Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[JOC]

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.

>> you also tend to forget the millions who did not vote for her party.<<

Lord have mercy..............sometimes the level here gets scary low...................

[Eric Loh]

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..

Unclear!! Read the extract below from the Criminal Court.

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

Don't be silly and qoute me that the army disregard the inquest.

[bkkcanuck8]

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.

Suthep, he made it very clear that he would rather see the reds bloodied and punished and compromise would never have been accepted.

Abhisit may have been Prime Minister but Suthep was still the real power.

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.

As opposed to the Army saying that no lethal force was used? It was not us, it was some third black hand?

[djjamie]

Ahbisit does have a lot to answer for and as much as I support the Right Honorable Ahbisit I will never forgive him for one thing.

For allowing terrorists to roam the streets with impunity between the 12th of March until the 9th of April. After the death and violence the UDD leaders encouraged between those dates I will never forgive Ahbisit for only using rubber bullets and water cannons on the 19th of April.

To me that said "We tolerate terrorism" Thailand doesn't. The majority don't. The majority never use "BUT" at the end of the sentence when discussing terrorism let alone cheer it.

Ahbisit has learnt a strong lesson here and that is to make sure that he is not tolerant of terrorist activity. He is not forgiving of people that kick soldiers to death and shut power down at hospitals amongst other things.

He has to think of the majorities safety, stability and wellbeing. Not a 7% fanatical minorities death wish.

The ironic thing that is overlooked is that under a supposed democratic government that was in power for 3 years tried to give the Right Honorable Ahbisit amnesty while the government currently in power that has never ever suggested they are democratic has asked him to "explain"

To reiterate - Democratic govt - "We will absolve you of all crimes". Undemocratic govt - "Explain yourself"

Of course the red supporters can blame the floods or some other similar unrelated situation for why the Junta is leveraged more to democracy than the PTP ever was, but when I read these excuses I smile and remember that protestors are NOT garbage (and those protestors include rice farmers).

Edited March 21, 2015 by djjamie

[metisdead]

Please use discretion in your references to the government. Phrases which can be considered as anti-coup will be removed. Referring to Thailand or the government as a dictatorship, military dictatorship or other such terms will be removed.

[englishoak]

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 ?

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

[Warpath]

Ahbisit does have a lot to answer for and as much as I support the Right Honorable Ahbisit I will never forgive him for one thing.

For allowing terrorists to roam the streets with impunity between the 12th of March until the 9th of April. After the death and violence the UDD leaders encouraged between those dates I will never forgive Ahbisit for only using rubber bullets and water cannons on the 19th of April.

To me that said "We tolerate terrorism" Thailand doesn't. The majority don't. The majority never use "BUT" at the end of the sentence when discussing terrorism let alone cheer it.

Ahbisit has learnt a strong lesson here and that is to make sure that he is not tolerant of terrorist activity. He is not forgiving of people that kick soldiers to death and shut power down at hospitals amongst other things.

He has to think of the majorities safety, stability and wellbeing. Not a 7% fanatical minorities death wish.

The ironic thing that is overlooked is that under a supposed democratic government that was in power for 3 years tried to give the Right Honorable Ahbisit amnesty while the government currently in power that has never ever suggested they are democratic has asked him to "explain"

To reiterate - Democratic govt - "We will absolve you of all crimes". Undemocratic govt - "Explain yourself"

Of course the red supporters can blame the floods or some other similar unrelated situation for why the Junta is leveraged more to democracy than the PTP ever was, but when I read it I smile and remember that protestors are NOT garbage (and those protestors include rice farmers).

The Junta has turned on "the right honourable" Abhisit so now, like a wisp of grass in the breeze, Djjamie has turned on "the right honourable" Abhisit.

It seems nothing can get in between some and their love for the Junta.

The truth is not malleable, it is permanent and enduring and there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The elite coalition is fracturing from within, trouble times ahead, who next will the DJ being throwing under the bus?

[CharlieH]

Bating comment removed.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[Robby nz]

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 would say Doc that had the protesters in 2014 been firing grenades and shooting out of their positions then the govt of the day would have been justified in using the same tactics against them.

However they were not, in fact the grenades and shooting were being done at the protesters.

Incidentally you want to try to learn a little about the 2014 protests before writing about 'Suthep and his mob'. But of course the hate must be continued as it is the cornerstone of Thaksin power.

Try this for the start of your education and go from there : http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

[Pi Sek]

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.

