There Was No Crackdown in 2010, Says Abhisit Witness
By Khaosod English


Soldiers in downtown Bangkok on 14 May 2010.

BANGKOK — The military operation that dispersed Redshirt protesters in 2010 and left more than 90 people dead was not a "crackdown," says a former government official and key witness in an ongoing legal case over the incident.

Thawil Pliensri, who served as director of the National Security Council under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, was called by Thailand’s national anti-graft agency to testify in Abhisit's defense today. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is currently seeking to retroactively impeach Abhisit and his deputy, Suthep Thaugsuban, for authorizing the military operation on Redshirt protesters in April - May 2010.

The NACC has charged Abhisit and Suthep with abuse of power for excessive use of force against civilians in the operation. If the NACC proceeds with the case, Thailand's junta-appointed legislature will vote on whether to impeach the former Democrat Party politicians and thereby ban them from politics for five years. If they are found guilty, Abhisit and Suthep will be the first state officials to be held responsible for the 2010 crackdown.

Thawil said he testified to the NACC today that security officers were forced to respond to the protests because armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators and launched attacks on troops, police, and important buildings. He also contested the use of the word "crackdown," a widely accepted term used by Thai and foreign media to describe the events.

"There was no use of force or crackdown on the protests," Thawil said. "I am not saying this to play with words, or because I am avoiding using the term crackdown, but that is what really happened. There was no crackdown."

Thawil continued, "There two events that the protesters refer to as a crackdown, the event on 10 April 2010 around Khok Wua intersection, which was an effort to ask the protesters to return the area [to traffic], and the events between May 11 – 19 2010. That wasn't a crackdown, either. It was an effort to tighten the perimeter around the protest camps. The security officers did not crack down on the protests."

According to Thawil, even the final assault on Redshirt protest camps on 19 May 2010, which involved armored vehicles, was not a crackdown because "the leaders called off the protests on their own."

"After that, a riot broke out," Thawil said. "There were arson attacks in Bangkok. Thirty-seven buildings were burned, and four provincial city halls were burned down too. Security officers stopped the situation at that point. We didn't crack down on the protests."

Although Thawil admitted that live ammunition was used in the military operation, he insisted that security officers resorted to using firearms only after they were attacked by Redshirt-allied militants on the night of 10 April 2010, and that security officers strictly followed rules of engagement.

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1430224382&typecate=06&section=


-- Khaosod English 2015-04-29

2010 VIOLENCE
Thawil denies forced dispersal of red shirts
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- There was no forced dispersal of anti-government protesters back in 2010 - they just left by themselves, Thawil Pliensri, then secretary-general of the National Security Council, testified yesterday.

Thawil told the National Anti-Corruption Commission that the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration had just sent security forces to observe the rally sites of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and that it was the red-shirt leaders who called off the sit-in on May 19, 2010.

Thawil said he was not trying to mince words but that was really what happened.

He was a witness in the hearings involving Abhisit and his then deputy Suthep Thaugsuban, who presided over the operations to rout the red shirts and led to the deaths of at least 99 people.

As for the real spent bullets and weapons found around Bangkok's Ratchaprasong Intersection, the major rally site, Thawil said he wasn't sure if they belonged to the government's security officers. However, the troops had been instructed not to use live ammunition against the protesters, only batons and shields.In many cases, the "men in black" had been seen mingling with the crowds of protesters and had used war-grade weapons including grenades against security officers, he added.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Thawil-denies-forced-dispersal-of-red-shirts-30258975.html


-- The Nation 2015-04-29

"Thawil said he was not trying to mince words"

Erm.........ok then.

Edited April 28, 201511 yr by Bluespunk

Interesting the use of words not a crack down it was all a "misunderstanding"

Of course. Everyone knows the army pulled back. The black shirts then shot at the protesters so that the protesters could claim later that there was a crackdown.

"Thawil said he was not trying to mince words"

Erm.........ok then.

Yep , no mincing just straightforward blatant lying.

In some countries, you have one "sorry" per line. Here "sorry" is never used in important matters. Maybe a middle way could be possible.

