No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[webfact]

No order to open fire on the crowds in 2010: Abhisit

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has denied his government had ordered troops to open fire on the crowds in connection with the bloodshed at Rajdamnoen Avenue on April 10, 2010.

Some 25 civilians and soldiers were killed and hundreds sustained injuries in the clash between anti-riot forces and red-shirt protesters.

Abhisit testified on the political mayhem at the Wednesday's hearing by the Truth for Reconciliation Commission.

The TRCT is expected on July 16 to issue its final report on the 2010 political strife.

"Abhisit has given a very useful statement to shed light on the violence," TRCT chairman Kanit na Nakorn said.

The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits but focus on how the events unfolded in order to prevent a repeat and enable the country to move on, Kanit said.

In his statement, Abhisit said the Centre for the Resolution of the Crisis Situation gave the green light for riot forces to be armed for self-protection and safegurd the people's lives but did not order any firings into the crowds.

In regard to the public announcement on live bullet zone, he said the true purpose was to deter the crowds from joining the protests.

Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban is scheduled to give his statement on June 27 in his capacity as the then deputy prime minister in charge of security affairs.

-- The Nation 2012-06-21

[carra]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

[Thai at Heart]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

Well, I would doubt very much he was on the front line giving direct orders.

He never gave a specific order,he was involved in specifying the rules of engagement, after that, we are never going to know which specific army commander gave the specific order and at what specific moment.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[Nickymaster]

Carra, yes what were they doing there terrorizing down-town Bangkok with their armed warriors? Which other country in the world would wait a few months before cleaning up a bunch of criminals who were killing their officials? Get a life man and stop trying to twist the facts. What was wrong with an election within 6 months. Abhisit tried his best.

The world up-side down. A government has to justify why it shot back at a bunch of armed terrorists, managed by Thaksin and his red clan, who killed 15-10 of their officials.

Meanwhile, Thaksin NEEDS amnesty for all asap because soon the truth will be know by the reds. Propaganda his it's limits. Yes, for you too Thaksin!

Edited June 21, 2012 by Nickymaster

[MunterHunter]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

Let the witch hunt begin! I say lets burn them all at the stake! Doesn't matter if they are guilty or not as some people have already decided they are guilty

[Moruya]

Absolutely nothing new there.

The red shirts/black shirts shot and fired grenades.

The army was advised to protect itself and others

The red shirts/black shirts continued

The army shot back

It could all have been avoided if the Red Shirts hadn't reneged when Abhisit offered them new elections

92 people died as a result

[rixalex]

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat,

Giving your own opinion does not back up your own theory.

either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

Either the red shirts were shot by their own black shirt armed militia in an attempt by leaders of the red movement to grab international headlines with a high body count and cries of an inhumane undemocratic crackdown on peaceful protesters by the military, or the red shirts were shot by the military because they were armed and dangerous and in the process of attacking soldiers. Which is it Thaivisa member carra?

[Moruya]

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

Can't you read?

[Pseudolus]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

[Nickymaster]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Thai at Heart]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

The order was legal if it was given in self-defence. There is no way they are going to hang an army commander out to dry as in "A Few Good Men".

Now someone has to work out whether everyone from the army was acting in self-defence. Good luck disproving that one when all it largely comes down to "he says", "she says" during a running street battle.

[saltandpepper]

Carra,

I think that your post is very much biased, and you know it

I am very much convinced that if you were in a situation where your life were at risk and you had a gun in hand......you would use it!

Now, I am also sure that there is no need to receive an order for that, and that faced with a life threatening situation, every one would have the same reaction. It is clear that the people who were at this place on April 10th, 2010 were NOT (repeat: were NOT) innocent unarmed protesters ONLY (repeat: ONLY).

Please tell me in which country would a situation like this one (mass protest with numerous provocations from armed protestors) have been tolerated without the police or/and the army taking actions?

It is easy to come on a forum and to accuse the police, army or/and government to fire live rounds at innocent unarmed civilians. It is not all black or all white.

[Nickymaster]

Carra,

I think that your post is very much biased, and you know it

I am very much convinced that if you were in a situation where your life were at risk and you had a gun in hand......you would use it!

Now, I am also sure that there is no need to receive an order for that, and that faced with a life threatening situation, every one would have the same reaction. It is clear that the people who were at this place on April 10th, 2010 were NOT (repeat: were NOT) innocent unarmed protesters ONLY (repeat: ONLY).

Please tell me in which country would a situation like this one (mass protest with numerous provocations from armed protestors) have been tolerated without the police or/and the army taking actions?

