2010 crackdown trial: Abhisit to blame violence on Blackshirts

[webfact]

2010 Crackdown Trial: Abhisit to Blame Violence on Blackshirts
By Khaosod English


Redshirts torch the City Hall in Mukdahan province in response to the crackdown in the capital city, 19 May 2010

BANGKOK — Former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will defend himself against charges related to his authorization of the 2010 crackdown by contesting a previous court ruling that found soldiers responsible for the deaths of civilians, his lawyer said.

Abhisit and his former deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, have been charged with abuse of power by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for launching the military operation on Redshirt protesters in 2010, which left over 90 people dead, mostly civilians. If proven guilty, the Democrat Party leaders could be retrospectively impeached and banned from politics for five years.

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.

Bundit told reporters the testimony explains the rationality behind each order Abhisit issued as head of the Center for Resolution of Emergency Situation (CRES) at the time. The documents also reveal that Abhisit’s orders clearly instructed military commanders not to use violence against the protesters, his lawyer said.

According to Abhisit’s account, the violence that ensued was spurred by Redshirt-allied militants that soldiers were forced to confront.

Bunddi said that Abhisit specifically plans to dispute the 2013 court inquest that found soldiers responsible for the deaths of six unarmed civilians inside Wat Pathumwanararm Temple on the last day of the crackdown.

Abhisit will argue that the shooting started because members of the Redshirt organization the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) opened fire on soldiers first, his lawyer said.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1427184582&section=11&typecate=06


-- Khaosod English 2015-03-24

[Tatsujin]

It will be good to hear the truth come out at last ...

[ExPratt]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

[JAG]

It will be good to hear the truth come out at last ...

Indeed it would. I don't expect that we will hear it at this, or any other trial!

A lot of people were shot by the army, 90 odd died. Quite who was responsible (gave the order) will never be made known. That's not to say there might well be a fall guy. It could even be Abhisit.

Edited March 24, 2015 by JAG

[Chris Lawrence]

Abhist ordered the Army in as both he and Suthep sh!t themselves. I think that is the correct political terminology?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets, as they had no water cannons?

[15Peter20]

It will be good to hear the truth come out at last ...

5555555 that's gold!!!!!!!!

[tbthailand]

Abhisit will argue that the shooting started because members of the Redshirt organization the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) opened fire on soldiers first, his lawyer said.

he will have a tough time of it then...

May 13-19 were 6 days of an assault by the military with APCs... The shooting began the day before with the assassination of Seh Daing. No one can argue that the solders were fired at first during this, the most violent and bloody episode in the 2 month protests.

Good luck, Mark... I am beginning to wonder if your military handlers are really going to put you out to pasture after all...

[chainarong]

There is a tenancy to guess before the person speaks here, how do they know what Mark is going to say , anyway this should be handled with a government inquiry at all levels and a proper investigation into what happened or versions of what happened from everyone concerned , not the bloody ACC doing a snow job, there was no corruption just the odd public disobedience , you can't expect the leader of a country sitting on his hands while the place burns and lets face it 90 would still be here today if they weren't out on the street, protest by all means but do so within reason, 2010 protest was not within reason, it was anarchy .

[halloween]

Abhisit will argue that the shooting started because members of the Redshirt organization the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) opened fire on soldiers first, his lawyer said.

he will have a tough time of it then...

May 13-19 were 6 days of an assault by the military with APCs... The shooting began the day before with the assassination of Seh Daing. No one can argue that the solders were fired at first during this, the most violent and bloody episode in the 2 month protests.

Good luck, Mark... I am beginning to wonder if your military handlers are really going to put you out to pasture after all...

April 10th is some time before May. A penny short and 5 weeks late?

[patjem]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

[ExPratt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

So you don't think there was excessive force used ? How many of the dead were actual terrorists . I do know what it was like down there actually because I had to get a new passport at UK Embassy , I picked it up a week after it was ready as the Embassy closed down because the Army declared a "Free fire zone" in the area.. So "Free fire zones" doesnot sound like they were just fighting back against Terrorists to me. More like they were trying to solve the issue by Military force

[jdinasia]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

No... At the end of the day. 90 people died. Including soldiers.

