Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Shawn0001]

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.

Heavy machine gun fire was reported by the international press as were numerous single gun shots to the heads of unarmed civilians, executions, do you want to deny that? Bodies were found to contain the remains of Green Tip 5.56mm rounds as used in the fully automatic M16 which the army are equipped with and it was the conclusion of the DSI that these people were killed lawfully by the military. The military did use machine guns on the people, that is a fact. And 2000 people were shot, that is no small number.

I note that you have no comment on the executions of paramedics.

As for Sae Deang, you neglect to consider that he was a defecting general who was a serious embarrassment to the army. It was decided to boot him out of the military and then he was assassinated. I think it was probably the lost face of the other generals which resulted in his death not Thaksin.

As for your question, 'why would it be reasonable to expect them to call an early election'. Are you for real? Why do you think it reasonable to deny them up until the point where they are starting a civil war? Yes, they did eventually offer the election but an awful lot had happened by then anyway so their refusal is unfortunately not even that relevant, they should have listened much earlier.

[rubl]

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.

And pray tell why the PM would have to immediately call for new elections? To show sincerity to a bunch of violent protesters? Did you also forget that the UDD came with the demand Abhisit/Suthep hand themselves over to the police as common criminals?

BTW PM Abhisit couldn't resign. I didn't know that, but Ms. Yingluck told us a few times in December 2013 - March 2014. She stated she would resign if that would help the country, but the law didn't allow her to.

[rubl]

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

Does a water cannon help against incoming grenades ?

[Fat Haggis]

The Army are not trained in the role of Internal Security, it's a very difficult job, it's even harder when you're a conscript, but I have a feeling that the troops deployed on the ground in 2010 were far from being poorly trained conscripts.

Somebody in Government at the time had to have made a decision to take severe action and have contingency plans for Internal Security, the Army should have also had similar plans and SOP's as it wasn't their first time facing protestors, so they should have gone to their SOP's and started the ball moving.

On what legal grounds was the issue to use live rounds passed down, which judge ruled that it was time to escalate the rules in the use of force? I can't believe that the PM at the time would have had the authority, without seeking legal council, as to whether the use of live rounds was cleared, and the very same thing for the setting up of "Fire zones/No Protest zones"

Were these zones clearly defined to the protesters, soldiers, police and public alike that should they enter them, the use of deadly force was authorised?

Were there sufficient audio, and written broadcasts warning that the use of deadly force had been authorised?

WHO on the day, made the decision to open fire, who was the Senior Officer on the ground, who signed off on the PM's authorisation to use live rounds and "fire zones"

The red shirts are the instigators, they pushed and pushed to see how far they could take it, the result was lots of dead and injured, the blame lies at ALL sides feet, the reds for pushing and using violent means, and the Government and Army at the time for allowing it to escalate beyond their control, and not having procedures in place after the last riots.

The Army will never ever be held accountable, they have and always will be the authority in Thailand, and they have given themselves immunity on several occasions. Abhisit and Suthep are not looking too good, Suthep especially after his previos call to answer about the use of Force, stating they had orders to shoot their legs!!

Doesn't matter how good a shot you are, and it's easy as pie to shoot consistently on the ranges achieving a tight grouping at 100M's, it's very different when you're on a two way range, it's nothing like video games, there's so many variables to take into account.

It's only right that both Abhisit and Suthep answer the questions, but the Army Commander of the Day should also be answering the same questions. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there's an abuse of power charge to come out of this, a 5 year ban from Politics, and that basically clears out all the politicians from the past 10 years, paving the way for new ones, chosen of course not by the people

The reds have the biggest portion of the blame, but the others need to accept their failings of allowing the situation to go the way it did.

[whybother]

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.

So elections should be held whenever a few thousand people protest?

[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?

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.

The problem is that you minimise the violence from one side while hugely exaggerating that from the other, while making unfounded claims about military orders. Your post #91 sounds more like the nazi invasion of Poland than 2010.

How exactly do you have "heavy machine gun fire" into a crowd of protesters with so little damage? Do you not know the difference between an semi-automatic assault rifle and a machine gun?

[whybother]

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

Are you seriously suggesting that they should have used water cannons and riot shields against protesters with guns?

[chooka]

I believe thier explanation was that it is ilegal to block roads and take over government buildings.

[halloween]

I believe thier explanation was that it is ilegal to block roads and take over government buildings.

Littering and public urination are also illegal. But there were a few things happening more illegal than those so far mentioned, right?

[MAJIC]

"Replying to Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts"

Because they were controlling,and violently destroying the Country,and needed to be driven out!

Anymore information required,please contact the PuppetPaymaster, master in Dubai!