Suthep, he made it very clear that he would rather see the reds bloodied and punished and compromise would never have been accepted.

Abhisit may have been Prime Minister but Suthep was still the real power.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Jatuporn, Veera & Natthawut changed their minds on Abhisit's offer because Suthep told them to, or are you suggesting they didn't accept the PM's offer because the Deputy PM held more power than him?

[djjamie]

Ahbisit does have a lot to answer for and as much as I support the Right Honorable Ahbisit I will never forgive him for one thing.

For allowing terrorists to roam the streets with impunity between the 12th of March until the 9th of April. After the death and violence the UDD leaders encouraged between those dates I will never forgive Ahbisit for only using rubber bullets and water cannons on the 19th of April.

To me that said "We tolerate terrorism" Thailand doesn't. The majority don't. The majority never use "BUT" at the end of the sentence when discussing terrorism let alone cheer it.

Ahbisit has learnt a strong lesson here and that is to make sure that he is not tolerant of terrorist activity. He is not forgiving of people that kick soldiers to death and shut power down at hospitals amongst other things.

He has to think of the majorities safety, stability and wellbeing. Not a 7% fanatical minorities death wish.

The ironic thing that is overlooked is that under a supposed democratic government that was in power for 3 years tried to give the Right Honorable Ahbisit amnesty while the government currently in power that has never ever suggested they are democratic has asked him to "explain"

To reiterate - Democratic govt - "We will absolve you of all crimes". Undemocratic govt - "Explain yourself"

Of course the red supporters can blame the floods or some other similar unrelated situation for why the Junta is leveraged more to democracy than the PTP ever was, but when I read it I smile and remember that protestors are NOT garbage (and those protestors include rice farmers).

The Junta has turned on "the right honourable" Abhisit so now, like a wisp of grass in the breeze, Djjamie has turned on "the right honourable" Abhisit.

It seems nothing can get in between some and their love for the Junta.

The truth is not malleable, it is permanent and enduring and there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The elite coalition is fracturing from within, trouble times ahead, who next will the DJ being throwing under the bus?

Firstly I would like to thank you for no personal attacks on me which unfortunately is a typical UDD trait.

I am simply saying that the Junta are holding people accountable for their actions no matter what persuasion they are affiliated to.

Even though I support the Right Honorable Ahbisit I have always stated well before the Junta came to power that I disagreed with his complacency when dealing with terrorism. He did after all only want minimal casualties.

Thanks for your input and I appreciate that you didn't belittle me like most UDD supporters do.

Have a great evening.

[bkkcanuck8]

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.

Suthep, he made it very clear that he would rather see the reds bloodied and punished and compromise would never have been accepted.

Abhisit may have been Prime Minister but Suthep was still the real power.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Jatuporn, Veera & Natthawut changed their minds on Abhisit's offer because Suthep told them to, or are you suggesting they didn't accept the PM's offer because the Deputy PM held more power than him?

No the argument between the "reds" and the government was they wanted the government to resign immediately, the government was giving a date in the future (still room to negotiate). The government could have resigned immediately (caretaker government situation) - which would require the EC to set an election date. The offer to resign was withdrawn -- after Suthep made it very clear he was against any such compromise.

[Jim walker]

load and FIRE

[wow64]

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?

Not with live rounds from the army.

Water canons and tear gas from a properly trained Riot squad.. seem to work in the rest of the world.

You dont send the army in the fight its own people.. They are not the enemy or the reason a nation has an army.

Sent from my c64

[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 ?

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

[Pi Sek]

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.

Suthep, he made it very clear that he would rather see the reds bloodied and punished and compromise would never have been accepted.

Abhisit may have been Prime Minister but Suthep was still the real power.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Jatuporn, Veera & Natthawut changed their minds on Abhisit's offer because Suthep told them to, or are you suggesting they didn't accept the PM's offer because the Deputy PM held more power than him?

No the argument between the "reds" and the government was they wanted the government to resign immediately, the government was giving a date in the future (still room to negotiate). The government could have resigned immediately (caretaker government situation) - which would require the EC to set an election date. The offer to resign was withdrawn -- after Suthep made it very clear he was against any such compromise.

That's not quite accurate though is it. They were offered an early election, they accepted it, then they rejected it after someone got an "important call". Robby NZ's question was: who made that call? I don't think it was Suthep.

