2010 Crackdown: Suthep submits evidence of 'blackshirts' to NACC

[elviajero]

I am quite surprised that nobody, so far, seems to remember the role played by Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawatdiphon alias Seh Daeng.

Who choose to side with the "Red Shirts", led its most intransigent and militant wing, and got shot during the unrest...

Actually that was one of the turning points for the protest. Sadly nobody knows much about it. He predicted his death pretty accurately and it was widely talked about. Most likely he was told he would be assasianted and he accepted his fate.

Either he was sacrificed by the Reds to make him look like a martyr so the red will fight more, or the other version is that he defied the orders of the generals and was warned not to fight against the army but didn't listen so he got the death sentence.

Either way, if his soldiers really did fight against other soldiers, it would be an all out war in the middle of the city.

Seh Daeng became a liability to the UDD when he publicly admitted he was in direct contact with TS, and he was clearly ready willing and able to escalate the violence, which made him a target for the government.

I still reckon there were two snipers standing shoulder to shoulder, one from the UDD and one from the government, and it was a race to see who got the shot off first!

IMO his assassination saved the situation escalating to civil war.

[mikemac]

Where has these videos been all this time and why now do they just come out?

They didn't just come out. They've been out there since it happened.

I doubt he had been instructed to watch them.

Perhaps they came on after his bedtime.........................no, seriously.

[aussieinthailand]

Yu'p men in black, they were there absolutely no question.

The question is, were they the ones that started the shooting? if so where they provoked or were they defending themselves?

Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response? A tactic commonly used!

And after several court rulings that the military were responsible for many deaths.

Was any video evidence of military firing at unarmed protectors shown to the commission? or was it only selected videos shown? We all know the answer to that one.

Any video evidence of the emergency volunteer's in the temple being targeted?

How about the shooting of journalist's? and a certain general shot in the head by a sniper, was that shown?

Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people.

So just how is the government of the day NOT responsible for the deaths?

And finally for the record yet again, I have NO support RED or YELLOW for those that use violence on innocent protesters and volunteers to achieve their political will.

But isn't that exactly what was sanctioned by the government on the day? use deadly force.

"Australia has some big protests"

Did protesters take the city center hostage for months at a time? Restricting movements and checking cars that pass their rally point? I bet not. Were grenades thrown at businesses that supported the opposition? bet not. So what is a government suppose to do when police refuse to move against the protesters, and protesters will not move taking the city hostage? And protesters started rigging their camp site with fireworks and building a fort. Even before the military moved in, UDD stormed the 2009 ASEAM summit meeting scaring away top Asian leaders. Many left the country right away! as if thats not a serious enough offense. Not to mention bashing opposition politicians cars.

When the protesters demands were met, they turned it down. Remember that they ask for new election, Abhisit said ok and new elections would be held in less than a year. Protest leaders turned it down and told protesters to fight instead? Why? Perhaps situation could have been defused if protester leaders accepted it and told everyone to go home.

Even though the military moved in, they were more than patient enough, they were being shot and grenades thrown at without making a move until the last minute when given the order after protesters refuse to disperse.

You can't really compare protesters in the West to Thailand, people and education is so different that its really a no comparison. Its like trying to compare traffic law enforcement in Australia and Thailand.

I would suggest that lessons/history ignored after so many issues that an elected government be left to govern as the law provides, and stop this merry go round of throwing out governments and coup's, and the problem with the argument, Butt, but they got what they asked for (elections within a year), well why didn't mark see the volatile nature of these murdering MIB and do what a smart politician would do if he cared for the peoples safety and the country and dissolve government and elections with in 60 days as provided by the law.

The situation should not have been let to escalate to that stage, and there is incompetence and accountability for that also, ie dereliction of duty.

as far as people saying the police did nothing to stop them coz mr,T gave orders, what a steaming load that is, Simple if the chief of police refused to do his job, remove him and put in another who will, and the former Chief Of Police would be in gaol for dereliction of duty, would he not? that what a smart PM would do yeah.

It's a very simple Q&A, Did the PM and his deputy give the green light to the military to use live rounds and as a result people died.

[DM07]

Good for all the Junta- lovers and Thaksin haters: something to distract from the fumbles and tumbles of the current government and delivered by their favorite posterboy, The Wanderer!

What a field day!

[tbthailand]

Yu'p men in black, they were there absolutely no question.

