Abhisit and Suthep 'must explain dispersal of red shirts'

[Plutojames88]

http://www.hrw.org/r...3/descent-chaos. Anyone interested in a report that highlights the brutal murders that took place , (without the childish lip service by some here to the Government white washing .)

Read the above link.

[Fat Haggis]

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

Why they were there in the first place ?

Who provided the funding for their riots ?

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

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

On whose advice was that decision reversed ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal justice therefor equal questioning for both sides.

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

Over 15 million Thais voted for Yingluck.

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

Guess what - it's not!

They were bought to wote PTP, bought with taxpayers money and they and their kids will have to pay it back the coming 50 years.

Hmm so Korn and the other dems didn't really make a big deal out of this, the only ones making a big deal are farangs who have no rights to vote in a countrybrhey chose to live, sounds about right, bitch about something that's happened for decade well before many of them arrived.

It wasn't 500 baht across the board either so you can't even get these facts right, and even if it was 500 baht every 4 years is a paltry 90 odd baht, lower then the minimum wage.

As for paying it back, stupidest comment ever, a single 1% raise in product VAT would claim that 500 baht without them ever really knowing.

[Shawn0001]

"The title has 'application' which to me is not the same as request."

This semantic debate is a little dull but just to clarify here is the Oxford Dictionary definition.

"Application 1 - A formal request to an authority."

Believe me now? I'm afraid it really does not matter what the word means to you just as long as the ICC understand as that is who was being written to, and I somehow think their staff will have a better comprehension of English than you. You are struggling just to get through the title, I wonder what kind of misunderstandings have you made in the rest of the petition?

No, the ICC does not have jurisdiction, just an expectation. And obviously Yinlucks government could not be trusted nor did they want to ratify their membership with the ICC as that would have meant Thaksin would suffer the same fate for his crimes against humanity, crimes which the ICC have been asked to investigate long before Abhist and Suthep and crimes which there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating his guilt. This is the problem in Thailand, neither side really wants justice as it means they might get implicated as well!

Yes, lobbing grenades is a crime, but international or not this is not the purpose of the ICC who only deal with political leaders. If there is some evidence that Yingluck ordered those crimes then yes, that would be a case for ICC as well. The thing with the case of the crackdown is that there could be a clear chain of command between Abhisit, Suthep and the military, and that the orders the gave were criminal. The other militants doing all sorts of atrocious things may well of been acting on their own, that would not be of interest to the ICC as it would be expected that Thailand would deal with things they do not approve of themselves.

Official statements from the government were regarding the live fire zones and likes of arsonists etc. What is alleged in Amsterdam's application/ request/ petition/ report/ call it what you will, is that the orders went far beyond that. It is alleged that they were ordered to fire on medics and journalists, that they were ordered to execute people who refused to be stopped and searched. And journalists reports do confirm at least some of that activity, whether there is actually any evidence that those orders come from the top or not is another matter and the purpose of starting the investigation.

The investigation can go ahead despite of Thailand's status within the ICC, it would merely hamper any action being taken afterwards. The ICC has investigated and found guilty head of states from non signatory states in the past, they have not however been able to secure an arrest, even when those people have traveled to fully ratified states. So it probably is all a bit futile if not to satisfy those who believe that Abhisit and Suthep were criminal in their actions. The same goes for Thaksin, it would not be difficult to prove that he ordered the executions of suspected drug dealers but arresting him and extraditing him will be impossible, but would the guilty verdict not be at least a little satisfying?

As usual you're clutching at straws. Of course the investigation based on possibly and alleged issues which are clearly stated by witnesses who interpreted for themselves is so clear, allegedly that is. The ICC has nothing else to do and would love the job. If anything was clear that 31st of January, 2011, it was that the ICC almost had begged Robert A. to submit his fairy tale.

As it is the ICC would only get involved if the UN would ask them based on real evidence that Thailand's society and government had collapsed. Has it? Should the UN send in troops?

So, by Wednesday Abhisit/Suthep must have submitted their explanation of the 'dispersal of the red-shirts', I assume based on direct questions from the NACC. I can only hope they are a bit more clear in their answers than something like 'the plan worked to the satisfaction of all and reached those targeted and all are happy'

The ICC have nothing else to do? What ever gave you that idea? They are overstretched already with their ongoing enquiries into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic I and II, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya; Libya; Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Nigeria, Palestine and Ukraine. Who is clutching at straws? The ICC have nothing else to do? That is very funny! The truth is they are overworked with clearly more serious cases elsewhere, they are not "begging" for cases involving a hundred murders when they have cases of hundreds of thousands, cases of actual genocide.

You misunderstand the relationship between the ICC and the UN Security Council. If a country is a member of the UNSC but not the ICC then the UNSC can refer the case to the ICC thus giving them jurisdiction. However Thailand is not a member of the UNSC at the moment, they wont be until 2017, they are only a member of the UN, and if the case was filed with the UNSC then Thailand would be allowed to debate on the UNSC, but this has not been the case as that would require another state to bring a case against them in the UNSC or their own member which they do not have. The whole point of the UNSC is to maintain INTERNATIONAL peace, not interfere in civil disputes. The UN will not invade a country who is merely on the verge of civil war, it needs to go beyond that and completely break down or to threaten other nations.

In Thailand's case what it will take to gain acceptance of the cases in the ICC is the ratification of their membership and the granting of retrospective jurisdiction. As Justice Minister, Charnchai Likhitjitta said, the ratification needs "careful deliberation" as it effects ALL THAIS. This is the only thing that is holding up the ratification, that both sides know they are guilty so neither wants to join. Not sure why you don't get that. If Abhisit knew he was innocent then why not press to join and convict Thaksin? If Yingluck knew Thaksin was innocent then why not join and convict Abhisit? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL GUILTY!

