Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Warpath]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

Calm down mate.

Abhisit and Suthep weren't in charge and so are not to blame.

The questions should be put to Prawit and Prayuth.

[Warpath]

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?

If these protesters came to Bkk with the blatant intent of burning the city down (as the reds did). If they were armed and barricaded, if they were launching grenades at the opposition protesters (killing several). if they started shooting at the military and killed the military personnel and had taken over their equipment (because if you remember the military did not retaliate when the reds attacked them the first time killing a colonel and another soldier and injuring countless others). If the protesters were burning and blowing up city buses with propane bottles, then YES, I would have defended Yingluck for protecting the citizens by using force.

What you fail to see with your biased head, way up your biased you know what, is that these protesters (led by Suthep) were peaceful!!! yes, it was inconvenient for all of us to put up with it but they were there to remove a cancer from society and IMO this needed to be done. I believe Thailand is better off because of it and we are seeing many improvements as a result. Things are not perfect but we are taking baby steps in the right direction. This will take generations to change the culture of this place but it has to start somewhere.

I am just curious....how long do you think it would have been before Ying bankrupted the country? How long before she granted amnesty to her brother and hundreds of other corrupt thieves that steal from the people and country they swore an oath to serve?

How long before Taksin would have been back as the ultimate dictator of Thailand? That was the whole point of everything the reds were trying to achieve. They came very very close to making it happen. Thank God they were stopped is all I can say.

ALLSEEINGEYE have you ever considered Scientology, I think you'd find it a perfect fit, you've probably already got your own tin foil hat.

[Shawn0001]

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, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

[pomchop]

How about the bunch that shut down the airports for ten full days, caused total chaos and cost billions of baht in lost revenues?

Oh that's right, they had on the OTHER color of shirt so that's ok

[Shawn0001]

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?

If these protesters came to Bkk with the blatant intent of burning the city down (as the reds did). If they were armed and barricaded, if they were launching grenades at the opposition protesters (killing several). if they started shooting at the military and killed the military personnel and had taken over their equipment (because if you remember the military did not retaliate when the reds attacked them the first time killing a colonel and another soldier and injuring countless others). If the protesters were burning and blowing up city buses with propane bottles, then YES, I would have defended Yingluck for protecting the citizens by using force.

What you fail to see with your biased head, way up your biased you know what, is that these protesters (led by Suthep) were peaceful!!! yes, it was inconvenient for all of us to put up with it but they were there to remove a cancer from society and IMO this needed to be done. I believe Thailand is better off because of it and we are seeing many improvements as a result. Things are not perfect but we are taking baby steps in the right direction. This will take generations to change the culture of this place but it has to start somewhere.

I am just curious....how long do you think it would have been before Ying bankrupted the country? How long before she granted amnesty to her brother and hundreds of other corrupt thieves that steal from the people and country they swore an oath to serve?

How long before Taksin would have been back as the ultimate dictator of Thailand? That was the whole point of everything the reds were trying to achieve. They came very very close to making it happen. Thank God they were stopped is all I can say.

"how long do you think it would have been before Ying bankrupted the country"

Considering the 6.3% growth during Yinglucks term it is difficult to see where you are coming from with that question. Perhaps you are confused by the downturn that followed, a very serious drop caused directly by the opposition led protests.

[halloween]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

[chainarong]

One wonders what it has to do with the Anti corruption commission, something that happened in 2010 and where might I ask was the corruption , do the anti corruption commission support public disobedience, the leader and deputy leader have a moral obligation in any good governance to protect the public and infrastructure , one would like to see these brave red shirts pull the same trick now, in retrospect Khun Abhisit was perhaps too lenient in waiting so long to act.

[phoenixdoglover]

Given the history of protests in Thailand, why are the police so ill-equipped and so reluctant to engage protest violence early and reduce the chances of escalation. Why are the protest control tactics so limited?

