mrparanoid

BTW, The Thais do have a long history of violent and heartless massacres of unarmed civilians, protesters and refugees.. as it's off topic in this thread I will not post details (unless anyone specifically asks for it).

The late 70's were very trying times in this region. Many massacres, atrocities, bloodshed. 1,700,000 deaths in Cambodia by the hands and actions of fellow Cambodians (including the Khmer Rouge). No offense, but the thousands of Khmer / Khmer Rouge refugees who allegedly died on the forced death march through minefields near Preah Vihear in 1979 seem but a very small drop in a bucket already overflowing. One death is one too many, but after 1,700,000 I do get a bit de-sensitized.

Rather than saying 'see THEY cannot be trusted' start saying 'see WE should work TOGETHER to make sure this cannot happen anymore' !

IMHO

Allegedly? It was confirmed by UNHCR (he UN's refugee agency), and documented by journalists from all over the world (William Shawcross, Roland Pierre Paringaux of Le Monde and Henry Kamm of the New York times to name a few). And just becuase so many people had already died, does that make it ok to kill some more? Because it's just "a very small drop in a bucket" compared to the approximately 1,700,000 deaths at the hands of the Khmer Rouge? (In addition to the hundreds of thousands who died during the American bombings from 1969-75(*) - is this also a very small drop in a bucket?)

What makes this specific episode much worse than any other I have heard of in South East Asia (even worse than other episodes like the one in November 1976 when a group of Cambodian refugees was handed back across the border to the Khmer Rouge and were then all immediately executed by the Khmer Rouge.(**)) is that these were refugees who had managed to live through 4 years of the worst hell anyone could possibly imagine, escape across the border thinking they were safe.. just to be inhumanely herded up and forced down a hill which is known to be riddled with mines rather than being sent into Cambodia from any of the other countless border crossings. They deliberately CHOSE this specific area to force them back into Cambodia. The Thais were using the lives of these Cambodians to make a point. (***)

* link

Five minutes after his conversation with Nixon ended, Kissinger called General Alexander Haig to relay the new orders from the president: "He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn't want to hear anything. It's an order, it's to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?" The response from Haig, barely audible on tape, sounds like laughter.

* link

At least 1.7 million are thought to have died from execution, starvation, overwork and medical neglect by January 1979 when Vietnamese and renegade Khmer Rouge forces "liberated" the country. Some genocide investigators believe the 1975-9 holocaust tally could rise to over two million as more mass graves are discovered and mapped. Inevitably, with the limited forensic work done so far, there will be questions about when some of those graves were actually filled. "Many of those killed in the bombing were just vaporized," notes Craig Etcheson, a leading American researcher. "According to documents and research, the figures for people who died during that time [1969-75], would be around 700,000 to 800,000," Hun Sen estimated. Some Western demographers and scholars have come up with similar estimates, placing "excess deaths" in the 6-800,000 range. But Etcheson cautions that this is a "terribly difficult question— one about which there is no scholarly consensus and not enough empirical data to resolve in any satisfactory way. "Most of them were not army but civilians," said Hun Sen. "Some villages were totally destroyed." He recalled a personal close call in early 1973 in a village near his base in Kompong Cham province where he had attended a wedding. In the early hours of the following morning, B52s struck. "Everybody died except for one small child who was still sucking the breast of its dead mother. That is the tragedy we suffered." In Sideshow, author William Shawcross reports the story of a young air force captain, Donald Dawson, who was court-martialed for refusing to fly after learning that a Cambodian wedding party had been "boxed" by B52s. "It forced him, he said, to realize that Cambodians were human beings and to recognize that non-military targets were being hit," wrote Shawcross. One US diplomat at the embassy in Phnom Penh in 1973, where the bombing was being orchestrated, was appalled to discover that the size of a B52 "box" made it almost impossible not to hit a village in central Cambodia.

** link

From the book "

Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982"

By Larry Clinton Thompson

and ***

Can't find a link to the 'Preah Vihear Massacre', please provide.

It was described by one survivor in the book "To destroy you is no loss" by Teeda Mam / JoAn D. Criddle

It's unprofessional by any soldier that does so. Please provide examples of your assertions (the leaving weapons aspect, as surrendering is a wholly different issue).