The government at the time said they had until May 5 to accept the early election - a "yes" or "no" answer. Abhisit's critics said at the time he was being too neutral, so I think the ultimatum was justified, particularly in the face of so many deaths at that point. They tried to counter this with a "yes with conditions" which, to be frank, were unreasonable (at least in my opinion).

They were asking Suthep to resign and take responsibility for the 10 April deaths... which were part of an operation to clear the protest site in the wake of Kwanchai's 200-strong Red Shirt force attacking the 1st Army Barracks at Saphan Fah Luang, and we all know how that turned out... someone decided to fire an M79 grenade at the army and all hell broke loose. The only bit that's not clear is who shot all the protesters - personally I don't think they were all down to the army, and that certain terrorist elements in the Red Shirt side decided it would be a good idea to further their cause by creating some martyrs. I've come to this conclusion because I have seen footage of front line Red Shirt aggressors on 10 April panicking and asking each other whose side Seh Daeng's troops were on. What we do know is that a prominent actor-turned-Red Shirt got picked up a week or so later with a load of weapons "confiscated" from the army, and named Natthawut as the principal organiser of violence, although the Red leaders were quick to point out he wasn't a real Red Shirt. (Maybe they should have claimed he was tortured instead.)

Suthep's since been charged and he has his defence ready, just like Abhisit, and he's willing to answer the charges instead of running away like real elites such as Thaksin, the Redbull heir and Chuan's corrupt brother.

[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 ?

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

[djjamie]

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 ?

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

Thank you for allowing me to answer this.

If the PDRC did the following then there would be a stern reply;

Threatened to blow up LPG truck, perform grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, (this was around the time tear gas and rubber bullets were fired by the soldiers), stormed police hospital, stormed TV station (people started questioning Ahbisits control of the soldiers after the lack of resistance they offered the terrorists on this occasion), bomb attacks on electricity pylons, 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks.

Fortunately that never happened ergo the yingluck govt did not need to suppress "terrorism" against anyone else.

BUT, BUT I hear?

Edited March 21, 2015 by djjamie

[Robby nz]

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

For a start the 2014 protesters were not shooting and firing grenades out of their position.

These protesters had legitimate gripes such as the amnesty bill, I have yet to have anyone explain why the reds came out in 2010.

You are another one who needs education on the 2014 protests and just who was protesting, once again I post this link to start your education :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

And here is another to expand your knowledge, complete with nice pictures :

http://www.demotix.com/news/3191139/red-shirts-rally-against-controversial-amnesty-bill-bangkok/all-media

Red Shirts rally against controversial Amnesty Bill in Bangkok

SLIDESHOW

10 November 2013

But of course the hate against Suthep needs to be carried on so he must be blamed for everything.

And incidentally the reds (third hand) were doing a reasonable job of slaughtering the protesters before the army stepped in.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Robby nz

[rixalex]

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?

Not with live rounds from the army.

Water canons and tear gas from a properly trained Riot squad.. seem to work in the rest of the world.

You dont send the army in the fight its own people.. They are not the enemy or the reason a nation has an army.

Sent from my c64

You should try taking a rocket launcher, or an AK47, or a grenade, onto the streets of London or New York and see if all that happens is that you get squirted with a bit of water or sprayed with a bit of gas.

[Warpath]

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

Thank you for allowing me to answer this.

If the PDRC did the following then there would be a stern reply;

Threatened to blow up LPG truck, perform grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, (this was around the time tear gas and rubber bullets were fired by the soldiers), stormed police hospital, stormed TV station (people started questioning Ahbisits control of the soldiers after the lack of resistance they offered the terrorists on this occasion), bomb attacks on electricity pylons, 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks.

Fortunately that never happened ergo the yingluck govt did not need to suppress "terrorism" against anyone else.

BUT, BUT I hear?

Suthep's mob created an environment where over twenty people were killed - including children by Yellow, military, Red and unknown perpetrators.

Tell me, what does the body count have to be before the military rides in on its white steed and saves the day?

The fact is the military is very much a player in this game and cares not for the safety and well being of the citizenry and only for the advancement of their own desires and that is why it slaughtered in 2010 and did nothing in 2014.

[Robby nz]

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

Thank you for allowing me to answer this.

If the PDRC did the following then there would be a stern reply;

Threatened to blow up LPG truck, perform grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, (this was around the time tear gas and rubber bullets were fired by the soldiers), stormed police hospital, stormed TV station (people started questioning Ahbisits control of the soldiers after the lack of resistance they offered the terrorists on this occasion), bomb attacks on electricity pylons, 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks.