[Shawn0001]

http://www.hrw.org/r...3/descent-chaos. Anyone interested in a report that highlights the brutal murders that took place , (without the childish lip service by some here to the Government white washing .)

Read the above link.

That link does not work. This one is working: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that one, and may be best truly unbiased report available.

[halloween]

Hmm so Korn and the other dems didn't really make a big deal out of this, the only ones making a big deal are farangs who have no rights to vote in a countrybrhey chose to live, sounds about right, bitch about something that's happened for decade well before many of them arrived.

It wasn't 500 baht across the board either so you can't even get these facts right, and even if it was 500 baht every 4 years is a paltry 90 odd baht, lower then the minimum wage.

As for paying it back, stupidest comment ever, a single 1% raise in product VAT would claim that 500 baht without them ever really knowing.

Typical apologist BS. A bribe is a bribe and a criminal offence no matter its size. And no matter how you attempt to divide and minimise it, it is still equivalent of 5 days pay at minimum wage offered to many who don't earn minimum wage.

It is also NOT paid from government coffers, so it has to be recouped by those offering the bribe in the normal unsavoury methods.

BTW your math sucks.

Edited March 24, 2015 by halloween

[Plutojames88]

http://www.hrw.org/r...3/descent-chaos. Anyone interested in a report that highlights the brutal murders that took place , (without the childish lip service by some here to the Government white washing .)

Read the above link.

That link does not work. This one is working: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that one, and may be best truly unbiased report available.

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

Trying minus Gremlins ....see if this link works

[rubl]

As usual you're clutching at straws. Of course the investigation based on possibly and alleged issues which are clearly stated by witnesses who interpreted for themselves is so clear, allegedly that is. The ICC has nothing else to do and would love the job. If anything was clear that 31st of January, 2011, it was that the ICC almost had begged Robert A. to submit his fairy tale.

As it is the ICC would only get involved if the UN would ask them based on real evidence that Thailand's society and government had collapsed. Has it? Should the UN send in troops?

So, by Wednesday Abhisit/Suthep must have submitted their explanation of the 'dispersal of the red-shirts', I assume based on direct questions from the NACC. I can only hope they are a bit more clear in their answers than something like 'the plan worked to the satisfaction of all and reached those targeted and all are happy'

The ICC have nothing else to do? What ever gave you that idea? They are overstretched already with their ongoing enquiries into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic I and II, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya; Libya; Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Nigeria, Palestine and Ukraine. Who is clutching at straws? The ICC have nothing else to do? That is very funny! The truth is they are overworked with clearly more serious cases elsewhere, they are not "begging" for cases involving a hundred murders when they have cases of hundreds of thousands, cases of actual genocide.

You misunderstand the relationship between the ICC and the UN Security Council. If a country is a member of the UNSC but not the ICC then the UNSC can refer the case to the ICC thus giving them jurisdiction. However Thailand is not a member of the UNSC at the moment, they wont be until 2017, they are only a member of the UN, and if the case was filed with the UNSC then Thailand would be allowed to debate on the UNSC, but this has not been the case as that would require another state to bring a case against them in the UNSC or their own member which they do not have. The whole point of the UNSC is to maintain INTERNATIONAL peace, not interfere in civil disputes. The UN will not invade a country who is merely on the verge of civil war, it needs to go beyond that and completely break down or to threaten other nations.

In Thailand's case what it will take to gain acceptance of the cases in the ICC is the ratification of their membership and the granting of retrospective jurisdiction. As Justice Minister, Charnchai Likhitjitta said, the ratification needs "careful deliberation" as it effects ALL THAIS. This is the only thing that is holding up the ratification, that both sides know they are guilty so neither wants to join. Not sure why you don't get that. If Abhisit knew he was innocent then why not press to join and convict Thaksin? If Yingluck knew Thaksin was innocent then why not join and convict Abhisit? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL GUILTY!

It would seem you are obfuscating. Throw in a few meaningless Thaksins to justify ICC activity. Also the ICC doesn't handle cases retroactively. Lots of members didn't like the idea. As for Thailand, maybe only copying the USA in this. So forget about the ICC.

Anyway, by tomorrow Abhisit/Suthep will have provided the NACC with some explanations. I doubt we'll hear much it first. Even in 'real' democratic countries such details might be covered by some 'internal security act' meaning we can get a half blacked-out page in ten years and a almost readable version in 30 years and all after most of us are dead and buried.

[rubl]

http://www.hrw.org/r...3/descent-chaos. Anyone interested in a report that highlights the brutal murders that took place , (without the childish lip service by some here to the Government white washing .)

Read the above link.

That link does not work. This one is working: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/thailand0511webwcover_0.pdf

Thanks for the link, I hadn't read that one, and may be best truly unbiased report available.

I once read a remark on NewMandala that a report so rejected by all sides should be a good report. I'm not so sure, depends on the reasoning to accept or reject.

[rubl]

Just read that Abhisit already submitted his explanation.

"Abhisit’s lawyer, Bundit Sitthipan, submitted the former PM’s testimony to the NACC today, which consisted of six boxes of documents, photographs, and CDs."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/811532-2010-crackdown-trial-abhisit-to-blame-violence-on-blackshirts/

[Shawn0001]

As usual you're clutching at straws. Of course the investigation based on possibly and alleged issues which are clearly stated by witnesses who interpreted for themselves is so clear, allegedly that is. The ICC has nothing else to do and would love the job. If anything was clear that 31st of January, 2011, it was that the ICC almost had begged Robert A. to submit his fairy tale.