OK so if this guy doesn't like the words "crack down", or "use of force", then how about open fire? or fire at will? but I'm sure they wont be ok either.

We asked them to leave, they left on their own, it was just a security tightening.

Strange considering that some think the term "crack down" is not strong enough rather than launch an assault on the protesters?

How about the words, White wash, Sanitized, Deluded, and strait up lies?

Hers an option, find the documents that ordered the (operation, Offensive, Strike, or ones the Americans like is Prosecute) and use them as term of reference? I wonder if they'll ever see the light of day? or they also went conveniently floating off in floods like all the other incriminating evidence?

Waiting for the usual suspects to come in and defend this SPIN, or one could use the word Insult to the dead and injured and their family's.

.

A 'crackdown' would be the complete dispersal of all protesters the day after the debacle at Kok Wua intersection where Men in Black (numerous videos on youtube) intentionally targeted the military with live rounds (four dead soldiers) and the assassination of Colonel Romklao to provoke a violent response by the military on the Red Shirt protesters who had left Pan Fa Bridge; the designated protest area. If the Thai military had responded like a Western military, there would have been dozens of protesters dead. As is was, eleven protesters died (some of whom may have been shot by the Men in Black). The weak-as-water Abhisit government, and equally useless RTP, allowed this provably violent mob to continue their protest and to eventually barricade and shut down the central shopping district, take over Lumpini Park, raid a hospital, fire M-79 grenades at a BTS station killing civilians, and wreak havoc for months. That is NOT a crackdown. That is pussy-footing in the face of a 'soft coup' paid for by Thaksin, alias 'The Paymaster' who has just had his illegal assets seized by the Abhisit government.

The highest-ranking officer who died from Saturday's violence is Col Romklao Tuwatham from the Burapa taskforce in Prachin Buri province. Questions have been raised whether his death was ordered or was it accidental.

To understand why this is an issue, we have to go back to look at this officer's past achievements.

Col. Romklao was involved in the dispersal of the red-shirt riot last Songkran at the Dindaeng intersection, in which a gas truck was hijacked and placed at the intersection with threats from the protesters that they will light up the gas for a major explosion.

The dispersal resulted in no deaths of red-shirt protesters at the hands of security officers but the red-shirt group tried to tell the public that soldiers were killing protesters.

Col Romklao was tasked with going around with videos and photos from the dispersal to clarify the events via Power Point, earning him the alias from the red-shirt group of the 'Power Point officer.'

Morevoer, Col. Romklao represented the military in clarifying the dispersal of the red-shirt protest last Songkran to the parliamentary sub-committee investigating the issue. He stood firm on his belief that the violence that happened stemmed from the red-shirt protesters themselves, rather than a third party as claimed by them. He was able to back up his words with evidence that led to the sub-committee reaching the conclusion that the military followed international protocol in cracking down on the protest.

Col. Romklao's testimony angered Pheu Thai members of the sub-committee Worawat Ua-apinyakul and Cholanan Srikaew. Both made comments seen as demeaning to Col. Romklao and his military career, such as the comment that he should no longer be a soldier, to which Col. Romklao replied that he is a soldier and not a politician.

This incident marked Col. Romklao as the red-shirts' enemy.

On the night of Saturday, Col. Romklao, who was commanding troops at the Kokwua intersection, was shot in the head and torso several times from behind.

This leads to questions whether his death was pre-ordered as his subordinates, who also testified before the sub-committee, were also injured in that same night.

From Manager Online Crime - Manager Online

the "Bart Simpson" defence?

People playing with fire can expect fingers to be burnt, that is what they were paid for.

In other news, tankers of whitewash have arrived at Laem chabang port to replace the national supply, which has been seriously depleted in the last year.

"There was no use of force or crackdown on the protests," Thawil said.

those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.

This guy is a shame for this country, and for the people who died, as well.

What a bad guy. They have to learn, the use of the word "sorry".

