2010 crackdown trial: Abhisit to blame violence on Blackshirts

[tbthailand]

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

A total of 7 soldiers were killed during the entire episode. 2 police officers, as well.

[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...

Why are you talking about May 13-19 when the first shooting was in April?

[tbthailand]

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.

what is a bit funny (strange) is that in 2013/14 the PDRC did essentially all of those things that you just listed and yet the army didn't attack them and kill more than 80 people...

Maybe that is why some people feel like the government and army in 2010 were ... completely ... out ... of ... control ...

No?

[whybother]

what is a bit funny (strange) is that in 2013/14 the PDRC did essentially all of those things that you just listed and yet the army didn't attack them and kill more than 80 people...

Maybe that is why some people feel like the government and army in 2010 were ... completely ... out ... of ... control ...

No?

I don't recall the PDRC throwing molotov cocktails or grenades or shooting at the army.

[djjamie]

Even mother Theresa would not have showed as much tolerance the Right Honorable Ahbisit did that fateful day.

I do these articles though as it highlights the blind ignorance of the red supporter shane I state FACT..There greatest enemy.

One month of putting up with red terrorists with M16's and grenade launchers while all the soldiers did was feebly use tear gas and water cannons. Of course when it got to beating soldiers to death, and kidnapping police what choice did Ahbisit have. Maybe moving elections forward as the UDD leaders wanted? Yep tried that.

So while bullets are flying around soldiers heads Ahbisit had a duty of care to protect th soldiers and with the growing criticism of Ahbisit letting the terrorists run the city with no resistance from the army something had to be done.

This is what the red shirts did before one single live bullets were fired by the soldiers. To reiterate NOT A SINGLE BULLET FIRED.

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

Ahbisit will get through this easily.

​I can just imagine if he didn't react to the brutal terrorist uprising. He would be in front of the courts for dereliction of duty and allowing the city to be burnt down and dozens and dozens of soldiers dead and police kidnapped.

[rubl]

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

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

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

Ah, a SNAFU. Up to a point yes.

Interesting though even generalisations seem to ignore that there were armed militants amongst the protesters and it doesn't matter if people passing by were killed by grenades or just non-red-shirts, police and army personel. Peaceful protesters don't do that. Peaceful protesters will explicitly distance themselves from violence. Did I hear UDD leaders acknowledge anything, apart from peacefully fighting for democracy? Did you hear the shoutcasts while passing by? Is your Thai good enough to have understood the violence and hatred in those speeches?

[rubl]

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.

For the assassination of the renegade general "no one saw me" Seh Daeng I've seen almost as many theories as there are on the killing of JFK. All claim to know and tell the 'only' truth.

APCs may have been around stationary since begin of April, as shelters / comms centres. The Robert A. report has witnesses seeing them firing .50's, but not at protesters. Those witness reports are mostly anonymous and a tad subjective with witnesses even stating their own interpretation of what they saw.

On the 19th of May the APCs were used to get through the burning bamboo and tire walls. They may also have been used as shelter while advancing. The peaceful protesters fought back with a bit more than only sticks and stones.

[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...

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.

sometimes I wonder what your point is....

So here, for example,

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

we can be relatively sure at this point that we will never "know" who ordered it. But I didn't make any claims about that either, so what is your point?

And this, ...

APCs were involved on May 19. I don't believe they weren't used before that.

Armoured vehicles were used through out the last 6 days and the APCs were definitely used on the 19th, but again, what is your point?

And then this nice little gem...

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.

where I didn't even mention the live fire zones,

but I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls from international groups to halt the use of live fire.

Or I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls by that hot bed of red shirt support, the Senate, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

Or I could have mentioned that during this time over 50 people were killed and none of them were soldiers except for one who was killed by friendly fire.

Or I could have mentioned that soldiers were shooting at medical staff who went to the aid of the injured...

No, I just mentioned that if Abhisit bases his defense on the argument that the protesters "shot first", then he is going to have a tough go of it...

So again, what was your point?

[rubl]

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.

sometimes I wonder what your point is....

So here, for example,

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

we can be relatively sure at this point that we will never "know" who ordered it. But I didn't make any claims about that either, so what is your point?

And this, ...

APCs were involved on May 19. I don't believe they weren't used before that.

Armoured vehicles were used through out the last 6 days and the APCs were definitely used on the 19th, but again, what is your point?

And then this nice little gem...

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.

where I didn't even mention the live fire zones,

but I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls from international groups to halt the use of live fire.