It is easy to come on a forum and to accuse the police, army or/and government to fire live rounds at innocent unarmed civilians. It is not all black or all white.

Yes correct. But things wouldn't have gone out of hand if police did their job: maintaining law and order. It seemed that police vanished from the area once the reds came in.

[Yunla]

I believe Abhisit did not give an order to fire, which I base on his previous behaviour, the fact that he allowed the redmob to protest unchallenged for almost three whole months, he provided them with food and water, and with medical-aid during their blood-debacle, he was often cautioning them to take precautions with the hot sun and the blood transfusions and to take care of their health during their protest. He even went and worked in a secure bunker for his own safety, and televised statements from that place, yet did not lose his cool even then, and kept negotiating with the redmob, offering them early elections and so forth. To me all those actions are of a balanced and sane individual who is exercising uncommon restraint for the safety of the public. This is my opinion.

Regarding who gave orders to fire at street level, nobody knows or if you think you know please provide evidence.

Regarding something callled 'cause and effect', if you are looking to blame those 90+ deaths on any individual group or person, you must actually blame the instigator of the whole situation. The inevitable street battle showdown was the 'effect', but if you believe in logic you will blame the 'cause' and not the 'effect'. The 'cause' was Thaksin who instigated the whole march to Bangkok, funded the protestors travel expenses, funded blanket television propaganda encouraging the redmob to destroy the "enemy elites", and paid his redmob stage-speakers to incite the mob to "burn all of Bangkok". Ultimately, Thaksin funded and incited the whole demonstration/armed uprising, and so he is the person responsible for the consequences of it.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yunla

[MunterHunter]

Red shirts were armed with firearms and knives... i know this for a fact as i had 3 Red Shirt guards forcibly search me at gun point (no sh*t!) a few weeks before the camp was raided. I worked in the area and had to walk thru the camp twice a day every day.

Various M79 grenade attacks happened during that time, fired from what appears to be the red shirt controlled areas into public areas (aka Sala Deng BTS station attack) - there had also been a number of armed encounters where Red Shirts had fired on the army and managed to secure some weapons and ammo from them. There are also many pictures circling the tinterweb clearly showing Red Shirt 'peaceful' protesters brandishing knives, stakes and other weaponry.

Now i dont give a toss who you are, but if you are threatened by someone who are brandishing weapons of any kind and your life is in danger, you will fight back. If your only protection is a rifle or a hand gun then you will threaten them with it (in self defense) and if that doesn't work, you will shoot. As the Soldiers had already received clearance to fight back with firearms in self deference, then if you threaten the life of a soldier and get shot as a result of that, no blame should be on the soldier or the commander who gave that order. It was kill or be killed.

When you also factor in the live firing zones, where its clearly identified as an area where soldiers with live ammunition are stationed/protecting you have the choice... enter the area (at risk of being shot) or leave.

I say to you, if you think this is out of hand, violates human rights etc, goto any first world country in the world where the police are armed on the streets and do something to threaten the life of that person... see what happens, if you live to tell the tale then take your case to the human rights courts or whatever and see if they will take your case or just smile and point at the exit

[carra]

haha, all pick on carra again for having a view and asking questions, even telling me to get a life

i have a life thanks, a great life, but thanks for that posters concern. I also make it clear in my opening post that I am sure BOTH sides are to blame here so no attempt at a whitewash from my side, i wish some people would see my avatar for what it actually is and not its colour, it is for my football, not my thai politics.

And to the poster that asked what would happen in another country, well a couple of things, most other countries would not even have this situation as politically they are more mature and the army stays in its barracks, and the police deal with civil unrest in those countries, so quite what other countries have to do with this is beyond me, I would also like to point out that abhisit was born and raised in the UK so I would guess he already knows how other countries would deal with this.

Now someone was in charge of the country at this time, eitehr fairly or unfairly depending on how you see coups and party disbandment, he wasn't there because the majority of voters wanted him there but that is by the by, the fact is he was there and he was supposed to be running the country, the buck stops with him, I could; also ask in which other country would he still be walking free or have been allowed to continue as PM after nearly 100 people are dead either on his orders or he wasn't in control of the situation, which is it?

I am happy to debate with anyone, but if people can't have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal comments such as 'get a life' i really don't see why I should entertain their opinion if it is written along with juvenile comments such as this.

yes I can read, yes i read it, and yes I formed an opinion about it.