There are many accounts of Cambodian soldiers claiming this happened. (That Thai soldiers threw down their weapons and ran), but that isn't exactly proof, just like Thailand presenting some weapons and claiming they were seized from Cambodians is not proof. So no need to post links to those news reports as there is no proof it really happened.

This however would be a little difficult to deny :

An official handover of captured Thai weapons.

(Cambodia Commander Colonel Chea Sopha (L) offers weapons captured during fighting last week to Thai commander Colonel Than. Picture: Reuters)

News article from Brunei Times

This photo shows Thai weapons allegedly captured by Cambodians in October 2008.

But apart from these being the same weapons as the Thais use, there is no evidence that they were captured from retreating Thai soldiers or if the soldiers surrendered and then

handed over the weapons..

Captured Thai soldiers (There were reports in some news articles that they abandonded their weapons and ran, and were later captured, but this is not possible to prove. They might have surrendered and given up their weapons. We will never know for sure.)

Even after these pictures surfaced the Thais denied any soldiers had surrendered or been captured.

(Hor Namhong said 10 Thai soldiers had been captured by the Cambodian military, but the Thai military said none of its soldiers were missing, according to Reuters.)

Captured Thai soldiers. (or soldiers that have surrendered?)

Captured Thai soldiers (2008)

These 4 soldiers (under) were released during a Thai-Cambodian meeting in february 2011 after being "captured" by Cambodian soldiers. For all of us who were not there it will be impossible to prove whether the Thais retreated, leaving their weapons and were then captured, or if they surrendered. All we have is the news reports and the propaganda from both sides..

There are also plenty of incidents where Thai soldiers have abandoned their weapons in the demonstrations in Thailand last year as well. Pictures went all around the world showing red shirt demonstrators with army guns seized from the Thai military. I guess it depends on what you think "captured" means. Did they surrender, or were they captured? I don't know. The only incident where the Thais acknowledge they have abandonded their weapons would be in the official handover in the first picture.

After the gunfire, Thai soldiers seized a 60-mm grenade launcher, ten 60-mm ammunition rounds, an RPG-2 grenade launcher, four rocket-propelled grenades and 100 rounds of M-80 machine gun ammunition.

If the Cambodians were Vietnamese they would have had the foresight to booby trap it so that the Thais would get a nasty surprise when they tried to do photo ops.

If the Cambodians were like the overwhelming vast majority of disciplined soldiers elsewhere, they never would have abandoned and leave their weapons and ammunition behind when they retreated.

That's a court-martial offense in many countries.

.

Tell that to the countless Thai soldiers who have not only left their weapons behind, but also surrendered to the Cambodian soldiers on many occasions since 2008. It has been all over the news and is well documented by numerous pictures from different news agencies.

Where is the proof anyway that the weapons seized were Cambodian? The Thai Tahan Pran uses many of these weapons. It could have been from one of the early clashes as well last week and if these are seized weapons it could be from some of the dead soldiers. But then again. We will never know.

Cambodian troops who were Khmer Rouge guerillas? That was 40years ago. Has Dad's Army taken to the field?

It was only 12 years ago that the last Khmer Rouge leaders surrendered. They kept fighting after 1979.. The Khmer Rouge were backed by Western governments repeatedly in the UN (They voted in favour of the Khmer Rouge retaining the Cambodia's seat in the organization) while they received extensive military aid from China, UK and USA and intelligence from the Thai military who also provided them with sanctuaries inside Thailand. The Khmer Rouge in return provided the Thais with timber and gems. The US and the UK also funded Pol Pot in exile and SAS soldiers trained Khmer Rouge soldiers from bases in Thailand. The national security adviser in the US encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot and the Thais to support the Khmer Rouge.

In 1991 when J.Pilger interviewed a member of "R" Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border he said:

"We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff – a lot about mines,"

"We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . ."We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . ."

Thanks for all your updates BuckarooBanzai. Beats waiting 12-15 hours for this info to hit the newspapers..

Being taken over by Vietnam 30 years ago makes them experienced? At, what, losing? And 30 years ago is only recent in geologic terms.