[dinooz]

The Live Fire Zones were set up in attempt to contain the Redshirts within their fortress. As majority if not all the deaths occurred outside the rally site when the Redshirts engaged the Army.In their wisdom the Redshirts thought it was a good idea to box the Army in between the Rally Site and the other side of the live Fire Zones,hence the deaths that occurred on Rachaparop.We do not how many terrorist were killed and we also don't how many innocent protesters were killed by the terroists.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

So you don't think there was excessive force used ? How many of the dead were actual terrorists . I do know what it was like down there actually because I had to get a new passport at UK Embassy , I picked it up a week after it was ready as the Embassy closed down because the Army declared a "Free fire zone" in the area.. So "Free fire zones" doesnot sound like they were just fighting back against Terrorists to me. More like they were trying to solve the issue by Military force

[rubl]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

So you don't think there was excessive force used ? How many of the dead were actual terrorists . I do know what it was like down there actually because I had to get a new passport at UK Embassy , I picked it up a week after it was ready as the Embassy closed down because the Army declared a "Free fire zone" in the area.. So "Free fire zones" doesnot sound like they were just fighting back against Terrorists to me. More like they were trying to solve the issue by Military force

Please be realistic. Lots of tourists where there before the final crackdown and before the 'life fire zones' were declared. I assume you were not walking around blissfully aware of being British?

The 'life fire zones' were declared for the areas where the army met most 'friendly peaceful' protesters shooting at them. The first 12 hours after Seh Saeng was shot those peaceful protesters really used every possible opportunity to let their opinion be felt.

BTW I live and work in Bangkok, office in U Chu Liang along RamaIV opposite Lumpini park. I have seen some and I would hesitate to say I know what is was like as passing the bamboo-tire wall too close by was not encouraged. Wearing a colourful shirt might also get you a grenade lobbed on you as the multi-colour shirts noticed on the 24th of April (or around, too lazy to look up the date). Luckily I missed that by a few hours, using BTS and Saladaeng station frequently.

Edited March 24, 2015 by rubl

[ExPratt]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

So you don't think there was excessive force used ? How many of the dead were actual terrorists . I do know what it was like down there actually because I had to get a new passport at UK Embassy , I picked it up a week after it was ready as the Embassy closed down because the Army declared a "Free fire zone" in the area.. So "Free fire zones" doesnot sound like they were just fighting back against Terrorists to me. More like they were trying to solve the issue by Military force

Please be realistic. Lots of tourists where there before the final crackdown and before the 'life fire zones' were declared. I assume you were not walking around blissfully aware of being British?

The 'life fire zones' were declared for the areas where the army met most 'friendly peaceful' protesters shooting at them. The first 12 hours after Seh Saeng was shot those peaceful protesters really used every possible opportunity to let their opinion be felt.

BTW I live and work in Bangkok, office in U Chu Liang along RamaIV opposite Lumpini park. I have seen some and I would hesitate to say I know what is was like as passing the bamboo-tire wall too close by was not encouraged. Wearing a colourful shirt might also get you a grenade lobbed on you as the multi-colour shirts noticed on the 24th of April (or around, too lazy to look up the date). Luckily I missed that by a few hours, using BTS and Saladaeng station frequently.

Were their many passers by killed by Grenades ? I respect every one has the right to their own opinion but in my opinion the death toll speaks for itself. I don't actually think individuals can be blamed , just a massive Cluster F

[Chris Lawrence]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

Other countries probably wouldn't have the patience, I agree with that Pat. But. Its the killings that bother most people and is the crux of the debate, while these two political giraffes are trying to stick their heads in the sand.

Someone has to take responsibility?

'The fish always goes bad at the head first' Keith Campbell circa 1970"s

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bangkok-bloodbath-nine-crew-see-journalist-shot-in-head-20100519-vemt.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bangkok-rioting-huge-shopping-mall-faces-collapse-20100519-vf6z.html

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/05/16/nick-nostitz-in-the-killing-zone/ This report is very graphic in terms of being in the middle of the riots as a reporter.

Nick Nostitz reported: 'The soldier ordered me to pull him out. Another soldier has also jumped over the wall, a third soldier secured from above the wall. While I tried to pull the man out of the water he pleaded, with a weak voice, that he just can’t take it anymore. He was too heavy. I asked one of the soldiers to help me, please. While roughly pulling at the man, he screamed that he should be dead, and because he isn’t they have to take him to the hospital, and that he should die. He walked off.'

For the army person to say, "that he should be dead, and because he isn’t they have to take him to the hospital". Very unusual comment to be made against your own countryman. Someone is responsible for this type of response.

Abhisit defended the army crackdown, saying there was no turning back. "The government must move forward. We cannot retreat because we are doing things that will benefit the entire country," he said in a national broadcast. Said to the press.