It is a simple question, if you did not give the order then who did give the order? do you know who gave the order, if so then tell us? did he give this order contrary to your orders? Was the order to just defend yourselves against direct threats? If so who gave the order to ignore this advice?

you can see guys there are so many questions here, put a neutral head for a minute and the questions that need answering are obvious. Put your yellow head on and as far as you are concerned everyone that died deserved to die.

Again I reiterate by concern is for the people that died on BOTH sides, get it? BOTH sides, I will say it again for the hard of thinking, BOTH sides, families from the victims on both sides deserve to know the truth, so come on abhisit, give the truth, no whitewash, no cover up.

[moe666]

In the States its called sucide by cop, threaten a cop with a gun, knife or other lethal weapon and you are dead. In Vietnam we were told to defend yourself aganist any threat, I am sure the soliders in Downtown bangkok were told the same thing defend yourself and others aganist threats to your personal safety. In the situations stuff happens. may the dead find peace.

[Yunla]

put a neutral head for a minute

If you mean that, then I have to say that really you are very partisan in your posts, which is totally OK, everyone is allowed to have party loyalties, but really its a bit much to support one side like you do and then claim neutrality.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yunla

[whybother]

Why would any order need to have been given, either to shoot or not to shoot?

The army were told to disperse and control the protesters using riot gear. They came under fire and responded.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Thai at Heart]

haha, all pick on carra again for having a view and asking questions, even telling me to get a life

i have a life thanks, a great life, but thanks for that posters concern. I also make it clear in my opening post that I am sure BOTH sides are to blame here so no attempt at a whitewash from my side, i wish some people would see my avatar for what it actually is and not its colour, it is for my football, not my thai politics.

And to the poster that asked what would happen in another country, well a couple of things, most other countries would not even have this situation as politically they are more mature and the army stays in its barracks, and the police deal with civil unrest in those countries, so quite what other countries have to do with this is beyond me, I would also like to point out that abhisit was born and raised in the UK so I would guess he already knows how other countries would deal with this.

Now someone was in charge of the country at this time, eitehr fairly or unfairly depending on how you see coups and party disbandment, he wasn't there because the majority of voters wanted him there but that is by the by, the fact is he was there and he was supposed to be running the country, the buck stops with him, I could; also ask in which other country would he still be walking free or have been allowed to continue as PM after nearly 100 people are dead either on his orders or he wasn't in control of the situation, which is it?

I am happy to debate with anyone, but if people can't have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal comments such as 'get a life' i really don't see why I should entertain their opinion if it is written along with juvenile comments such as this.

yes I can read, yes i read it, and yes I formed an opinion about it.

It is a simple question, if you did not give the order then who did give the order? do you know who gave the order, if so then tell us? did he give this order contrary to your orders? Was the order to just defend yourselves against direct threats? If so who gave the order to ignore this advice?

you can see guys there are so many questions here, put a neutral head for a minute and the questions that need answering are obvious. Put your yellow head on and as far as you are concerned everyone that died deserved to die.

Again I reiterate by concern is for the people that died on BOTH sides, get it? BOTH sides, I will say it again for the hard of thinking, BOTH sides, families from the victims on both sides deserve to know the truth, so come on abhisit, give the truth, no whitewash, no cover up.

It most probably wasn't given by Abhisit, it was most probably given by someone in the army, under the nice and convenient cover of "self-defence".

This isn't the movies where the commander in Chief screams and the army jumps, and Abhisit (nor would most politicians) be so dumb as to give a direct order to the army to shoot their own population.

[Moruya]

haha, all pick on carra again for having a view and asking questions, even telling me to get a life

i have a life thanks, a great life, but thanks for that posters concern. I also make it clear in my opening post that I am sure BOTH sides are to blame here so no attempt at a whitewash from my side, i wish some people would see my avatar for what it actually is and not its colour, it is for my football, not my thai politics.

And to the poster that asked what would happen in another country, well a couple of things, most other countries would not even have this situation as politically they are more mature and the army stays in its barracks, and the police deal with civil unrest in those countries, so quite what other countries have to do with this is beyond me, I would also like to point out that abhisit was born and raised in the UK so I would guess he already knows how other countries would deal with this.

Now someone was in charge of the country at this time, eitehr fairly or unfairly depending on how you see coups and party disbandment, he wasn't there because the majority of voters wanted him there but that is by the by, the fact is he was there and he was supposed to be running the country, the buck stops with him, I could; also ask in which other country would he still be walking free or have been allowed to continue as PM after nearly 100 people are dead either on his orders or he wasn't in control of the situation, which is it?

