Appeals Court drops alleged unlawful 2010 military crackdown case against Abhisit and Suthep

[diehard60]

Did not expect anything different to happen.

[sweatalot]

face the music ....

for what?

restoring peace and order?

They didnt restore peace and order. They stole a democratically elected government from the people of Thailand with the military. Thats not restoring anything but armed thugs in power. If the military would have protected said government from Sutheps thugs that would be restoring peace and order. If the police would have done their job and stopped the hired mobs in the first place, we wouldnt be here today

your very biased opinion

[Docno]

Re Yingluk and the rice scam------------------will the ruling likely be the same... that she acted as an authorised official empowered by laws, and not as an individual?

"The Appeals Court reasoned that Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep issued the crackdown order in their capacity as prime minister and deputy prime minister in charge of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) in order to restore peace and order in the country.

Therefore they issued crackdown orders not as individuals but as authorised officials empowered by laws.

Therefore their orders were lawful and were not considered power abuses as they were charged"

Yes - it sets an interesting precedent in that it suggests that Thai politicians have something akin to papal infallibility: seems that, by definition, anything they do cannot be wrong so long as they do it as authorised members of government. Good news for the current regime. As you've said, we'll see whether the courts remember this principle when Yingluck comes before them.

[rixalex]

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

If you are protesting illegally, and in full knowledge that members of your mob have been attacking authorities, and you have ignored the daily pleas of authorities to leave the area for your safety, and then you get hurt or killed by armed forces as they retake the area, then i have no sympathy. You had enough warning to save yourself but didn't.

As to why the army didn't come and clear the PDRC protesters, it is really the job of riot police to deal with such matters. They are the ones who should have intervened in 2010. They couldn't or wouldn't do their job then. The protest leaders knew this would happen, and they knew with enough provocation, anarchy and destruction, that the army would have to get involved. It was what they wanted - the leaders anyway. It was why a televised agreement was suddenly scotched at the last minute. They preferred instead to create a blood bath that would get international media coverage and hopefully cause widespread condemnation that would bring the government to its knees.

The PDRC had different tactics to try and achieve their aims. They created a massive disturbance in the centre of the city but there was not the same level of anarchy, violence and destruction. A lot of the violence that was committed was against the protesters rather than by them - committed by what you call "extremist nutters". That's not to say there was no violence from the PDRC, far from it, but it hadn't reached the same level as in 2010. If you were here in Bangkok in 2010 and 2013 you would know that.

[rubl]

Being a member or PM of it do not excuse you from responsibilities.

The families of the (official) 90 dead are probably super happy and it will for sure help the reconciliation.

The kickoff was the extra judicial killing of Sae Daeng in front of Japanese reporters.

Plenty of videos shows thai without any weapons getting shot during the events, even if you cannot see them on thai mainstream media.

Now your getting off at the deep end with your 'extra judicial killing'. You seem to suggest that there was a premeditated plan to assassinate the Japanese reporter.

This rumour still comes up at times, especially when things don't go as some would like to see them go.

In the mean time it would seem court agree that Abhisit and Suthep cannot be charged as private persons. Thaksin will be happy, his war on drugs finally cleared as well, as private person that is.

So off you go AGIAN,,, you should try harder. Was the General holding a weapon aiming and shooting at military when he was shot? NO, fact but you don't like it.

Was the nurse that was shot dead while helping the injured holding aiming and shooting at the military? NO fact and again you don't like it.

Or the reporter's, were they shooting a gun's at the military? NO.

So innocent people were killed yes, so who should be held accountable for the innocent???????

YES there were many others that did NOT shot at the military and were gunned down and yes there is still video evidence to prove it...

Again you don't like it why? it doesn't sit nicely with your agenda of claiming innocent of those charged while condemning the dead and that can not defend themselves, wow man you should be so proud...

Were Abhisit / Suthep involved as private persons ?

Were the 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' warned? Were the army and police involved in gunfights with 'peaceful protesters' ? Were a multitude of grenades dropped on non-red-shirts?