Well, there was the Cambodian civil war (1970-75), then there was the Cambodian-Vietnamese war (1979-1989).. After that the fighting resumed in 1992 and continued until 1999 when the last Khmer Rouge leaders surrendered. 12 years ago. That's 29 years of war. Though the Thais were involved at times during the 1979-1989 border clashes - and this is the only real fighting they have experienced in the last hundred years..They preferred to keep out of the way and rarely got involved in any fighting unless they had to or whenever the Vietnamese/Cambodian troops set up bases INSIDE of Thailand. In fact, the 800-kilometer border was fully garrisoned by Vietnamese and Cambodian forces by 1987.

The Thais did have some "good" results though when they were shelling the Cambodian refugee camps (November 8, 1979 Thai artillery fire hit Nong Chan refugee camp, killing about 100 refugees - in June 1980 in another border clash hundreds of refugees were reported killed, many AGAIN by a Thai artillery barrage on one of the camps) And who knows how many people died when they forced 45.000 refugees at gunpoint down the mine riddled cliffs at Preah Vihear? (The UNHCR's report, written in 1979 stated that Thai troops forced about 45,000 Khmer refugees, including the old, the young, the sick and women, at gun-point to walk back to Cambodia through minefields in the Dangrek mountains near Preah Vihear temple.) There's a very detailed description of this event in the book "To destroy you is no loss" By T.B. Mam

Why post like you know the history of these two countries like the back of your hand if you really know little or nothing at all?

I look at the the history of Thailand. They have been challanged by many forces and have always prevailed. They are the only country in this neck of the woods who are making it happen and these issues would not even be comming up if they were not successful.

Ehh.. Maybe you should skim through those history books of yours again and have a liiiiitle closer look this time.

Thailand is actually the only country "in this neck of the woods" that have never put up a real fight against anyone the last 100 years in a real war and the times they have really been challenged, they have basically given up before the fight started.

In 1893 they were quickly defeated by the French. After little resitance, they submitted fully to the French conditions and agreed to cede Laos to France. The French kept up the pressure, and Siam later had to concede French control of territory on the west bank of the Mekong opposite Luang Prabang and around Champasak in southern Laos, as well as western Cambodia. France also occupied the western part of Chantaburi. In 1904, in order to get back Chantaburi Siam had to give Trat to French Indochina.

On March 23, 1906 Trat became part of Thailand again in exchange for areas east of the Mekong river like Battambang, Siam Nakhon and Sisophon. Every single time they were threatened, they either traded or just gave up land to the French so they would not have to go to war and most likely end up being colonised.

During world war 2 after the French were defeated by the Germans, The Thais saw their chance to steal back the land they had ceded to France in 1906 from the poorly equipped Japanese ally, the Vichy France. The isolated colonial administration was cut off from outside help and outside supplies. And after the Japanese invasion of Indochina in September 1940, the French were forced to allow Japan to set up military bases. This seemingly subservient behavior convinced the Phibun regime that Vichy France would not seriously resist a confrontation with Thailand. After early successes, the Thai forces were forced back by French reinforcements. At sea, the French navy, in the form of one cruiser,wiped out nearly one third of the Thai navy off the island of Kho Chang on Jan.17. Then Japan intervened and arranged a cease-fire on Jan. 28. Per a written agreement signed on March 11, France gave portions of Laos and Cambodia to Thailand.

When Japan invaded Thailand in December 1941, the Thais gave up after a few hours - and almost before their weapons had hit the ground they had signed an armistice with Japan effectively ended Englands hopes of forging an alliance with Thailand. Within hours Japan were carrying out air raids against Malaya and Singapore. On January 25, 1942, the Thai government declared war on the United States and the United Kingdom thus becoming part of the Axis powers.

In 1947 Thailand agreed to hand back the French territory occupied during world war 2 as the price for admission to the United Nations, the dropping of all wartime claims against Siam and a substantial package of American aid.

During the Vietnam war they basically bent over backwards for the Americans... The easy choice. Something their neighbours suffered heavily for as America used the country as a base for their endless bombing raids on Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, nearly annihilating these countries.

The atrocities against the Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees during the 1980s are well documented and though there were a lot of border skirmishes where the Thais sided with the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese occupying Cambodia, I wouldn't really call it "war".