The question is, were they the ones that started the shooting? if so where they provoked or were they defending themselves?

Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response? A tactic commonly used!

And after several court rulings that the military were responsible for many deaths.

Was any video evidence of military firing at unarmed protectors shown to the commission? or was it only selected videos shown? We all know the answer to that one.

Any video evidence of the emergency volunteer's in the temple being targeted?

How about the shooting of journalist's? and a certain general shot in the head by a sniper, was that shown?

Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people.

So just how is the government of the day NOT responsible for the deaths?

And finally for the record yet again, I have NO support RED or YELLOW for those that use violence on innocent protesters and volunteers to achieve their political will.

But isn't that exactly what was sanctioned by the government on the day? use deadly force.

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

[halloween]

I would suggest that lessons/history ignored after so many issues that an elected government be left to govern as the law provides, and stop this merry go round of throwing out governments and coup's, and the problem with the argument, Butt, but they got what they asked for (elections within a year), well why didn't mark see the volatile nature of these murdering MIB and do what a smart politician would do if he cared for the peoples safety and the country and dissolve government and elections with in 60 days as provided by the law.

The situation should not have been let to escalate to that stage, and there is incompetence and accountability for that also, ie dereliction of duty.

as far as people saying the police did nothing to stop them coz mr,T gave orders, what a steaming load that is, Simple if the chief of police refused to do his job, remove him and put in another who will, and the former Chief Of Police would be in gaol for dereliction of duty, would he not? that what a smart PM would do yeah.

It's a very simple Q&A, Did the PM and his deputy give the green light to the military to use live rounds and as a result people died.

So if the muslims in Oz start turning it on because we are fighting their mates and generally disrespecting and oppressing them. start stabbing coppers on Anzac Day and going after anyone in uniform, the right thing for our Tony to do would be to resign and have elections in 60 days?

[Lorn]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

[halloween]

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

Yeah, makes you wonder who those black shirts with assault rifles, supposedly there to defend the red shirts, were actually shooting. We do know the guy with the RPGs was having a shot or two at a hotel used by journos, and a fuel tank farm, and a temple - all legitimate military targets in red world.

[smutcakes]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

This is my slight bone of contention as well. There is no doubting there were MIB, but other than on April 10th, i don't think any soldier was killed, perhaps one by friendly fire. So they were either particularly useless if they were supposed to be targeting the army, or the response from the army on the final day was over the top. I don't think we will ever know the whole story of what happened on those final days one way or the other.

Lets hope it never happens again anyway.

[tbthailand]

Yu'p men in black, they were there absolutely no question.

The question is, were they the ones that started the shooting? if so where they provoked or were they defending themselves?

Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response? A tactic commonly used!

And after several court rulings that the military were responsible for many deaths.

Was any video evidence of military firing at unarmed protectors shown to the commission? or was it only selected videos shown? We all know the answer to that one.

Any video evidence of the emergency volunteer's in the temple being targeted?

How about the shooting of journalist's? and a certain general shot in the head by a sniper, was that shown?

Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people.

So just how is the government of the day NOT responsible for the deaths?

And finally for the record yet again, I have NO support RED or YELLOW for those that use violence on innocent protesters and volunteers to achieve their political will.

But isn't that exactly what was sanctioned by the government on the day? use deadly force.

"Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response?"

In answereing this question, you should ask yourself who benefited from provoking the military into deadly response.

"Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people."{

I can think of only one instance where protesters had armed men conspicuous in their ranks, in all other cases it was understood that "peaceful protest" excludes weaponry. Do you remember what happened at the Eureka Stockade?

"In answering this question, you should ask yourself who benefited from provoking the military into deadly response."

You've not really given your answer but rather posed a separate question, so ok I'll give an opinion, (not stating or claiming as fact.)

The government had quite a lot to gain by provoking a deadly response, ie, an end to protesting and keeping themselves in a government that was not chosen by the people. Possibly the military as they have by their own history shown their will to keep taking power via a coup and all the benefits that that entails.

And lets not forget the elite that simply refuse to accept the working class to be able to vote and choose a government that is inclusive rather than BKK is the center of the universe and policy's that befit them and their family and friends, after all they're only stupid, poor, dirty, red buffalos that should not be able to vote.

How's that for asking who may have benefited by provoking deadly force?

Now as for your last Q. "do you remember what happened at Eureka Stockade?"