I'm proud I can see the distractions, the desperate attempts to distort the truth.

[rubl]

OK, what have you got to say about my 3 snippets - Chalerm doesn't seem to care about the HR from what he says!! Do you still support the murderous Thaksin and his ministers and do you condone random murder? These 2 unsavoury characters seem to be happy with the execution of innocent citizens, are you?

This is not the forum to discuss this. I will just say that the jury on the number of death claim is still out there. No one or institution has the firmed conclusion. In passing, the junta and Ahbisit appointed committee to investigate and possibly lead to ICC prosecution. So far none went anywhere due to lack of evidence.

ICC? You refer to the long forgotten 'request' from 2011-01-31 ?

I'm afraid the 'lack of evidence' only suggest that there might be evidence to support the

"APPLICATION TO INVESTIGATE THE SITUATION OF

THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY"

Lack of evidence, or simply no reason to assume the situation had anything to do with crimes against humanity. Mind you, a few dozen grenades dropped on non-red-shirts might construe terrorist attacks.

[djlest]

As someone who had his business perched directly 300 meters from the red camp, with bamboo spikes, car tires, baricades and a constant noise of angry shouting and rallying these muppets into a frenzy just before dark, then constant gun shots and pipe bombs all night. It was anything BUT a peaceful demonstration, not to mention all the businesses that went bust, all the damages, all the ransacking of malls and stealing, then setting fire to buildings.

It was thankfully the Army that guarded my shop each and everyday, they were incredible and never fired back or retaliated when i witnessed them face to face with protesters.

I was also in a grenade attack, i was directly beneath the skytrain when the grenade wsent off, the result immediately after was an angry mob of reds running directly at my car, dragging taxi drivers out and kicking them. I escaped narrowly by running a red light.

Peaceful? no way... if they died then they shouldnt have been there... period. The army did what it had to do...

[rubl]

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

[lucky11]

As someone who had his business perched directly 300 meters from the red camp, with bamboo spikes, car tires, baricades and a constant noise of angry shouting and rallying these muppets into a frenzy just before dark, then constant gun shots and pipe bombs all night. It was anything BUT a peaceful demonstration, not to mention all the businesses that went bust, all the damages, all the ransacking of malls and stealing, then setting fire to buildings.

It was thankfully the Army that guarded my shop each and everyday, they were incredible and never fired back or retaliated when i witnessed them face to face with protesters.

I was also in a grenade attack, i was directly beneath the skytrain when the grenade wsent off, the result immediately after was an angry mob of reds running directly at my car, dragging taxi drivers out and kicking them. I escaped narrowly by running a red light.

Peaceful? no way... if they died then they shouldnt have been there... period. The army did what it had to do...

You can expect the retorts to roll in to say that you are lying, exaggerating, making it all up - that is the type of response you get from these characters when they read something they don't like.

Edited February 18, 2016 by lucky11

[hugh2121]

So, negligence (if it occurred) is a greater crime than killing people. Understood.

[Denim]

So at the end of the day, if the dust ever settles we are faced with the following facts . Scores of people killed....many of them just innocent bystanders , the army proven to have fired many of the rounds that killed protesters , the two leaders of the Democrat party authorizing the use of live rounds ........

and yet ........ nobody can be found legally responsible because the ' legal ' system just plays pass the parcel.

A shocking indictment of how uncivilized and corrupt the upper echelon of Thai society really is. Truly shameful

[rubl]

So, negligence (if it occurred) is a greater crime than killing people. Understood.

Actually it's much more that such illogical remarks like your could be seen as greater crime.

Mind you, one might accuse the then PM Abhisit of a certain level of negligence for allowing all those deaths. One might accuse the PM of having been too mild, too tolerant. His attitude might have given the 'peaceful protesting terrorists' the wrong impression. Surely had he been more forceful from the start all deaths could have been prevented ?

[aussieinthailand]

To AussieinThailand

Are you a holocaust denier by any chance?

