New Mandala

63 responses so far ↓

• 1 Expert Report Cites Deliberate Killings of Civilians by Thai Military | Robert Amsterdam Thailand // Jan 30, 2011 at 12:49 pm

  [...] Download a copy of the report over at New Mandala. [...]

  Quality comment or not? 3  0

• 2 Tweets that mention Expert testimony alleges criminal acts by Thai army in April-May 2010 -- Topsy.com // Jan 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm

  [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert Amsterdam, Robert Amsterdam, Robert Amsterdam, UDDThailand, Omar Havana and others. Omar Havana said: RT @farangone: Royal Thai Army provoked the crowd to violence, says one witness. http://bit.ly/ewD8hB [...]

  Quality comment or not? 1  0

• 3 David Brown // Jan 30, 2011 at 1:03 pm

  thanks for reporting this

  good to see professionals assembling evidence

  with/without the ICC these reports will have lasting value

  Quality comment or not? 23  1

• 4 Octavian // Jan 30, 2011 at 1:56 pm

  All we want is justice and the rights we’re told we are entitled to under law. Let’s hope for just that.

  Quality comment or not? 10  2

• 5 LesAbbey // Jan 30, 2011 at 2:06 pm

  There is so much that can be criticized in both the military and civilian forces response to the UDD protest of April/May 2010, and yet Amsterdam has to turn it into a propaganda piece. I guess this must be because he considers it unlikely the ICC will take any action, so the only benefit to his paymaster is the propaganda effect.

  Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.

  The problem with Amsterdam’s output is that it is written for an audience that has no other knowledge of what has been going on in Thailand this century. He attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies. The reason being that getting your story in first is a good defense.

  The shame is that the Thai army is obviously not well trained in crowd control right up to the very top of its organization and should be getting criticism for this. That the civilian police force was not willing to do its duty at the time for whatever reasons, including political and financial, tends to suggest that as a force it needs the decentralizing reforms that have been talked about before.

  Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office is now so suspect that it’s very hard to give it any credence. The only thing that surprised me was that he didn’t pull his expert out of one of the many Pattaya bars where he could find plenty of supposed Green Berets, SAS and Russian Spetsnaz.

  Hot debate. What do you think? Quality comment or not? 20  78

• 6 Lalida // Jan 30, 2011 at 4:54 pm

  Not questioning the content or the Professionalism of Mr. Witty, I’m sure every word of his expertise make valid point of how the Thai Military murderers hurts and kills our people but will his professionalism be recognized at the ICC in this case?

  The Thai military regime can simply argue that “What’s it got to do with him and that what he’d said and mentioned it’s only his “opinion” not facts of the incident”. Also, where can his testimonials comes in?

  Quality comment or not? 5  1

• 7 James // Jan 30, 2011 at 5:14 pm

  “Am I reading this marine sergeant’s report correctly that the killing of Romklao was done by someone in uniform, standing close by, rolling a grenade into the group of soldiers? I didn’t notice anything about Seh Daeng and Thahan Phran elements either.” That’s what someone well placed told me had happened long ago, well before I read this report. Apparently they just sank back into the mass of troops after they’d done it. An ‘inside’ job I suppose, except the guys that threw the grenades were water melon soldiers working on behalf of a clique of generals opposed to Burapa Payak.

  What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. Did Witty not see videos like this: http://youtu.be/XXr-o9f06ec – ? Not acknowledging such evidence seems a foolhardy tactic since the several good points Witty makes become easily dismissible by those who wish to excuse the Thai army for its actions in April/May. Even though making mention of evidence like this might seem to weaken their argument, it actually strengthens it because otherwise “expert reports” like this just become one sided exercises in the absurd. And, as I say, it becomes easy to dismiss the experts Amsterdam employs as just paid propagandists. At least consider all the evidence and dismiss it in the report, if there’s good reason to dismiss it. Don’t just ignore it…

  Quality comment or not? 13  5

• 8 Goon Squad // Jan 30, 2011 at 5:58 pm

  @James

  Weren’t the MiB more likely linked to elements in the military than the Red Shirts?

  To then diminish the rest of this statement as it can’t explain something no one else has been able to is an argument lacking in cogency, intellectual rigour and legal basis.

  Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them? Do you think that nobody should attempt to explain the events that night until every single fact and shred of evidence becomes available? Everything, from the death of Hiro, to the grenade that killed Romklao, points to the Thai army starting this all off, without any real provocation. Eyeball witnesses report that army snipers just started shooting at people. Ask yourself – does the Thai military seem capable of this? Have they ever done it before?

  Quality comment or not? 20  5

• 9 MalcLeigh // Jan 30, 2011 at 6:10 pm

  I am wondering if the 10 or so who hit the thumbs down on LesAbbey’s comment has any reasons/rebuttals for doing so?

  Quality comment or not? 5  31

• 10 Steve // Jan 30, 2011 at 9:41 pm

  LesAbbey (#5) says “He [Amsterdam] attempts to answer possible criticism of his paymaster’s side before those criticisms are made by telling lies”.

  What “lies” exactly? Just what is it that makes “Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office….. now so suspect”?

  In response to MalcLeigh’s wondering (#9), I’ll point out that LesAbbey hasn’t yet produced anything here to rebut – just more of the same unsubstantiated mocking that seems to be his substitute for criticism. I can’t speak for others, but that certainly rates a thumbs-down from me.

  Highly rated. Quality comment or not? 38  3

• 11 LesAbbey // Jan 30, 2011 at 9:45 pm

  Well I guess we can say it was all the army’s fault if we class Seh Daeng as army, which of course he was. The Thahan Phran were army irregulars as well so we can blame the military for them too. That’s pretty good for Amsterdam because then the UDD and Thaksin become blameless. Now if only he can somehow pin the whole thing on Prem it would be a perfect testimony.

