Nickymaster

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

Putting aside the rather silly notion that the police did a good job...

Let me know if I'm following you, because you jump and skip around issues a lot.

So the SOE was declared irregardless of the violence and lawlessness in the city, i.e. daily bombings or the city center occupied by protesters; you are saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that Abhisit would have declared a SOE and call in the army no matter even if there were no incidences of violence or law breaking?. Is this what you are trying to convey?

in my opinion, before the protests even began, it would have been simple for most observers to realize that Abhisit would use the army if the protests became the least bit difficult.

The move to Ratchaprasong - being a permanent encampment for the protests - was maybe the thing that tripped the trigger.

I believe the declaration of the SOE does not have anything to do with the performance of the Thai police which is the actual argument that I was countering.

Remember, we're talking about May 15th in the article. The SOE had been in effect well over a month. The argument that the army's actions on that day are somehow the fault of the police not doing their job is - in my opinion - just nonsense.

To speculate that Abhisit would not have used the army in 2010 when he had already done so the year before does not seem like a reasonable, thoughtful conclusion either.

So I would say that the argument of "if the BIBs had done their jobs, then the army would not have shot the innocent man in the OP" is not applicable.

And the situation Thaksin had been dreaming of happened: a deadly confrontation with the army. Even before any protestors were sadly killed, Thaksin was already telling the foreign media that AV killed innocent protestors.

Yes I can and will proof what I wrote. Just give me some time to find the applicable interviews.

ps. don't forget to read post # 127

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

I said that I did not find any information to support the claim that the police did not do their job before the SOE was declared.

Not a single poster has come forward with any report showing that to be false. A lot of huffing and puffing, but nothing more.

From that you state that some posters claim the police did a good job and they blame the army - sorry, but that is absurd logic and not what I am saying.

I personally feel the army is responsible for that which the army did. That is not so hard to understand, is it.

As you stated above:

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job"

As I asked you before:

Please show me some of those report since there are PLENTY.

The 15th of May, when this event occurred, was after the shooting of the general and the beginning of the military crackdown on the protesters which was to go on for another 4 days.

You'll notice that there is a difference in descriptions of the events between the reports - The AFP quotes the judge as saying :

""He was killed by gunfire from weapons of military personnel who fired at a van which drove into a restricted area," said judge Jitakorn Patanasiri"

And The Nation paraphrases the court for us saying :

"The court ruled that troops who were carrying out the operation fired at a van driven by Samorn Maithong when it was trying to break through the security checkpoint of troops in the Rajprasong."

Now for me, driving into a restricted area and trying to break through a security checkpoint create vastly different images in my mind. But as the AFP points out,

"The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event."

so I am not surprised that the reporting of the pro-Abhisit media outlet, The Nation, might create one image for it's readers whereas a normal news source without a Thai agenda might create another. I am not drawing conclusions regarding the actual events from either, but I don't blinding accept a rather vivid image of a van bursting through an orderly army checkpoint and the military then opening fire.

As it happens, there is another eyewitness report, extremely vivid, documented, and easily available which is from the very same day and it does provide a full context of the situation for the reader. It shows the chaos that day and describes in detail a series of events, how they began, progressed, and ended specific details.

This is from the same day and the same area as the OP. There are no men in black, no police in this. Just some protesters, some reporter, other civilians, and the army.

I think people who read this account will understand just how dangerous it was on that day - not only for the "regular" protesters, but certainly for anyone who happened to find themselves close to the military operations on that day - like the van, like the gentleman who was shot and killed in the OP.

BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone.

Here is the article from Nick Nostitz, who was in the middle of it all on the 15th -

http://asiapacific.a...e-killing-zone/

(January), April and May, 2010 were very dangerous months indeed, ALSO for the security forces and the general public.

Let's highlight some events building up to the terrible crackdown on May 15, 2010:

-the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;

-the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);

-the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;

-the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;

- the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;

- the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers (see Thairath).

-the firing of an RPG into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010

-the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;

As you stated correctly Mr. Tlansford:

"BTW, I feel very bad for his daughter who was pictured in one of the follow up articles. There is nothing that one can do now for the loss of her father and she is, unfortunately, not alone".

Unfortunately she is not alone!

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

Do you ever answer questions from people after you make statements?

You still didn't answer my questions, period.

which question was a serious question? Let me know and I'll be happy to reply. Well, assuming that it is relevant, anyway.

Don't waste time. Just admit you can't answer my questions instead of making a silly comment.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

Does your record show the daily bombings throughout Bangkok before the SOE was declared?