WHAT THE? Is that it? you have a problem with facts so this is what you come out with, UNDERWHELMED.

Here ya go mate, try utube CNN journalist killed by Thai Army, and then come back and try again.

[mrrizzla]

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

[Eric Loh]

OK, what have you got to say about my 3 snippets - Chalerm doesn't seem to care about the HR from what he says!! Do you still support the murderous Thaksin and his ministers and do you condone random murder? These 2 unsavoury characters seem to be happy with the execution of innocent citizens, are you?

This is not the forum to discuss this. I will just say that the jury on the number of death claim is still out there. No one or institution has the firmed conclusion. In passing, the junta and Ahbisit appointed committee to investigate and possibly lead to ICC prosecution. So far none went anywhere due to lack of evidence.

ICC? You refer to the long forgotten 'request' from 2011-01-31 ?

I'm afraid the 'lack of evidence' only suggest that there might be evidence to support the

"APPLICATION TO INVESTIGATE THE SITUATION OF

THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY"

Lack of evidence, or simply no reason to assume the situation had anything to do with crimes against humanity. Mind you, a few dozen grenades dropped on non-red-shirts might construe terrorist attacks.

Goodness Rubi. You are rambling and I don't understand a word you say.

[rubl]

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

[rubl]

This is not the forum to discuss this. I will just say that the jury on the number of death claim is still out there. No one or institution has the firmed conclusion. In passing, the junta and Ahbisit appointed committee to investigate and possibly lead to ICC prosecution. So far none went anywhere due to lack of evidence.

ICC? You refer to the long forgotten 'request' from 2011-01-31 ?

I'm afraid the 'lack of evidence' only suggest that there might be evidence to support the

"APPLICATION TO INVESTIGATE THE SITUATION OF

THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY"

Lack of evidence, or simply no reason to assume the situation had anything to do with crimes against humanity. Mind you, a few dozen grenades dropped on non-red-shirts might construe terrorist attacks.

Goodness Rubi. You are rambling and I don't understand a word you say.

Then why did you mention the ICC?

[tbthailand]

When the military advance with a superior force and , APCs fully armed and equipped with live bullets and snipers, it is silly to think that it was for protection. It's disproportionate use of lethal force on their own people and the leaders that gave the order must be held accountable. Please don't make comparison to war time as it is totally irrelevant and silly. Even more silly is quoting the war of drugs and stating the people killed as though you know the facts.

What is it you expect? For the the military to advance with inferior force? Or perhaps for the military to advance with exactly equal force, just to show what gents they are and make it a fair fight? Of course the military advance with superior force. That is their job. It's very easy to sit behind your computer making pronouncements willy nilly about what was excessive and what wasn't, but it wasn't your neck on the line out there was it. The soldiers had no choice to be there. They couldn't walk away. All of the protesters, armed or not, had that choice. They chose to stay and some paid the ultimate price for their decision. My sympathy is with the soldiers and all those like the medics who weren't there of their own choosing.

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

If you are protesting illegally, and in full knowledge that members of your mob have been attacking authorities, and you have ignored the daily pleas of authorities to leave the area for your safety, and then you get hurt or killed by armed forces as they retake the area, then i have no sympathy. You had enough warning to save yourself but didn't.

As to why the army didn't come and clear the PDRC protesters, it is really the job of riot police to deal with such matters. They are the ones who should have intervened in 2010. They couldn't or wouldn't do their job then. The protest leaders knew this would happen, and they knew with enough provocation, anarchy and destruction, that the army would have to get involved. It was what they wanted - the leaders anyway. It was why a televised agreement was suddenly scotched at the last minute. They preferred instead to create a blood bath that would get international media coverage and hopefully cause widespread condemnation that would bring the government to its knees.

The PDRC had different tactics to try and achieve their aims. They created a massive disturbance in the centre of the city but there was not the same level of anarchy, violence and destruction. A lot of the violence that was committed was against the protesters rather than by them - committed by what you call "extremist nutters". That's not to say there was no violence from the PDRC, far from it, but it hadn't reached the same level as in 2010. If you were here in Bangkok in 2010 and 2013 you would know that.