  Quality comment or not? 7  30

• 12 Preview of second Amsterdam and Peroff report | Political Prisoners in Thailand // Jan 30, 2011 at 10:44 pm

  [...] readers who haven’t yet seen it, New Mandala has one witness account that is said to be from the second report on behalf of the UDD, to the [...]

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 13 Roger // Jan 30, 2011 at 10:53 pm

  I am pretty sure that the crowd at Imperial Ladprao tomorrow will be delighted to see that injustice and violent actions against innocent people will be shown throughout the world via a video link. The Abhisit regime and its ammat backers will have another sleepless nights. However, I wonder if they dare to shut down internet like what Egypt did two days ago.

  Quality comment or not? 12  2

• 14 Tarrin // Jan 31, 2011 at 1:38 am

  James – 10

  “What destroys this report’s credibility is that it’s dismissive of the men in black’s role on the 10th, despite very good evidence that they were present. ”

  His argument was that the military had taken up position in such a way that prohibit any unnoticeable access to the protest venue. Based on that assumption its impossible for the MiB to be someone from the outside.

  Quality comment or not? 8  0

• 15 James // Jan 31, 2011 at 1:39 am

  Goon Squad: “Who were the MiB? Who knows? Can you explain them?” Sure. The MiB on the 10th were highly trained soldiers (probably serving soldiers) sent by the clique of generals I mentioned before. Many of these generals are – or have been – close to Thaksin, but their main motivation wasn’t helping the red shirts, but instead their opposition to Prayuth and Burapa Payak. So you can blame the military and factionalism within it if you want I suppose, it wouldn’t have happened if the red shirts weren’t there, but it’s not their fault either. I gather that the plan was to kill more soldiers, but it was called off part way through. I don’t think the red shirt leaders knew these MiB would appear on April 10th beforehand, and I’m not entirely sure they were told the full details after.

  Seh Daeng was shot in revenge for this incident, but I think he was just a convenient scapegoat for both sides and had nothing to do with it. However, the “men in black” in action after the 10th were a different group and likely they were some of the ordinary red shirt guards that had got weapons from the military or the ronin trained by Seh Daeng. I’m not saying the UDD leaders supported this either (we can’t know for sure), but it’s hard to believe they were unaware that there were armed militants amongst them.

  Of course, this is just my informed speculation. I don’t know for sure, but it’s interesting that what the source told me many months ago (about the grenades thrown by hand etc) is detailed in this report. Anyway, GS, MiB played the key role in what happened on the 10th, so to dismiss them entirely or just not mention them when there’s clear evidence that they fired upon troops does make the report seem rather a futile exercise. That alone shouldn’t mean that other points should be dismissed, but it certainly makes it easier to do so for those who seem to be determined to excuse irresponsible/criminal actions carried out by the military.

  It also plays into ridiculous conspiracy theories that is was all a set up by the army, there’s no evidence for that and none given in this report either. I don’t know why people persist with this line as it just makes them seem stupid & naive and discredits them entirely. Why is it hard to admit for many red shirts (& moreover many of their farang supporters) that there were MiB involved and they were either there because they were red shirts themselves and believed in the cause (MiB after 10th) or because of the intra-elite/military struggle (10th)?

  The bulk of the fault still lies with the army as post April 10 there are numerous witness accounts that has the army shooting people with no militants in sight. And we should also remember that an election could’ve been called at any point to avoid bloodshed. But red shirts would do well to look at some of their own leaders, mainly, I’d suggest, the departed Seh Daeng and Thaksin. Without these two, I don’t think armed elements would’ve got involved and it would’ve been a more or less peaceful protest (bar molotov cocktails, rocks etc). Would so many protesters have then been shot if the government didn’t have the excuse of the MiB? I believe some would’ve been shot anyway, but nowhere near as many and the government would have entirely lost legitimacy. Thaksin was, of course, the main problem. The generals probably wouldn’t have got involved if it weren’t for him and red shirt leaders couldn’t get rid of Seh Daeng even if they wanted to, due to his proximity to Thaksin. Therefore one can’t help wondering if Thaksin really cares about the lives of ordinary red shirts, or whether he sees them as just fodder for his cause?

  Quality comment or not? 15  5

• 16 sam deedes // Jan 31, 2011 at 1:43 am

  It is not difficult to flaunt the rules of engagement when those in your rifle sights have been consistently portrayed as not only “unThai” but also little more than animals. This is not an exaggeration. Listen to how a red shirt is referred to in Thai as “it” (มัน man) rather than “he” or “she” (เขา kao) by the opposition.

  As far as the International Criminal Court is concerned, the Bangkok Post reports that the ICC has no jurisdiction over alleged crimes on Thai territory because Thailand is not a state party to the Rome statute.

  ICC vice-president Hans-Peter Kaul suggests There is no doubt in my mind that all of the 114 state parties of the court – among them Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh and Cambodia – would like to see Thailand as a partner in the ICC.

  A positive first step could be the elaboration of a proper translation of the Rome Statute into the Thai language

  On a related topic I would also like to see a decent copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Thai freely available in bookshops here. Unfortunately the copy on the United Nations website is virtually unreadable. Does anyone at New Mandala have the means to improve it?

  Quality comment or not? 9  0

• 17 Dan D // Jan 31, 2011 at 2:19 am

  @MalcLeigh, objectivity is not a criteria for rating of a comment nor is any reasoning/rebuttal required as you surely must know by now.

  Quality comment or not? 3  5

• 18 Lalida // Jan 31, 2011 at 4:57 am

  It is quite obvious there’s one, two or three posters here who are more interested in criticize anyone, anything that are related to Thaksin instead of the report itself or whatever the author had written…so I say, there’s no point debating with them as you will only be talking to a wall…

  Quality comment or not? 18  3

• 19 LesAbbey // Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 pm

  Those who consider themselves even slightly progressive should look closely at whose office this report comes out. Robert Amsterdam does legal and PR work for billionaires, usually Russian oligarchs. Thaksin fits very easily into his client list. This is what money can buy.