Army boss General Prayuth Chan-ocha has been insistent: in April and May 2010, the military didn’t murder anyone. He and his spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, both deeply involved in those crackdowns, have repeatedly made absurd claims in spite of remarkable visual evidence. Prayuth Chan-ocha and Sansern Kaewkamnerd have been expressing exasperation that the Department of Special Investigation are investigating the Army’s activity during the 2010 red shirt protests and demanding that DSI back off. Sansern and Prayuth are claiming they are entirely innocent and that the deaths of more than 90 people – many of whom were seemingly shot by Army snipers – was nothing to do with them.

Anyhow, over 90 people were killed and it is sounding as many have amnesia surrounding what they were doing in 2010.

What’s the difference between shutting a major shopping and business precent down versus shutting down all incoming international flights to a country's capital? One gets shot and the other doesn't.

[Skywalker69]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Not only protester was killed!!!

[whybother]

Abhisit will argue that the shooting started because members of the Redshirt organization the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) opened fire on soldiers first, his lawyer said.

he will have a tough time of it then...

May 13-19 were 6 days of an assault by the military with APCs... The shooting began the day before with the assassination of Seh Daing. No one can argue that the solders were fired at first during this, the most violent and bloody episode in the 2 month protests.

Good luck, Mark... I am beginning to wonder if your military handlers are really going to put you out to pasture after all...

There is no evidence that Sae Daeng was killed on orders of Abhisit or CRES.

APCs were involved on May 19. I don't believe they weren't used before that. The army had positioned themselves well outside the red shirt barricades. The red shirts came out of their encampment and set tyres on fire and also shot at army positions.

The "Live fire zone" was well outside the red shirt protest area and it was set up because the army were being shot at by red shirts.

[Skywalker69]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

Where did you read that? It is a rather inaccurate and biased statement.

Actual fact: 92 died during the entire period of the red shirt's 'demonstration', which included reds, army who were attached on April 10, innocent pedestrians, etc., which included bombs and shootings coming from the red camp.... many incidents prior to the day when the troops went in to disperse the reds, who had within their encampment a private militant force, under control of a radical ex-army General, and encampment fortified with bamboo spike & petrol-doused tyres?

That is the scene set, before any shots were fired by the military: certainly, fingers of RTA were Behind the trigger that downed some of the red shirts, but please be realistic.....

Would governments of other countries even had this much patience before making a move? I doubt it.

This pic was posted on TVF a couple of years back and I think it´s a very important picture.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Skywalker69

[whybother]

<snip>

What’s the difference between shutting a major shopping and business precent down versus shutting down all incoming international flights to a country's capital? One gets shot and the other doesn't.

One has a militia armed with military weapons, blow up army personnel with grenades and sets up barricades with petrol soaked bamboo and tyres.

The other one doesn't.

[whybother]

So you don't think there was excessive force used ? How many of the dead were actual terrorists . I do know what it was like down there actually because I had to get a new passport at UK Embassy , I picked it up a week after it was ready as the Embassy closed down because the Army declared a "Free fire zone" in the area.. So "Free fire zones" doesnot sound like they were just fighting back against Terrorists to me. More like they were trying to solve the issue by Military force

The Live Fire Zones were set up in attempt to contain the Redshirts within their fortress. As majority if not all the deaths occurred outside the rally site when the Redshirts engaged the Army.In their wisdom the Redshirts thought it was a good idea to box the Army in between the Rally Site and the other side of the live Fire Zones,hence the deaths that occurred on Rachaparop.We do not how many terrorist were killed and we also don't how many innocent protesters were killed by the terroists.

Actually, the "Live fire zone" (one of them) was in the Din Daeng area on the north side of the protest area only. This area had lots of small sois which allowed to red shirt militia to shoot at the army positions and then escape into and around the buildings.

[Skywalker69]

The red shirt came to Bankok to create havoc on orders from Thaksin. So he is as guilty as Abhisit then?

[whybother]

Abhist ordered the Army in as both he and Suthep sh!t themselves. I think that is the correct political terminology?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets, as they had no water cannons?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets ... because the protesters were shooting bullets?

[Robby nz]

These six boxes of documents, photographs, and CDs will not only be a defense for Abhisit but will contain a lot of incriminating evidence against the red leaders.

