinions which are deemed 'fact' and 'truth' to the point of being 'justified' to base further speculation on.

PS. thousands of rounds of live ammunition into the unarmed crowd?

I haven't read Robert Amsterdam's website on this issue for some time but it was always interesting and could never be blamed for being pro Abhisit/Democrat/military.

Over time his focus has shifted. From memory his expert Ray Witty claimed the army was in his view not acting in accordance with their rules of engagement. In another statement RA says the army were acting under orders.

He also makes much of his view that the Emergency Decree should not in his view have been used. He doesn't criticise the decree itself despite the fact that human rights groups spoke up against it when it was passed into law partly for its content and partly because it wasn't debated in parliament as it should have been. I couldn't find out if this has happened subsequently. The reason for this reticence in speaking out against the emergency decree might well be due to the fact that Thaksin's signature is at the bottom of it.

He also made some seemingly justifiable complaints about the investigation carried out under the Dems and made much of the Thai government's obligation under international law to investigate the administration and the army for the deaths including possible crimes against humanity. Fine words which seem to be forgotten once the government changed.

Maybe I should start reading him again.

[Pi Sek]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

But the Red Shirts did have access tgo tavors... some were confiscated on April 10/. Methee was caught with one the next week.

[chooka]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I'm not sure it was so violent but if it was then yes the army (since the police aren't weren't capable) should be sent in. We don't know why Yingluck didn't do this. It could have been concern over possible deaths and injuries. It might also have been because if the army did start shooting people then she would find herself in the same position as Abhisit. Accused of murder, allegedly committed by the military but without them being investigated.

Of course Abhisit and Suthep need to explain themselves and let's not forget Tarit as well since he was there but let's not have a farce like the previous investigations.

Of course the chances of that happening right now don't seem too good. Maybe Abhisit and Suthep will have to wait a while to have their say.

The courts blocked Yingluk

[Plutojames88]

An official report makes it clear ....

It was wholesale murder

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos

Read when you can ...especially the rounds chosen and the particular troops .

It's straight out of darkest Nazi Germany in terms of organised death inflicted on fellow citizens .

[kimamey]

Simple....no explanation necessary. They were protecting the city and country.

IMO the only explanation I would like is why it took them so long to disperse these terrorist red thugs?

They should have been on them from day one and never let them get entrenched the way they did.

I can't understand why this is still an issue. The answers are right there for everyone to see if you weren't here to witness it first hand.

Just curious... would you have wanted Yingluck to take the same approach toward Suthep and his mob when they were shutting down Bangkok and making it impossible for Thais to exercise their right to vote?

I'm not sure it was so violent but if it was then yes the army (since the police aren't weren't capable) should be sent in. We don't know why Yingluck didn't do this. It could have been concern over possible deaths and injuries. It might also have been because if the army did start shooting people then she would find herself in the same position as Abhisit. Accused of murder, allegedly committed by the military but without them being investigated.

Of course Abhisit and Suthep need to explain themselves and let's not forget Tarit as well since he was there but let's not have a farce like the previous investigations.

Of course the chances of that happening right now don't seem too good. Maybe Abhisit and Suthep will have to wait a while to have their say.

The courts blocked Yingluk

I'd forgotten about that but I think she could still have sent in the army if she'd used the Emergency Decree.

[tbthailand]

Yingluck was elected in 2011 and from that time until Suthep took to the streets in November 2013 there were ZERO politically inspired murders, from the time Suthep took to the streets until the coup there were 28 deaths and 800 casualties - you think that's a coincidence?

Yes, both groups of street mobs created very similar environments - the question is why did the army slaughter one group and, not just leave untouched, but actually go out of their way and protect the other group?

Why the double standard?

Think my friend think, for once you answer the above question you will have unravelled the mystery of the past 14 years of political turmoil in the LOS.

The reds were held to account because of what I stated above. The PDRC did not do that.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

And if you feel the army should have gone in then you can blame yingluck as the defense minister for not doing anything about it. She was the boss remember!

So you would seriously like to blame the PDRC for all the deaths by the red shirts because they were sat at Lumpini park after having to retreat there because of all the deaths the red shirts caused elsewhere? Seriously? Blame the PDRC for the red shirts killing them? Serious? Think about it...

That is like saying it is a coincidence that a woman happened to be present when the rape occurred. It defies logic and epitomizes the reds lack of any accountability and there is nothing that highlights further why reform is needed. It is as ludicrous as the other excuse of "The PDRC bombed themselves to make it look like red shirts did it". It seems logic and sanity are left at the door when defending the UDD.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

Fortunately they didn't. All they got for sitting in a park was 24 dead and 700 injured by the people that did do the above.

The rape victim is never to blame. It is always the rapists fault. If the rapist wore a red shirt it makes no difference. And I shake my head to even have to explain it and it is not due to shaky head syndrome.

The PDRC did not take police hostage. They did not kick soldiers to death. They did not do a lot of things the red terrorists did do.

you would appear to be woefully or willingly ignorant of what the PDRC protesters did do...

here is one example:

Guns and grenade launchers were reportedly brandished near Phan Fah bridge in front of Bangkok’s U.N. compound where protesters were massed. Shortly before noon, police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowds, but were met with gunshots and grenades from beyond the barricades.

Erawan emergency medical services said a 52-year-old male civilian was killed by a wound to his head and a police officer died from a wound to his chest, reports the Associated Press. Another man also died but further details were not immediately divulged.

According to Sunai Phasuk, senior researcher on Thailand for Human Rights Watch, unidentified armed forces within the protest camp fired a military grade M-79 grenade launcher.