  For Thaksin everything has a price. He bought an election to become CEO prime minister and he has tried to buy a putsch. So far he hasn’t succeeded but I’m sure he hasn’t given up.

  Quality comment or not? 10  31

• 20 Tarrin // Jan 31, 2011 at 2:21 pm

  LesAbbey -

  You attack the man’s word not the man.

  Furthermore, how getting rid of Thaksin will make Thailand a better place? was he the first PM to get accuse to vote buying? certainly not, even Chuan at a point in time got accused of the same charge.

  Quality comment or not? 18  4

• 21 Billy King // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:09 pm

  LesAbbey’s opinions is against the popular Thais who have long been wanting Democracy for over 30 years, LesAbbey is just a puppet of the present regime whose words have absolutely no justification.

  Quality comment or not? 21  4

• 22 Andrew Walker // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:44 pm

  Enough. This thread is not going to become a debate about Les Abbey. Let’s focus on the substantial issues raised by the post and the report. AW

  Quality comment or not? 7  0

• 23 SteveCM // Jan 31, 2011 at 6:01 pm

  So LesAbbey (#19) doesn’t like Amsterdam’s client list….. Hard to say if this constitutes his entire [cough] “rationale” for saying “Anything coming out of Amsterdam’s office is now so suspect that it’s very hard to give it any credence.” but, ever the realist, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for more…..

  Which leaves the still unanswered question I raised before:

  What “lies” exactly?

  ——————–

  PS > Noting that there are posts from another “Steve” elsewhere on NM, to avoid confusion I’ll post as “SteveCM” from now on.

  Quality comment or not? 2  0

• 24 SteveCM // Jan 31, 2011 at 7:06 pm

  Have to agree with much of what Goon Squad (#8) says…..

  There were two separate grenade incidents. One (presumed to be M79-launched) takes out Col Romklao and other officers in their command tent in Tanao Road, north of Khok Wua intersection. The other (two grenades, in fact) impacts several soldiers at the south end of Dinso Road – facing the Democracy Monument (aerial photo/map for orientation here: http://www.mypicx.com/01302011/10_April_2010/ )

  Concentrating on the latter, given that there were reportedly persons as yet unknown on the upper floors/roof of the Sattri Witthaya school, the eastern end of which overlooks the location of the grenade impacts in Dinso Road, I’m puzzled that Witty doesn’t at least examine the possibility of the grenades having been lobbed down from there.

  Looking at the video recorded by thaiFAQ ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8X1rRxHjtE ) from the far side of the Democracy Monument, in the background there are what appear to be four separate muzzle flashes from three separate points at the school; a comment on the video at the YouTube site details them as follows:

  - 3.00 Sniper #1 (3rd room left, under the rooftop)
  - 3.03 Sniper #2 (2nd room left, rooftop)
  - 3.36 Sniper #3 (1st room left, rooftop)
  - 3.37 Sniper #2 fires again

  Nick Nostitz is also explicit that there was at least one sniper shooting from the school ( http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/ ).

  The key point about this has been raised before: how is it that the troop deployment didn’t include “occupying the high ground” i.e. the elevated vantage points provided by the school and its roof? Unless, of course, the deployment did include that…..

  And if it did, it’s worth noting that a soi (Damnoen Klang Neua) runs west from the school to the rear of the Government Lottery Office (GLO) building on the corner of Dinso Road. The GLO is the white building which does feature in Witty’s report (para #41) as being the site of “shooters firing rifles from the third floor balcony”. There’s a much-seen video of MiB gunmen emerging from and retreating into this soi from Dinso Road after firing several street-level shots up the road (i.e. north) from the cover of the colonnade. I’m no military tactician but, given that the Army was deployed in positions on two north-south roads, it seems inconceivable that they would not have secured the soi that runs east-west between them.

  I don’t see Witty’s report providing comprehensive proof positive of who did what to whom. But – contrary to all the statements from Abhisit and the Army (even though they have been steadily backtracking as more evidence emerges) – it does establish that the Army were clearly not following the Rules of Engagement claimed for them….. nor were their equipment, deployment and tactics consistent with what it was claimed they were there to do.

  I don’t see the report establishing beyond doubt a clear intent (as described in the second half of para “f” in the summary) on the part of the Army to inflict death and injury on the protesters – but I do think it compiles a detailed and compelling case of at least reckless and by most standards almost certainly criminal action for them to answer (even if that answering is unlikely to be to the ICC).

  In theory, it also just might be enough to stoke effective demands for autopsy and other forensic evidence to be published – and for the Army to provide information they have so far flatly refused to provide. In practice, that all still seems highly unlikely.

  Quality comment or not? 21  0

• 25 LesAbbey // Jan 31, 2011 at 8:03 pm

  Wasn’t there a report at the time or shortly after that Romklao’s group had been pointed to with a laser pointer before the grenade was fired or tossed? I didn’t see this in the sergeant’s report. Was it there and I missed it?

  Quality comment or not? 1  2

• 26 Geoff Osborn // Jan 31, 2011 at 8:41 pm

  People < Thai TV channel 5 was broadcasting live at Din Daeng intersection in daylight during April and filmed the execution of an unarmed Thai Army driver, shot point blank by a red shirt as he lay on the ground begging.
  The shooter was masked but in a red shirt and the others who beat the driver down and then threw his body into a pickup were bare faced.

  Lets start with this one first before getting to the other deaths and injuries caused by reds. After that, with the moral high ground you can start on the army.

  Dont forget the lady killed while waiting for her child at the Sala Daeng BTS. The reds fired an M79 -also on TV and it came through the roof and killed her. The shooters thought it was funny and giggled like small children.

  Quality comment or not? 7  23

• 27 Nick Nostitz // Jan 31, 2011 at 11:20 pm

  “Geoff Osborn”:

  In April were no clashes in DinDaeng intersection.