No I don't remember as I wasn't there but I was taught of it's history, also I lived in Ballarat for several years, and being a gold miner for several years it has a certain inters for me, as it is remembered by some as the birth place of democracy for Australia as well as the birth place of VFL now AFL. and finally were the common man can join together and overcome the ruling elite class, has a few similarity to the protesters here maybe, ( common man, elite ruling class, democracy, rights to vote,) what do you think?

I think that the Abhisit government played a role in the violence and has its own responsibility to answer for, the impeachment process against Abhisit and Suthep is a bit of a diversion....

The Abhisit government was installed by the military.

The military was responsible for their own attacks on the protesters.

The military should be very happy to have everyone discussing the culpability of the Abhisit government & "men in black" rather than discussing the role of the military in the violence of 2010.

I agree with your own opinions, however, I don't believe that posing the question 'who benefits' (as the other poster did) leads to a meaningful discussion.

In the end, discussing "who benefits" from the violence will lead everyone down a dead-end. The military has a violent history of more than a half a century. The military doesn't benefit from the violence they produce except for the fact that they use it to maintain control. It worked in 2010 and it worked in 2014. And it has worked for decades and decades prior to that.

[tbthailand]

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

Yeah, makes you wonder who those black shirts with assault rifles, supposedly there to defend the red shirts, were actually shooting. We do know the guy with the RPGs was having a shot or two at a hotel used by journos, and a fuel tank farm, and a temple - all legitimate military targets in red world.

you never disappoint with your thoughtful, objective commentary.

[realenglish1]

Suthep provides clips of 'men in black' in 2010

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- FORMER deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban yesterday gave the National Anti-Corruption Commis-sion video clips and pictures of the "men in black" while testifying in the case in which he is accused of malfeasance in the deadly 2010 crackdown on red-shirt protesters.

After three hours of testimony, Suthep said he presented the NACC with clips and pictures he got from the press and social media to show that the crackdown turned violent because there were armed men mingling among the protesters.

"I clearly showed the NACC what the men in black looked like, and what weapons they used, because this happened long ago and they may have forgotten what a nightmare Bangkok people had during those days," he said.

Suthep said the clashes outside National Stadium and in Ratcha-prarob and Rama IV areas were caused by "men in black" who had been trained in using heavy weapons and knew about fighting strategies.

He insisted that he changed tactics on overseeing the incident according to the changing situation. For instance, on April 10, officials failed to disperse protesters because the men in black attacked the officials, causing casualties. From May 13-18, he ordered that tactics be changed by setting up checkpoints to prevent more people from joining the protesters and blocking them from moving arms into the protest sites. Later M75 grenades were fired into a Skytrain station, killing officials and innocent people, he said.

He said that before April 10, 2010, security officials used rubber bullets, but after they were attacked by heavy weapons they used real bullets to protect themselves and innocents from the so-called men in black.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Suthep-provides-clips-of-men-in-black-in-2010-30258472.html

-- The Nation 2015-04-22

He wants to make it go away Most of the families of the dead have not forgotten about it I have not forgotten about it and I suspect most Thais have not as well

He is hoping it will go away.

[halloween]

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

Yeah, makes you wonder who those black shirts with assault rifles, supposedly there to defend the red shirts, were actually shooting. We do know the guy with the RPGs was having a shot or two at a hotel used by journos, and a fuel tank farm, and a temple - all legitimate military targets in red world.

you never disappoint with your thoughtful, objective commentary.

So you don't know either. The claim was that they were there to defend the red shirts, but that was obviously crap.

No comment about those RPGs?

[Jim walker]

and the army did all there killing with blanks

[The Deerhunter]

Suthep is now a Monk?

You missed a lot in the last year Rip Van Winkel!

[aaacorp]

The daily fire exchanges started when Sae Daeng was shot in the head by a sniper...

Guess who has snipers at disposal quite easily

Also the army didn t shoot the journalists in the back, and they didn t shot insid ethe temple....Abhisit is as much responsible for this than Suthep and Prayout. but the Dear Leader will never have any trouble with this...

[The Deerhunter]

Its a disgrace that these things were not taken into account before. Everyone knew that about the black shirts, living in BKK i have seen them too. The previous government denied their existence.. guess why..... But its proven without a doubt they existed. This only showed that the investigation by the previous government was unfair.

I haven't heard any redshirts comment on that, but they call all the things that go against reds political.. that figures.

