phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So by what you're saying above, only red shirt protesters, journalists, medics and non aligned citizens who were "provoking" the security forces by shooting at them were shot dead? No. I am saying that the army did NOT "open fire unprovoked, on unarmed people". How do you know that? How can you even say that for sure. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiOats Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Can't believe we're still trying to blame it on the government and military, it just shows how deeply bias some people are. Is it illegal to own firearms and is it okay to wave it around in public space? I don't give a **** who you are but if you're not of authority (police or military) you SHOULD NOT be walking around with firearms. There is absolutely no way you can defend the acts of civilians carrying weapons and tools for arson into a city. All these red shirt apologists seem to not care about self reflection and looking at their own side of things. No guns, no deaths. Why complicate things? You can speculate all you want but all you have to do is look at the cause which Yunla mentioned in her post. What is the cause for the military to come out, please answer this question and we'll take it from there. Don't spin it, just answer the dam_n question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Why else would you sign a command to use live ammunition? For protection from "unarmed, peaceful" protesters. Being unarmed didn't seem to help at government house and Thaicom. Or at the Wat even............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So by what you're saying above, only red shirt protesters, journalists, medics and non aligned citizens who were "provoking" the security forces by shooting at them were shot dead? No. I am saying that the army did NOT "open fire unprovoked, on unarmed people". How do you know that? How can you even say that for sure. Really. I can say that as easily as anyone can say that they were unprovoked, although with the ample evidence of there being armed protesters firing on the army, it is highly probable that there was a lot of provocation going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansnl Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. Quite clear you were never in a life threatening situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 For protection from "unarmed, peaceful" protesters. Being unarmed didn't seem to help at government house and Thaicom. Or at the Wat even............................. .... where it is unknown what was going on. The evidence that there was bullet damage to the BTS pillars shows that there was more shooting going on than the red shirts like to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... Guilt by who? Who is trying to stop any enquiries? Who is trying give amnesty for everything and who is prepared to have their day in court? Sent from my shoe phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... Guilt by who? Who is trying to stop any enquiries? Who is trying give amnesty for everything and who is prepared to have their day in court? Sent from my shoe phone Sorry, I no longer respond to heels and shoe phones.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry, I no longer respond to heels and shoe phones.......... And there you are, responding to shoe phones ... Is the question any less valid because of where it was posted from? Or is it just that you want to avoid answering simple questions? Sent from my shoe phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) I m really not fond of Thaksin and for sure he took a part in this bloody event, but a new version of an old theme thanks for the variation. . Edited June 21, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 For protection from "unarmed, peaceful" protesters. Being unarmed didn't seem to help at government house and Thaicom. Or at the Wat even............................. .... where it is unknown what was going on. The evidence that there was bullet damage to the BTS pillars shows that there was more shooting going on than the red shirts like to believe. And the police investigation team interrogated the army soldiers who were on the tracks who said they were firing at men in black in the wat who were firing at them but then the army spokesman says there were no army guys on the skytrack because the men in black were up there already and keeping them pinned down in Chaloem Pao station by shooting at them. The army insist they did not kill anybody at the wat, because the guns that killed them although they were army guns were stolen. According to the other paper................ Wait until it finishes, there's plenty more b/s where that came from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... Guilt by who? Who is trying to stop any enquiries? Who is trying give amnesty for everything and who is prepared to have their day in court? Sent from my shoe phone Who is covered by the emergency decree they decided was necessary 3 days before an order to use live ammunition is signed? Who leant on Tharit by threatening him with losing his job so that he would delay the investigations into the killings. Who set up an investigation committee into the events of 2010 but gave them no power to call witnesses? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellodolly Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. Only a Idiot would think they were ordered to fire live ammo on the protesters. If they had the death toll would have been in the thousands. The only one's shooting into the masses was the red shirts. The army was defending itself. This whole thing is nothing but a farce. Every one knows it was all staged at Thaksins bidding. What kind of a moron would think the red shirts could carry on what they did with out retribution. The saddest part was that they had a deal to end it all and backed out of it because Thaksin didn't like it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 What is less surprising, the 105 replies on this topic, the massive amount of 'facts', or the total lack of any new evidence over the last 1-1/2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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 I guess that scenario clearly outlines how the first person shot was a protester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 - deleted - Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... Guilt by who? Who is trying to stop any enquiries? Who is trying give amnesty for everything and who is prepared to have their day in court? Sent from my shoe phone Who is covered by the emergency decree they decided was necessary 3 days before an order to use live ammunition is signed? Who leant on Tharit by threatening him with losing his job so that he would delay the investigations into the killings. Who set up an investigation committee into the events of 2010 but gave them no power to call witnesses? who called the protesters "terrorists" before they even assembled in Bangkok? Our friend who will testify on the 27th... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yunla Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. Jean Charles De Menezes was shot point blank in the head seven times after he lay down on the floor and said in clear voice heard by eyewitnesses "I give up". He was suspected because he wore a big coat in summer, and because he jumped the ticket barrier and kept running when asked to stop. Infact witnesses reported he wore a shirt, paid for the ticket at the ticket-barrier and did not run at all, and when confronted by the hit squad he surrendered immediately and looked at them "as if he recognised them" (eyewitness statement). To me it looks like a classic intelligence hit. Why idk. Re; Police using live ammunition in democratic countries, it is true that the redmob would not have been allowed to blockade central London or Paris etc. for three months, wave machetes and rifles around, burn tyres and pour blood around. In all honesty, in London they would have got 2 to 3 hours heavily-policed demo time and then told to go home. If any of them had started any trouble they would have been arrested immediately, by riot-squad who knock you down hard and they really don't care if you like it or not. If there had been serious danger to police, armed units would be brought in, who have live rounds. It is last resort though. Police prefer to kettle and generally push people out of the area. A gentleman died from being pushed to the ground a few years ago, he wasn't even a protester he was newspaper-seller on his way home, a passer-by and these riot-squad guys pushed him down superhard and he got heart attack. But that is for normal protesters. If the protesters had machetes and handguns (like the redshirts had) then armed police would have shot them with live ammunition if they were seen threatening with a weapon and refused to yield. People who complain about the redmob only being allowed to protest for three months in the capital city, and bring the whole area to its knees, without the govt or army stepping in for over ten weeks, are living in fairyland. In most democratic countries the police would have moved in at the end of day one, with whatever force was necessary. England certainly would. Edited June 22, 2012 by Yunla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 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. It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow. . The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform. When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile. To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post whybother Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted June 22, 2012 The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform. When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile. To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto. I doubt anyone thinks that with Thaksin gone all the problems would be solved. What it would do is allow the red shirts and other poor people to start fighting to fix their own problems, rather than fighting to fix Thaksin's. Many anti-red shirts on this forum agree that the poor need a better deal. But, they also believe that bringing back Thaksin won't help with that. Sent from my shoe phone 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yunla Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform. When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile. To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto. Obviously Thailand has huge infrastructure, law-enforcement and human-rights work including economic-equality and basic meritocracy, that is essential for it to become a healthy 21st century democracy. Removing Thaksin and sister and the rest of their nepotist gang from the corridors of power would not immediately cure Thailand's crime or inequality or degraded infrastructure. You are very correct in that. However. For Thailand to become successful it needs an honest leadership with a serious law-and-order stance. That is the first step. If Yingluck was campaigning on a purely law and order reformist platform, and putting all her effort into priority bills in parliament for uprooting corruption at all levels from state down, then we would have a government who can take the first small step to fulfilling Thailand's amazing and hitherto squandered potential. But that is the problem with your theory. You can not eradicate corruption or be tough on law enforcement, when your brother is an on-the-run convicted criminal, or when most of your cabinet ministers have a criminal record or are out on bail, and your main policy bill is trying to overturn a supreme court