Could this negligence serve another purpose for people who want the violence to escalate?

Could this be not really a question of Red/Yellow at all?

Why is everybody stuck in this stupid dichotomy, especially on this forum?

What other institution has repeatedly violated the constitution, participated in the violence or threat of overwhelming force, and come out on top every time?

Do Red/Yellow opponents like to be played as quarrelsome fools?

[Eric Loh]

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

I respectfully disagree. There are numerous eventualities in every country where a nation's army has to act against its own citizens. 2010 was a fine example.

In that case, staging a coup in 2010 will have a more peaceful result. The demonstrators would packed their bags and leave peacefully if the military stepped in and take over the government. Or like in 2008, when the Army Chief Anupong demanded that the PP government stepped down. No it didn't happen and preferred to use the most violent means to rid the demonstrators.

[greenchair]

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?

The people pay the salaries of the government and the army. Everything the government/army has come from the people's own money and work. Every gun, every tank, every office, every government job is provided by the people ,to take care of the people.

The people wanted their employees to hold an immediate election and investigate their second in command employee.

The government should have held immediate elections to stop the protesters.

As yingluck tried to do, when the citizens of the yellow camp demanded their employee step down.

[Skywalker69]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

They were paid to come to Bangkok, paid by a billionaire whom got 46 billion thb of his money confiskated 2 weeks erlier.

[Docno]

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?

If these protesters came to Bkk with the blatant intent of burning the city down (as the reds did). If they were armed and barricaded, if they were launching grenades at the opposition protesters (killing several). if they started shooting at the military and killed the military personnel and had taken over their equipment (because if you remember the military did not retaliate when the reds attacked them the first time killing a colonel and another soldier and injuring countless others). If the protesters were burning and blowing up city buses with propane bottles, then YES, I would have defended Yingluck for protecting the citizens by using force.

What you fail to see with your biased head, way up your biased you know what, is that these protesters (led by Suthep) were peaceful!!! yes, it was inconvenient for all of us to put up with it but they were there to remove a cancer from society and IMO this needed to be done. I believe Thailand is better off because of it and we are seeing many improvements as a result. Things are not perfect but we are taking baby steps in the right direction. This will take generations to change the culture of this place but it has to start somewhere.

I am just curious....how long do you think it would have been before Ying bankrupted the country? How long before she granted amnesty to her brother and hundreds of other corrupt thieves that steal from the people and country they swore an oath to serve?

How long before Taksin would have been back as the ultimate dictator of Thailand? That was the whole point of everything the reds were trying to achieve. They came very very close to making it happen. Thank God they were stopped is all I can say.

"they were there to remove a cancer from society and IMO this needed to be done. I believe Thailand is better off because of it and we are seeing many improvements as a result. Things are not perfect but we are taking baby steps in the right direction. This will take generations to change the culture of this place but it has to start somewhere."

So let me get this straight. If you don't like how a duly elected government is doing its job, the solution is to shut the country down like a child holding its breath. And when that government says "OK - we'll put it to the people" and calls a general election, the appropriate way to respond is to refuse to participate in that election or to actively block citizens from trying to vote. All because it may lead to a result that YOU do not like. I'm sorry, but as imperfect as democracy is, that is simply not how it works.

[Shawn0001]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

[JOC]

Given the history of protests in Thailand, why are the police so ill-equipped and so reluctant to engage protest violence early and reduce the chances of escalation. Why are the protest control tactics so limited?

Could this negligence serve another purpose for people who want the violence to escalate?

Could this be not really a question of Red/Yellow at all?

Why is everybody stuck in this stupid dichotomy, especially on this forum?

What other institution has repeatedly violated the constitution, participated in the violence or threat of overwhelming force, and come out on top every time?

Do Red/Yellow opponents like to be played as quarrelsome fools?

>>Could this negligence serve another purpose for people who want the violence to escalate?

Could this be not really a question of Red/Yellow at all?<<

Spot on!!