The government had nothing to win by violence.. only the man in Dubai.

There was an agreement after new elections were promised.. but the man in Dubai told his thugs to not honour the agreement and released his blackshirts... The rest we know.

Does not mean the army did not make any mistakes but there is at least shared responsibility here.

It also shows how well they sanitised all the available footage showing the black shirts. They were around sniping last year too from Government buildings (while her ladyship was still the inactive P.M. with Chalerm making ridiculous statements about who they were and were not

[Robby nz]

There are plenty of photos of the men in black out there, a small selection :

Back then they didn't have to be wearing black to be carrying a weapon some of the so called peaceful protesters were also armed :

Incidentally Sae Deang was shot on orders of either Thaksin or the red leaders, not by the army.

[rubl]

"Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response?"

In answereing this question, you should ask yourself who benefited from provoking the military into deadly response.

"Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people."{

I can think of only one instance where protesters had armed men conspicuous in their ranks, in all other cases it was understood that "peaceful protest" excludes weaponry. Do you remember what happened at the Eureka Stockade?

"In answering this question, you should ask yourself who benefited from provoking the military into deadly response."

You've not really given your answer but rather posed a separate question, so ok I'll give an opinion, (not stating or claiming as fact.)

The government had quite a lot to gain by provoking a deadly response, ie, an end to protesting and keeping themselves in a government that was not chosen by the people. Possibly the military as they have by their own history shown their will to keep taking power via a coup and all the benefits that that entails.

And lets not forget the elite that simply refuse to accept the working class to be able to vote and choose a government that is inclusive rather than BKK is the center of the universe and policy's that befit them and their family and friends, after all they're only stupid, poor, dirty, red buffalos that should not be able to vote.

How's that for asking who may have benefited by provoking deadly force?

Now as for your last Q. "do you remember what happened at Eureka Stockade?"

No I don't remember as I wasn't there but I was taught of it's history, also I lived in Ballarat for several years, and being a gold miner for several years it has a certain inters for me, as it is remembered by some as the birth place of democracy for Australia as well as the birth place of VFL now AFL. and finally were the common man can join together and overcome the ruling elite class, has a few similarity to the protesters here maybe, ( common man, elite ruling class, democracy, rights to vote,) what do you think?

I think that the Abhisit government played a role in the violence and has its own responsibility to answer for, the impeachment process against Abhisit and Suthep is a bit of a diversion....

The Abhisit government was installed by the military.

The military was responsible for their own attacks on the protesters.

The military should be very happy to have everyone discussing the culpability of the Abhisit government & "men in black" rather than discussing the role of the military in the violence of 2010.

I agree with your own opinions, however, I don't believe that posing the question 'who benefits' (as the other poster did) leads to a meaningful discussion.

In the end, discussing "who benefits" from the violence will lead everyone down a dead-end. The military has a violent history of more than a half a century. The military doesn't benefit from the violence they produce except for the fact that they use it to maintain control. It worked in 2010 and it worked in 2014. And it has worked for decades and decades prior to that.

Absolutely.

As you so succinctly describe in principle Abhisit / Suthep were just used and are really innocent. I'm sure you will have no problem explaining that to the relatives of those who died.

BTW it would seem your last paragraph only tries to distract from the role of the Men-in-Black and who may or may not be responsible for them.

Edited April 22, 2015 by rubl

[rubl]

Will someone remind them what Chalerm said?

Chalerm instructed Tarit-the-worm in the DSI investigation that men-in-black officially did not exist and therefore will not be mentioned or investigated.

I wonder why he did that ?.

But hey - Red-Shirts will ignore that little fact (which, given the evidence, is pretty much an admission of guilt) because it doesn't suit. The beauty of having no conscience is that it doesn't bother you.

That was in the news a few months ago.

Earlier we had

2011-12-13

""I would like to reiterate here that they are policemen," Chalerm said.

He went on to say that a group of policemen from the Northeast carried out the assassination of Army specialist Maj-General Khattiya Sawasdiphol."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Men-in-black-are-policemen-Chalerm-claims-30171725.html

[rubl]

Good for all the Junta- lovers and Thaksin haters: something to distract from the fumbles and tumbles of the current government and delivered by their favorite posterboy, The Wanderer!

What a field day!