It will be good if Abhisit and Suthep are brought to trial in a public court for then all the hate speeches from the red stages, the phone-ins from the big boss, the videos and photos of the men in black and all the truth of what did happen will be brought out for intense public scrutiny in a clear and concise way without the smoke and ongoing gunfire to detract from the sequence of events.

It will be impossible for the red leaders to deny their own words or actions ( although they will try) and there will hopefully also be a money trail that emerges, for the whole riot would have cost billions to fund, this includes the millions that the mercenaries leaders ended up with.

Thaksin will regret his mistake of accusing them of murder in the belief that they would cave in and go over to his side.

[Skywalker69]

These six boxes of documents, photographs, and CDs will not only be a defense for Abhisit but will contain a lot of incriminating evidence against the red leaders.

It will be good if Abhisit and Suthep are brought to trial in a public court for then all the hate speeches from the red stages, the phone-ins from the big boss, the videos and photos of the men in black and all the truth of what did happen will be brought out for intense public scrutiny in a clear and concise way without the smoke and ongoing gunfire to detract from the sequence of events.

It will be impossible for the red leaders to deny their own words or actions ( although they will try) and there will hopefully also be a money trail that emerges, for the whole riot would have cost billions to fund, this includes the millions that the mercenaries leaders ended up with.

Thaksin will regret his mistake of accusing them of murder in the belief that they would cave in and go over to his side.

Thaksin will regret his mistake of accusing them of murder in the belief that they would cave in and go over to his side.

Once again he has maid a major mistake.

[Robby nz]

These six boxes of documents, photographs, and CDs will not only be a defense for Abhisit but will contain a lot of incriminating evidence against the red leaders.

It will be good if Abhisit and Suthep are brought to trial in a public court for then all the hate speeches from the red stages, the phone-ins from the big boss, the videos and photos of the men in black and all the truth of what did happen will be brought out for intense public scrutiny in a clear and concise way without the smoke and ongoing gunfire to detract from the sequence of events.

It will be impossible for the red leaders to deny their own words or actions ( although they will try) and there will hopefully also be a money trail that emerges, for the whole riot would have cost billions to fund, this includes the millions that the mercenaries leaders ended up with.

Thaksin will regret his mistake of accusing them of murder in the belief that they would cave in and go over to his side.

Thaksin will regret his mistake of accusing them of murder in the belief that they would cave in and go over to his side.

Once again he has maid a major mistake.

My apologies for doing the spelling police thing.... But couldn't help thinking about the 'honest mistake' with the maid and gardener.

He got away with that one but I somehow doubt he will get away with this one.

[Chris Lawrence]

Abhist ordered the Army in as both he and Suthep sh!t themselves. I think that is the correct political terminology?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets, as they had no water cannons?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets ... because the protesters were shooting bullets?

You must be a salivating or you like two bites of the cherry? As you seem to be saying the same. Not heard as a child? I hope my reference to alternatives in this conflict has not developed stimuli as described by Ivan Pavlov in his studies on behaviour?

The water cannons would have been effective at the beginning. Read the press reports at the time.

Again read the press reports about the arms the protestors had. I have linked only a few reports.

I agree there weapons ended up on both sides but what escalated the violence. What escalated the call to arms? This is what has to be investigated.

The problem is that the Government/military people being investigated are denying any involvement. They are also trying to stymie the investigators. Look at some of the General’ comments.

Read some of the reports about Abhisit and Suthep just prior to the demonstrations and what their fears were with the demonstration’s coming into town.

Again this is what needs to be investigated and responsibility taken for.

Whybother, if you were at the head of the Red shirt protests, I believe that it would be your right to protest. Now if they started shooting at you in your peaceful red shirt, what would you be thinking?

Look at Nostitz report. The attitude of the troops towards protestors. Nostitz didn't show the protestors with the same in-built hatred that was displayed by the army young men at the protest site. Don't you find that type of attitude disturbing?

I think to say 'you shot I shot' trivialises what actually happened. I don't think that offers the families or the survivors of this protest/riot an answer. Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. The families also have a right to know what transpired to give the order to shoot.

We are not Thais and don't have the right to say to a Thai how to run their country. But, when acts of violence against citizens of a country I do believe we have to speak up and say 'No that can't be done'.

Someone gave the order to fire? Who?

It’s the investigation that is now important. Not what you or I think?

But if you have links to back up your claims, show them. I would be happy to read them.

[whybother]

Abhist ordered the Army in as both he and Suthep sh!t themselves. I think that is the correct political terminology?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets, as they had no water cannons?