Not even the leaders on the various color shirts realize they are being used as pawns by the only permanent power in Thailand.

The sponsors couldn't care less if 100 or 1000 Thais are killed, as long as status quo are kept!!

[Alwyn]

Quite a difference in how they treat Abhisit Vejjajiva and his former deputy Suthep Thaugsuban compared to Yingluck, the red shirts, the MP's that tried to get a senate that was 100% voted and other's associated with Pheu Thai...quite a difference. That's OK Abhisit...99 people were killed and all you have to do is write your answer and submit it, because we don't want to stress you too much and we want you as next PM again. Oh, and don't worry about that military mix-up stuff either.

Different?

Rice-pledging scheme: PM Yingluck won't acknowledge charges in person

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/705678-rice-pledging-scheme-pm-yingluck-wont-acknowledge-charges-in-person/

sorry, but exactly how many were murdered by the rice pledging scheme? Pretty twisted to compare Abhisit and Yingluck over this.

[Warpath]

Given the history of protests in Thailand, why are the police so ill-equipped and so reluctant to engage protest violence early and reduce the chances of escalation. Why are the protest control tactics so limited?

Could this negligence serve another purpose for people who want the violence to escalate?

Could this be not really a question of Red/Yellow at all?

Why is everybody stuck in this stupid dichotomy, especially on this forum?

What other institution has repeatedly violated the constitution, participated in the violence or threat of overwhelming force, and come out on top every time?

Do Red/Yellow opponents like to be played as quarrelsome fools?

>>Could this negligence serve another purpose for people who want the violence to escalate?

Could this be not really a question of Red/Yellow at all?<<

Spot on!!

Not even the leaders on the various color shirts realize they are being used as pawns by the only permanent power in Thailand.

The sponsors couldn't care less if 100 or 1000 Thais are killed, as long as status quo are kept!!

The only permanent power in Thailand = the military.

Everything else is just a facade.

[djjamie]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

No defending violence in any form, but

So you are defending violence.

Kinda like "I don't support the reds cheering the terrorist killings at Trat, BUT there votes were being voided"

What next "I don't support the reds when they threatened to kidnap and murder Prayut's daughters, BUT there votes were voided"

The sad thing is your inability to articulate an intelligent response will force you no other choice, but to launch another personal attack on me. Kinda like yesterday.

Have a lovely day my friend.

[Warpath]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

No defending violence in any form, but

So you are defending violence.

Kinda like "I don't support the reds cheering the terrorist killings at Trat, BUT there votes were being voided"

What next "I don't support the reds when they threatened to kidnap and murder Prayut's daughters, BUT there votes were voided"

The sad thing is your inability to articulate an intelligent response will force you no other choice, but to launch another personal attack on me. Kinda like yesterday.

Have a lovely day my friend.

When it comes to violence, this conflict is asymmetrical. On one side you have a highly organised, state funded war machine and on the other no more than citizens, poor citizens, doing what they can to rid themselves of unwanted overlords. It is very, very similar to the Israel - Palestine conflict. The Palestinians have resorted to terrorism and that is unforgivable but just because their methods are unforgivable does not mean their cause is wrong. I'm sure the Palestinians would rather be fighting for their freedom with state of the art United States supplied war weaponry but none is made available to them so they fight with the only thing poor people have - their courage and their lives. I am sure the people of Thailand would like their military to be protecting them and defending their democracy and not slaughtering them and subjecting them to unelected regime after unelected regime but unfortunately the Thai military does not do the right thing by the Thai citizenry and so the Thai people must fight with what they have - their courage and their lives.

ps - before you lecture others on "inability to articulate and intelligent response" perhaps you should proof read your posts lest you type something such as "force you have no other choice".

Regards.