  The PAD protester killed from the M79 was a protester at the Silom/Rama IV intersection, and not at Saladaeng BTS. The grenades that landed at the BTS station caused minor injuries.
  Nobody has seen the shooters, how could you know that they “thought it was funny and giggled like small children”?

  “SteveCM”:

  Romklao and the other officers were hit by an M67 hand grenade at Dinso, not by an M79 at Khok Wua – there was initially some misreporting about the location.
  There definitely was at least one sniper on the school, and he fired at Red Shirts, i just arrived from Khok Wua then, and hid behind a tank when he fired his most likely last round.

  There are still too many missing pieces to make a conclusive judgment on April 10. What is clear though that the military has been at least incompetent, if not worse, by having started their operation in those locations too late in the afternoon and not retreated before sunset.

  As to the claims of soldiers having used buckshot instead of rubber bullets – i have seen this on the clash at Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd on April 28, where some soldiers ran out of rubber bullets, loaded and fired buckshot instead. That was the day where the soldier was killed through friendly fire, right in front of us.

  Quality comment or not? 27  3

• 28 BKK lawyer // Feb 1, 2011 at 12:45 am

  Regarding jurisdiction, Amsterdam is apparently arguing that the ICC has jurisdiction over Abhisit based on his UK citizenship.

  That might also offer multiple grounds for ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed under Thaksin.

  Quality comment or not? 3  2

• 29 Ralph Kramden // Feb 1, 2011 at 12:49 am

  Is Geoff Osborn isn’t making this up, where are the links to the evidence for each claim made?

  Quality comment or not? 8  0

• 30 GeorgeM // Feb 1, 2011 at 1:11 am

  The testimony in the ICC filing from a high ranking Thai Army officer in regard to Thai Army preparations and planning for the violent crackdown against Thailand’s Red Shirt protesters is very detailed and presents a devastating portrait of the present Thai government and army’s fierce and ruthless determination to wipe out all organized resistance to the military coup that overthrow the elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006…

  What the officer describes in great detail is a classic playbook for the anti-democracy side of the equation in the modern world and a must-read…………

  https://thaipoliticalprisoners.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/anonymous-witness-no-22-copy.pdf

  Quality comment or not? 8  0

• 31 SteveCM // Feb 1, 2011 at 2:23 am

  Nick (#27), thanks for the correction. What you say about Romklao’s location had previously been my understanding and I only revised it when I saw that the Witty report (para 38) placed Romklao’s command post on Tanao Road. My slack thinking in not allowing that, of course, he was likely to move between locations. I also recall comment that it was thought unusual for such senior officers to be so far forward.

  You’re right about there being too many missing pieces – and I’ll repeat that it’s notable the Army has resolutely withheld the ones they have. I suspect I’m not the only one who thinks that the clearer picture that would emerge with them in place would likely prove at least highly compromising to those involved.

  Quality comment or not? 4  0

• 32 SteveCM // Feb 1, 2011 at 8:03 am

  GeorgeM (#30) – be aware of the following that Amsterdam acknowledges:

  “The evidence presented in this Application includes a compilation of information provided by a number of active-duty officers of the Royal Thai Army about the planning and execution of the military response to the Red Shirts. They testify collectively – under the designation Anonymous Witness No. 22″

  ——–

  As nobody has yet mentioned a link to download the complete submission, here are a couple:

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/47870740/47833346-Red-Shirts-Application-to-the-International-Criminal-Court-to-Investigate-Crimes-against-Humanity-in-Thailand

  http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ICC-Petition-Final-with-Appendix.pdf

  Quality comment or not? 2  0

• 33 SteveCM // Feb 1, 2011 at 4:24 pm

  Further to what I quoted in #32 (which may leave some querying the reason for amalgamating the testimonies) there’s also this:

  “The Statement of Anonymous Witness No. 22 is an amalgamation of the testimony provided by a number of high-ranking, active-duty officers in the Royal Thai Army, who have provided information anonymously because they would be in grave danger if the Thai military and/or government were to learn their identities.

  These witnesses are known to Applicant’s counsel, and would be made available to the ICC Prosecutor, provided acceptable measures were in place to ensure their safety and the safety of their families. The statements were merged to render the individuals who risked their lives and careers to provide testimonies more difficult to identify.”

  Fair to say (as I’m sure some will – just in a more colourful/coloured way), merging the testimonies also makes the chronological sequence of events as related significantly easier to follow for the non-legal layman….. a readership that I’m sure Amsterdam has in mind just as much as (and arguably more than) the ICC.

  Quality comment or not? 1  0

• 34 Leah Hoyt // Feb 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm

  Nick (or others)

  Geoff Osborn also said:

  “Dont forget the lady killed while waiting for her child at the Sala Daeng BTS. The reds fired an M79 -also on TV and it came through the roof and killed her.

  What do you think is a reliable assessment of who fired the M79 grenades at the BTS station?

  These are almost universally blamed on the reds. However, I recall media reports afterwards citing witnesses who saw the rounds come out of an upper floor on Chula Hospital, which would indicate military involvement. I have also heard other stories from people nearby that seemed to indicate a source within the red protest zone.

  Has there been a serious effort to determine who fired? Are the results conclusive?

  Broadly, I continue to think it is crucial that the Thai public know who is behind these various bombings. I don’t think there is adequate visibility on the investigations for those on the outside to form much of an opinion based on facts. Yet most of us have pretty strong opinions.

  Quality comment or not? 8  0

• 35 R. N. England // Feb 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm

  Octavian (32). I wouldn’t be too outraged about the presence in Thailand of those who are against justice. It isn’t possible to support both a patronage hierarchy and the rule of just laws. Anybody who draws attention to this is answered with something like, “How could you possibly understand? You are either not Thai, or you are an importer of concepts that are undermining our culture.” The answer for them, is that patronage hierarchies, which are found fully developed in troupes of monkeys or packs of dogs, are about power, not culture. In fact they threaten every culture.