Fortunately that never happened ergo the yingluck govt did not need to suppress "terrorism" against anyone else.

BUT, BUT I hear?

Suthep's mob created an environment where over twenty people were killed - including children by Yellow, military, Red and unknown perpetrators.

Tell me, what does the body count have to be before the military rides in on its white steed and saves the day?

The fact is the military is very much a player in this game and cares not for the safety and well being of the citizenry and only for the advancement of their own desires and that is why it slaughtered in 2010 and did nothing in 2014.

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.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Robby nz

[Warpath]

I guess your one of those apologists that one wrong or bad action justifys another doing wrong too or worse ... now very Thai of you

You miss the point and the topic entirely. This is about responsibility and giving the order to shoot to kill from the governments side at the time, do try to keep up

They were in charge and have a responsibility to answer about live fire orders, who gave them etc.

All your points above have nothing to do with the topic or about A & S whatsoever this is about them specifically and a lot of people being killed.

The question is did A or S order live firing and to what extent or was it the army acting on its own initiative and overstepping its mark when shooting to kill. Which they do from time to time when let off the leash as we all know.

Wake up, there isnt any good guys in this game, only those in current favour that float above the law and it would be a pleasant change if some didnt keep trying to justify killing others simply because of some difference in political colour.

You do understand I hope the concept of two wrongs dont make a right, or that murdering one or 1000 is still murder or that there are laws everyone is equally supposed to be answerable to... including the cabinate and should include the military but dosnt.

Your post is totally irrelevant to the questions they need to answer for.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

For a start the 2014 protesters were not shooting and firing grenades out of their position.

These protesters had legitimate gripes such as the amnesty bill, I have yet to have anyone explain why the reds came out in 2010.

You are another one who needs education on the 2014 protests and just who was protesting, once again I post this link to start your education :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

And here is another to expand your knowledge, complete with nice pictures :

http://www.demotix.com/news/3191139/red-shirts-rally-against-controversial-amnesty-bill-bangkok/all-media

Red Shirts rally against controversial Amnesty Bill in Bangkok

SLIDESHOW

10 November 2013

But of course the hate against Suthep needs to be carried on so he must be blamed for everything.

And incidentally the reds (third hand) were doing a reasonable job of slaughtering the protesters before the army stepped in.

PDRC insurrection directly caused 28 deaths, 800 injuries and uncounted economic losses over 7 months and the army sat pat and did absolutely nothing.

Red shirts in the streets less than 2 months and orders are issued - shoot to kill.

You're educating me and you don't even know why the Red shirts had to take to the streets

Your lesson begins here:

Popular opposition against Abhisit Vejjajiva's government rose throughout 2009, due to the controversial 2008 "judicial coup" that banned the PPP and "silent coup" that allowed the Democrats to form a coalition government.

Here endeth the lesson.

[waitforusalso]

& let us not forget the meetings between Suthep, Newin & others hosted by Anupong at the army barracks just before AV was 'elected' the new PM

[Warpath]

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

Thank you for allowing me to answer this.

If the PDRC did the following then there would be a stern reply;

Threatened to blow up LPG truck, perform grenade attacks at Thai banks, attacked Thai charity with grenades, stormed parliament, attacked NPP and TPI buildings with M16 and grenades, (this was around the time tear gas and rubber bullets were fired by the soldiers), stormed police hospital, stormed TV station (people started questioning Ahbisits control of the soldiers after the lack of resistance they offered the terrorists on this occasion), bomb attacks on electricity pylons, 2 police taken hostage, destroyed CCTV cameras and dumped tyres on sky train tracks.

Fortunately that never happened ergo the yingluck govt did not need to suppress "terrorism" against anyone else.

BUT, BUT I hear?

Suthep's mob created an environment where over twenty people were killed - including children by Yellow, military, Red and unknown perpetrators.

Tell me, what does the body count have to be before the military rides in on its white steed and saves the day?

The fact is the military is very much a player in this game and cares not for the safety and well being of the citizenry and only for the advancement of their own desires and that is why it slaughtered in 2010 and did nothing in 2014.

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.

[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.

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.

Where does a reply like that come from? I have said nothing in support of the Red Shirts actions, I have condemned them. All I have said is that clearly the response by the army was not correct either.