If you are protesting illegally, and in full knowledge that members of your mob have been attacking authorities, and you have ignored the daily pleas of authorities to leave the area for your safety, and then you get hurt or killed by armed forces as they retake the area, then i have no sympathy. You had enough warning to save yourself but didn't.

I have seen this used often to justify mowing down the red shirts. Of course it is an illogical position to take, even if you applied it equally to red and yellow protests which of course you do not.

In order to rationalize a position that does NOT apply the same stupid logic to the PDRC, the PDRC are cast in a completely different context.

The only difference in context between the two sets of public protest was that one was protesting for democracy and one was protesting against democracy.

Your statements:

They created a massive disturbance in the centre of the city but there was not the same level of anarchy, violence and destruction. A lot of the violence that was committed was against the protesters rather than by them - committed by what you call "extremist nutters". That's not to say there was no violence from the PDRC, far from it, but it hadn't reached the same level as in 2010. If you were here in Bangkok in 2010 and 2013 you would know that.

are so far from reality that it is almost funny... There was much more violence in 2010. In fact, it was directly due to the level of violence applied by the military against the protesters. The greatest concentration of violence was during the 6 final days in May when the military murdered dozens and dozens of people.

By contrast, in 2013/14, the protests went on much much longer and with much less violence because the government was trying to follow the path defined in the constitution and to AVOID violence with the protesters. The much lower level of violence on the part of the government is the main factor.

I could post a bunch of photos and links to PDRC violence and the mad "monk" and his guards... do you need that or are you already informed?

[mrrizzla]

So the PDRC protesters that "chose" to stay there and were bombed by extremist nutters. Are they also undersiving of your sympathy or do you play a different tune for a different set of protesters?

Why didn't the army come and clear those protesters? Who also had nerferious armed elements.....

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

I not speak about the Japanese reporter

be happy, his war on drugs finally cleared as well, as private person that is.

I speak about Sae Daeng, please read before jumping on conclusions, as you seem quite encline to notice it when it comes to other posters.

Also I remember a time where even the highest personn in the country praised Thaksin for his war on drugs, which was a succession of bloody execution.

However if you want reconciliation you must work for both sides to be satisfied, and apparently the Dear General wishes only one side to be happy

Excuses, you're right. I misread.

Still the 'extra judicial killing' of the renegade general "No one saw me" Seh Daeng has a few possible masterminds, but Abhisit/Suthep are not really under them. One of the army generals is a possibility, UDD leaders or their de-facto leader abroad another one.

Anyway, reconciliation doesn't mean trying to suggest a crime is absolved while pointing at the wrong people.

Excuses accepted

Well for sure he wasn't shot by Thaksin and most of the sniper rifles are holded by military.

Now we all know the military has sided with the establishment. What would have been the advantage to kill Sae Daeng for the red? I not say this guy was not a moron and didn't put the pressure on the red to turn violent but the facts are still strongly in favor of the military abuse, as well as the temple shooting.

Why do you think it was pointing to the wrong people?

Who was in charge?

Who ordered the crackdown?

Who allowed the use of live munitions, instead of rubber bullets, gaz and riot control.

Any government in western country would have fall and been accountable for this kind of murders....

As for the journalists, the independant investigations concluded that the italian guy was shot in the back while he was facing the Red.

Well, it would seem some of the life ammunition was held by 'unknowns' fighting the Army, dropping grenades on innocents.

No wonder we get 'collateral' damage cleaning up. Fabio one of them, vanderGrift 'lucky' surviving a grenade attack.

BTW

"It is believed that the bullet which killed the deceased came from the direction of [army] officers who were moving to take control [of Ratchaprasong Intersection] from Sala Daeng area [of Silom] … but it's unclear as to who did it," part of the inquest finding stated."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Bullet-that-killed-Fabio-came-from-near-govt-troop-30207194.html

So, anyone here who still wants to argue that the government should have continued talking with terrorists? Give in to demands by 'peaceful protesters' backed by heavily armed madmen?