I know about the different violence in BKK before the 10th. I just don't make the illogical leap to the conclusion that this means the police were not doing their job. IMO, the performance of the Police was never an issue for Abhisit. He was going to use the military again... you know, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.

The fact that posters backtrack from the army killing civilians to the point where they lay the blame on the police is remarkable.

It's remarkable that some posters say that the police did a good job and put all the blame on the army (for cleaning up the mess the police left behind). There was total anarchy in downtown Bangkok for weeks and they still claim the police did a good job.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

you correctly read what I misstated. I wrote "never found one of them" but meant, as I have stated before, "never found one report of them". Sorry if that was not clear in this post.

And so yes, I stand by that. If you want to call it defending the police, feel free. I do not feel like it is defending the police, it is IMO pointing out that Abhisit bringing in the military had absolutely nothing to do with the police doing / not doing their job. That is TVF fiction. It was Abhisit's choice, period.

Do you ever answer questions from people after you make statements?

You still didn't answer my questions, period.

Another good point. Let me try to answer:

Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so.

Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country?

Under an SOE, the military is in charge.

Trying to make the red shirts responsible for the military's mistakes is like making your wife responsible for your infidelity.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

That is a nice thought but it is not what the record shows.

Abhisit declared the SOE 3 days before the first dispersal attempt and it had nothing to do with the police.

The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE.

Abhisit was put in power by the military. Abhisit used the military in 2009 for crowd control. It was not a surprise that he used the military in 2010. This TVF desire to make up stuff regarding the police as if it then justifies the use of the miltary is nice for you guys but still doesn't recognize the the reality of the day at that time.

"The police were an active part of the crowd control right up to that point and there are plenty of reports showing them doing their job and - so far - I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

Are you really defending the Thai Police?? Please show me a few (since there are plenty) reports that they have done a good job.

"I have never found one of them not doing their job before Abhisit declared the SOE"

What a judgement. Who will take you serious with a statement like this? So you are the expert in crowd control? Downtown Bangkok was WITHOUT ANY POLICE presence for weeks. I live there. I should know isn't?

Were you living in the red area during their occupation?

Tough guy. On the defensive. Just like Thaksin was when he had to cancel his Great American Tour because of safety reasons.

Fighting fire with fire! How long can this continue..

The reason the TRCT was not able to:

However, its [TRCT] power was limited because it could not issue subpoenas or grant immunity in exchange for testimony

The second sentence is correct but your preamble, "The reason the TRCT was not able to", is simply your personal assumption.It is no doubt part of the problem but not all of it.

An equally plausible reason for the Commission not delving deeply, as another member has pointed out, is that it was just a too sensitive issue in current day Thailand.

Anyway there does seem to be a consensus among forum members that investigative bodies should have fuller powers to summon and interrogate.Naturally this also applies to the army whose senior officers have consistently lied, prevaricated and obstructed all efforts to get to the bottom of events in 2100.

They still have some time.

Mistake

Yes and one would have thought it was an absolute priority to identify exactly how many of them and who they were, and obtain as much info as possible about them, if only to bring proceedings.

In this respect the report raises more questions than provides answers.

Could it be that this just too sensitive an issue ?

Why aren't Red Shirts forthcoming with information about the MiB that operated within their protest areas?

I don't know and neither do you.

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't that much info available, but equally, there should be a lot of witnesses.

But there aren't.

One would assume the commission would interview as many people as possible and try to gather as much info as possible.

It will be interesting to see just how deep they delved.

Likewise, the army, being so certain and specific about the 500, should have a lot of information.

Especially given that they must have had a lot of special ops and under cover people there.

Why is there so little photographic evidence ??

The were probably more cameras there than at an F1 race.

I would think it's a certainty that several people, on all sides, know a lot more than they are saying.

Why could that be ??

You don't know why Red Shirts don't come forward to help identify the MiB, really.

So the strategy here is to play dumb?

Correct. The red strategy is to play dumb, which is easy for many here. But how to play dumb when it is proven that 20 officials were killed?

Somebody must have killed them. The current government doesn't care about them. They never even mentioned them. Very very strange.

Fasteddie you are the MAN. A bit impulsive (problems with the Isan lady perhaps?) and most of your comments have already been dealt with if you would have cared to read the whole post before jumping in like a mad man.

Since you took the time to comment, you could instead have answered THE question:

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

If a person doesn't carry weapons around and attack security forces, what could happen to this person?

rhetorical, but you get my meaning. (i hope)

Wrong answer.

You certainly would use some reading comprehension, I didn't say condoning, or supporting violence, I said denying deaths on the hands of "protesters".