Someone gave the order to shoot bullets ... because the protesters were shooting bullets?

You must be a salivating or you like two bites of the cherry? As you seem to be saying the same. Not heard as a child? I hope my reference to alternatives in this conflict has not developed stimuli as described by Ivan Pavlov in his studies on behaviour?

The water cannons would have been effective at the beginning. Read the press reports at the time.

Again read the press reports about the arms the protestors had. I have linked only a few reports.

I agree there weapons ended up on both sides but what escalated the violence. What escalated the call to arms? This is what has to be investigated.

The problem is that the Government/military people being investigated are denying any involvement. They are also trying to stymie the investigators. Look at some of the General’ comments.

Read some of the reports about Abhisit and Suthep just prior to the demonstrations and what their fears were with the demonstration’s coming into town.

Again this is what needs to be investigated and responsibility taken for.

Whybother, if you were at the head of the Red shirt protests, I believe that it would be your right to protest. Now if they started shooting at you in your peaceful red shirt, what would you be thinking?

Look at Nostitz report. The attitude of the troops towards protestors. Nostitz didn't show the protestors with the same in-built hatred that was displayed by the army young men at the protest site. Don't you find that type of attitude disturbing?

I think to say 'you shot I shot' trivialises what actually happened. I don't think that offers the families or the survivors of this protest/riot an answer. Everyone has the right to peaceful protest. The families also have a right to know what transpired to give the order to shoot.

We are not Thais and don't have the right to say to a Thai how to run their country. But, when acts of violence against citizens of a country I do believe we have to speak up and say 'No that can't be done'.

Someone gave the order to fire? Who?

It’s the investigation that is now important. Not what you or I think?

But if you have links to back up your claims, show them. I would be happy to read them.

"The water cannons would have been effective at the beginning."

Water cannons were used when the red shirts stormed Thaicom. They weren't effective.

"Read some of the reports about Abhisit and Suthep just prior to the demonstrations and what their fears were with the demonstration’s coming into town.

Again this is what needs to be investigated and responsibility taken for."

They were worried about armed protesters and there WERE armed protesters. Their fears were certainly realised, weren't they? The red shirts need to take responsibility for that.

"I believe that it would be your right to protest."

The red shirts were allowed to protest. They were allowed to spread blood. They were allowed to march all over Bangkok. They were allowed to march to the army barracks. It was after they stormed government house and Thaicom (while throwing Molotov cocktails) that the government decided that the protests needed to be stopped.

"what escalated the violence."

The red shirts storming parliament and Thaicom escalated the violence.

The red shirts marching to the army barracks and threatening to storm them escalated the violence.

The red shirts throwing a grenade that killed the colonel certainly escalated the violence.

The red shirt militia shooting at the army on the night of April 10 definitely escalated the violence.

"Someone gave the order to fire?"

They army were given rules of engagement. They were attacked by the red shirts with grenades and guns. They engaged the red shirts. I don't believe that Abhisit was there and told them to open fire.

If you missed the reports that the red shirts were armed and were shooting at the army, I think you need to read a bit more.

[z42]

So on every occasion a protester was killed it was due to the "Men in Black" firing at the army.? Even if that was the case and it isn't why were innocent protesters shot and killed?

I'm sure there is huge conspiracies and many people were used and mislead , but at the end of the day the Army killed 90 people

How about go and get a source for that statistic please. Pretty certain the figures of around 90 include multiple soldiers who were killed either by grenade attacks, gunshots, or blunt force trauma (beatings).

Also pretty sure that the person killed on the bts platform by a random grenade wasn't killed by army bullets. So how about be a bit more specific before flouting such open ended / false statements. Otherwise just makes you look clueless

[tbthailand]

Abhisit will argue that the shooting started because members of the Redshirt organization the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) opened fire on soldiers first, his lawyer said.

he will have a tough time of it then...

May 13-19 were 6 days of an assault by the military with APCs... The shooting began the day before with the assassination of Seh Daing. No one can argue that the solders were fired at first during this, the most violent and bloody episode in the 2 month protests.

Good luck, Mark... I am beginning to wonder if your military handlers are really going to put you out to pasture after all...

April 10th is some time before May. A penny short and 5 weeks late?

1) I've not seen anything limiting this case to specific dates.

2) the first person shot and injured in April was a protester. I believe that the first person killed was the colonel.

Either way... it's a defense built on a myth.

But it is telling that they basically want to reverse what a previous court concluded wrt the military killing people in the wat.