In 1984, a series of minor shooting incidents occurred between Thai and Laotian forces. In December 1987, Thai armed forces moved into occupy the disputed village of Ban Romklao, raising the Thai flag over it.(Kind of like they did at the Preah Vihear temple in 1954. This dispute with Laosis also over French maps from 1907) The Pathet Lao attacked the Thais, who promptly retreated and the Thai flag was replaced with a PDR Laos flag. After weeks of intense fighting, the Thais withdrew and there was eventually a cease-fire. There was about 1.000 casualties on both sides but the Thais suffered heavy losses compared to Laos. (Who were supported by Vietnamese troops.)

Then you have the border clashes with Myanmar (2001) and Cambodia in (2008,2009,2010,2011) but I wouldn't really call these "war" either.

So contrary to what you claim... In the last hundred years or so, the Thais have indeed been challenged.. But only by a few forces.. And they have NEVER prevailed during these 100 years. They are certainly not the only country in this neck of the woods "making it happen". In fact, all they have done militarily in this period is make a BIG mess of everything they take part in.

Have you REALLY looked at the history of Thailand as you say? If you have, I would like to see that book of fairy tales... It presents a completely different picture to that of the history books I have read.

(edited for spelling errors - I'm sure there are more..)

Maybe the Cambodian generals and politicians are just a wee bit better at soliciting foreign sympathy. Mind you the 'RTA used chemical weapons' was really overdone, the 'burned a logger alive' was not much better. Very interesting is that at least two Khmer websites I know (thanks to member HighCommand) don't show anything from the recent clash, most is regarding the February clashes (mediakh.net/news/ , www.khmerarticle.com/). Of course big show on 'cluster weapons', 'Thai military junta'.

Propaganda, not just for the amateurs

The two websites you link to are not exactly news sources. More like extremely biased amateur Khmer blogs. One hasn't even updated the news section since february.. If you look at actual Khmer newspapers they cover this all day every day.

Kampuchea Thmey Newspaper

Koh Santepheap Daily Newspaper

Then there's the country's biggest English speaking newspaper

The Phnom Penh Post

It's a Monday-Friday paper, so they're not big on updating the online version on the weekends, but they did report the skirmish on Friday.

begin removed ...

Come on.. Both sides shell indiscriminately. But at least the Cambodians aren't lying about everything they do. Aren't Thai politicians and generals aware of this phenomenon called "the internet" ? Do they really believe they can just lie and nobody finds out about it? Oh.. I forget. Everything is censored over there in Thailand. This post will probably be deleted before anyone can read it..

Personally I see no reason why your post should be removed. I only have a bit of a problem with the anti-Thai, pro-Cambodian bias. In the ongoing border clash neither sides' newsflashes are beyond reproach. Propaganda on both sides. Call a spade a spade where ever it comes from

I'm not saying the Cambodians are completely honest about everything in their news. But at least their generals and politicians aren't making fools of themselves with all these obvious lies and misinformations. At least not in this matter..

she talked to her husband the day BEFORE the first skirmish, and he said "..tomorrow there will be fighting"

here are two "fox-moulder-stories" i've heard today in ban kruat:

guy does his 90 day report at the chong chom border last thursday.

the immigration officer says: "good, you came today. tomorrow the border will be closed"

thai tv team resides in a resort in ban kruat.

saturday they leave the resort at 05:30 ... (fighting starts at 06:00)

sunday they leave the resort at 09:30 ... (fighting starts at 10:00)

seems that some people can time travel in the future

good night

I'm sure it's all very funny to you, but I can't imagine why a Thai national, the widow of a dead Thai soldier would lie and make up some fantasy story on THAI national television when interviewed on the day of her husbands death.

Thai - Cambodian Situation

- Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand regarding the unprovoked armed attacks by Cambodian troops on 23 April 2011

With regard to the unprovoked armed attacks on 23 April 2011 by Cambodian troops on Thai soldiers and civilians, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand wishes to state the following facts:

1. From 06.15 – 07.30 hours, the Cambodian side started firing heavy weapons and artilleries including mortars, recoilless rifles and rocket propelled grenades into the area of Ta Kwai along the border towards Ta Muen Temples, situated in Surin Province, Thailand.