Your memory is clearly failing you if you truely believe that the only indiscriminate fire came from the Red Shirts. Perhaps you can explain just how the uniformed paramedics were shot by the army's "discriminate" fire or is the "Red Shirt propaganda" true and they really were aiming at paramedics on purpose?

The truth is, when they were given the order they just shot randomly into the crowd and whoever happened to be in the line of fire was shot whether they were armed or not, whether they had been involved in any violence or not. The execution of the Red Shirt security adviser mid interview with the New York Times was in no way indiscriminate as were the many other sniper fire executions carried out, but the machine gun fire into the crowds most certainly was.

As for "riot control", the people were demanding democracy. The correct way would have been to listen to them and meet their perfectly reasonable demand for an election far before all the violence happened.

[Robby nz]

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.

Where does a reply like that come from? I have said nothing in support of the Red Shirts actions, I have condemned them. All I have said is that clearly the response by the army was not correct either.

Your memory is clearly failing you if you truely believe that the only indiscriminate fire came from the Red Shirts. Perhaps you can explain just how the uniformed paramedics were shot by the army's "discriminate" fire or is the "Red Shirt propaganda" true and they really were aiming at paramedics on purpose?

The truth is, when they were given the order they just shot randomly into the crowd and whoever happened to be in the line of fire was shot whether they were armed or not, whether they had been involved in any violence or not. The execution of the Red Shirt security adviser mid interview with the New York Times was in no way indiscriminate as were the many other sniper fire executions carried out, but the machine gun fire into the crowds most certainly was.

As for "riot control", the people were demanding democracy. The correct way would have been to listen to them and meet their perfectly reasonable demand for an election far before all the violence happened.

My memory is excellent thank you, It was never proven that the army shot into the temple the inquest stated that the shots that killed those in the temple came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol. Video and still photos showed that there were also men in black who were in a position from which they could have shot into the temple. The only definite conclusion was that the shots were fired from military grade weapons which both sides were armed with.

The truth according to who ? If the army had been shooting randomly into crowds there would have been hundreds killed. Machine gun fire into the crowd ? you are getting carried away

Sea deang who you refer to, was shot because he was saying he had talked to Thaksin on the phone and Thaksin had sacked the red leaders and put him in charge. This was because the leaders had accepted Abhisits offer of an early election

This was doing three things, 1/ it was causing the red leaders to lose face, 2/ It was proving that Thaksin was in charge as he was in the position to hire and fire the leaders. 3/ It was disrupting the red leadership which was working in favor of the govt and the army.

Sae Deang had to go as he was compromising both the positions of the red leaders and Thaksin. Which one of the two ordered his killing ?

Because of point 3/ the army and the govt had every reason to want him alive to carry on the disruption.

The country had democracy, it had a legally constituted Govt. Why would it be reasonable to expect them to call an early election ? Which is something that was offered.

[Robby nz]

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

For a start the 2014 protesters were not shooting and firing grenades out of their position.

These protesters had legitimate gripes such as the amnesty bill, I have yet to have anyone explain why the reds came out in 2010.

You are another one who needs education on the 2014 protests and just who was protesting, once again I post this link to start your education :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

And here is another to expand your knowledge, complete with nice pictures :

http://www.demotix.com/news/3191139/red-shirts-rally-against-controversial-amnesty-bill-bangkok/all-media

Red Shirts rally against controversial Amnesty Bill in Bangkok

SLIDESHOW

10 November 2013

But of course the hate against Suthep needs to be carried on so he must be blamed for everything.

And incidentally the reds (third hand) were doing a reasonable job of slaughtering the protesters before the army stepped in.

PDRC insurrection directly caused 28 deaths, 800 injuries and uncounted economic losses over 7 months and the army sat pat and did absolutely nothing.

Red shirts in the streets less than 2 months and orders are issued - shoot to kill.

You're educating me and you don't even know why the Red shirts had to take to the streets

Your lesson begins here:

Popular opposition against Abhisit Vejjajiva's government rose throughout 2009, due to the controversial 2008 "judicial coup" that banned the PPP and "silent coup" that allowed the Democrats to form a coalition government.

Here endeth the lesson.

Sorry but if you believe that you really are out of your tree. They had to take to the streets ? Popular opposition indeed ?

A few thousand paid rioters along with a few thousand others who believed what they were told led by those who became millionaires and MP's for their trouble.

Tell me than why did the reds wait 4 years after the coup if that was the reason for their riots ?