As it is the ICC would only get involved if the UN would ask them based on real evidence that Thailand's society and government had collapsed. Has it? Should the UN send in troops?

So, by Wednesday Abhisit/Suthep must have submitted their explanation of the 'dispersal of the red-shirts', I assume based on direct questions from the NACC. I can only hope they are a bit more clear in their answers than something like 'the plan worked to the satisfaction of all and reached those targeted and all are happy'

The ICC have nothing else to do? What ever gave you that idea? They are overstretched already with their ongoing enquiries into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic I and II, Darfur, Sudan, Kenya; Libya; Côte d'Ivoire, Mali, Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Nigeria, Palestine and Ukraine. Who is clutching at straws? The ICC have nothing else to do? That is very funny! The truth is they are overworked with clearly more serious cases elsewhere, they are not "begging" for cases involving a hundred murders when they have cases of hundreds of thousands, cases of actual genocide.

You misunderstand the relationship between the ICC and the UN Security Council. If a country is a member of the UNSC but not the ICC then the UNSC can refer the case to the ICC thus giving them jurisdiction. However Thailand is not a member of the UNSC at the moment, they wont be until 2017, they are only a member of the UN, and if the case was filed with the UNSC then Thailand would be allowed to debate on the UNSC, but this has not been the case as that would require another state to bring a case against them in the UNSC or their own member which they do not have. The whole point of the UNSC is to maintain INTERNATIONAL peace, not interfere in civil disputes. The UN will not invade a country who is merely on the verge of civil war, it needs to go beyond that and completely break down or to threaten other nations.

In Thailand's case what it will take to gain acceptance of the cases in the ICC is the ratification of their membership and the granting of retrospective jurisdiction. As Justice Minister, Charnchai Likhitjitta said, the ratification needs "careful deliberation" as it effects ALL THAIS. This is the only thing that is holding up the ratification, that both sides know they are guilty so neither wants to join. Not sure why you don't get that. If Abhisit knew he was innocent then why not press to join and convict Thaksin? If Yingluck knew Thaksin was innocent then why not join and convict Abhisit? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL GUILTY!

It would seem you are obfuscating. Throw in a few meaningless Thaksins to justify ICC activity. Also the ICC doesn't handle cases retroactively. Lots of members didn't like the idea. As for Thailand, maybe only copying the USA in this. So forget about the ICC.

Anyway, by tomorrow Abhisit/Suthep will have provided the NACC with some explanations. I doubt we'll hear much it first. Even in 'real' democratic countries such details might be covered by some 'internal security act' meaning we can get a half blacked-out page in ten years and a almost readable version in 30 years and all after most of us are dead and buried.

I'm not sure I get your first point. The reason I brought Thaksin into the equation was not "meaningless" nor does it in anyway justify ICC activity, in contrast it provides a reasonable suggestion as to why there has been no ratification thus no activity. I believe that the fact that both sides have requested the ICC to investigate the others leaders is the reason that neither side has fully joined the ICC. I would have thought that was obvious to anyone and going by the words of the Justice Minister it would seem that he feels the same.

The ICC does handle cases retroactively, there is no statute of limitations, as long as the events did not occur prior to 1st July 2002 when the court was established, and also as long as the events were after the date the country signed the Rome Statue, which for Thailand was the 2nd October 2000. So for Thailand's case, any event after 1st July 2002 can be investigated by the ICC. For example in 2006 Choonhaven called for Thailand to ratify their membership in order to retroactively prosecute Thaksin for the crimes he ordered in 2003. Obviously retroactive prosecution is essential in the work of the ICC, imagine if there was none! There would be exactly ZERO cases brought before them.

"Lots of members didn't like the idea"

Lots of members of what didn't like what idea? Sorry but I don't follow.

"As for Thailand, maybe only copying the USA in this."

Thailand copying the US in what? In not ratifying in order to continue their crimes against humanity I presume. Well, the US certainly has a greater interest in that!

As for tomorrow not telling us much I agree. Either they will be let off scot-free (potentially a very bad move) or we will hear nothing (probably the best idea considering the current climate). Either way, I am really not expecting much other than another good natter on here. See you tomorrow?

[Fat Haggis]

Hmm so Korn and the other dems didn't really make a big deal out of this, the only ones making a big deal are farangs who have no rights to vote in a countrybrhey chose to live, sounds about right, bitch about something that's happened for decade well before many of them arrived.

It wasn't 500 baht across the board either so you can't even get these facts right, and even if it was 500 baht every 4 years is a paltry 90 odd baht, lower then the minimum wage.

As for paying it back, stupidest comment ever, a single 1% raise in product VAT would claim that 500 baht without them ever really knowing.

Typical apologist BS. A bribe is a bribe and a criminal offence no matter its size. And no matter how you attempt to divide and minimise it, it is still equivalent of 5 days pay at minimum wage offered to many who don't earn minimum wage.

It is also NOT paid from government coffers, so it has to be recouped by those offering the bribe in the normal unsavoury methods.

BTW your math sucks.

And the writing off of farmers debts could never be described as such?

How would you know what people who don't earn the minimum wage get? Typicall BS from you, if you know there's workers earning just 100 baht a day why are you not having a go at their employers ?

My maths might be suspect but where did YOU get the figure of 500 baht per vote from, as that's not what my wife's family got, and it might be a bribe and against the law, but to Thais it's no big deal, it's the high and mighty farangs like you who are making it so.