[lewy67]

The army killed and injured protesters to protect and maintain their own power and the power of the elite. If red protesters came out in numbers after this latest coup the army would have done what was needed to again maintain their permanent power. The military are the constant power and evil in Thailand. They are anti progress, anti development and anti modernisation. They require a backward nation and people to maintain the status quo.

For Thailand to have any hope of becoming developed their budget needs to be cut by 80%.

[Robby nz]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

Why are you rehashing an issue that has already been addressed by the NACC? There was an investigation. Why bring up an unrelated issued? Why are you afraid to deal with this specific subject?

You see Gerry there have been those who have been asking for, demanding even, equal justice, in particular the red leaders and PT politicians.

Therefor it would seem reasonable that while questions are being asked about the need to disperse the rioters and the methods involved, that the red leaders also be asked questions concerning their part in organizing the riots and why they did not disperse peacefully once achieved their stated objective of an early election had been achieved.

There are also the questions regarding the armed element among them which are pertinent, for had there been no attacks on the army and unarmed civilians going about their business with weapons of war there would have been need for retaliation in kind by the army.

Equal justice therefor equal questioning for both sides.

[Warpath]

It would also be nice if the red leaders were asked to explain :

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

Who supplied the weapons to the men in black (who didn't exist) ?

Why they accepted Abhisits offer of early elections then next day reversed that decision ?

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

How was it possible for them, the leaders, to emerge from the riots a millionaires ?

There are also many other questions that come to mind, for instance one of them could be asked :

Why have you not taken responsibility for all the arson as you said you would when you urged your followers to each bring a bottle to fill with gasoline ?

Why are you rehashing an issue that has already been addressed by the NACC? There was an investigation. Why bring up an unrelated issued? Why are you afraid to deal with this specific subject?

You see Gerry there have been those who have been asking for, demanding even, equal justice, in particular the red leaders and PT politicians.

Therefor it would seem reasonable that while questions are being asked about the need to disperse the rioters and the methods involved, that the red leaders also be asked questions concerning their part in organizing the riots and why they did not disperse peacefully once achieved their stated objective of an early election had been achieved.

There are also the questions regarding the armed element among them which are pertinent, for had there been no attacks on the army and unarmed civilians going about their business with weapons of war there would have been need for retaliation in kind by the army.

Equal justice therefor equal questioning for both sides.

The Reds, like any group, contains an element of extremists. During 2010 maybe 50 or a hundred may have committed acts of violence.

Over 15 million Thais voted for Yingluck.

By your logic, denying the rights of millions because of the actions of very, very, very few is the right thing to do.

Guess what - it's not!

[Robby nz]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

As you have just arrived, unless you are a reincarnation, you should do some research before posting.

The only ones doing random shooting into crowds were the men in black, those of us who were here at the time remember the photos and videos of the men in black jumping out from cover and letting off a mag of automatic rifle fire in the general direction of the army then jumping back again.

We remember the grenades deliberately fired at the sky train station which killed a lady and injured several others.

We remember the reds teaching children how to fire home made rockets in the general direction of the army.

We remember the attempts to set fire to a fuel tanker in front of a crowed apartment building.

We remember the grenades fired at the fuel tanks at Don Muang airport.

Yes there were 2 photographers killed, one by mistake by the army, this came out clearly at his inquest and they never denied it, the other we don't know who killed him, it could well have been one of the armed reds.

Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held.

Neither do we know how many of the others killed or injured were victims of the armed reds.

As you are appear to be an expert on riot control could you please tell us the correct way things should be handled when armed rioters are shooting and firing grenades at an army and the civilian population with the leaders extoling their followers to turn the city into a sea of flame.

[Eric Loh]

No, the uprising was not peaceful but, does that really justify the indiscriminate shooting of over 2000 people including the deaths of journalists, tourists and paramedics? Not in my opinion, in my opinion shooting into crowd of people with automatic weapons is far worse burning and looting and the fact that the odd pistol shot was coming out of that crowd did not justify randomly shooting at all of them.