Yes as we know the investigations are very careful and not take side in this country.

Speak of the "collateral damages" to the relatives of the ones killed inside the temple, they will love it.

The first ones to shoot were the army and i can point you at videos and pictures which clearly show the army shooting at unarmed people. Do you want them?

[rubl]

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

The topic here relates to what some describe as the interesting situation where PM Abhisit let private person Abhisit order the killing of red-shirts and a few others.

Now for a second time it is judged that the proper procedure if a charge is to be about the deaths in the 2010 terrorism case is to file it with the Supreme Court for Political Office Holders.

Black, white or grey, to refer to happenings three and a half year later in further accusations or defence is absurd.

[rubl]

I not speak about the Japanese reporter

be happy, his war on drugs finally cleared as well, as private person that is.

I speak about Sae Daeng, please read before jumping on conclusions, as you seem quite encline to notice it when it comes to other posters.

Also I remember a time where even the highest personn in the country praised Thaksin for his war on drugs, which was a succession of bloody execution.

However if you want reconciliation you must work for both sides to be satisfied, and apparently the Dear General wishes only one side to be happy

Excuses, you're right. I misread.

Still the 'extra judicial killing' of the renegade general "No one saw me" Seh Daeng has a few possible masterminds, but Abhisit/Suthep are not really under them. One of the army generals is a possibility, UDD leaders or their de-facto leader abroad another one.

Anyway, reconciliation doesn't mean trying to suggest a crime is absolved while pointing at the wrong people.

Excuses accepted

Well for sure he wasn't shot by Thaksin and most of the sniper rifles are holded by military.

Now we all know the military has sided with the establishment. What would have been the advantage to kill Sae Daeng for the red? I not say this guy was not a moron and didn't put the pressure on the red to turn violent but the facts are still strongly in favor of the military abuse, as well as the temple shooting.

Why do you think it was pointing to the wrong people?

Who was in charge?

Who ordered the crackdown?

Who allowed the use of live munitions, instead of rubber bullets, gaz and riot control.

Any government in western country would have fall and been accountable for this kind of murders....

As for the journalists, the independant investigations concluded that the italian guy was shot in the back while he was facing the Red.

Well, it would seem some of the life ammunition was held by 'unknowns' fighting the Army, dropping grenades on innocents.

No wonder we get 'collateral' damage cleaning up. Fabio one of them, vanderGrift 'lucky' surviving a grenade attack.

BTW

"It is believed that the bullet which killed the deceased came from the direction of [army] officers who were moving to take control [of Ratchaprasong Intersection] from Sala Daeng area [of Silom] … but it's unclear as to who did it," part of the inquest finding stated."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Bullet-that-killed-Fabio-came-from-near-govt-troop-30207194.html

So, anyone here who still wants to argue that the government should have continued talking with terrorists? Give in to demands by 'peaceful protesters' backed by heavily armed madmen?

Yes as we know the investigations are very careful and not take side in this country.

Speak of the "collateral damages" to the relatives of the ones killed inside the temple, they will love it.

The first ones to shoot were the army and i can point you at videos and pictures which clearly show the army shooting at unarmed people. Do you want them?

The first ones were those friendly unknowns who started dropping grenades in March.

I agree 'collateral damage' is an ugly term. Being 'collateral damage' isn't nice either. Being made into collateral damage by having terrorists attack the military you walk with isn't nice either. Fabio would agree with that, Chambers did agree recovering from the grenade attack.

[ianf]

Chokchai Angkaew, a lawyer representing the families, said he will collect more evidence and appeal the ruling. Being prime minister and deputy prime minister, he said, did not mean they could authorize murder.

exactly.

[/quot

When there is insurection on the streets and the people where told to move repeatedly,bus's provided and they refused,this is what happens.When the Army was fired upon they took appropriate action to defend themselves.If people don't want to die,move when you are told by the govt.Therefore they are not guilty.