It has been going on for decades, and well before Thaksin came to power, so stop your own BS please.

You might also have noticed it wasn't me that claimed it came from Govrernment pockets, so apology accepted

I said if it had, to recoup all that needs to be done is raise VAT by 1%

[rubl]

It would seem you are obfuscating. Throw in a few meaningless Thaksins to justify ICC activity. Also the ICC doesn't handle cases retroactively. Lots of members didn't like the idea. As for Thailand, maybe only copying the USA in this. So forget about the ICC.

Anyway, by tomorrow Abhisit/Suthep will have provided the NACC with some explanations. I doubt we'll hear much it first. Even in 'real' democratic countries such details might be covered by some 'internal security act' meaning we can get a half blacked-out page in ten years and a almost readable version in 30 years and all after most of us are dead and buried.

I'm not sure I get your first point. The reason I brought Thaksin into the equation was not "meaningless" nor does it in anyway justify ICC activity, in contrast it provides a reasonable suggestion as to why there has been no ratification thus no activity. I believe that the fact that both sides have requested the ICC to investigate the others leaders is the reason that neither side has fully joined the ICC. I would have thought that was obvious to anyone and going by the words of the Justice Minister it would seem that he feels the same.

The ICC does handle cases retroactively, there is no statute of limitations, as long as the events did not occur prior to 1st July 2002 when the court was established, and also as long as the events were after the date the country signed the Rome Statue, which for Thailand was the 2nd October 2000. So for Thailand's case, any event after 1st July 2002 can be investigated by the ICC. For example in 2006 Choonhaven called for Thailand to ratify their membership in order to retroactively prosecute Thaksin for the crimes he ordered in 2003. Obviously retroactive prosecution is essential in the work of the ICC, imagine if there was none! There would be exactly ZERO cases brought before them.

"Lots of members didn't like the idea"

Lots of members of what didn't like what idea? Sorry but I don't follow.

"As for Thailand, maybe only copying the USA in this."

Thailand copying the US in what? In not ratifying in order to continue their crimes against humanity I presume. Well, the US certainly has a greater interest in that!

As for tomorrow not telling us much I agree. Either they will be let off scot-free (potentially a very bad move) or we will hear nothing (probably the best idea considering the current climate). Either way, I am really not expecting much other than another good natter on here. See you tomorrow?

You seem to have made an 'honest' mistake, Shawn.

"I believe that the fact that both sides have requested the ICC to investigate the others leaders is the reason that neither side has fully joined the ICC. "

The fact is that only the UDD and some of its leaders turned Pheu Thai party list MP requested the ICC to get involved. One Pheu Thai MP Sunai SOmethingoranother even went to theHague, to say hallo only after it was made clear to him that his "I'll file charges" was just silly talk. No other party asked the ICC to get involved in anything.

As for handling cases retroactively, of course all cases are handled AFTER the events. I may have been a wee bit unclear. What I meant is that the ICC only gets involved in events with countries who have ratified the Rome Convention in their parliament and only with events which occurred AFTER that ratification. The only exception seems requests from the UN. So still no go.

The lots of members refers the the countries which helped set-up, define the Rome Convention.

So, forget about the ICC, they're not set up to help play Thai games or those of TVF posters.

As for the topic, maybe move to

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/811532-2010-crackdown-trial-abhisit-to-blame-violence-on-blackshirts/

Edited March 24, 2015 by rubl

[whybother]

Didn't think of using a water cannon first?

They used water cannons on April 9 when the red shirts were attacking the army at Thaicom with Molotov cocktails. The protesters over ran the water cannon trucks and the riot police (army).

[whybother]

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

"The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, "

I don't ever remember reading about the army using the vehicle mounted guns, or of any protesters being "cut clean in half". That is something I would remember because every red shirt supporter here would be posting about it.

Do you have links to any of these "international press reports"?

[waitforusalso]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

men in black.jpg

Lol. So you are basing your views on that? Here are some clearer shots showing that who you claim are black shirts are the army.

Edited March 24, 2015 by waitforusalso

[rubl]

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

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

men in black.jpg

Lol. So you are basing your views on that? Here are some clearer shots showing that who you claim are black shirts are the army.

-- photos removed, no need to copy big pictures again --

The interesting thing is that the Army was more interested in the crackdown than in hiding what they were doing, unlike the opposing forces who cowardly tried to keep out of sight in the day only to emerge in the night. A few reporters wrote about bumping into militants in the night. Of course, the grenade attack on a few soldiers which also seriously injured the Canadian reporter vanderGrift was only seen to happen / have happened. Afternoon, broad light, but who did it? Cowards hiding behind peaceful protesters and by that time mostly mothers with kids and old protesters left only. All in the name of defending democracy. The characteristics of terrorists, "if we kill it's your fault for pushing us"

PS no offence meant in removing the photo's. I just see no reason to see them copied and copied again in all replies. For your information, if you insist I also have a few 'interesting' photo's. The least offensive, but describing the situation afterwards without words is this

[Shawn0001]

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

"The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, "

I don't ever remember reading about the army using the vehicle mounted guns, or of any protesters being "cut clean in half". That is something I would remember because every red shirt supporter here would be posting about it.

Do you have links to any of these "international press reports"?

I have made a mistake there, what I read was actually from the autopsy reports and used the phrase "shot right through", I now see what they meant was that the bullet had traveled right through the body and so could not be identified as to whether it came from the military or not, it was from the temple shootings. Sorry, that was not a purposeful lie but a mix-up on my part, I was reading so many different articles and I mixed up a couple of events.