conviction along nepotist lines. Having a law-abiding government, with a very strong rigorous policy platform on law and order, and a zero tolerance policy on corruption, is the 'only game in town', without such a government things will only get worse than they already are. Edited June 22, 2012 by Yunla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform. When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile. To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto. Obviously Thailand has huge infrastructure, law-enforcement and human-rights work including economic-equality and basic meritocracy, that is essential for it to become a healthy 21st century democracy. Removing Thaksin and sister and the rest of their nepotist gang from the corridors of power would not immediately cure Thailand's crime or inequality or degraded infrastructure. You are very correct in that. However. For Thailand to become successful it needs an honest leadership with a serious law-and-order stance. That is the first step. If Yingluck was campaigning on a purely law and order reformist platform, and putting all her effort into priority bills in parliament for uprooting corruption at all levels from state down, then we would have a government who can take the first small step to fulfilling Thailand's amazing and hitherto squandered potential. But that is the problem with your theory. You can not eradicate corruption or be tough on law enforcement, when your brother is an on-the-run convicted criminal, or when most of your cabinet ministers have a criminal record or are out on bail, and your main policy bill is trying to overturn a supreme court conviction along nepotist lines. Having a law-abiding government, with a very strong rigorous policy platform on law and order, and a zero tolerance policy on corruption, is the 'only game in town', without such a government things will only get worse than they already are. I'm not denying that Thaksin is a poisonous influence.At the same time though not part of the traditional elite he shares many of their values.Picking up Whybother's point you could even argue he has been a restraining influence (hard to credit in early 2010 but very credible now).If he was eliminated, given the tinderbox that is Thailand, it's not quite clear whout rough beast would slouch its way to Bethlehem to be born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. He was Brazilian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform. When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile. To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto. I doubt anyone thinks that with Thaksin gone all the problems would be solved. What it would do is allow the red shirts and other poor people to start fighting to fix their own problems, rather than fighting to fix Thaksin's. Many anti-red shirts on this forum agree that the poor need a better deal. But, they also believe that bringing back Thaksin won't help with that. Sent from my shoe phone Fair points sensibly made (though I believe it is rather more than the poor needing a better deal.The Thai poor have actually done rather well in the last 30 years) My intervention was really just to note the lack of logic of chipping in that it's not possible to express concern about these divisions yet at the same time distancing oneself from Thaksin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Personally, I believe there was and that is the core of the problem. There is a chain of command and shoot to kill actions were authorised, presumably at the highest level. That is why an enquiry is required and that is why an enquiry will not happen. Guilt and all that......... The enquiry is taking place. That's what the thread is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people? Why else would you sign a command to use live ammunition? Who signed such a command? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 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 I guess that scenario clearly outlines how the first person shot was a protester. By whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MunterHunter Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. He was Brazilian Does that somehow make it ok? Does that mean he has less human rights or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moruya Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building. Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd... But not in Thailand apparently More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases? "no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people" Tell that to the guy who was shot by police in the London underground. He was Brazilian Does that somehow make it ok? Does that mean he has less human rights or something... Not in the least. But it was not the Brits firing on their own people as had been suggested. It was a police operation that went horribly wrong and an innocent man was brutally killed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 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 I guess that scenario clearly outlines how the first person shot was a protester. Please show evidence of that amazing claim. As the HRW report clearly shows, the first shooting (as opposed to the grenade attacks against various Army posts) was about 8:00PM at Din So Road. At that point several molotov cocktails and grenades were thrown at the soldiers. As the soldiers continued towards the protestors they were confrunted by "well-armed men who fired M16 and AK-47 assault rifles. Video evidence shows many wounded soldiers wounded laying on the ground bleeding. "Human Rights Watch investigations concluded this group consisted of Black Shirts deployed among the UDD protesters." There are several videos that show this group within the ranks of the UDD protestors. TH 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now