It's their constitutional right to demonstrate. The argument is whether the government has tried hard enough to negotiate and whether non lethal method should have been used. Apparently not in this case contrast with the amount of tolerance during the PDRC demonstration.

I am pretty sure the Government tried very hard to negotiate. Were the negotiation not live on TV? Did you see that? Did you see Abhisit unexpectedly acceding to the demands for fresh elections? Did you see Jataporn on the phone to the boss? After that call did the reds not reject the offer made by the ruling Government even though that offer was what they had asked for in the first place? It's all very well coming on here and defending the reds and using red language about 'scumbags' and 'murderers' (and other emotive language) but these claims have to match the facts. All I ever ask for is a balanced view which the right-wingers (or left wingers, all the same to me) cannot offer because it would challenge their own monopoly on truth. We've see that here time and again over the years as Mr Loh and his fellow travellers attempt to rewrite history or attempt, for whatever reason, to offer their version of events. Thaksin and his political supporters were desperate to use any means, fair or foul, to overturn Abhisit. In order to do so they had to paint a dim picture of Abhisit - a picture which did not necessarily relate to the truth. In this case truth is unimportant. Getting Thaksin back to power was more important than even life itself. Which is why Thaksin urged his followers to burn Bangkok and to travel to Bangkok armed with molotovs and so on. This is why the men in black stole munitions from the armed forces to use against their own people so that these deeds could be blamed on Abhisit. Such manipulation in history is not unheard of. It's happened before and it'll happen again. That's the way of the world. It is also interesting, to me, how the people on the dark side of life (usually socio- or psychopaths who have the ability to manipulate) find their supporters. I've referred in the past to Wilhelm Reich's study on the Mass Psychology of Fascism and his understanding of how people can be and are manipulated (whether socialist of fascist, it makes no difference) to support the deeds of power hungry dictators. Off course posters here always try and shoot down any opposition with increasingly irrelevant comments and accusations. That these are misplaced (as the responses to this post will be) makes no difference to the facts as they stand.

Edited February 18, 2016 by ianf

[tbthailand]

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

In the so-called "heavy gunfights", only one side was shooting...

https://youtu.be/VAKzzEBI4Mc

Complete fiction that the Thai army did anything besides massacre the protesters in the last 6 days of the 2010 protests.

[mrrizzla]

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

In the so-called "heavy gunfights", only one side was shooting...

Complete fiction that the Thai army did anything besides massacre the protesters in the last 6 days of the 2010 protests.

They have a history of this of course. 1974, 1976 and 1992. I suppose some of the Kool aider drinkers here would blame Thaksin for that too

[rubl]

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

In the so-called "heavy gunfights", only one side was shooting...

https://youtu.be/VAKzzEBI4Mc

Complete fiction that the Thai army did anything besides massacre the protesters in the last 6 days of the 2010 protests.

Massacre? Only the Thai army? One-sided?

Ask Chambers vanderGrift what he thinks about 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Oras Nick Nostitz described

""When the military started moving in, there was an enormous amount of gunfire," Nostitz told The Canadian Press in an phone interview from Bangkok.

"Then the Black Shirts, a radical faction under the Red Shirts, started firing grenades against the military and Vandergrift was hit by one of the grenades."""

link no longer valid ( http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24287948 )

Or maybe

"Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

https://cpj.org/reports/2010/07/in-thailand-unrest-journalists-under-fire.php

So, we still have anyone left who believes the "peaceful protesters, not terrorists' ?

[rubl]

Some logic missing.

Anyway, this topic is on 2010 with the army being involved in heavy gunfights with 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists'. Even the last day those 'peaceful protesters' dropped grenades on the army and the Canadian reporter vanderGrift.

'peaceful protesters'?

It is a relevant comparison Dr. Deflect. Terrorists are terrorists right? Well the PDRC had armed elements, threw bombs at police and even murdered people. Dangerous no? Why didn't the army come in and disperse them?