2. At 07.50 hours, the Cambodian side deployed its military force into the area of Ta Muen Temples and fired the BM 21 field rockets into the area of civilian residences in villages of Nongkunna, Phanom Dongrak and Phanom Dongrak hospital, resulting in the death of 1 Thai soldier, injury of many Thai soldiers, and evacuation of more than 16,000 civilians.

3. Consequently, the use of heavy weapons by the Cambodian side into the Thai territory left Thailand with no choice, but to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against the unprovoked attacks by the Cambodian forces by using proportionate means with necessity, proportionality under the international law and strictly directed at only military targets. The exchanges of gunfire lasted until 11.00 hours today.

4. Thailand strongly condemns the firing of heavy weapons at innocent Thai civilians, especially in the area of a hospital and local residences. Thailand wishes to protest in the strongest terms the repeated armed attacks of Cambodia which is a blatant and clear violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Thailand will not tolerate recurrence of such unlawful and indiscriminate attacks.

********************

23 April 2011

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand

Who does he think he is kidding? Unprovoked attacks? How do they explain the interview with the Thai widow explaining she talked to her husband the day BEFORE the first skirmish, and he said "..tomorrow there will be fighting" , "I'm worried" , "Take care of the children if something happens to me" ? A few hours later he was dead..

Thai TV3

The Thais are the ones doing the unprovoked attacking every single time. Why on earth would the Cambodians want another war after 40 years of war and tragedy? It makes no sense. Why would the Cambodians try to steal and hold Thai land? What kind of surrealistic fantasy world does the guy who thought that up live in? How would they keep it? They would be bombed to itty bitty pieces within minutes. And the whole world would be watching knowing they were in the wrong. That's exactly why the Thais never go further into Cambodia or want any Indonesian observers. Because they know without a doubt, that they are in the wrong.

And does this look like military targets?

Come on.. Both sides shell indiscriminately. But at least the Cambodians aren't lying about everything they do. Aren't Thai politicians and generals aware of this phenomenon called "the internet" ? Do they really believe they can just lie and nobody finds out about it? Oh.. I forget. Everything is censored over there in Thailand. This post will probably be deleted before anyone can read it..

This is just one huge propaganda war, trying to win over the hearts and minds of the GP - the other pawns in this power struggle - the government is absolutely terrified that the genie is out the bottle, so will use all channels to discredit and the reds will deny and accuse and do the same, as they are terrified that they might lose the media war and a tide could turn back against them, just as the neutral observers in the world's free press are beginning to sense a sea-change against the incumbents.

It seems worth noting that endless debate about who fired where, how, with what rifle by people in this forum, whilst fun and perhaps a chance for the war-types to show off their combat expertise, really gets no one anywhere fast.

Nobody knows what happened, it is all conjecture, all info and fact is being spun and distorted by both sides and in the midst of it it 23 have died who are almost incidental to all this now - they never got to enjoy Songkran, did they?

Couldn't agree more. Good post.

You are all over the map.

If you do not contest that the M16 could be used as a sniper platform (I'm here using the news reels usage of the term, i.e. any hidden opponent that fire single or few shots at single targets, see: Sarajevo in the 90ies) or that the shooter in t he picture had a scope, what was the purpose of your post? But then you say that your quote is infact countering the fact that it can be used as a sniper platform in an urban scenario. Well, if that is your point, then you are wrong.

It is not hard to hit man-sized target at 100m with a scope for a proficient marksman.

Let's make this simple. Here is what I think: I think it is unlikely that a normal soldier or civilian could use an AK47 or M16 without a scope at night in the midst of a chaotic demonstration with bombs and molotov cocktails going off and with shooting all around.. to hit up to 11 moving targets, all in the chest or head, be it from 300, 200, 100 or 50 meters. It is technically possible. But highly unlikely. I think it is possible and even believable that a trained soldier/sniper or trained civilian could use an M16 with a scope.. Say a thermal scope to do this. But I think there are many better options if you want to snipe someone other than to use an assault rifle. For all we know he could have had a modified M16 with a scope and a silencer.