  Quality comment or not? 11  0

• 36 Tarrin // Feb 1, 2011 at 6:30 pm

  Geoff Osborn -25
  As response to Ralph Kramden – 28

  I think the clip in question was this

  http://www.bloggang.com/viewblog.php?id=blossoms&date=15-05-2010&group=18&gblog=8

  However, the report was smart enough to cut about half of the clip away, if you view the first half you will know that it was actually the soldier who point the gun at the red first, and yes, there’s no soldier shot at point blank. Unfortunately the guy who post the video on youtube got his account banned for some reason, I will get the link to the video as soon as I can.

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 37 David Brown // Feb 1, 2011 at 9:18 pm

  Leah Hoyt #33

  was there also a report of a BTS train driver that reported a flash from the Dusit Thani(?) just prior to the grenade at the station?

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 38 BKK lawyer // Feb 2, 2011 at 3:38 am

  Leah Hoyt @33:

  NNT reported on 5 May (http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255305050012) that the forensic pathologist Pornthip concluded that the grenades were launched from a balcony at Chula Hospital (which eyewitnesses had reported at the time).

  The next day the Bangkok Post reported (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/36864) that the hospital’s directed objected to Pornthip’s “speculation” (she actually examined evidence; she didn’t just offer an opinion on a whim) and said it could “cause confusion and mar the hospital’s image”. The report wasn’t mentioned again in the media, as far as I know.

  On 22 Dec the Nation reported that a former aide of Seh Daeng was “tracked” by the DSI and arrested and charged with firing the grenades. (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Former-ranger-arrested-for-allegedly-firing-M79-at-30144956.html)

  And so it goes.

  Quality comment or not? 9  0

• 39 banphai // Feb 2, 2011 at 11:04 am

  The Bangkok Post has just ccompleted its usual in depth analysis and concluded that the UDD submission to the ICC is “unprincipled flimflam” and “nothing more than a publicity stunt”.
  http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/219413/questionable-use-of-the-law
  So, that’s it then. Next item, please.
  I know that I’ve mentioned this before, but the longer I live in Thailand, the more convinced I become that my travel agent gave me the wrong ticket three years ago, and I somehow ended up in Pratchett’s Discworld.

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 40 superanonymous // Feb 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm

  (re #33) The woman who was killed was not at the BTS station, she was closer to the Rama IV corner where so called multi-color shirts had gathered to protest (and harass) the Red Shirts. Two people at the BTS station were slightly wounded by a different grenade. Re Dr. Pornthip, many people would not consider her a credible source– she wouldn’t say anything about the PAD guard who blew himself up in the jeep during the riot at Parliament in 2008, she was a booster of military contention that Rohingya refugees could be terrorists, and she defended the GT200 “bomb detector.”

  Quality comment or not? 3  0

• 41 Leah Hoyt // Feb 2, 2011 at 5:56 pm

  BKK lawyer,

  Thanks. That confirms my recollection.

  I think that is important to note that the statement made by George above amounts to propaganda. None of us know who shot the grenades. The evidence does seem to point to official or at least non-red shirt involvement, although it is not strong enough to blame them either side.

  The links you provided are very helpful.

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 42 SteveCM // Feb 2, 2011 at 8:28 pm

  Leah Hoyt – are you sure you mean “George”?

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 43 Leah Hoyt // Feb 2, 2011 at 9:22 pm

  Meant Geoff. Thanks.

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 44 Ralph Kramden // Feb 2, 2011 at 10:06 pm

  superanonymous is correct that many would discount Pornthip as a politicized actor in these events. At the same time, the link provided by BKK lawyer to the NNT report does suggest she had physical evidence that appeared to provide some confirmation of eye witness accounts. She may have believed that she was pointing a finger at red shirts in making her claims.

  Quality comment or not? 1  0

• 45 James // Feb 3, 2011 at 7:50 pm

  Yes “professional” “assembling” “evidence.” You mean the Thaksin funded investigation, as told by paid lobbyist Robert Amsterdam?

  Someone might want to ask “Sgt. Witty” why he is side stepping overt admissions and direct quotes reported in both Thai and reputable international media by UDD leaders admitting to not only the presence of militants, but Seh Daeng himself on and off admitting ownership of them and even describing their number (300) and their armament (M79′s).

  Or do you think Robert Amsterdam was going to produce objective evidence?

  Many of you armchair commentators have never seen an M79 in real life let alone fired one, let alone were trained extensively to use a grenade launcher. I was. It can be used just as a mortar, and in fact, using it in this manner is the only way to have achieved the shots that befell Silom that day. The grenades, following an arched trajectory, anywhere from 45 to 60 degree inclinations would appear to have “fallen from the sky.” Firing from an elevated position would require either direct fire (impossible because of obvious obstructions) or incalculable indirect fire.

  It is a vast, vast disingenuous conspiracy theory to accuse the government entirely of all the violence, when all you have to do is flip open any “Voice of Taksin” or “Red Power” magazine and see the very blueprints of the violence spelled out in excruciating detail.

  I know this isn’t what you die hard red shirt supporters want to hear, and even though most of the protesters are damn decent people, just horribly duped, there was a professional armed wing working amongst the crowd – admitted by the UDD leadership if only your selective memories would recall.

  You do these people no good by continuously supporting the self-serving goons on stage misleading these people in the destruction of their own country for the benefit of Thaksin and the foreign investors backing him. As soon as he gains power and eliminates his opposition he will have absolutely no reason to continue “supporting” the rural poor. He will run them over just like his golfing buddy Hun Sen has done in Cambodia.