“This contradicts the pledges from [PDRC chief] Suthep [Thaugsuban] and other protest leaders that resistance to the government will be peaceful and unarmed,” he said. “Each time there was major confrontation, we see armed groups that operate in tandem with protesters.”

it's hard to continue to claim that only one side in this political conflict has ever been violent. Both red and yellow have had their moments... of course the military has killed so many more than both sides of protesters combined, so I stand by my earlier posts that Abhisit was correct to point out that the military still has questions to answer in this 2010 case.

A lot of "reportedly" in your reply to me.

I also remember that when the PDRC retreated from their camp sites due to the casualties inflicted by the red supporters there were "reportedly" weapons found there. Amazing that the PDRC who had all the time in the world to clear the camp site removed all their tents, all their belongings yet left guns and grenades there as incriminating evidence.

Did the PDRC do the below. No, they didn't. Ergo there was no need for deadly force against them.

Of course any person that committed acts of terrorism during the protests will get no sympathy from me and deserve to be held to account. One can be assured there will never ever be a "BUT" at the end of any sentence describing terrorism unlike so many red supporters seem to do.

Have a lovely evening my friend and I thank you for not following the UDD trait of belittling me or offering personal attacks against me.

Now again I say IF the PDRC threatened to blow up LPG truck, performed grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, stormed police hospital, stormed TV station, bomb attacked electricity pylons, taken 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks then I say yes. Send the army in to stop them. Use what ever force is required.

uh, there is one 'reportedly' in that source (from many sources related to different incidents) and that 'reportedly' was referencing witnesses who saw protesters with guns and grenade launchers.

the rest had no additional 'reportedly' included, just straight up 'reports'.

Again, you seem to be uninformed about what has happened. There is no real excuse for it as the various events were covered by multiple news sources. There was violence in 2014 and the PDRC were instigators of much of it.

Reality is far from the "dream world" presented here that only "red thugs" who were "under direction of the PTP government" attacked people.

You guys need to get a grip...

[Fat Haggis]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

But the Red Shirts did have access tgo tavors... some were confiscated on April 10/. Methee was caught with one the next week.

Yes I know they had access to them, but so did the PDRC security last year which kind of makes it irrelevant by associating the Tavors to just the red shirts.

[Pi Sek]

Anyone who believes that only the red shirts have/had/have access to Tavors need to be reminded that the popcorn gunman from last year was using one, last time I checked, he was NOT a member of any red shirt group.

what's the update on his trial by the way? last I read it was postponed?

But the Red Shirts did have access tgo tavors... some were confiscated on April 10/. Methee was caught with one the next week.

Yes I know they had access to them, but so did the PDRC security last year which kind of makes it irrelevant by associating the Tavors to just the red shirts.

Yes, OK, didn't read "only"... was pretty drunk last night. I'm allowed on Sundays.

[mike324]

Well when the so called peaceful protesters are storming hospitals, rigging up oil trucks to explode, making fortified positions, and having their leaders openly say they'll burn the country down if they're challenged it would be incredibly negligent of a PM not to make steps to disperse the protest by any means necessary.

And the army had to battle back with guns only because the red camps had armed militants who had previously fired at soldiers in their camps. Anybody who doesn't get what was happening should check this video for a small overview

No matter who is right and who is wrong the army should never be firing live rounds at their own people. Its not what a nations army is used for.

Sent from my c64

How should a nation deal with armed protesters?

Certainly not with free fire zones, snipers, and soldiers firing on unarmed civilians taking refuge in a place of worship. For a counter model to your assumption that a violent, full-blown military assault is the only option, I invite you to read up on how Canada dealt with a much more openly aggressive insurrection by Mohawk warriors in the 1990s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

Perhaps you missed the memo that soliders had grenades thrown at them, shots fired in the city for months before they made a move. Not only that many innocent by standers were injured as well. They gave weeks of warning for protesters to leave as live fire would be used. With that said, I do agree the solider are partially responsible as well as many were inexperienced, scared, and had trigger happy fingers shooting at anything that moved. The way the crack down went was not the proper way to handle the situation.

Nonetheless protesters were armed with homemade rockets as well as guns, there is no denying. In any first world country, police would counter with live rounds as well. I think soldiers were more than patient.

[Shawn0001]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but Robert Amsterdam definitely mentioned heavy machine gun fire, specifically: "The Canadian lawyer said evidence included the firing of live ammunition into the air, including .50-calibre heavy-machine-gun fire, equipping troops with military weapons and employing snipers "without immediate threat"." https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/general-documents-analysis-and-articles-on-the-icc/49752-lawyer-files-case-with-icc-over-red-shirts.html

Love it.

If Prayut paid Amsterdam enough money he would be singing a different tune.

You realize Amsterdam is a paid representative of the PTP right? He is like a defense lawyer.

Rapists and murderers have defense lawyers too that defend them.

How skeptical of you. Do you not know that it is criminal offense for a lawyer to enter an innocent plea if they believe their client to be guilty? Likewise it would be criminal for Amsterdam to present evidence to the ICC he believed to be false. I think you will find that you just committed libel against Amsterdam by saying that he would sing a different tune if the money came from other side.

As you probably know, lawyers never really lie, they just manage to convey a suggestion, almost a vision which puts the truth in a light seldom done by other more straightforward people. Robert A. doesn't lie, he just implies that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow, and accordingly it might be in the interest of people that the possibility would be investigated. With such 'skill' it's easy to phrase depending on what your client wants.

Even the ICC report has title "Application to investigate the situation in the Kingdom of Thailand with regards to the Commission for Crimes Against Humanity". Clear as mud.

If you can't understand the difference between an application and a report then it is bound to all seem a little muddy to you. Sorry mate but that title is clear as day to me.

"that possibly there may have been something that could be seen as incorrect or wrong by some somehow" YES, international crimes listed in international conventions to be seen by the International Courts to which he was applying to request them to investigate!