Either way, the whole point of the wiki quote was to show it is not easy for someone not experienced with an assault rifle to hit a moving target at a distance with an M16 as he claimed. It had nothing to do with what happened in Bangkok or who did it and I don't understand quite why you are so desperate to connect the two things.

Was the whole point of your post to try to discredit mine? What a waste of time.

I am sure it is a waste of time to counter your posts as you might no actually properly read them. But your quote of iron sights is not the point, a professional will not misalign the front and read aperture and sice the weapon is tilted in the photo we cannot be sure that he at this time isn't wearing a claw mount etc with a scope or that he didn't at the time of the shooting.

Hence the iron sight wiki quote has no bearing on the events or the shooter in the photo.

The quote had nothing to do with the shooter in the photo as he clearly is carrying an assault rifle with a scope. Maybe you aren't properly reading other peoples posts... It had to do with a comment from another poster where he said assult rifles could easily be used as sniper rifles and where he claimed it was no problem for him to hit a target from 100 meters so the "snipers" would have no problems whatsoever taking down people with pin-point headshots using an m16 or ak47 assault rifle.

Besides. There is no proof that the guy in the photo is the shooter..

{Wikipedia}

M-16: Due to a narrow field of view and diffraction blurring, the aperture sight is not ideal for target acquisition, especially if the target is camouflaged or rapidly moving. Additionally, it is easy to misalign the front post against the rear aperture's center, as there is no mark that indicates the center of the rear aperture, and any alignment error between the front and rear sights repeats itself for every 1/2 meter the bullet travels. If M16 is misaligned by 1/10 inch (2.5 mm), it causes a target at 300 meters to be missed by 5 feet (1.52 meters)

You don't know what you're talking about. Over and out.

Nice wiki-quote, needed as you have no experience with the rifle I presume.

Now tell me, who said the shooter was using the iron sights and not a scope on a quick-attachment mount?

I only shot an M16 20-30 times so I am not really an expert no. But I regularly shoot AK-47s and I have been shooting since I was 12.. Mostly bolt-action rifles at 30-100 meters. And even if I am no expert, I don't personally think it's very likely the shooters could be that accurate in so many shots under the conditions with an assault rifle - depending on the range and scope possibly used.. And I didn't say the shooter was using the iron sights and that is my point exactly. I think the shooter/sniper was using a sniper rifle or at least some kind of scope. Like for example the scope on the SAR-21 army issue rifle that the red shirt guard is carrying in the picture above. The same scope you see on the SAR-21s all the Thai Army soldiers are carrying.

Was the whole point of your post to try to discredit mine? What a waste of time.

Let me give you guys something to think about..

I put together this picture from several different other pictures from both pro- and against- blogs.

On the left you have a 3 piece picture, where the text claims the "red shirt guards" caught an army sniper on the ledge above the red demonstraters where he had been hiding/shooting. Next you see him held hostage by the reds. On the 4 pictures to the right you see two red shirt guards carrying 2-3 army issue automatic rifles each... some without magazines and a gas mask. On the front of the shirt as I point out, he has a red shirt patch with the words "Down with the government/Dissolve the goverment" - and GUARD. On his shoulder, it looks like he has the Taharn Pran patch. (Wiki-Taharn Pran) The other, younger guy has GUARD written all over the back of his shirt. The Taharn Pran is a part of the Royal Thai Army by the way.

The part about the red shirt guards catching the sniper is bull, please stop putting propaganda up.

I CLEARLY write "WHERE THE TEXT CLAIMS".. And that it is "put together this picture from several different other pictures from both pro- and against- blogs".

You obviously can't read Thai so you wouldn't know what the text on the pictures say, but at least I would assume you could comprehend basic English. I was obviously wrong.

And "stop putting propaganda up" you say? <deleted>, that's all you guys are doing. I am on neither side of this..

The redshirts security wing wore black shirts and sometimes red. They carried assault weapons and fired on soldiers. There is also the military wing that is probably not a part of the regular redshirt demonstrators but is aligned with the redshirt movement. They wore ninja outfits and often camouflage, some with red armbands.

Ninja outfits? 555 I do believe it's called uniforms.

By the way.. The ทหารพราน is part of the Royal Thai Army..