Why did they wait two and a half years into the Dem Govt before they started their riots ?

Couldn't have been anything to do with Thaksins billions that he failed to pay as tax that were seized could it ?

The Dems formed a coalition Govt in exactly the same way the Thaksin proxy parties before them did.

The meetings between parties to form the Dems coalition government were held in an army barracks, right, that means they were a military backed Covt, according to red history.

The meetings to set up the two previous Thaksin proxy coalition Governments were held between Thaksin and the minor party leaders in Hong Kong, a Chinese protectorate, right, so using the same logic those two governments were backed by China and a convicted criminal on the run. The second bit is correct.

[waitforusalso]

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.

Where does a reply like that come from? I have said nothing in support of the Red Shirts actions, I have condemned them. All I have said is that clearly the response by the army was not correct either.

Your memory is clearly failing you if you truely believe that the only indiscriminate fire came from the Red Shirts. Perhaps you can explain just how the uniformed paramedics were shot by the army's "discriminate" fire or is the "Red Shirt propaganda" true and they really were aiming at paramedics on purpose?

The truth is, when they were given the order they just shot randomly into the crowd and whoever happened to be in the line of fire was shot whether they were armed or not, whether they had been involved in any violence or not. The execution of the Red Shirt security adviser mid interview with the New York Times was in no way indiscriminate as were the many other sniper fire executions carried out, but the machine gun fire into the crowds most certainly was.

As for "riot control", the people were demanding democracy. The correct way would have been to listen to them and meet their perfectly reasonable demand for an election far before all the violence happened.

My memory is excellent thank you, It was never proven that the army shot into the temple the inquest stated that the shots that killed those in the temple came from the direction of the skytrain tracks where there was an army patrol. Video and still photos showed that there were also men in black who were in a position from which they could have shot into the temple. The only definite conclusion was that the shots were fired from military grade weapons which both sides were armed with.

The truth according to who ? If the army had been shooting randomly into crowds there would have been hundreds killed. Machine gun fire into the crowd ? you are getting carried away

Sea deang who you refer to, was shot because he was saying he had talked to Thaksin on the phone and Thaksin had sacked the red leaders and put him in charge. This was because the leaders had accepted Abhisits offer of an early election

This was doing three things, 1/ it was causing the red leaders to lose face, 2/ It was proving that Thaksin was in charge as he was in the position to hire and fire the leaders. 3/ It was disrupting the red leadership which was working in favor of the govt and the army.

Sae Deang had to go as he was compromising both the positions of the red leaders and Thaksin. Which one of the two ordered his killing ?

Because of point 3/ the army and the govt had every reason to want him alive to carry on the disruption.

The country had democracy, it had a legally constituted Govt. Why would it be reasonable to expect them to call an early election ? Which is something that was offered.

Is this within your interpretation of 'not proven'?

"According to the findings of the court inquest announced today, there was no evidence that Blackshirt militants were present inside or around the temple during the shooting. The entire area had been secured by the military, the court said, and it was difficult to believe that so many journalists - some of them foreigners – had simply failed to spot the gunmen.

The soldiers' testimony that they were simply returning fire from Blackshirts in the temple also contradicted the accounts of other soldiers in the area who testified they that did not see any armed militants with the demonstrators, the court said.

The judge also noted that in the video footage of soldiers on the Skytrain track shooting at the temple, the officers did not try to take cover or react to supposed attacks from the Blackshirts.

As for the weapons allegedly found inside the temple and shown to the press later, the court said there was no evidence that the firearms were found inside the temple immediately after the incident."

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1375784432&section=11

Edited March 21, 2015 by waitforusalso

[Warpath]

In 2010 the Red shirts were in the streets for 2 months.

You see I believe the cause of the riots in the first place is entirely relevant to why and how they had to be dispersed.

As are the facts that there was an armed element within the protesters who were targeting the army and civilians with weapons of war.

There must be limited ways to handle those who would do such things, who refuse mediation and leaders who incite their followers to violence and arson.

You obviously believe it was wrong to disperse these people, just let them carry on burning, and shooting as long as they liked.

Well you see there are others here who think differently, who believe these people had to go, and as their leaders had refused to go quietly there was little choice but to move them on by force.

The red leaders knew this and knew what their refusal to go would lead to, as I already posted one of the leaders walked out for he wanted no part in it.

In 2014 / 2015 Suthep was in the streets for nearly 7 months.