Or I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls by that hot bed of red shirt support, the Senate, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

Or I could have mentioned that during this time over 50 people were killed and none of them were soldiers except for one who was killed by friendly fire.

Or I could have mentioned that soldiers were shooting at medical staff who went to the aid of the injured...

No, I just mentioned that if Abhisit bases his defense on the argument that the protesters "shot first", then he is going to have a tough go of it...

So again, what was your point?

He's like Heybruce, just humoring and feeding a troll .

Oh by the way, what did you actually say, or suggest, or mean? Was there a purpose other than confusing the issue in your post?

[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...

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.

sometimes I wonder what your point is....

So here, for example,

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

we can be relatively sure at this point that we will never "know" who ordered it. But I didn't make any claims about that either, so what is your point?

And this, ...

APCs were involved on May 19. I don't believe they weren't used before that.

Armoured vehicles were used through out the last 6 days and the APCs were definitely used on the 19th, but again, what is your point?

And then this nice little gem...

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.

where I didn't even mention the live fire zones,

but I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls from international groups to halt the use of live fire.

Or I could have mentioned the government rejecting calls by that hot bed of red shirt support, the Senate, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

Or I could have mentioned that during this time over 50 people were killed and none of them were soldiers except for one who was killed by friendly fire.

Or I could have mentioned that soldiers were shooting at medical staff who went to the aid of the injured...

No, I just mentioned that if Abhisit bases his defense on the argument that the protesters "shot first", then he is going to have a tough go of it...

So again, what was your point?

He's like Heybruce, just humoring and feeding a troll .

Oh by the way, what did you actually say, or suggest, or mean? Was there a purpose other than confusing the issue in your post?

you could let whybother answer, but you obviously can't stop yourself from being a major ....

[NeilSA1]

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.

Absolutely correct. "Everyone has the right to peaceful protest." The operative word is peaceful. Were the protesters peaceful?

No.

[tbthailand]

what is a bit funny (strange) is that in 2013/14 the PDRC did essentially all of those things that you just listed and yet the army didn't attack them and kill more than 80 people...

Maybe that is why some people feel like the government and army in 2010 were ... completely ... out ... of ... control ...

No?

I don't recall the PDRC throwing molotov cocktails or grenades or shooting at the army.

no, the army was their friend. They shot and killed the police...

[rockingrobin]

As far as I know the only independent investigation into the 2010 crackdown was carried out by Human Rights Watch , and it is not good reading from any side.

[brucec64]

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?

A certain Thai general was involved in the shooting the and subsequent attempts to cover it up:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/military/thai-general-accused-of-meddling-in-redshirt-probe.html

An international rights group accused Thailand’s army chief on Thursday of interfering with investigations into deadly political unrest that paralyzed the capital two years ago.

Any guesses as to who that general was, and why this issue will not get very far in the current political climate?

[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.

"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.

Maybe your enquiry will be sufficient for the Thai people as the judiciary is still controlled by the military. Unfortunately TV and its salivating brethren against red shirt protests don't count in the Thai judicial system?

Its the death of the 90+ people that needs to be investigated? Their lives deserve their day in court. The Thai people deserve to see how this regime looks at justice.

Does your country of origin shoot people in the streets? If yes what does your countrypeople think of such action?

Some of your claims may be correct, but they need to be aired in a court of law.

One of the rules in a military junta court is that it does not have to be open or be recorded?

[jdinasia]

Chris, this is not an inquiry in a military court

[Chris Lawrence]

'2010 Crackdown Trial: Abhisit to Blame Violence on Blackshirts' This report can be seen on line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests This is also another article on what was goig on at the time.

'Popular opposition against Abhisit Vejjajiva's government rose throughout 2009, due to the controversial 2008 "judicial coup" that banned the Palang Prachachon Party and "silent coup" that allowed the Democrats to form a coalition government.^[3][4] In February 2010, Abhisit tightened security in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling to seize Thaksin Shinawatra's bank accounts frozen since the 2006 military coup. The UDD did not protest, but announced protests on 14 March in Bangkok to call for new elections. Abhisit further tightened security. Censorship was heightened, and radio, TV stations and Web sites sympathetic to the UDD were closed.' Wikipedia

[Chris Lawrence]

Chris, this is not an inquiry in a military court

Yes but who is running the courts at the moment?

[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.

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.

No worries. I know it spells made.

[rubl]

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?