Did the Red Shirts kill people, yes or no?

You may also provide a citation proving the people you mention deny that people died as a result of Army operations, ,as you said, for the past two years.

I have never denied the Army killed anyone, far from it, so there's nothing to admit there.

You are kidding right ??

AV and co have denied from the beginning that "people died as a result of army operations".

That denial is the crux of the problem.

Still,at least you admit the army's responsibility for murder.

The red shirts killed 20 security forces and the security forces killed 70 (mainly) red shirts.

Very sad situation.

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

I already have 1 answer from a 6th grader but I am looking for more.

You shouldn't be rude about 6th graders, work hard and you may be one in 5yrs.

Fasteddie you are the MAN. A bit impulsive (problems with the Isan lady perhaps?) and most of your comments have already been dealt with if you would have cared to read the whole post before jumping in like a mad man.

Since you took the time to comment, you could instead have answered THE question:

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

AV should have stepped down with his tail between his legs as soon as he realised the outrage at his and others' actions of perverting democracy. The protests were more than justified in response to the blatant act of stealing the electorate's mandate.

AV used the military to get power and then, once the people couldn't stand to have his lying, deceitful backside wrongly in the PM's seat, he used them again to shoot the people.

It is obvious where the blame lies.

If you knew any thing about government with the parliamentarian system you would know that he was elected by the same system as his predecessor yet you seem to think it was OK for him to get elected that way but not a Demarcate.

Is there any particular reason you choose to say it is OK for one party not another. Makes no sense to me. Of course I had no money to be made or lost who ever got in. All I know is how they do it and I really don't agree with the system but no one asked me. Is that it your ego is hurt because they didn't ask you what system to use in electing a Prime Minister?

If you knew anything about the history of the Democrat coalition formation you would know that he was NOT elected by the same system as his predecessor. Neither Samak nor Somchai used the army chief to coerce other politicians into joining their coalitions.

"comments by Chartthaipattana leader Chumpol Silpa-archa about the role of an "irresistible power" in the formation of the present government has placed the military once more in the spotlight. Mr Chumpol has said his party actually did not want to join the Democrat Party in forming the present coalition, but it was forced to by this "irresistible power". " (OP)

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government."

"Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”. During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government"

(Newin VS the army)

Some use the police, some us the army. TIT.

I still don't see any justification in your post for the terror, mayhem and destruction the reds have caused (and they knew that there would be an election in 6 months).

And how about the Red's action after YS took office? Behavior hasn’t changed much, has it? Still don't follow any law, just less violent.

The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers.

No soldiers or officials have been charged in connection with the violence, though several Red Shirt leaders and followers have been charged and in several cases convicted.

Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz26pxJ1jyw

(just mirroring the snipping style buchlolz)

"The commission also found military personnel used live ammunition during the clashes, a point the army has sometimes disputed. They recommended that crowd control in the future should be handled by professionally trained police officers"

There you go. Thanks for posting. In other words, police couldn't uphold law and order.

But the big question remains: couldn't or wouldn't the police uphold the rule of law. Result: State of Anarchy. Action to be taken in such a situation: declaring an SOE.

Are you banned?

just hasn't drawn the lucky number yet...

But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, did you pick up on your reading error already?

"But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong"

I don't know. Just don't have much in common with people that support terrorism and criminals. Therefore you might get the impression that I only prefer to talk to people with some common sense.

Who are you to make a comment on an issue concerning my post?

I have challenged you numerous times in other topics but you always disappeared.

"Who are you to make a comment on an issue concerning my post?"

I guess I am somebody who can read a blatantly obvious post asking "why don't you get banned, too?" and then make a comment on it.

"Just don't have much in common with people that support terrorism and criminals."

That makes two of us.

"I guess I am somebody who can read a blatantly obvious post asking "why don't you get banned, too?" and then make a comment on it"

You are really too smart.

I was honestly making a joke. I didn't expect him to get banned twice within a short period of time. I was really expecting him to jump into this topic.

Maybe you should learn how to read.

The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event.

Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb.

In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home.

When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed.

Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'!

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter!

Yes you are right I was wrong. Philw read the correct thing.

Refreshing, sir. An appreciated gesture that statement.

Thanks birdpooguava . Better than disappearing, isn't it?

You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"????

But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts.

How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military?

Another good point. Let me try to answer:

Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so.

Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country?

Under an SOE, the military is in charge.

Trying to make the red shirts responsible for the military's mistakes is like making your wife responsible for your infidelity.

And why was there, eventually, an SOE?