As for heavy guns being used on protesters though, this is a link to an international press report claiming just that.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1990184,00.html

There is another report of a vehicle mounted gunner refusing to open fire when ordered, which was nice of him, and another of firing heavy bullets into Victory Monument while other light guns were shooting the people.

You have to question just why they brought out the anti-aircraft guns in the first place, it's not like the Red-shirts had aircraft, is it?

[rubl]

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

"The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, "

I don't ever remember reading about the army using the vehicle mounted guns, or of any protesters being "cut clean in half". That is something I would remember because every red shirt supporter here would be posting about it.

Do you have links to any of these "international press reports"?

I have made a mistake there, what I read was actually from the autopsy reports and used the phrase "shot right through", I now see what they meant was that the bullet had traveled right through the body and so could not be identified as to whether it came from the military or not, it was from the temple shootings. Sorry, that was not a purposeful lie but a mix-up on my part, I was reading so many different articles and I mixed up a couple of events.

As for heavy guns being used on protesters though, this is a link to an international press report claiming just that.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1990184,00.html

There is another report of a vehicle mounted gunner refusing to open fire when ordered, which was nice of him, and another of firing heavy bullets into Victory Monument while other light guns were shooting the people.

You have to question just why they brought out the anti-aircraft guns in the first place, it's not like the Red-shirts had aircraft, is it?

Ah, quoting from the Robert A. Fairy Tale. Indeed anonymous witness #22 stated to have heard and blablabla.

BTW the Time link has

"The mastermind in question was Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Prime Minister ousted in a coup in 2006 and who has opted to live abroad rather than serve a prison sentence on a corruption conviction. Many Red Shirts are loyal to Thaksin and want him back in power. Others have expressed broader goals of eliminating inequalities in society, reducing poverty and reining in the military. One Red Shirt leader, Charan Dittapichai, told the Krungthep Turakij newspaper on Monday that Thaksin was one of the chief financial backers of the protest."

I'm a bit confused about the 'anti-aircraft guns' remark you made, but only a little bit. In this topic you've told a few 'little white lies' it would seem.

Edited March 24, 2015 by rubl

[halloween]

Hmm so Korn and the other dems didn't really make a big deal out of this, the only ones making a big deal are farangs who have no rights to vote in a countrybrhey chose to live, sounds about right, bitch about something that's happened for decade well before many of them arrived.

It wasn't 500 baht across the board either so you can't even get these facts right, and even if it was 500 baht every 4 years is a paltry 90 odd baht, lower then the minimum wage.

As for paying it back, stupidest comment ever, a single 1% raise in product VAT would claim that 500 baht without them ever really knowing.

Typical apologist BS. A bribe is a bribe and a criminal offence no matter its size. And no matter how you attempt to divide and minimise it, it is still equivalent of 5 days pay at minimum wage offered to many who don't earn minimum wage.

It is also NOT paid from government coffers, so it has to be recouped by those offering the bribe in the normal unsavoury methods.

BTW your math sucks.

And the writing off of farmers debts could never be described as such?

How would you know what people who don't earn the minimum wage get? Typicall BS from you, if you know there's workers earning just 100 baht a day why are you not having a go at their employers ?

My maths might be suspect but where did YOU get the figure of 500 baht per vote from, as that's not what my wife's family got, and it might be a bribe and against the law, but to Thais it's no big deal, it's the high and mighty farangs like you who are making it so.

It has been going on for decades, and well before Thaksin came to power, so stop your own BS please.

You might also have noticed it wasn't me that claimed it came from Govrernment pockets, so apology accepted

I said if it had, to recoup all that needs to be done is raise VAT by 1%

Which party wrote off farmer's debts?

There is more than one way to buy a vote. Unworkable and unsustainable populist policies are just as much a bribe, even if legal. But illegal vote buying is a crime, even if your family discounts, and profits from, it. That it has been a SOP for years doesn't make it less wrong.

No it wasn't you who claimed it came from government pockets, it was you who assumed the poster was referring to vote-buying rather than populism. How would that take 50 years to pay back? Is vote-buying populism at huge expense acceptable to you?

[Shawn0001]

No, I am just not willing to generalize. Of course the actions of the Black Shirts were inexcusable but that does not justify the murder of unarmed and completely innocent people. The snipers taking out the grenade launchers and rocket launchers were justified whereas indiscriminate fire, if that is what happened, resulting in the deaths of journalists and medics can not be justified, obviously.

Yes, I know the difference between a machine gun and a semi automatic assault rifle, do you? The Thai army were equipped with the M16 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle also known as a light MACHINE GUN. The heavy machine guns I also mentioned were the vehicle mounted guns seen all over the city. The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, try doing that at range with a 5.56mm semi. Obviously there was not continued fire from these weapons into crowds or they would have killed thousands but the fact is that the international press reported their use against a crowd of largely unarmed people. The rounds from these guns do not stop at their target, they can kill several people in a row. There is no excuse for using heavy weapons on a crowd no matter who is hiding amongst them and what they have done.

The point I was making was not even about what weaponry was being used, it was about indiscriminate fire from the military side, I deem it indiscriminate due to the fact that automatic fire was reported and automatics are by nature indiscriminate.

The military did shoot and kill 2 medics and 2 journalists, many more came under fire and were injured. One clearly marked journalist was shot in the back as he ran alone across open ground. The medics were shot as they attended to wounded people, allegedly by sniper fire.

Now, the question I am asking for the third time is this, was this indiscriminate fire which accidentally resulted in the deaths of these innocents or were they targeted and murdered? This is one of the questions that Suthep and Abhisit should be answering but either way it was murder or perhaps you can imagine a different scenario which resulted in the deaths of these innocents at the hands of the military.