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

As you have just arrived, unless you are a reincarnation, you should do some research before posting.

The only ones doing random shooting into crowds were the men in black, those of us who were here at the time remember the photos and videos of the men in black jumping out from cover and letting off a mag of automatic rifle fire in the general direction of the army then jumping back again.

We remember the grenades deliberately fired at the sky train station which killed a lady and injured several others.

We remember the reds teaching children how to fire home made rockets in the general direction of the army.

We remember the attempts to set fire to a fuel tanker in front of a crowed apartment building.

We remember the grenades fired at the fuel tanks at Don Muang airport.

Yes there were 2 photographers killed, one by mistake by the army, this came out clearly at his inquest and they never denied it, the other we don't know who killed him, it could well have been one of the armed reds.

Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held.

Neither do we know how many of the others killed or injured were victims of the armed reds.

As you are appear to be an expert on riot control could you please tell us the correct way things should be handled when armed rioters are shooting and firing grenades at an army and the civilian population with the leaders extoling their followers to turn the city into a sea of flame.

"Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held".

The inquest by the Criminal Court concluded that the shots were fired from the direction of the soldiers on the flyover. What's so unclear about this? You are generalizing and assuming too much.

[Robby nz]

Why are you rehashing an issue that has already been addressed by the NACC? There was an investigation. Why bring up an unrelated issued? Why are you afraid to deal with this specific subject?

You see Gerry there have been those who have been asking for, demanding even, equal justice, in particular the red leaders and PT politicians.

Therefor it would seem reasonable that while questions are being asked about the need to disperse the rioters and the methods involved, that the red leaders also be asked questions concerning their part in organizing the riots and why they did not disperse peacefully once achieved their stated objective of an early election had been achieved.

There are also the questions regarding the armed element among them which are pertinent, for had there been no attacks on the army and unarmed civilians going about their business with weapons of war there would have been need for retaliation in kind by the army.

Equal justice therefor equal questioning for both sides.

The Reds, like any group, contains an element of extremists. During 2010 maybe 50 or a hundred may have committed acts of violence.

Over 15 million Thais voted for Yingluck.

By your logic, denying the rights of millions because of the actions of very, very, very few is the right thing to do.

Guess what - it's not!

OK you are new on here so you may not realize that the riots happened before the Yingluck Govt came on the scene so there is no correlation, you also tend to forget the millions who did not vote for her party.

It is good however that you admit that there were those among the reds who were violent, and to take it farther killed and wounded many.

I don't see how you manage to work out that my reasoning that equal justice would be served by questioning both parties at the same time is denying anyone's rights when it is being inclusive and giving both sides the same rights.

[rubl]

No defending violence in any form, but

Maybe the reds were there in the first place, because they over and over again had seen their votes being voided by the "juridical system" and/or the army.

And of course Abhisit and Suthep should face the music for allowing live rounds against their fellow Thais.

All to protect the wealth and power of the elite!!

Since you mention 'elite', it's interesting to notice that the protests took real shape when the criminal court ruled to confiscate 46 or so billion of Thaksin's ill-gotten gains.

Nonetheless, let's have Abhisit and Suthep explain their decision and actions. Since Ms. Yingluck has asked for and is offered the opportunity to explain herself in the RPPS that's only fair.

That's only fair?....99 dead and a thousand wounded versus a few bags of rice missing.

I must admit that crushing terrorists is much more important than trying to figure out why a democratically elected government lost 700 billion Baht on a self-financing scheme and even thought it necessary to have a blanket amnesty bill covering the 'right' period.

Mind you if that bill would have gone through, we TVF posters would be deprived of a favourite discussion topic.

But that's justice.