I am happy to debate with anyone, but if people can't have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal comments such as 'get a life' i really don't see why I should entertain their opinion if it is written along with juvenile comments such as this.

yes I can read, yes i read it, and yes I formed an opinion about it.

It is a simple question, if you did not give the order then who did give the order? do you know who gave the order, if so then tell us? did he give this order contrary to your orders? Was the order to just defend yourselves against direct threats? If so who gave the order to ignore this advice?

you can see guys there are so many questions here, put a neutral head for a minute and the questions that need answering are obvious. Put your yellow head on and as far as you are concerned everyone that died deserved to die.

Again I reiterate by concern is for the people that died on BOTH sides, get it? BOTH sides, I will say it again for the hard of thinking, BOTH sides, families from the victims on both sides deserve to know the truth, so come on abhisit, give the truth, no whitewash, no cover up.

so with over 2,500 dead people in Thaksin's war on drugs, someone should have clapped the handcuffs on?

[Thailand]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

A link to qualify your thoughts would be appropriate, or do you have access to information that is not available to others?

[saltandpepper]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

A link to qualify your thoughts would be appropriate, or do you have access to information that is not available to others?

Is common sense a good enough link?

Let me explain

There is no protestor at the place

Then, peaceful unarmed protestors show up, and start to disrupt the life of many

After many warnings, and a long time of occupation, officials decide to return the place to its "normal" use

Then the peaceful unarmed protestors start to shoot at the officials

Officials shoot back.....

Provided that the protestors were here following some "sponsor" request, who do you think is to blame for the situation?

[Thailand]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

A link to qualify your thoughts would be appropriate, or do you have access to information that is not available to others?

Is common sense a good enough link?

Let me explain

There is no protestor at the place

Then, peaceful unarmed protestors show up, and start to disrupt the life of many

After many warnings, and a long time of occupation, officials decide to return the place to its "normal" use

Then the peaceful unarmed protestors start to shoot at the officials

Officials shoot back.....

Provided that the protestors were here following some "sponsor" request, who do you think is to blame for the situation?

So basically no links, no proof to back up your claims and that of the other poster apart from your common sense and thoughts?

[koosdeboer]

one more theory. thaksin ordered some watermelon soldiers to shoot a few of his red friends in exchange of a few THB.

[jonclark]

The OP states that Abhisit didn't order the army to open fire on the crowds (a large grouping of people) That doesn't mean he told the army to not shoot at individuals who 'threaten' (read into that as you may) solider, officials etc. From memory if I remember correctly the army had a plan and systematically cleared the outer areas of the demo site of 'protestors' which is where most of the deaths (on both sides) took place. The majority of the crowd remained at the rachaprasong intersection (where very few deaths, if any) actually occurred . Only those involved in the 'defense' of the site engaged with the soldiers at the edges of the demonstration area and were fairly successful at holding them back for a few days. Now you don't hold back armed soldiers with flowers and kind words. So the question should be - how were they able to do so?

It maybe that they were using means that threatened the soldiers lives. At which point the rules of engagement allowed the soldiers shoot.

One question that has always puzzled me is this. Why, if the red leaders were so concerned with the welfare of their followers did they not instruct the crowd to disperse once it became clear the end game was near and they weren't going to win this battle. They had the power to stop this before many of the lives were lost. They have to hold some of the blame for failing to have the courage to make the difficult decisions that would have avoided the confrontation and bloodshed.

The red rally was a master stroke which backed the government into a corner however the leaders saw the showdown at rachaprasong as a glorious final battle which created red martyrs and i don't think they really cared who was killed for the cause.

A sad, silly, and avoidable waste of life in which all parties are partly to blame, some more than others.

[thaihome]

...And to the poster that asked what would happen in another country, well a couple of things, most other countries would not even have this situation as politically they are more mature and the army stays in its barracks, and the police deal with civil unrest in those countries, so quite what other countries have to do with this is beyond me, I would also like to point out that abhisit was born and raised in the UK so I would guess he already knows how other countries would deal with this.

You are aware of course that last August in the riots in the UK, the army was put on alert as it appeared the police would be unable to contain it. Your PM as stated he will not hesitate to call them out if it happens again. In the US, the Army and National Guard have been used several times in past to deal with civil unrest.

Now someone was in charge of the country at this time, eitehr fairly or unfairly depending on how you see coups and party disbandment, he wasn't there because the majority of voters wanted him there but that is by the by, the fact is he was there and he was supposed to be running the country, the buck stops with him, I could; also ask in which other country would he still be walking free or have been allowed to continue as PM after nearly 100 people are dead either on his orders or he wasn't in control of the situation, which is it?