"The army claimed to only shoot these into the air but the international press reported that at least 5 people were killed with these weapons, one cut clean in half, "

I don't ever remember reading about the army using the vehicle mounted guns, or of any protesters being "cut clean in half". That is something I would remember because every red shirt supporter here would be posting about it.

Do you have links to any of these "international press reports"?

I have made a mistake there, what I read was actually from the autopsy reports and used the phrase "shot right through", I now see what they meant was that the bullet had traveled right through the body and so could not be identified as to whether it came from the military or not, it was from the temple shootings. Sorry, that was not a purposeful lie but a mix-up on my part, I was reading so many different articles and I mixed up a couple of events.

As for heavy guns being used on protesters though, this is a link to an international press report claiming just that.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1990184,00.html

There is another report of a vehicle mounted gunner refusing to open fire when ordered, which was nice of him, and another of firing heavy bullets into Victory Monument while other light guns were shooting the people.

You have to question just why they brought out the anti-aircraft guns in the first place, it's not like the Red-shirts had aircraft, is it?

Ah, quoting from the Robert A. Fairy Tale. Indeed anonymous witness #22 stated to have heard and blablabla.

BTW the Time link has

"The mastermind in question was Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Prime Minister ousted in a coup in 2006 and who has opted to live abroad rather than serve a prison sentence on a corruption conviction. Many Red Shirts are loyal to Thaksin and want him back in power. Others have expressed broader goals of eliminating inequalities in society, reducing poverty and reining in the military. One Red Shirt leader, Charan Dittapichai, told the Krungthep Turakij newspaper on Monday that Thaksin was one of the chief financial backers of the protest."

I'm a bit confused about the 'anti-aircraft guns' remark you made, but only a little bit. In this topic you've told a few 'little white lies' it would seem.

The quote I have posted from witness #22 paints the army in a good light though does it not? The gunner is alleged to have refused to shoot, you want to dispute that?

The first quote about bodies shot right through is from Pol Lt Gen Jongjet Aojenpong, a chief doctor of the Forensic Institute.

I do not know why you have posted that quote from the Time link, I think we all know Thaksin was the mastermind behind the Red Shirts actions.

The relevant quote is this one, a foreign journalists eye witness account:

"A few are in elevated sniper positions, firing heavy-caliber bullets at street fighters who appear to be more of a threat. How they can determine that through the black clouds and haze from the burning tires is a mystery. Consequently, they have been more likely to have killed Red Shirts who were lightly armed, or unarmed"

The .50 caliber guns, Browning M2, that were seen all over the city mounted to vehicles are actually classed as anti-aircraft guns. When they talk of "heavy-caliber bullets" and "heavy machine guns", it is the .50 caliber they are referring to. You might recall the numerous reports of the Red Shirts having seized six anti-aircraft guns from the army which they were also reported to have fired upon the army with.

As for my "white lies", I admit my mistakes, but they are just that, mistakes, it's complex at times and there are numerous conflicting reports. Lets stick to countering each others arguments or mistakes with facts please, and stop calling each other liars, OK? Keep it civil.

I do not take sides, I cannot imagine how anyone could. I am yet to meet a Thai who believes that both sides are not at least somewhat guilty, yet here are Ex-pats so staunchly Red or Yellow that they deny their side is in anyway to blame, utterly bizarre.

[Shawn0001]

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

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

men in black.jpg

Lol. So you are basing your views on that? Here are some clearer shots showing that who you claim are black shirts are the army.

-- photos removed, no need to copy big pictures again --

The interesting thing is that the Army was more interested in the crackdown than in hiding what they were doing, unlike the opposing forces who cowardly tried to keep out of sight in the day only to emerge in the night. A few reporters wrote about bumping into militants in the night. Of course, the grenade attack on a few soldiers which also seriously injured the Canadian reporter vanderGrift was only seen to happen / have happened. Afternoon, broad light, but who did it? Cowards hiding behind peaceful protesters and by that time mostly mothers with kids and old protesters left only. All in the name of defending democracy. The characteristics of terrorists, "if we kill it's your fault for pushing us"

PS no offence meant in removing the photo's. I just see no reason to see them copied and copied again in all replies. For your information, if you insist I also have a few 'interesting' photo's. The least offensive, but describing the situation afterwards without words is this

2010-05-20 Siam Movie Theatre.jpg

They were not interested in hiding the fact that they were assassinating unarmed people in a temple? Well, they are interested in hiding that now though, aren't they!

But surely you are not defending the breaking of international rules of engagement by claiming that the army was "pushed" into firing through civilians? Their cowardly hiding amongst innocents provided no excuse for the army engage as there was the possibility of civilian casualties, which they saw.

[halloween]

They were not interested in hiding the fact that they were assassinating unarmed people in a temple? Well, they are interested in hiding that now though, aren't they!

But surely you are not defending the breaking of international rules of engagement by claiming that the army was "pushed" into firing through civilians? Their cowardly hiding amongst innocents provided no excuse for the army engage as there was the possibility of civilian casualties, which they saw.

How do those knowingly shielding armed insurgents get to be "innocents"? Are they not part of the same criminal conspiracy?

Are police and RTA not allowed to respond to be being shot at by civilians because of the possibility of civilian casualties?

[Shawn0001]

They were not interested in hiding the fact that they were assassinating unarmed people in a temple? Well, they are interested in hiding that now though, aren't they!