[bkkcanuck8]

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

I am wondering why this would be for Abhisit or Suthep to "explain". Dispersal is reasonable for any protest that is more than 24 hours with people camping in the street -- whoever is in power should have the ability to clear the streets. Unfortunately not enough police are trained in nonviolent techniques of dispersal, and it should have been police that were used.... but this is an ongoing problem with corruption in the police and training (not limited to one government). The Army should not be involved in policing, but with the police unable to handle it they do get called and in those cases they should assist, the question though is why such lethal force was used against non-combatants (the ones killed were not armed or the weapons would have been recovered from their corpses). It is the Army to explain how such lethal force was used, and if they were ordered. If they were ordered to use force I would not suspect Abhisit, but based on Suthep's earlier words - I would not put it past him.

Now, personally I walked through the area before the first failed attempt to disperse them (on a regular basis).... which failed and ended up with a lot of innocent deaths due to incompetence. It was not an armed camp - before. It however transformed into one after - which is not a surprise given the dynamics of the anger which feeds upon itself. At that point, the government should have backed down and agreed to go to the polls immediately (which would have broken up the protests) -- which Abhisit was open to -- but Suthep was definitely not... (Suthep was the real power). There was no other peaceful option and their incompetence in the first place created the situation.

I do NOT support the criminalization of leaders using normal force to disperse protesters though.... and the case should not be forwarded unless they have evidence that they ordered the use of lethal force to disperse protesters..... Incompetence should be judged by the electorate, not the courts.

Edited March 21, 2015 by bkkcanuck8

[Robby nz]

M-79 grenades and RPGs qualify as an "odd pistol shot"? And the men photographed moving through the red ranks with assault rifles, should we all ignore them?

This is exactly the problem, people mix up many different incidents all into one as justification for the shooting of innocents. Yes, the Red Shirts took it way too far, there was extreme violence occurring in the city and that needed to stop. However, randomly shooting into a large group of people killing photographers, medics and other innocents was obviously not the right way to deal with it, and I find it incredible that anyone could actually think otherwise. But, some do, likewise some feel that a million civilian deaths in Iraq was in someway justified by the breaking of Saddam's regime.

As you have just arrived, unless you are a reincarnation, you should do some research before posting.

The only ones doing random shooting into crowds were the men in black, those of us who were here at the time remember the photos and videos of the men in black jumping out from cover and letting off a mag of automatic rifle fire in the general direction of the army then jumping back again.

We remember the grenades deliberately fired at the sky train station which killed a lady and injured several others.

We remember the reds teaching children how to fire home made rockets in the general direction of the army.

We remember the attempts to set fire to a fuel tanker in front of a crowed apartment building.

We remember the grenades fired at the fuel tanks at Don Muang airport.

Yes there were 2 photographers killed, one by mistake by the army, this came out clearly at his inquest and they never denied it, the other we don't know who killed him, it could well have been one of the armed reds.

Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held.

Neither do we know how many of the others killed or injured were victims of the armed reds.

As you are appear to be an expert on riot control could you please tell us the correct way things should be handled when armed rioters are shooting and firing grenades at an army and the civilian population with the leaders extoling their followers to turn the city into a sea of flame.

"Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held".

The inquest by the Criminal Court concluded that the shots were fired from the direction of the soldiers on the flyover. What's so unclear about this? You are generalizing and assuming too much.

That is correct up to your assumption that because the shots were fired from the direction of the skytrain and there were soldiers in that vicinity. it was the soldiers that fired the shots.

There were photos and video of men in black who were also in a position where they could have fired the shots into the temple.

The only clear thing that came out of the inquest was the type of weapons used and we know that type were in the hands of both the army and the men in black.

It should also be mentioned that the army's testimony to the inquest was disregarded.

It is those who want the army to be responsible who would ignore any other possibilities..

[rubl]

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?

Interesting question especially since the anti-government protests really started with the push through of the blanket amnesty bill which would have made further discussions here unnecessary.

Maybe the blanket amnesty bill disaster and the push to have Abhisit/Suthep charged for "premediated murder as private persons" also made it a wee bit more difficult to try to get to moral high ground if the Yingluck Government had followed the same approach as the duo.