[chooka]

I believe thier explanation was that it is ilegal to block roads and take over government buildings.

Littering and public urination are also illegal. But there were a few things happening more illegal than those so far mentioned, right?

yep agree with you 100% taking over government buildings was far worse than littering and protestors should be removed.

[soundman]

Posts and replies have been removed for baiting. Please be civil.

[Warpath]

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.

So elections should be held whenever a few thousand people protest?

Your need to falsely downplay the number of protestors gives away the lack of substance to your arguments.

[Robby nz]

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

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.

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.

You have all the red version of history down pat don't you, unfortunately its not true.

An example; your so called '1PM' was not thrown out for hosting a cooking show he was thrown out for lying about receiving payment for it.

You are a party of course to what went on behind closed doors ?

Tell us that friends of Newin, as well as the other small parties, were not 'bribed' (with choice cabinet posts) to join the 2 previous Thaksin proxy parties. Which were put together by a convicted criminal on the run in Hong Kong.

No doubt you are party to what went on behind closed doors there as well.

[SABloke]

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'm happy to see some people remember what really happened...and are not just bashing .....and shooting there heads of...great.!!!

Oh, you mean the official scripted version.

Red shirts said they didn't burn down Central World (your ''scripted version'' of events)...video is released clearly showing red shirts burning down CW. So are we on the same page, or are you going to tell me that the video footage is fake???

[phutoie2]

The above post looks good if I could make some sense out of it, whats wrong with the quotes??

[metisdead]

A post with messed up quotes has been removed as it was difficult to determine who said what.

[Eric Loh]

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'm happy to see some people remember what really happened...and are not just bashing .....and shooting there heads of...great.!!!

Oh, you mean the official scripted version.

Red shirts said they didn't burn down Central World (your ''scripted version'' of events)...video is released clearly showing red shirts burning down CW. So are we on the same page, or are you going to tell me that the video footage is fake???

Allow me to refresh your memory. The Thai court had aquited the 2 remaining Redshirts and 2 juveniles accused of burning CW. There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers. Further, the military took over the burning. So the juror is still out there as to who touched CW. Now we are on the same page.

[mikemac]

.................."There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers"......................

And the head orc of the redshirts said - "You idiots ! I said bring bottles of gasoline to Bangkok, not bloody fire extinguishers !"

Thanks Eric, I needed a good laugh !

[Eric Loh]

.................."There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers"......................

And the head orc of the redshirts said - "You idiots ! I said bring bottles of gasoline to Bangkok, not bloody fire extinguishers !"

Thanks Eric, I needed a good laugh !

The good laugh courtesy of the Thai court. You are welcome.

[tbthailand]

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!!

and one should not defend violence. And in no case is there a need to defend the violence.

But we see the violence of the government against the red shirts defended all the time. people here say that after 2 months, the government "had to disperse" the protesters... "disperse" being a euphemism for having the army attack them with APCs during a 6 day assault... people like to say how many soldiers were killed... and indeed that number should have been zero... for the final six days, when most of the casualties occurred, that number was zero... It was a brutal action by a vengeful military...

I would hold the government of the day responsible for their decisions, but since we are all aware of who put them in their seats of 'power' and who called the shots, I would agree with Abhisit that the generals still have some explaining to do and need to be accountable.

Snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

[whybother]

Allow me to refresh your memory. The Thai court had aquited the 2 remaining Redshirts and 2 juveniles accused of burning CW. There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers. Further, the military took over the burning. So the juror is still out there as to who touched CW. Now we are on the same page.

So because they can't positively identify exactly who burnt down CW, no red shirts were involved? By that logic, the army didn't kill anyone in the wat.

I'm just wondering where you can get fire extinguishers that look like burning tyres.

[Pi Sek]

The Army are not trained in the role of Internal Security, it's a very difficult job, it's even harder when you're a conscript, but I have a feeling that the troops deployed on the ground in 2010 were far from being poorly trained conscripts.

Somebody in Government at the time had to have made a decision to take severe action and have contingency plans for Internal Security, the Army should have also had similar plans and SOP's as it wasn't their first time facing protestors, so they should have gone to their SOP's and started the ball moving.

On what legal grounds was the issue to use live rounds passed down, which judge ruled that it was time to escalate the rules in the use of force? I can't believe that the PM at the time would have had the authority, without seeking legal council, as to whether the use of live rounds was cleared, and the very same thing for the setting up of "Fire zones/No Protest zones"

Were these zones clearly defined to the protesters, soldiers, police and public alike that should they enter them, the use of deadly force was authorised?

Were there sufficient audio, and written broadcasts warning that the use of deadly force had been authorised?