But surely you are not defending the breaking of international rules of engagement by claiming that the army was "pushed" into firing through civilians? Their cowardly hiding amongst innocents provided no excuse for the army engage as there was the possibility of civilian casualties, which they saw.

How do those knowingly shielding armed insurgents get to be "innocents"? Are they not part of the same criminal conspiracy?

Are police and RTA not allowed to respond to be being shot at by civilians because of the possibility of civilian casualties?

No they are not, according to International law they are not allowed to take a shot if they might hit an innocent civilian. All of the people shot in the temple were unarmed, thus innocent, civilians

[metisdead]

Posts containing off topic hyperbolic nonsense have been removed as well as the replies.

[rubl]

They were not interested in hiding the fact that they were assassinating unarmed people in a temple? Well, they are interested in hiding that now though, aren't they!

But surely you are not defending the breaking of international rules of engagement by claiming that the army was "pushed" into firing through civilians? Their cowardly hiding amongst innocents provided no excuse for the army engage as there was the possibility of civilian casualties, which they saw.

How do those knowingly shielding armed insurgents get to be "innocents"? Are they not part of the same criminal conspiracy?

Are police and RTA not allowed to respond to be being shot at by civilians because of the possibility of civilian casualties?

No they are not, according to International law they are not allowed to take a shot if they might hit an innocent civilian. All of the people shot in the temple were unarmed, thus innocent, civilians

Absolutely, better to give terrorists a chance to do some more shooting and offer them a chance to get away to appear elsewhere.

So, international Law. Pray tell which one?

[waitforusalso]

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

However they were clearly shown on Tele at the time.

men in black.jpg

Lol. So you are basing your views on that? Here are some clearer shots showing that who you claim are black shirts are the army.

-- photos removed, no need to copy big pictures again --

The interesting thing is that the Army was more interested in the crackdown than in hiding what they were doing, unlike the opposing forces who cowardly tried to keep out of sight in the day only to emerge in the night. A few reporters wrote about bumping into militants in the night. Of course, the grenade attack on a few soldiers which also seriously injured the Canadian reporter vanderGrift was only seen to happen / have happened. Afternoon, broad light, but who did it? Cowards hiding behind peaceful protesters and by that time mostly mothers with kids and old protesters left only. All in the name of defending democracy. The characteristics of terrorists, "if we kill it's your fault for pushing us"

PS no offence meant in removing the photo's. I just see no reason to see them copied and copied again in all replies. For your information, if you insist I also have a few 'interesting' photo's. The least offensive, but describing the situation afterwards without words is this

2010-05-20 Siam Movie Theatre.jpg

Oh, a photo depicting the scene created by the authorities burning of property so they could frame the reds & justify their massacre. Yeah, nice photo.

[Shawn0001]

They were not interested in hiding the fact that they were assassinating unarmed people in a temple? Well, they are interested in hiding that now though, aren't they!

But surely you are not defending the breaking of international rules of engagement by claiming that the army was "pushed" into firing through civilians? Their cowardly hiding amongst innocents provided no excuse for the army engage as there was the possibility of civilian casualties, which they saw.

How do those knowingly shielding armed insurgents get to be "innocents"? Are they not part of the same criminal conspiracy?

Are police and RTA not allowed to respond to be being shot at by civilians because of the possibility of civilian casualties?

No they are not, according to International law they are not allowed to take a shot if they might hit an innocent civilian. All of the people shot in the temple were unarmed, thus innocent, civilians

Absolutely, better to give terrorists a chance to do some more shooting and offer them a chance to get away to appear elsewhere.

So, international Law. Pray tell which one?

International Humanitarian Law as defined by The Geneva Conventions IV Additional Protocol II, the Rome Statutes Principal of Distinction and Established Principles of Necessity and Proportionality, and the International Committee of the Red Cross Statutes.

These are all considered to form part of customary international law in non-international armed conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross who are the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority.

You seem to be in denial of there even being international laws! From the Law of Nations, to the Lieber Code, to Henry Dunant, to the establishment of the Red Cross, to the Brussels Conventions, to the Geneva Conventions, to the Hague Conventions, to the Geneva Protocol, to the Rome Statues: International Laws on War have been widely accepted for well over 100 years!

Are you familiar with this moral dilemma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[rubl]

How do those knowingly shielding armed insurgents get to be "innocents"? Are they not part of the same criminal conspiracy?

Are police and RTA not allowed to respond to be being shot at by civilians because of the possibility of civilian casualties?

No they are not, according to International law they are not allowed to take a shot if they might hit an innocent civilian. All of the people shot in the temple were unarmed, thus innocent, civilians

Absolutely, better to give terrorists a chance to do some more shooting and offer them a chance to get away to appear elsewhere.

So, international Law. Pray tell which one?

International Humanitarian Law as defined by The Geneva Conventions IV Additional Protocol II, the Rome Statutes Principal of Distinction and Established Principles of Necessity and Proportionality, and the International Committee of the Red Cross Statutes.

These are all considered to form part of customary international law in non-international armed conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross who are the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority.

You seem to be in denial of there even being international laws! From the Law of Nations, to the Lieber Code, to Henry Dunant, to the establishment of the Red Cross, to the Brussels Conventions, to the Geneva Conventions, to the Hague Conventions, to the Geneva Protocol, to the Rome Statues: International Laws on War have been widely accepted for well over 100 years!

Are you familiar with this moral dilemma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A moral dilemma, except for you of course. You would just let those cowardly terrorists go to allow them to continue killing. As such the relatives of those killed would be in a morally correct position to demand justice by charging you. Mind you these games have nothing to do with the law.