A 'crackdown' would be the complete dispersal of all protesters the day after the debacle at Kok Wua intersection where Men in Black (numerous videos on youtube) intentionally targeted the military with live rounds (four dead soldiers) and the assassination of Colonel Romklao to provoke a violent response by the military on the Red Shirt protesters who had left Pan Fa Bridge; the designated protest area. If the Thai military had responded like a Western military, there would have been dozens of protesters dead. As is was, eleven protesters died (some of whom may have been shot by the Men in Black). The weak-as-water Abhisit government, and equally useless RTP, allowed this provably violent mob to continue their protest and to eventually barricade and shut down the central shopping district, take over Lumpini Park, raid a hospital, fire M-79 grenades at a BTS station killing civilians, and wreak havoc for months. That is NOT a crackdown. That is pussy-footing in the face of a 'soft coup' paid for by Thaksin, alias 'The Paymaster' who has just had his illegal assets seized by the Abhisit government.

The highest-ranking officer who died from Saturday's violence is Col Romklao Tuwatham from the Burapa taskforce in Prachin Buri province. Questions have been raised whether his death was ordered or was it accidental.

To understand why this is an issue, we have to go back to look at this officer's past achievements.

Col. Romklao was involved in the dispersal of the red-shirt riot last Songkran at the Dindaeng intersection, in which a gas truck was hijacked and placed at the intersection with threats from the protesters that they will light up the gas for a major explosion.

The dispersal resulted in no deaths of red-shirt protesters at the hands of security officers but the red-shirt group tried to tell the public that soldiers were killing protesters.

Col Romklao was tasked with going around with videos and photos from the dispersal to clarify the events via Power Point, earning him the alias from the red-shirt group of the 'Power Point officer.'

Morevoer, Col. Romklao represented the military in clarifying the dispersal of the red-shirt protest last Songkran to the parliamentary sub-committee investigating the issue. He stood firm on his belief that the violence that happened stemmed from the red-shirt protesters themselves, rather than a third party as claimed by them. He was able to back up his words with evidence that led to the sub-committee reaching the conclusion that the military followed international protocol in cracking down on the protest.

Col. Romklao's testimony angered Pheu Thai members of the sub-committee Worawat Ua-apinyakul and Cholanan Srikaew. Both made comments seen as demeaning to Col. Romklao and his military career, such as the comment that he should no longer be a soldier, to which Col. Romklao replied that he is a soldier and not a politician.

This incident marked Col. Romklao as the red-shirts' enemy.

On the night of Saturday, Col. Romklao, who was commanding troops at the Kokwua intersection, was shot in the head and torso several times from behind.

This leads to questions whether his death was pre-ordered as his subordinates, who also testified before the sub-committee, were also injured in that same night.

From Manager Online Crime - Manager Online

+1 - I remember the extensive footage on TV at the time of MiB's within the crowds and I saw them for real mingling with the "peaceful protestors" ... Thaksin got exactly what he wanted with this whole situation, his money was well spent for the effect it has had on this country.

Of course. Everyone knows the army pulled back. The black shirts then shot at the protesters so that the protesters could claim later that there was a crackdown.

Of course. Everyone knows that the army was pulled back knowing that the reds would regroup, get more provocative which would justify the eventual army crackdown (the one that never happened).

Khun Thawil is just attempting to revise history.

"armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators"

Interesting choice of words. The posters in these forums who constantly demonise the entire red shirt movement as "terrorist", "violent" etc, should note this. Even a key person 'on the other side' talks in terms of infiltration, meaning that the MIB (etc) did not represent the majority aims and tactics of the protesters. And yet, it was mostly nurses, journalists, and other unarmed civilians who died in that crackdown-that-was-not-a-crackdown.

Not sure what the guy in Abu Dabhi expected as an outcome using the MIB to provoke a response from the soldiers. MIB and disguised MIB in red was sneaking in and out of the red shirt crowds shooting live rounds at the soldiers. I guess the gloves was off and everything went, as his party had been subjected to yet another coup, although this time by using the judiciary and anti corruption institutions.

Edited April 29, 201511 yr by AlQaholic

"armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators"

Interesting choice of words. The posters in these forums who constantly demonise the entire red shirt movement as "terrorist", "violent" etc, should note this. Even a key person 'on the other side' talks in terms of infiltration, meaning that the MIB (etc) did not represent the majority aims and tactics of the protesters. And yet, it was mostly nurses, journalists, and other unarmed civilians who died in that crackdown-that-was-not-a-crackdown.