We all know the answer to that even if some of you pretend you don't. I highly suspect you will reply with lots of deflection techniques as usual.

For the case under discussion here the proceedings three and a half year later have no relevance.

The armies over zealous actions in one set of protests compared to their complete inaction in others (due to clear bias) is clearly comparable.

But of course you will do whatever you can to deflect attention a way from the army/democrats who apparently can do absolutely no wrong. Everything is the bogey man in Dubais fault.

This situation like nearly every other on earth is not black and white (or red and yellow in this case) there is a WHOLE lot of grey.

In the so-called "heavy gunfights", only one side was shooting...

Complete fiction that the Thai army did anything besides massacre the protesters in the last 6 days of the 2010 protests.

They have a history of this of course. 1974, 1976 and 1992. I suppose some of the Kool aider drinkers here would blame Thaksin for that too

and the distractions continue.

In 2010 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' were lobbing grenades at non-red-shirts, have gunfights with the army and Abhisit as private person to blame. Next we'll show the famous tape from 2009 with Abhisit seemingly saying "kill me some".

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed.

[sjaak327]

So, negligence (if it occurred) is a greater crime than killing people. Understood.

Actually it's much more that such illogical remarks like your could be seen as greater crime.

Mind you, one might accuse the then PM Abhisit of a certain level of negligence for allowing all those deaths. One might accuse the PM of having been too mild, too tolerant. His attitude might have given the 'peaceful protesting terrorists' the wrong impression. Surely had he been more forceful from the start all deaths could have been prevented ?

Haha, too mild, you got to be kidding rubl. When protests turn sour, most countries do not dispatch the army.

And for good reason, as the army isn't suited to handle crowd control. Especially not the Thai Army, which has a well documented history of killing fellow Thai citiziens.

Personally I am convinced it wasn't Abhisit who wanted this, but his corrupt buddy from Surat. Too bad he could't held that idiot back.

Don't you get tired choosing the very same side every tinme, and seeing no errors on that side whatsoever ? Even though there is compelling evidence to the contrary ?

Terrorism is shooting people with snipers.

[rubl]

So, negligence (if it occurred) is a greater crime than killing people. Understood.

Actually it's much more that such illogical remarks like your could be seen as greater crime.

Mind you, one might accuse the then PM Abhisit of a certain level of negligence for allowing all those deaths. One might accuse the PM of having been too mild, too tolerant. His attitude might have given the 'peaceful protesting terrorists' the wrong impression. Surely had he been more forceful from the start all deaths could have been prevented ?

Haha, too mild, you got to be kidding rubl. When protests turn sour, most countries do not dispatch the army.

And for good reason, as the army isn't suited to handle crowd control. Especially not the Thai Army, which has a well documented history of killing fellow Thai citiziens.

Personally I am convinced it wasn't Abhisit who wanted this, but his corrupt buddy from Surat. Too bad he could't held that idiot back.

Don't you get tired choosing the very same side every tinme, and seeing no errors on that side whatsoever ? Even though there is compelling evidence to the contrary ?

Terrorism is shooting people with snipers.

Absolutely, most countries have a functioning police force and an anti-terror brigade and some other special brigades to handle 'unruly' demonstrators. Makes you wonder why some posters here are asking why the military didn't get rid of the protesters in 2013/2014. Did the government even ask them, apart from the leftover caretaking MoFA Surapong who suggested the Army raise Martial Law so he could have elections for his criminal fugitive relative.

The April 10th 2010 debacle showed indeed that the army doesn't have the special skills which police units only gain after a long training. Pity those weren't interested in controlling the protest. So that left the army. Totally unprepared, some friendly unknowns drop grenades and start firing and the army withdraws in near panic wildly shooting at those 'peaceful protesters'.

149 posts and still the same old rubbish I've seen for the last nearly six years. I would almost lament that the blanket amnesty bill didn't pass into law. At least we would no longer need to have this tiresome 'discussion'.