Now all this doesn't matter at all here, as we only have the NACC having asked Abhisit/Suthep to explain their decisions and the process and arguments to come to that decision. Yet another reason why trying to get the ICC involved is just so much obfuscation. The previous government was also actively involved in pressuring Abhisit/Suthep to accept the Blanket Amnesty Bill by getting them charged with 'premeditated murder as private persons'. Just as twisted as your suggestion that Thaksin convicted by the ICC would help in getting Abhisit/Suthep convicted as well. as if the ICC would even touch either case.

[Shawn0001]

No they are not, according to International law they are not allowed to take a shot if they might hit an innocent civilian. All of the people shot in the temple were unarmed, thus innocent, civilians

Absolutely, better to give terrorists a chance to do some more shooting and offer them a chance to get away to appear elsewhere.

So, international Law. Pray tell which one?

International Humanitarian Law as defined by The Geneva Conventions IV Additional Protocol II, the Rome Statutes Principal of Distinction and Established Principles of Necessity and Proportionality, and the International Committee of the Red Cross Statutes.

These are all considered to form part of customary international law in non-international armed conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross who are the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority.

You seem to be in denial of there even being international laws! From the Law of Nations, to the Lieber Code, to Henry Dunant, to the establishment of the Red Cross, to the Brussels Conventions, to the Geneva Conventions, to the Hague Conventions, to the Geneva Protocol, to the Rome Statues: International Laws on War have been widely accepted for well over 100 years!

Are you familiar with this moral dilemma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A moral dilemma, except for you of course. You would just let those cowardly terrorists go to allow them to continue killing. As such the relatives of those killed would be in a morally correct position to demand justice by charging you. Mind you these games have nothing to do with the law.

Now all this doesn't matter at all here, as we only have the NACC having asked Abhisit/Suthep to explain their decisions and the process and arguments to come to that decision. Yet another reason why trying to get the ICC involved is just so much obfuscation. The previous government was also actively involved in pressuring Abhisit/Suthep to accept the Blanket Amnesty Bill by getting them charged with 'premeditated murder as private persons'. Just as twisted as your suggestion that Thaksin convicted by the ICC would help in getting Abhisit/Suthep convicted as well. as if the ICC would even touch either case.

"Mind you these games have nothing to do with the law."

They are actually, and more importantly they have to do to with the dilemma faced by those giving the orders in a conflict, and by the unfortunate soldiers who are sometimes ordered to shoot despite the risk of civilian casualties. Can you not even see that? This is the moral dilemma the Thai government faced in 2010, obviously it has everything to do with the topic.

I answered your cocky question, a question phrased to imply that you believed there are no international laws on rules of engagement. I took the time to post a chronological list of international humanitarian laws which do cover rules of engagement regarding civilians. If you feel the answer to your own question does not matter then do not ask the question. If you are actually interested then go and read those laws but you will have to find someone else to help you understand their titles this time!

[rubl]

Absolutely, better to give terrorists a chance to do some more shooting and offer them a chance to get away to appear elsewhere.

So, international Law. Pray tell which one?

International Humanitarian Law as defined by The Geneva Conventions IV Additional Protocol II, the Rome Statutes Principal of Distinction and Established Principles of Necessity and Proportionality, and the International Committee of the Red Cross Statutes.

These are all considered to form part of customary international law in non-international armed conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross who are the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority.

You seem to be in denial of there even being international laws! From the Law of Nations, to the Lieber Code, to Henry Dunant, to the establishment of the Red Cross, to the Brussels Conventions, to the Geneva Conventions, to the Hague Conventions, to the Geneva Protocol, to the Rome Statues: International Laws on War have been widely accepted for well over 100 years!

Are you familiar with this moral dilemma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A moral dilemma, except for you of course. You would just let those cowardly terrorists go to allow them to continue killing. As such the relatives of those killed would be in a morally correct position to demand justice by charging you. Mind you these games have nothing to do with the law.

Now all this doesn't matter at all here, as we only have the NACC having asked Abhisit/Suthep to explain their decisions and the process and arguments to come to that decision. Yet another reason why trying to get the ICC involved is just so much obfuscation. The previous government was also actively involved in pressuring Abhisit/Suthep to accept the Blanket Amnesty Bill by getting them charged with 'premeditated murder as private persons'. Just as twisted as your suggestion that Thaksin convicted by the ICC would help in getting Abhisit/Suthep convicted as well. as if the ICC would even touch either case.

"Mind you these games have nothing to do with the law."

They are actually, and more importantly they have to do to with the dilemma faced by those giving the orders in a conflict, and by the unfortunate soldiers who are sometimes ordered to shoot despite the risk of civilian casualties. Can you not even see that? This is the moral dilemma the Thai government faced in 2010, obviously it has everything to do with the topic.

I answered your cocky question, a question phrased to imply that you believed there are no international laws on rules of engagement. I took the time to post a chronological list of international humanitarian laws which do cover rules of engagement regarding civilians. If you feel the answer to your own question does not matter then do not ask the question. If you are actually interested then go and read those laws but you will have to find someone else to help you understand their titles this time!

Oh come on, anything to give the 'right' impression that Abhisit/Suthep are criminals who should be sentenced to jail time?

BTW what happened in Sydney when some special Police Forces chased and killed a few terrorists in a supermarket (I think)? Wasn't there some collateral damage as well as the Australian Authorities didn't wasn't the terrorists to get away? How about the 'hallo Charly' attack? France to be charged at the ICC as well?

Or is pointing out similarities in what you call 'breaking international laws' off topic?