Correct! Because the police couldn't/wouldn't uphold law and order. If they would have done their job an SOE wouldn't have been necessary.

Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'!

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter!

BP for once you make a good point. It is clear that this man was not the intended target of the soldiers gun fire - the van was - so the intention to kill him surely isn't there as the soldiers weren't aiming at him - so not murder as that was not the intention, responsible for his death yes, but not their fault, partly their fault at best

The van driver has to hold some of the blame as his actions, led to the reactions which caused the death.

Sad but true as life is cheap here, wrong place wrong time - bad luck.

So easy.........

How about some accountability ??

These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand.

Responsibility and all that..........

Accountability. YES.

Has any red shirt (leader) ever shown accountabilty for all the mayhem and destruction they have caused during their occupation of Bangkok?

As you stated correctly: the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand.

I believe that the army tried their best trying to end the anarchy.

Do you beleive that the red-shirt leaders also tried there best to follow the law?

How about some accountability ??

These are disciplined forces with officers present,have rules of engagement,are supposed to be upholding the principles ( nearly misspelled that ) of Thai society, there is a chain of command in place, the rule of law exists and they have a duty of care to the citizens of Thailand.

Responsibility and all that..........

You must be talking about a different Thailand. "Disciplined forces"????

But that doesn't reduce the responsibility of some of the red shirts.

How are the red shirts responsible for an innocent civilian getting shot by the military?

Another good point. Let me try to answer:

Uuhhh...by creating a dangerous environment without law and order... ? They do carry some responsibility don't you think so.

Please allow me to ask you 1 question. Which department is in charge of law and order in this country?

How about you?

Meaning what ??

Are you banned?

just hasn't drawn the lucky number yet...

But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, did you pick up on your reading error already?

"But it sounds almost as if you would welcome having a monolithic "ditto"-based debating environment on TVF. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong"

I don't know. Just don't have much in common with people that support terrorism and criminals. Therefore you might get the impression that I only prefer to talk to people with some common sense.

Who are you to make a comment on an issue concerning my post?

I have challenged you numerous times in other topics but you always disappeared.

Maybe you should learn how to read.

The court acknowledged that there had been conflicts between the testimony of civilian and army witnesses to the event.

Military personnel said the van driver ignored instructions to stop and soldiers opened fire because of fears over a potential car bomb.

In his testimony to the court, the van driver said he had been dropping off guests at a hotel in the Thai capital and had got lost trying to get home.

When he got lost he was suddenly driving into a millitary checkpoint.... during a period when there was total anarchy in bangkok and many soldiers had already been attacked and killed.

Seems like you need the reading lessons 'master'!

"Phan Kamkong, 43, was caught in a volley of gunfire when he ran out of a central Bangkok apartment block to see what was happening after hearing soldiers open fire at a minibus" Phan had not been driving the van and did nothing more incriminating than coming outside to see what was going on...if not murder definitely manslaughter!

Yes you are right I was wrong. Philw read the correct thing.

Is PPD banned again? He must have been waiting for this news for years.

Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ??

Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor.

How about you?

Meaning what ??

Are you banned?

Is PPD banned again? He must have been waiting for this news for years.

Interesting that those who do not subscribe to the dominant view get disappeared, isn't it ??

Must be another aspect of the Thaksin factor.

How about you?

Even though per nickymaster, i need to learn how to read, your final sentence makes little sense to me and I doubt anyone else.

Can you please point to any post or statement of mine supporting or condoning any violence from any side ?

If you cannot, please apologise for trying to put words into my mouth.

Finally, with regard to your statement, "...Nobody has or is denying the Army used real bullets and killed people during the 2010 "protest....", sadly there are very many people who have tried to deny this starting with, AV, his deputy PM, army generals, army spokesmen and assorted folks on this forum.

It is perhaps encouraging that you now admit the army killed people..................

You certainly would use some reading comprehension, I didn't say condoning, or supporting violence, I said denying deaths on the hands of "protesters".

Did the Red Shirts kill people, yes or no?

You may also provide a citation proving the people you mention deny that people died as a result of Army operations, ,as you said, for the past two years.

I have never denied the Army killed anyone, far from it, so there's nothing to admit there.

You are kidding right ??

AV and co have denied from the beginning that "people died as a result of army operations".

That denial is the crux of the problem.

Still,at least you admit the army's responsibility for murder.

The red shirts killed 20 security forces and the security forces killed 70 (mainly) red shirts.

Very sad situation.

If a person carries weapons around and attacks security forces, what could happen to this person?

I already have 1 answer from a 6th grader but I am looking for more.