  Quality comment or not? 1  10

• 46 James P. // Feb 3, 2011 at 8:21 pm

  You all, also fail to realize, along with “Sgt. Witty’s” flawed report, and Robert Amsterdam’s disingenuous conclusions, that the 2009 riots were put down by Colonel Romklao without a single protester death (despite ridiculous and to this day still unsubstantiated claims by Thaksin that say otherwise) .

  The premise is that not only did the Thai military plan a violent, merciless crackdown on the UDD in 2010, but they did so years in advance, presumably before UDD’s 2009 gambit. Defying lessons of history clearly establishing that using excessive violence not only undermined the military’s power, but would force their “proxy government” to step down, it is suggested they specifically pursued this option anyway, without clear explanation as to why.

  The 2010, April 10 dispersal of the crowd followed the exact same strategy Romklao employed in 2009, firing into the air and advancing onto the crowd. Their “backup armament” was probably brought to deal with Seh Daeng’s 300 men armed with M79′s he had repeatedly bragged about, and had brought with him, unarmed, as “guards” to several post Songkran 2009 UDD rallies.

  Again, I know this isn’t what people want to hear, but it is a reality you need to explain if we are to believe this report or that Robert Amsterdam’s claims are anything more than a paid lobbyist’s desperate attempt to buy credibility to an otherwise discredited client.

  Quality comment or not? 1  11

• 47 JB // Feb 3, 2011 at 11:42 pm

  BKK lawyer,

  Porntip and her comments and opinions on explosives have been completely exposed as fabricati0ns as she uses the discredited GT 200 wand in her studies.

  As proviouly discussed in Bangkok Pundit Comments, she does not actually disclose what the ‘evidence’ she has is. Nor does the report take into account the likely presence in a hospital setting of urea creams which contain nitrate, the possibility of cross contamination by common fertilizers it was a bathroom after all, so the posiblity of a gardener washing his hands is not an impossibility, nor the probable presence of various nitroglycerine compounds found in heart medications.

  If you were a true lawyer in a western court, the ‘evidence’ would be availiable for review and cross-examination and thrown out promply.

  http://asiancorrespondent.com/31322/forensic-scientist-pornthip-to-the-rescue/#disqus_thread

  http://asiancorrespondent.com/28878/thai-pm-gt200-device-failed-test/

  Quality comment or not? 1  0

• 48 Nick Nostitz // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:04 am

  “James P”:

  “The 2010, April 10 dispersal of the crowd followed the exact same strategy Romklao employed in 2009, firing into the air and advancing onto the crowd.”

  I do take the Amsterdam report with the necessary grain of salt, especially the claims that the militants and M79′s were, according to this report, only agent provocateurs by the military. There is a hardcore militant element in the Red Shirts (and also in the Yellow Shirts, and also the state has on several occasions used outside militants for hire). This is only natural in such a conflict.
  The Government does their PR/Lobby work, and so do the Red Shirts and Thaksin. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

  Nevertheless – this above statement is simply wrong. In the 2009 dispersal in the early morning, starting from about 4 am, the attack by Col. Romklao did not just consist of firing into the air, but also directly at people. I have no proof of any dead (yet enough witness statements that there may have been a few), but i have clear proof of injured people. I was there, at least one bullet from the military lines flew close enough over my head to have heard it (see my report: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/04/20/the-crushing-of-the-red-shirts/).

  As to April 10 – there is clear evidence that the military has fired directly and indiscriminately into the crowd as there is evidence that snipers have been shooting and killing Red Shirts.

  Quality comment or not? 10  1

• 49 Nganadeeleg // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:12 am

  Sadly, it’s obvious that (again) no one will be held accountable for the killing of pro democracy protesters – that’s how things work in the Thai system (in recent days we have seen that HM in Egypt also thinks those old tricks can keep working).

  However, lets not lose sight of why the ptotesters were there in the first place – they were asking for a timely election.
  (timely = before the new military chief was appointed)

  The other thing we shouldn’t lose sight of is how Abhisit came to power, the deals & other interventions that took place to maneuver him to the position, and most importantly who or what has held it all in place? (when other governments facing much less pressure would have long ago crumbled)

  James: Lets hear what you think has held it all together?

  Quality comment or not? 7  0

• 50 Idiotswillbeidiots // Feb 4, 2011 at 12:21 am

  If the Thai elite( what a misnomer ) only had half a neuron and a quarter of a synapse connection available for intelligence processing , they would realize that what is coming at them is precisely what is happening in Tunisia , Egypt and soon Algeria or Lybia .

  Quality comment or not? 3  2

• 51 michael // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:23 am

  James/James P (are you the same person?): I don’t think Mr Amsterdam has a duty, as a lawyer, to be “objective”. If Witty’s analysis is “flawed”, & it gets into court, the Thai government will have ample opportunity to produce evidence to show that. So far, they haven’t produced any convincing evidence of anything. In fact, they have withheld so many post-mortem reports, DSI reports, etc., that it is little wonder that most moderately intelligent people are getting very skeptical about the statements of people like Sanserm, Abhisit, & the Commander-in-Chief. The recent Reuters leaks of parts of the DSI report and the statement of ‘Witness 22′ (a group of Thai Generals), published this week, are horribly shocking and go far beyond the worst suspicions of most people – in the case of ‘Witness 22′. What do you have to say about that? Please don’t respond if all you can say is that they may have been manufactured. I doubt that either Reuters or Amsterdam would have done that, & I would expect that both would have, as a matter of course, done fairly extensive checking before they released them. So, I’m almost convinced. I’m not a Thaksin fan, BTW. But I must admit he was a better administrator than anyone since, & he’s looking better & better by the day.

  Quality comment or not? 6  0

• 52 A WItness // Feb 4, 2011 at 2:50 am

  James #46:

  Not true. As least 2 deaths were widely documented and reported by press.

  So do some research and stop spreading lies. We get enough of that from the Prime Minister.