And who gave them the fertile ground in which to operate? And who ordered Bangkok to be burned down? And who screamed and yelled anarchy on stage to millions of people?And most importantly, what colour does the paymaster wear?

Hmmmm, so what were the tanks for then?

Thawil and a few kool aid drinkers obviously didn't look up the definitions of the word crackdown,

Noun 1. crackdown - severely repressive actions

crushing, quelling, stifling, suppression - forceful prevention; putting down by power or authority; "the suppression of heresy"; "the quelling of the rebellion"; "the stifling of all dissent"

Whilst the Reds were out of control, the setting up of live fire zones isn't a normal practice and the comment about if western Military had done this there would have been more deaths is completely false.

I have personally stood on a riot line in Londonderry, Northern Ireland back in the 1980's and faces 10,000 rioting republicans throwing everything they could at us. And we used baton rounds and sound tactics to disperse them, not a single protestor was left dead, but lots of squaddies were injured!!

Typically western militaries DONT get involved in internal security issues so it's a moot point, the military in most western countries are rarely involved in such issues.

Crackdown is quite apt, if it wasn't one, what else would you call it ? A domestic disturbance? If it wasn't a crackdown then it coup easily be said it wasn't a riot but hey, what's in a name? 90 people mostly civilians were left dead, due to actions on both sides.

Edited April 29, 201511 yr by Fat Haggis

there was no crackdown as there were no protests

TiT

"the troops had been instructed not to use live ammunition against the protesters"

Abhisit testified before the court: "As the CRES chief, Mr. Suthep was in charge of the army officers and he outlined how the officers should use their weapons....Troops were told to shoot below a person’s knee without intent to kill and not to fire a weapon when protesters were mingling with innocent people, Mr. Abhisit said."

Obviously, innocent people became collateral damage, whether the military intended so or not.

OK so if this guy doesn't like the words "crack down", or "use of force", then how about open fire? or fire at will? but I'm sure they wont be ok either.

We asked them to leave, they left on their own, it was just a security tightening.

Strange considering that some think the term "crack down" is not strong enough rather than launch an assault on the protesters?

How about the words, White wash, Sanitized, Deluded, and strait up lies?

Hers an option, find the documents that ordered the (operation, Offensive, Strike, or ones the Americans like is Prosecute) and use them as term of reference? I wonder if they'll ever see the light of day? or they also went conveniently floating off in floods like all the other incriminating evidence?

Waiting for the usual suspects to come in and defend this SPIN, or one could use the word Insult to the dead and injured and their family's.

.

It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. Hey, it worked for Slick Willy, and Thai's are NOTORIOUS for seeing something that works then copying it.

Oh, great...there was no crackdown, there were no MIB...it was all a bad dream!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Thawill was Chief of the NSC during the "crackdown" in 2010.

Article 34 of the military coup's 2006 Interim Constitution changed the name of the military junta known as the Council for Democratic Reform to the Council for National Security.

Not only is his testimony suspect but one might ask why he wasn't charged in connection with the civilian deaths in the 2010 "crackdown."

Where else have I heard that Thawil Pliensri name recently?

Thawil Pliensri, who served as director of the National Security Council under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, was called by Thailand’s national anti-graft agency to testify in Abhisit's defense today.

So the NACC charges Abhisit, then calls a witness in his defense?

"armed militants had infiltrated the demonstrators"

Interesting choice of words. The posters in these forums who constantly demonise the entire red shirt movement as "terrorist", "violent" etc, should note this. Even a key person 'on the other side' talks in terms of infiltration, meaning that the MIB (etc) did not represent the majority aims and tactics of the protesters. And yet, it was mostly nurses, journalists, and other unarmed civilians who died in that crackdown-that-was-not-a-crackdown.

But all the reds support Thaksin and he ordered the MiB to kill innocent people and soldiers so therefore all the reds are violent and in support of terrorism. Flawless logic, no?