[rubl]

As you have just arrived, unless you are a reincarnation, you should do some research before posting.

The only ones doing random shooting into crowds were the men in black, those of us who were here at the time remember the photos and videos of the men in black jumping out from cover and letting off a mag of automatic rifle fire in the general direction of the army then jumping back again.

We remember the grenades deliberately fired at the sky train station which killed a lady and injured several others.

We remember the reds teaching children how to fire home made rockets in the general direction of the army.

We remember the attempts to set fire to a fuel tanker in front of a crowed apartment building.

We remember the grenades fired at the fuel tanks at Don Muang airport.

Yes there were 2 photographers killed, one by mistake by the army, this came out clearly at his inquest and they never denied it, the other we don't know who killed him, it could well have been one of the armed reds.

Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held.

Neither do we know how many of the others killed or injured were victims of the armed reds.

As you are appear to be an expert on riot control could you please tell us the correct way things should be handled when armed rioters are shooting and firing grenades at an army and the civilian population with the leaders extoling their followers to turn the city into a sea of flame.

"Just who shot into the temple is still unclear in spite of an inquest being held".

The inquest by the Criminal Court concluded that the shots were fired from the direction of the soldiers on the flyover. What's so unclear about this? You are generalizing and assuming too much.

The inquest concentrated on the temple deaths as it normal in an inquest. Lots of information which would be seen as related in a normal court case were put aside. A day full of gunfights with heavily armed militants ignored. Grenades dropped on soldiers ignored. For an inquest maybe rightly so, but the other information explains why this could have happened. Blame those cowrdly militants hiding amongst peaceful protesters.

[Robby nz]

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

I am wondering why this would be for Abhisit or Suthep to "explain". Dispersal is reasonable for any protest that is more than 24 hours with people camping in the street -- whoever is in power should have the ability to clear the streets. Unfortunately not enough police are trained in nonviolent techniques of dispersal, and it should have been police that were used.... but this is an ongoing problem with corruption in the police and training (not limited to one government). The Army should not be involved in policing, but with the police unable to handle it they do get called and in those cases they should assist, the question though is why such lethal force was used against non-combatants (the ones killed were not armed or the weapons would have been recovered from their corpses). It is the Army to explain how such lethal force was used, and if they were ordered. If they were ordered to use force I would not suspect Abhisit, but based on Suthep's earlier words - I would not put it past him.

Now, personally I walked through the area before the first failed attempt to disperse them (on a regular basis).... which failed and ended up with a lot of innocent deaths due to incompetence. It was not an armed camp - before. It however transformed into one after - which is not a surprise given the dynamics of the anger which feeds upon itself. At that point, the government should have backed down and agreed to go to the polls immediately (which would have broken up the protests) -- which Abhisit was open to -- but Suthep was definitely not... (Suthep was the real power). There was no other peaceful option and their incompetence in the first place created the situation.

I do NOT support the criminalization of leaders using normal force to disperse protesters though.... and the case should not be forwarded unless they have evidence that they ordered the use of lethal force to disperse protesters..... Incompetence should be judged by the electorate, not the courts.

For a start

why such lethal force was used against non-combatants (the ones killed were not armed or the weapons would have been recovered from their corpses).

Do you really believe there would have been weapons left with any of the dead or wounded for the world to see ?

No way, had one of the armed reds or men in black been hit their weapons and black outer clothing would have been removed making them into innocent protesters.

At that point, the government should have backed down and agreed to go to the polls immediately

Abhisit did agree to go to the polls and that offer was accepted only to be rejected in a reversal the next day, tell us who may have been responsible for that change of mind.

Note, at that time one of the red leaders Veera walked out for he know full well what the refusal to leave would lead to and he wanted no part in it. The other leaders put money before life and carried on regardless for they knew it would not be their life as they kept well out of the way.