  Look here:
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/13/thailand-bangkok-protests

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 53 SteveCM // Feb 4, 2011 at 3:52 am

  “James/James P.” (one and the same, I assume), as has been pointed out so many times, Amsterdam is counsel to UDD – it is not his job to present a balanced report as if he were a judge. It is his job to present the case for his client and to produce evidence to support that case. Others, yourself included, are fully entitled to dispute his case and try to rebut the evidence he presents but – while you pointlessly bemoan what he doesn’t mention – you still produce nothing that rebuts his body of evidence. Neither do you manage to show what makes any of his case “disingenuous” – an accusation you level twice.

  As to “Defying lessons of history clearly establishing that using excessive violence not only undermined the military’s power, but would force their ‘proxy government’ to step down…..”, you notably miss or choose to ignore that a key part of Amsterdam’s case is that the military were deliberately setting out to provoke such a level of reaction from the protesters that the Army’s response to it would not be regarded as excessive. That’s the “clear explanation as to why” you ask for – and it comes not from me but from Amsterdam’s submission. Astonishing if you missed it – rather less so if you simply chose to ignore it.

  As I’ve noted before (including to you under your more common web name, I suspect), what you describe as Seh Daeng’s M79 “admission” is otherwise and equally well characterised as more of the wild and self-aggrandizing talk of a (to put it mildly) self-evidently erratic and exotic individual who frequently contradicted himself not just between separate occasions but also on the same occasion. Granted that his colourful spoutings provide a useful harvest for you to cherry-pick – but they just don’t amount to the “smoking gun” you clearly want to portray it as.

  Your theory about where M79 grenades may have come from is simply that – your theory. To state the obvious, feasibility is not proof – however much you may want and promote it to be. Given the conflicting eye-witness and forensic accounts behind what various people think was the source of the Silom grenades, your proposition just has to take its place with others. None of your admirable first-hand knowledge of M79 use changes that – any more than it identifies whose finger was on the trigger.

  Quality comment or not? 6  0

• 54 Tarrin // Feb 4, 2011 at 6:40 am

  James – P

  “You all, also fail to realize, along with “Sgt. Witty’s” flawed report, and Robert Amsterdam’s disingenuous conclusions, that the 2009 riots were put down by Colonel Romklao without a single protester death (despite ridiculous and to this day still unsubstantiated claims by Thaksin that say otherwise) .”

  Please watch this clip
  http://video.mediathai.net/detail_clip.php?tv=3910
  and tell everyone that the taxi at the end of the clip survive the ordeal. The news was totally black out and so many people disappear during the crash of 2009, not to mention 2 bodies of 2 red shirt found on the bank of Chao Praya river with their hand tired behind their back and drown, its not even unsubstantiated claimed, there are several news reporting but only briefly (for obvious reason).

  It can be used just as a mortar, and in fact, using it in this manner is the only way to have achieved the shots that befell Silom that day. The grenades, following an arched trajectory, anywhere from 45 to 60 degree inclinations would appear to have “fallen from the sky.”

  That is exactly why the location of the trajectory is impossible to determine since it could be coming from anywhere, hell it can even came from right above the BTS station for all we know, there’s not a single obstruction from CP tower to the Silom BTS station, you can literally see the roof of the Silom BTS station from almost every building there so direct fire is certainly achievable from within those building. While if you are on the red shirt site which situated around Rama IV monument, its very hard to get the grenade to travel that far in, considered you have to shoot above the cross over bridge so you going to have to stand back further make an accurate shot even harder.

  And note that the red has becoming less and less Thaksin fanatic like they do in 2009, I hope you see a picture taken last month showing a group of red shirt waving french bread around, I hope you know what that mean.

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 55 Lalida // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:06 am

  Does Geoff Osborn #26 knows Channel 5 belongs to the Military??? I guess not….Some people just don’t understand the theory ” get the info than make your stand”….

  Quality comment or not? 5  0

• 56 LesAbbey // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

  Nick Nostitz – 48

  I do take the Amsterdam report with the necessary grain of salt, especially the claims that the militants and M79′s were, according to this report, only agent provocateurs by the military. There is a hardcore militant element in the Red Shirts (and also in the Yellow Shirts, and also the state has on several occasions used outside militants for hire). This is only natural in such a conflict.

  Thank you Nick. Although we obviously take opposite sides regarding the UDD, it is always good to have you bring a little reality into the thread. At least we know you are talking from personal experience of what you saw at the time, unlike many of the more extreme posters from either side.

  I would just like to remind everyone how I started my comment #5 which seems to be reaching a new record in condemnation on New Mandala. (Andrew and Nich the thumbs up/down is still a silly option in my mind and could stop some from commenting, but I may be biased;-) So back to how I started comment #5.

  There is so much that can be criticized in both the military and civilian forces response to the UDD protest of April/May 2010, and yet Amsterdam has to turn it into a propaganda piece.

  And there is much that can be criticized. Maybe the tactics that worked in 2009 weren’t going to work again in 2010. May be there were forces at play that didn’t want a repeat of 2009. It seems one side had adjusted while the other hadn’t.

  Yet after having praised you Nick, why do you still trundle out the same old line from 2009.

  I have no proof of any dead (yet enough witness statements that there may have been a few)…

  If there were it would have been known by now, and there were enough mobile telephones with cameras to have caught some of it. Tarrin the video doesn’t really prove anything and the death of the two security men from Bangkapi is still a mystery. There always seemed to be something else at play in their deaths and the UDD never really claimed them as their own.

  Quality comment or not? 1  9

• 57 LesAbbey // Feb 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm

  Seeing that the 2009 red shirt protest has been brought into the thread, let’s look at it again and its relationship to what was to happen in 2010.

  Many would look at the failure of the 2009 protest to be the ease with which the army dispersed it. To be sure the protesters had put up a good show against the albeit friendly police force, but once the army moved in the protesters moved out extremely quickly.