WHO on the day, made the decision to open fire, who was the Senior Officer on the ground, who signed off on the PM's authorisation to use live rounds and "fire zones"

The red shirts are the instigators, they pushed and pushed to see how far they could take it, the result was lots of dead and injured, the blame lies at ALL sides feet, the reds for pushing and using violent means, and the Government and Army at the time for allowing it to escalate beyond their control, and not having procedures in place after the last riots.

The Army will never ever be held accountable, they have and always will be the authority in Thailand, and they have given themselves immunity on several occasions. Abhisit and Suthep are not looking too good, Suthep especially after his previos call to answer about the use of Force, stating they had orders to shoot their legs!!

Doesn't matter how good a shot you are, and it's easy as pie to shoot consistently on the ranges achieving a tight grouping at 100M's, it's very different when you're on a two way range, it's nothing like video games, there's so many variables to take into account.

It's only right that both Abhisit and Suthep answer the questions, but the Army Commander of the Day should also be answering the same questions. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there's an abuse of power charge to come out of this, a 5 year ban from Politics, and that basically clears out all the politicians from the past 10 years, paving the way for new ones, chosen of course not by the people

The reds have the biggest portion of the blame, but the others need to accept their failings of allowing the situation to go the way it did.

Good post.

Certainly later on during the April-May 2010 troubles, I agree that the troops on the ground were career soldiers.

However, I think the legal grounds for raising the level of force against the protesters was down to Abhisit, not a judge or whoever else. On 10 April, soldiers were equipped with rubber bullets and tear gas. The instructions were only to shoot the rubber bullets at leg height and not to use the live fire (there were conditions under which they were authorised to switch to live bullets kept in reserve at the back with the Colonel). Then the Colonel (RIP) got blown up and the troops quite probably routed, considering the event good enough reason to defend themselves with the live ammo. As a former serviceman with time in Iraq under his belt, I am quite sure you can understand this.

Live ammunition was authorised later on, after a state of Emergency had been declared, in accordance with international crowd control measures. Abhisit was very careful about this, and Col Sansern on TV was also very prudent to assure viewers that the same level of escalation had been followed. As has been pointed out countless times, if the Occupy Wall Street movement was not the peaceful sit-in that it was (and it got pretty harshly treated when the riot police came in) and they fired one grenade (let alone many), the US Army or heavily armed police would have had to come in and cause a lot of casualties. Thailand was soft on the protesters.

And yes, leaflets were dropped from helicopters, trucks with loudspeakes were advising the protesters... the only way that anyone would not know they were in mortal danger within the live fire zones was that they could not understand Thai, or that they were deaf and blind.

I too want to see the various levels of command go through scrutiny as to the events of 2010. I do not think the orders from the top were carried out as per the instruction. I believe this was due to, as you put it, "two-way" fire. Again, someone with your combat background should be able to comprehend this. They were also not supposed to shoot anyone without a weapon... and, I don't think that was the case in every instance.

Despite my support for Abhisit's tolerance and unwillingness to escalate force against a violent protest (he's a better man than I), he should answer, along with Suthep, Tharit and Anupong (all involved in the highest levels of the security operations). Not because they did anything wrong, but because there are large differences in popular perception and the truth should come out if anyone is sincere about reconciliation. I'm guessing that's why Abhisit and Suthep are happy to answer the charges. But, you're right, there's been no suggestion that anyone in the RTA will face any scrutiny at all, and that's a shame.

I'd also like to see the other side answer - including in particular the financiers - but the likely perpetrators have always maintained their innocence, and the protest leaders have always been proud to feed misinformation and incite hatred.

[mikemac]

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!!

and one should not defend violence. And in no case is there a need to defend the violence.

But we see the violence of the government against the red shirts defended all the time. people here say that after 2 months, the government "had to disperse" the protesters... "disperse" being a euphemism for having the army attack them with APCs during a 6 day assault... people like to say how many soldiers were killed... and indeed that number should have been zero... for the final six days, when most of the casualties occurred, that number was zero... It was a brutal action by a vengeful military...

I would hold the government of the day responsible for their decisions, but since we are all aware of who put them in their seats of 'power' and who called the shots, I would agree with Abhisit that the generals still have some explaining to do and need to be accountable.

Snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Be honest with me, and yourself tb, and tell me if you actually believe the Army and Government of the day were 100% responsible for what happened in 2010. Do you ever stop and think that if the redshirts had not invaded Bangkok and set up their protest site, attacked the Military with deadly weapons, and refused instructions/requests to pack up and go home, even after having some of their demands met, that perhaps nobody would have been killed.

You guys seem to forget who funded and organized the whole thing, timed nicely just after assets were seized, and seems to be taking no responsibility for his actions.

To solve any problem, first look for the source.