How come the army didn't come out and slaughter the PDRC ruffians?

For a start the 2014 protesters were not shooting and firing grenades out of their position.

These protesters had legitimate gripes such as the amnesty bill, I have yet to have anyone explain why the reds came out in 2010.

You are another one who needs education on the 2014 protests and just who was protesting, once again I post this link to start your education :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Amnesty-opponents-to-rally-nationwide-30218654.html

Amnesty opponents to rally nationwide

The Nation November 4, 2013 1:00 am

And here is another to expand your knowledge, complete with nice pictures :

http://www.demotix.com/news/3191139/red-shirts-rally-against-controversial-amnesty-bill-bangkok/all-media

Red Shirts rally against controversial Amnesty Bill in Bangkok

SLIDESHOW

10 November 2013

But of course the hate against Suthep needs to be carried on so he must be blamed for everything.

And incidentally the reds (third hand) were doing a reasonable job of slaughtering the protesters before the army stepped in.

PDRC insurrection directly caused 28 deaths, 800 injuries and uncounted economic losses over 7 months and the army sat pat and did absolutely nothing.

Red shirts in the streets less than 2 months and orders are issued - shoot to kill.

You're educating me and you don't even know why the Red shirts had to take to the streets

Your lesson begins here:

Popular opposition against Abhisit Vejjajiva's government rose throughout 2009, due to the controversial 2008 "judicial coup" that banned the PPP and "silent coup" that allowed the Democrats to form a coalition government.

Here endeth the lesson.

Sorry but if you believe that you really are out of your tree. They had to take to the streets ? Popular opposition indeed ?

A few thousand paid rioters along with a few thousand others who believed what they were told led by those who became millionaires and MP's for their trouble.

Tell me than why did the reds wait 4 years after the coup if that was the reason for their riots ?

Why did they wait two and a half years into the Dem Govt before they started their riots ?

Couldn't have been anything to do with Thaksins billions that he failed to pay as tax that were seized could it ?

The Dems formed a coalition Govt in exactly the same way the Thaksin proxy parties before them did.

The meetings between parties to form the Dems coalition government were held in an army barracks, right, that means they were a military backed Covt, according to red history.

The meetings to set up the two previous Thaksin proxy coalition Governments were held between Thaksin and the minor party leaders in Hong Kong, a Chinese protectorate, right, so using the same logic those two governments were backed by China and a convicted criminal on the run. The second bit is correct.

Maths, history and comprehension aren't your strong points eh?

In 2006 there was the military coup, in 2007 there was an election (convincingly won by Samak), then in 2008 there was the PAD protest and a judicial coup, then in 2009 100,000 Red shirts protested at government house and then finally in 2010 the Red shirts took to the streets again.

The protests on Sunday 14 March were the largest in Thai history, and were peaceful.

and

On 10 April, the protests turned violent, when government troops approached the red shirt encampment and fired live ammunition at some protesters.

and

On 28 April, Thai security forces and anti-government protesters clashed on the outskirts of Bangkok, with troops firing both over and then directly into a crowd of Red Shirts to keep them from expanding their demonstrations. At least 16 protesters were wounded and one soldier was killed. Note: This soldier was found to have been shot in the back by another Thai soldier in a case of "friendly fire".

The Dems did not form a coalition government exactly the same way Thaksin did.

Thaksin won an election gaining 233 out of 480 seats and invited minor parties into his coalition

Where as for the Dems to form a coalition they had to:

1. Release the PAD into the streets and airport

2. Get the courts to throw out 1 PM for hosting a cooking show and 1 PM for a decision made 8 years prior

3. Get the courts to ban the winning political party

4. Get the army to threaten other parties behind closed doors and force them to back Abhisit

5. Bribe the friends of Newin parliament faction with lucrative cabinet posts to join Abhisit

Chalk and cheese.

ps - lets not forget how that second Thai PM was removed by the courts for the ridiculous reason cited below

On October 17 2008, Thailand's anti-corruption body found Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat guilty of neglecting his duties while working in the justice department eight years ago. Members of the National Counter Corruption Commission said Somchai was wrong to suspend a corruption investigation into two senior officials while he was a permanent secretary at the justice ministry in 2000. The NCCC's investigation followed a complaint lodged by senior judge Chamnan Rawiwanpong after he petitioned for an investigation into alleged corruption involving a land sale in Pathum Thani province in 2000.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Warpath