  Now there is I suspect little argument that the make up of the 2009 red shirts was far different to that of the 2010 red shirts. The intervening year had seen their massive recruiting campaign in the northeast. There was far less reliance on those working for, or under obligation whether paid or personal, to some of the provincial political bosses, as we had seen in 2009.

  In fact to put it crudely the failure in 2009 for the leader of the red shirts was a lack of bodies. The two possible bodies they could produce were matched by two Muslim locals shot by red shirt supporters. Even Robert Amsterdam couldn’t make a mock case for the ICC out of that.

  Of course it would take someone truly evil, in whatever religious or moral code you follow, to say that what we need in 2010 are more bodies. Even I have difficulty in putting that blame on any of the Thai politicians. But let’s just suppose for a minute that the exiled leader did say that from his cozy life abroad. In that case why weren’t the April 2010 deaths enough?

  To be more exact, when Abhisit promised the early elections as a compromise and the telephone conversation between the UDD leaders in Bangkok and their leader abroad discussed this, why was it only Veera of the first generation leaders who said ‘enough is enough’? Was he the only one who was willing to stand up to Thaksin and say ‘you’ve got your bodies already so let it go now’?

  The sad outcome was watching the red shirts being left leaderless as their leaders handed themselves over to the police escorted by friendly MPs. The rampage and looting that followed certainly set up the situation for the military killings that followed. It’s worth remembering that Robert Amsterdam was already giving advice to Thaksin at this time. I wonder how much input he had into the timing of the end of the protest.

  If only Veera would tell us what was really said!

  Quality comment or not? 1  8

• 58 Tarrin // Feb 4, 2011 at 3:04 pm

  LesAbbey – 57

  To be more exact, when Abhisit promised the early elections as a compromise and the telephone conversation between the UDD leaders in Bangkok and their leader abroad discussed this, why was it only Veera of the first generation leaders who said ‘enough is enough’? Was he the only one who was willing to stand up to Thaksin and say ‘you’ve got your bodies already so let it go now’?

  You have to understand that the UDD specifically demand election “before” September, you know why that’s the case? because the promotion process start in September and finish by October, the reason to have the house dissolve before September was to prevent hard-core royalist align like Prayuth to take the Chief of Army position. Abhisit offered November death-line, well behind the promotion session, that defeat the whole purpose of demanding house dissolution in the first place. As long as Prayuth is there, Abhisit always got more chance to come back.

  Furthermore, if Veera really wants no bodies then hell he should not stage the protest with such a weak demand in the first place. But thank god he did, now at least a large part of the Red knows what they are up against.

  Lastly, I felt like the red is better off without people like The Three Amigo, Weng, or Arisaman (and I hope Thida can go soon).

  Quality comment or not? 3  0

• 59 LesAbbey // Feb 4, 2011 at 6:47 pm

  Tarrin – 58

  Lastly, I felt like the red is better off without people like The Three Amigo, Weng, or Arisaman (and I hope Thida can go soon).

  And of course you could say Thaksin, but that would be a dream. The left’s fantasy of taking over the red shirt movement and turning it into a genuine popular pro-democracy movement was always just that, a fantasy. The unfortunate thing is this fantasy gives the cover people like Amsterdam need to effect good PR. (And yes the bodies were good PR.)

  Quality comment or not? 2  8

• 60 Nick Nostitz // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:03 pm

  “LesAbbey”:

  “Yet after having praised you Nick, why do you still trundle out the same old line from 2009. ”

  Thanks. I do try to report factually.

  I continue to say that because i do suspect that there may have been a few dead, but i lack proof. Not hundreds, or dozens, but a few.
  In 2009 the Red Shirts have not been as organized as after the Songkran clashes, and therefore it is easy that names slipped.
  The scene of the morning assault was very chaotic, it was pitch black – too dark for mobile phone pictures, and on the Red Shirt side was hardly any media at all. I remember three or four Thai photographers, and that was it. We made an attempt to get closer, but i had to turn around and run due to gunfire. While i was running, a Thai collegue was hiding, and next to him a Red Shirt was shot in the shoulder.
  There were some journalists behind the military, but as far as i know not directly at the front lines. It was very scary there, and very different from the midday attack which we have seen much footage from.

  Sometimes it just is not possible to get enough proof, unfortunately.

  Quality comment or not? 11  0

• 61 Tarrin // Feb 5, 2011 at 5:01 am

  LesAbbey – 59

  The left’s fantasy of taking over the red shirt movement and turning it into a genuine popular pro-democracy movement was always just that, a fantasy

  Would you rather like the right wing to lead the red instead? Nonetheless, the red has (for a while already) evolve pass Thaksin. Did you notice this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X81PcCErv5I

  I hope you know what that means.

  Quality comment or not? 1  1

• 62 LesAbbey // Feb 5, 2011 at 2:23 pm

  Nick Nostitz – 60

  I continue to say that because i do suspect that there may have been a few dead, but i lack proof.

  You could be right Nick, but there has to be more than it was dark and people couldn’t use their telephone cameras. There has to be statements like “my friend Somchai was standing next to me and then he was shot and then I haven’t seen him since.” In 1992 there were statements like this. The suspicion was that bodies were dropped from helicopters in the jungle on the Burmese border. 2009 we didn’t have this.

  Quality comment or not? 0  0

• 63 Roger // Feb 7, 2011 at 3:01 pm

  Tarrin, # 61

  With the bread-wielding reds you gave in your link, the big question is whether Prayuth dares to stage a coup (against own puppet named Abhisit) in the near future. Of course, the timing and excuses are perfect for a coup: repeated clashes with Cambodia, yellow shirts PAD threaten to march and seize still-undisclosed govt offices on the 11th, and reds will also gather on the 13th and 19th.

  The main difference with the 2006 coup is that this time, a coup will be the laughing stock of everyone in the country and the world.

  Quality comment or not? 2  0

Leave a Comment