Of course, if you think that we should just drop the case as it distracts from the 'fumbles and tumbles' of the current government, you have to try to convince all the relatives of the people who died during the March to May 2010 mayham. Regularly they complain about a lack of progress and the need to punish the 'guilty'

[AleG]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

This is one of the "rocks" exploding among soldiers:

https://youtu.be/3tpyjV1ROso?t=35s

Is it a prerequisite to become a Red Shirt sympathizer to abandon all pretense of honesty?

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

The point of the MiB was not to have a fair fight, the point was to get urban warfare going in order create as many "martyrs" for Thaksin's political machine to feed on as possible.

On April 10th they opened fire across the Red Shirt protest area to attack the Army, that is a move designed to cause as many deaths and injuries as possible, those are not the actions of people seeking to protect the crowd, those are the actions of people seeking to create a bloodbath.

[rubl]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

This is my slight bone of contention as well. There is no doubting there were MIB, but other than on April 10th, i don't think any soldier was killed, perhaps one by friendly fire. So they were either particularly useless if they were supposed to be targeting the army, or the response from the army on the final day was over the top. I don't think we will ever know the whole story of what happened on those final days one way or the other.

Lets hope it never happens again anyway.

"over the top" ?

Did you read Nick Nostritz report on the 19th, the grenades dropped on him, fellow reporters, vanderGrift and soldiers? The 'normal' reaction by peaceful protesters, or a clear indication there were militants who didn't care who they hit?

[smutcakes]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

This is my slight bone of contention as well. There is no doubting there were MIB, but other than on April 10th, i don't think any soldier was killed, perhaps one by friendly fire. So they were either particularly useless if they were supposed to be targeting the army, or the response from the army on the final day was over the top. I don't think we will ever know the whole story of what happened on those final days one way or the other.

Lets hope it never happens again anyway.

"over the top" ?

Did you read Nick Nostritz report on the 19th, the grenades dropped on him, fellow reporters, vanderGrift and soldiers? The 'normal' reaction by peaceful protesters, or a clear indication there were militants who didn't care who they hit?

No rubbie i did not read it, its sounds awful. maybe you can link me to it? How many army personnel were killed by these highly trained Ronin warriors?

[DM07]

Good for all the Junta- lovers and Thaksin haters: something to distract from the fumbles and tumbles of the current government and delivered by their favorite posterboy, The Wanderer!

What a field day!

Of course, if you think that we should just drop the case as it distracts from the 'fumbles and tumbles' of the current government, you have to try to convince all the relatives of the people who died during the March to May 2010 mayham. Regularly they complain about a lack of progress and the need to punish the 'guilty'

I commented on the way this discussion is lead, Mister!

Not about the subject of the discussion!

[No Apologist]

Well, if anyone can edit it, why don't you fix it so we will all know the truth?

Goebbels would probably prefer people who defend the use of the military to control civilian populations rather than those that oppose it.

The Nazis didn't use the military to control the civilian population. Before and after they were elected, they used their armed militias and co-opted police and secret police to do that. Now who does that remind you of?

Who does it remind me of? A bigoted person like yourself, honestly.

[marinediscoking]

Yu'p men in black, they were there absolutely no question.

The question is, were they the ones that started the shooting? if so where they provoked or were they defending themselves?

Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response? A tactic commonly used!

And after several court rulings that the military were responsible for many deaths.

Was any video evidence of military firing at unarmed protectors shown to the commission? or was it only selected videos shown? We all know the answer to that one.

Any video evidence of the emergency volunteer's in the temple being targeted?

How about the shooting of journalist's? and a certain general shot in the head by a sniper, was that shown?

Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people.

So just how is the government of the day NOT responsible for the deaths?

And finally for the record yet again, I have NO support RED or YELLOW for those that use violence on innocent protesters and volunteers to achieve their political will.

But isn't that exactly what was sanctioned by the government on the day? use deadly force.

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

The above numbers seem to have shut down the argument that the MIB caused all the problems. What I remember for the first couple of months after was the constant press releases stating the most of reds were killed by their own friendly fire.

[rubl]

Good for all the Junta- lovers and Thaksin haters: something to distract from the fumbles and tumbles of the current government and delivered by their favorite posterboy, The Wanderer!

What a field day!

Of course, if you think that we should just drop the case as it distracts from the 'fumbles and tumbles' of the current government, you have to try to convince all the relatives of the people who died during the March to May 2010 mayham. Regularly they complain about a lack of progress and the need to punish the 'guilty'

I commented on the way this discussion is lead, Mister!