In Thailand, the PM is not elected by a majority vote of the people. He (or she) is elected by a majority vote of the members of parliemnt. Abhisit was elected in such a way by elelcted MP's.

Why would Abhisit not be walking around free? Is there any proof he shot or even ordered people to be shot?

Rules of engagement were issued that soldiers were allowed to use live ammunition in three circumstances: as warning shots to deter demonstrators from moving closer; for self-defense; and when forces have “a clear visual of terrorists.”

There is little doubt that some ground level soldiers did not strictly follow these orders or were careless in following them resulting in unarmed people, that were in the immediate area of armed people that were engaging the Army, being shot at.

Can you name a head of state that has ever been not allowed from walking free in such a case?

A no confidence motion was raised and voted on in Parliament immediately after the 2010 protests and riots. That motion was defeated and Abhist continued as PM. Is that not how a democracy works?

I am happy to debate with anyone, but if people can't have a reasonable discussion without resorting to personal comments such as 'get a life' i really don't see why I should entertain their opinion if it is written along with juvenile comments such as this.

yes I can read, yes i read it, and yes I formed an opinion about it.

It is a simple question, if you did not give the order then who did give the order? do you know who gave the order, if so then tell us? did he give this order contrary to your orders? Was the order to just defend yourselves against direct threats? If so who gave the order to ignore this advice?

you can see guys there are so many questions here, put a neutral head for a minute and the questions that need answering are obvious. Put your yellow head on and as far as you are concerned everyone that died deserved to die.

Again I reiterate by concern is for the people that died on BOTH sides, get it? BOTH sides, I will say it again for the hard of thinking, BOTH sides, families from the victims on both sides deserve to know the truth, so come on abhisit, give the truth, no whitewash, no cover up.

These are amazingly disingenuous statements. You first come out with half truths, hyperbole and UDD one sided propaganda as proven by my rebuttals to your previous statements, then you want others to “put a neutral head for a minute” and answer the questions that need to answered.

The problem is those questions are not the ones that need answering.

What needs to answered is who funded and organized the armed faction of the UDD?

Who gave the order to attack the Army on April 10^th

Who organized and directed the attacks on the Army during May 15-19^th at Rama IV and Ding Denag, (which incidentally are well outside the protest area)?

Who organized and directed armed opposition to the Army on May 19^th on Ratchadamri Rd (which resulted in a soldier being killed and many more injured by grenades) and on Rama I in front of the Wat Phatum Wanaram (in which the 6 people killed were caught in the cross fire)?

Who organized and directed the arson attacks on not just Central World but the flagship Big C store and its adjacent corporate headquarters, the Stock Exchange of Thailand, the Bangkok Metropolitan Electricity Authority district station, the Water Authority district station, the historic Siam and Scala cinemas in Siam Square, Center One store near the Victory Monument, and a significant number of branches of the Bangkok Bank?

You seem little interested in those questions, instead insisting on “the truth, no whitewash, no cover up”. I don’t think you are interested in the truth and whether you know it or not, you are an active promoter of the ongoing whitewash.

Curious if you read the HRW report “Decent into Chaos”? At this point, it gives the best and most objective account of what happened. It pulls no punches for either side. Worth noting, it has been completely rejected by the UDD, its paid lobbyist, and the apologists such as you.

TH

Edited June 21, 2012 by thaihome

[MunterHunter]

Pretty certain that if i was in the military or police force and deployed to contain civil unrest, if i faced armed civilians with intent to do me harm... i'd shoot one of them (to wound, at least) - i don't need an order from the PM, DPM or some bureaucrat sat in parliament with no frigging idea of whats going on outside of his own rose-tinted glasses...

Does that make me a criminal, or a survivor?

Edited June 21, 2012 by MunterHunter

[Nickymaster]

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

A link to qualify your thoughts would be appropriate, or do you have access to information that is not available to others?

Just proof me wrong.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Yunla]

I would also like to know if Thaksin's trip to Russia in March 2010, in which he sent a televised broadcast to his redshirt followers, if this trip had any connection with his friend the democratically-challenged Mister Putin, who Thaksin had weapons contracts with since 2003.

Why did Thaksin go to Russia in March 2010 when redmob were first marching in Bangkok. Did Thaksin go see his friend Mister Putin. Did that meeting or other meetings in Russia have any connection with the mysterious black-clad caucasian snipers who appeared amongst the redmob a month later. Thaksin made no official comment as to his business in Russia during the redmob occupation of Bangkok. Maybe he was just soaking up the atmosphere there.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yunla