[boomerangutang]

If anything, Abhisit and Suthep should explain why they they continued to be so patient, putting up with over 2 months of intransigence before taking dynamic action (except for one incident). If Abhisit deserves to be vilified, it would be because he was too nice and too open to negotiations.

[tbthailand]

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!!

and one should not defend violence. And in no case is there a need to defend the violence.

But we see the violence of the government against the red shirts defended all the time. people here say that after 2 months, the government "had to disperse" the protesters... "disperse" being a euphemism for having the army attack them with APCs during a 6 day assault... people like to say how many soldiers were killed... and indeed that number should have been zero... for the final six days, when most of the casualties occurred, that number was zero... It was a brutal action by a vengeful military...

I would hold the government of the day responsible for their decisions, but since we are all aware of who put them in their seats of 'power' and who called the shots, I would agree with Abhisit that the generals still have some explaining to do and need to be accountable.

Snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

Be honest with me, and yourself tb, and tell me if you actually believe the Army and Government of the day were 100% responsible for what happened in 2010. Do you ever stop and think that if the redshirts had not invaded Bangkok and set up their protest site, attacked the Military with deadly weapons, and refused instructions/requests to pack up and go home, even after having some of their demands met, that perhaps nobody would have been killed.

You guys seem to forget who funded and organized the whole thing, timed nicely just after assets were seized, and seems to be taking no responsibility for his actions.

To solve any problem, first look for the source.

I believe that people are 100% responsible for their own actions and choices, ... I have never defended the violence from the protesters and I never will. I put the violence of 2010 into perspective... Start simply with the % of casualties between the different groups if you want to get some objectivity...

Your argument is one that I have seen before and it amounts to "if they (the protesters) had not been protesting, then none of this would have happened."...

While that is true, it is also a stupid argument.

One could simply say that If there had not been a judicial coup in 2008, then the protesters would not have been there and none of this would have happened... OK, let's blame the military twice for 2010... I'm cool with that.

The bottom line is that the military is a political actor in this country and they use the tools available to them. That includes usurping power on a regular basis and suppressing any opposition to their rule. They have been shown to use any means necessary to do that.

[Eric Loh]

Allow me to refresh your memory. The Thai court had aquited the 2 remaining Redshirts and 2 juveniles accused of burning CW. There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers. Further, the military took over the burning. So the juror is still out there as to who touched CW. Now we are on the same page.

F because they can't positively identify exactly who burnt down CW, no red shirts were involved? By that logic, the army didn't kill anyone in the wat.

I'm just wondering where you can get fire extinguishers that look like burning tyres.

The "they" you're refering is the Thai court and they ruled that the arrested Reds and charged for arson were not involved and aquited them. Again it's the court inquest that concluded that the Wat killings were from shots by the military. Your wondering can ceased also as its the court that stated that the it's fire extinguisher. The tire reference is totally absurd and illogical now that the court have their rulings. I'm sure you're a law abiding person, no?

[billd766]

Although 99 is considered a lucky number by many Thai (and especially 999), in this case I think we should stick to 93 deaths.

How many of the 93 or 99 were soldiers who were among the very first to be killed?

[Eric Loh]

If anything, Abhisit and Suthep should explain why they they continued to be so patient, putting up with over 2 months of intransigence before taking dynamic action (except for one incident). If Abhisit deserves to be vilified, it would be because he was too nice and too open to negotiations.

Then surely Yingluck will be qualified to be in our nice list as she was patient for 7 months and 22 days and still did not ordered the military to intervene inspite of violence at the Parliment House and at pooling stations. And she even agreed to dissolve Parliment and yet the military staged a coup. All planned, no?

[SABloke]

Allow me to refresh your memory. The Thai court had aquited the 2 remaining Redshirts and 2 juveniles accused of burning CW. There were photo or videos of Redshirts holding something which was later indentified as fire extinguishers. Further, the military took over the burning. So the juror is still out there as to who touched CW. Now we are on the same page.

F because they can't positively identify exactly who burnt down CW, no red shirts were involved? By that logic, the army didn't kill anyone in the wat.

I'm just wondering where you can get fire extinguishers that look like burning tyres.

The "they" you're refering is the Thai court and they ruled that the arrested Reds and charged for arson were not involved and aquited them. Again it's the court inquest that concluded that the Wat killings were from shots by the military. Your wondering can ceased also as its the court that stated that the it's fire extinguisher. The tire reference is totally absurd and illogical now that the court have their rulings. I'm sure you're a law abiding person, no?

The ''arresed reds'' were aquited. True. That still doesn't change the fact that the video released during the PDRC protest shows red shirts burning CW. Is your memory refreshed yet?