A certain Thai general was involved in the shooting the and subsequent attempts to cover it up:

http://www.irrawaddy.org/military/thai-general-accused-of-meddling-in-redshirt-probe.html

An international rights group accused Thailand’s army chief on Thursday of interfering with investigations into deadly political unrest that paralyzed the capital two years ago.

Any guesses as to who that general was, and why this issue will not get very far in the current political climate?

On the other hand, with thanks to Shawn for the link

"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."

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

[rubl]

Chris, this is not an inquiry in a military court

Yes but who is running the courts at the moment?

Judges ?

[rubl]

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.

Maybe your enquiry will be sufficient for the Thai people as the judiciary is still controlled by the military. Unfortunately TV and its salivating brethren against red shirt protests don't count in the Thai judicial system?

Its the death of the 90+ people that needs to be investigated? Their lives deserve their day in court. The Thai people deserve to see how this regime looks at justice.

Does your country of origin shoot people in the streets? If yes what does your countrypeople think of such action?

Some of your claims may be correct, but they need to be aired in a court of law.

One of the rules in a military junta court is that it does not have to be open or be recorded?

So, you are supportive of the charge of 'abuse of power' the NACC lodged at the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders ?

[halloween]

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

A total of 7 soldiers were killed during the entire episode. 2 police officers, as well.

Do you know of any other "peaceful protest" that resulted in the death of 9 security personnel?

Do you know of any less than peaceful protest that saw a similar number of security personnel deaths without orders being given to fire on the protesters?

[jdinasia]

Chris, this is not an inquiry in a military court

Yes but who is running the courts at the moment?

The same people that ran them prior to May 2014.

[EnglishJohn]

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?

Since when are Armies trained to use water cannons ?.

That is the job of riot police. Maybe you can explain to us where they were ?.

And since when did water canons have any effect whatsoever against people with guns ?. How far do you think a water canon can reach ?.

Typical red-shirt BS - omit all facts which don't suit you.

[lucky11]

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

Because the Black shirts and other red militants were sheltering in the temple grounds.

As to the army killing 90 people then were they shooting at each other, targeting the press and were the black shirts such rotten shots?

The black shirts started the violence by getting out of vans and pick-ups and randomly shooting in the direction of the army who were trying to use peaceful means to break up this illegal rally. Don't say they didn't exist because I saw the footage!!!

[geriatrickid]

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

Which truth? This is the Abhisit political spin. He wasn't really in control of the situation. It's becoming rather clear that the nefarious Suthep was pulling strings and in cahoots with elements of the military in this matter. As much as I don't like Abhisit, it is becoming clearer that he was shoved aside, not given accurate information and his instructions were not followed. He can't very well come out and point the finger at the Suthep faction as it would rip the Democrat party apart and destroy Abhisit. However, the reality is that Suthep was the most powerful man in the Democrat party, the man who delivered the core southern vote and who raised the money to fund the party. In political parlance, he was the kingmaker, the dark lord of the back room. Abhisit was used and abused and hung out to dry.

[geriatrickid]

Chris, this is not an inquiry in a military court

Yes but who is running the courts at the moment?

The same people that ran them prior to May 2014.

Appointees of the former military junta which overthrew Thaksin.

[Pi Sek]

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

Whilst Abhisit's defence will likely acquit him personally of any wrongdoing, it might incriminate some members of the army as I don't think all protesters who were shot were armed.

But to say that "the army killed 90 people" is a lie. Stop it.

[SoilSpoil]

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?

Since when are Armies trained to use water cannons ?.

That is the job of riot police. Maybe you can explain to us where they were ?.

And since when did water canons have any effect whatsoever against people with guns ?. How far do you think a water canon can reach ?.

Typical red-shirt BS - omit all facts which don't suit you.

They actually do have and did use water canons. When the red shirts attacked an army base and army buidling near Phan Fa bridge om April 10th (all live on national tv), soldiers defended their gates with water canons.

MInd you that at this stage the army was still shooting with dummy bullets and had no chance against blood thirsty red shirts armed with machetes, bamboo sticks and slingshots. Where in the world can protesters storm an army base?

Later that night the real misery started when the army came again under attack at Kok Wua (what a convenient location for martyrdom, May17/18 1992) . This time the army was not attacked with bamboo sticks only but with grenades and assault riffles by protesters dressed in black and most likely snipers hiding within the protesters zone (see the famous youtube video of the red shirt who was shot and the trajectory of the bullet that killed him) .The army responded in complete chaos and the result was at least 24 people and soldiers killed. There were provocateurs at work that day, bloodshed was needed it seemed, and the red shirts know about this and even facilitated and applauded them in their protest zones.