The blurry video of the 2 black shirts behind a tree firing an undetermined weapons. It's been posted.

As for the other weapons, yes, I have fired them and hitting a target at 100 meters is quote do-able with them. Most of the fighting and shootings occurred at fairly close range and many of the autopsied results reflect this.

While there are better weapons than an M-16 for sniping at greater distances, like your suggested 300 meters, they were not needed as the people being shot were not great distances away.

A good sniper, like I imagine the best sniper in Thailand Sae Daeng would have trained them to be, takes "noise and chaos" for granted when they are shooting. It bothers them not one iota.

What surprises me is that you can put sentences together.. All you do is come up with fantasy theories and provide no links, newspaper clippings or even a simple blog entry to back up any of your drivel. I'll leave you to yourself with a little quote from wikipedia. Time is wasted discussing actual facts with you.

M-16: Due to a narrow field of view and diffraction blurring, the aperture sight is not ideal for target acquisition, especially if the target is camouflaged or rapidly moving. Additionally, it is easy to misalign the front post against the rear aperture's center, as there is no mark that indicates the center of the rear aperture, and any alignment error between the front and rear sights repeats itself for every 1/2 meter the bullet travels. If M16 is misaligned by 1/10 inch (2.5 mm), it causes a target at 300 meters to be missed by 5 feet (1.52 meters)

You don't know what you're talking about. Over and out.

Now.. It is not exactly a secret that the Taharn Pran has been hanging with the red shirts all along, so why are everybody so surpised now?

Let me give you guys something to think about..

I put together this picture from several different other pictures from both pro- and against- blogs.

On the left you have a 3 piece picture, where the text claims the "red shirt guards" caught an army sniper on the ledge above the red demonstraters where he had been hiding/shooting. Next you see him held hostage by the reds. On the 4 pictures to the right you see two red shirt guards carrying 2-3 army issue automatic rifles each... some without magazines and a gas mask. On the front of the shirt as I point out, he has a red shirt patch with the words "Down with the government/Dissolve the goverment" - and GUARD. On his shoulder, it looks like he has the Taharn Pran patch. (Wiki-Taharn Pran) The other, younger guy has GUARD written all over the back of his shirt. The Taharn Pran is a part of the Royal Thai Army by the way.

...these black shirts and their sniper weapons running around with them..

Where have you seen sniper weapons? Are you making stuff up again? Thought so..

There's a number of photos with the black shirts with AK-47 and M-16 weapons as well other undetermined models. Any of these can be used as a sniper weapon. It doesn't have to be that monstrosity gun that Russell deceptively posted a picture of earlier or even the M-19 antique that britmaveric pictured to be a sniper weapon.

My god.. Have you ever shot with either of those? They are hardly sniper weapons. And according to the autopsy most of the dead were shot expertly in the head or chest/heart region. Try that amidst the insane noise and chaos of a violent demonstration in the dark on a balcony 2-300 meters away from a moving target! Ha ha ha.. Good luck.

And by the way.. Show me some pictures of undetermined models.. I haven't seen any. I have seen only army issue weapons. M16/M4A1 and SAR-21. Oh.. And the Rubber-bullet Shotgun. A Bianchi I think. And 1 guy with an AKS-47 which happens to be a weapon the Taharn Prahn uses from time to time.

...these black shirts and their sniper weapons running around with them..

Where have you seen sniper weapons? Are you making stuff up again? Thought so..

^or the 3rd party could be on the Thai military side.

The read leaders have already confirmed that it was a third party on their side

Do you not comprehend that the people the red leaders have openly said were on their side are the "ronin warriors" or the "black warriors"? The armed people wearing black amongst the red shirt demonstrators? NOT the snipers/people who shot the M79 grenade into the military camp.

They are one in the same.

The Ronin warriors, trained by red shirt Sae Daeng, were the snipers/grenade launchers.

Opportunity, proper training, motivation, etc.

It might turn out that whoever the snipers are.. it could be the "black warriors" / "ronin warriors" or it could not be. No one knows. But so far Seh Daeng has not said that it is. Unlike what you are all pretending. And if it one and the same people, then they most likely the ทหารพราน.. (Tahan Phran) and are a part of the Royal Thai Army. Then what?