Not about the subject of the discussion!

'discussion'? You mean the opportunity to rewrite history to be more as some would like to see it? It would seem that mostly 'Thaksin lovers' and the like try to distract from the topic.

Till now I didn't see anything Ididn't see on two dozen and some 'discussions' we had here the last few years.

[rubl]

Yu'p men in black, they were there absolutely no question.

The question is, were they the ones that started the shooting? if so where they provoked or were they defending themselves?

Were they all there for the redshirts or is it possible SOME were planted there to cause trouble therefor justifying the deadly response? A tactic commonly used!

And after several court rulings that the military were responsible for many deaths.

Was any video evidence of military firing at unarmed protectors shown to the commission? or was it only selected videos shown? We all know the answer to that one.

Any video evidence of the emergency volunteer's in the temple being targeted?

How about the shooting of journalist's? and a certain general shot in the head by a sniper, was that shown?

Australia has had some big protests before but has a habit of NOT calling in the military to shoot and kill people.

So just how is the government of the day NOT responsible for the deaths?

And finally for the record yet again, I have NO support RED or YELLOW for those that use violence on innocent protesters and volunteers to achieve their political will.

But isn't that exactly what was sanctioned by the government on the day? use deadly force.

over ninety deaths documented

5 soldiers, one from friendly fire

2 police officers

the rest were protestors, journalists, aid workers and civilians.

Everyone can look at the numbers and decide for themselves if the government & military's response was appropriate or not...

The above numbers seem to have shut down the argument that the MIB caused all the problems. What I remember for the first couple of months after was the constant press releases stating the most of reds were killed by their own friendly fire.

Of course the MiB didn't cause all the problems. It was the government which insisted in removing non-peaceful protesters. Totally undemocratic of course. I'm sure that posters from Western Countries would agree that having a few heavily armed militants mingling with peaceful protesters is the democratic norm nowadays.

[rubl]

April 10. MiB allegedly attacked soldiers with heavy weapons as they try to disperse the protesters. At the time it's claimed the soldiers used only rubber bullets. Autopsies later show that the soldiers who died were killed by rocks. Autopsies show most of the protesters were killed by live ammunition.

Following the wikipedia link you should be able to find a quote from Centre for the Resolution of Emergency Situation and army spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd from a media source we are not allowed to quote talking about being attacked by sharpened sticks and rocks and of how the soldiers died.

Not denying that there were armed men who were at the protest sites. However as I said it seems strange that these numerous, highly armed militants didn't cause any casualties to the soldiers they "forced" to escalate the violence.

We know that after retreating, soldiers left a lot of weapons that the protesters seized. The use of violence from the red side after April 10 can't really exonerate soldiers for their actions on that day and so I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion of who is largely to blame for the casualties.

This is my slight bone of contention as well. There is no doubting there were MIB, but other than on April 10th, i don't think any soldier was killed, perhaps one by friendly fire. So they were either particularly useless if they were supposed to be targeting the army, or the response from the army on the final day was over the top. I don't think we will ever know the whole story of what happened on those final days one way or the other.

Lets hope it never happens again anyway.

"over the top" ?

Did you read Nick Nostritz report on the 19th, the grenades dropped on him, fellow reporters, vanderGrift and soldiers? The 'normal' reaction by peaceful protesters, or a clear indication there were militants who didn't care who they hit?

No rubbie i did not read it, its sounds awful. maybe you can link me to it? How many army personnel were killed by these highly trained Ronin warriors?

It's not how many were killed, but the very fact that the army was involved in gun battles with 'peaceful protesters' to the point they felt the need for 'life fire zones' in a small area where they had the most violent opposition of 'peaceful protesters'

""As to what i would feel if one of my family members would have been killed by a grenade of Red Shirt armed militants. Well, i had several very close calls when i was nearly blown up by some of those grenades myself, the closest on May 19, where the first of the rain of grenades that killed a soldier and wounded Chandler Vanergrift exploded only two meters from me, but was fortunately most likely a training round as there was no shrapnel. I was also during the Silom grenade attacks on the side of the Yellow Shirts while the grenades came down.

So, yes, i am more than aware of the reality of Red Shirt violence than you will ever know, if you are lucky.""

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/637500-abhisit-suthep-face-more-murder-charges-over-2010-strife/page-4#entry6377205