Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[Samuian]

fairer pay for their labors.

And guess who is profiting nicely from under paid services as well?

I dare to say it, don't want to be send in holidays for flaming!

The closer we get to the results of the investigation, the closer we get to the culprits, the more some people HERE are losing their face and their voice, because what they have written in the past leading to these days makes it clear that they aren't interested in what they proclaim all the time: "Democracy"!

It's neither liberal, nor leftist, nor socialist, nor communist, so what is left, this what they claim the supporters of PAD are standing for: "Militaristic Dictatorship, Autocracy, Police State", in my opinion, looking at ideals, moral, ethical principals and the humanitarian side of it, it's lowest shelf!

Those who try in what ever way to condone such action, put themselves on the same level as the ones who ordered and committed the crimes!

There is simply no excuse!

1.This forum cannot provide a grown up place for discussion on Thai politics because of the rules.I'm not complaining and some great contributions are made from various points of view.But ultimately it cannot make very much sense because of what is off limits.We accept it but the obvious needs stating sometimes.For an adult discussion one has to look elsewhere.

h90: Even I almost never agree with you. You are complete right here. Specially point 1 is restricting a real discussion, no matter on which side you stay.

And I will disagree, it would open not only the gates "for adult discussion", but some very dangerous floodgates!

Leave it as it is, if one is ADULT enough, is educated enough and has what is considered "good manners" will truly and fully accept these rules, cause things can be discussed without mud slinging and without a highly specific target in the cross hairs!

A taboo, is a taboo, that is why it is simply taboo!

Those who wish ht o sling mud in a certain direction can do this on several other boards!

Do as you wish for more "adult discussion"!

Edited October 14, 2008 by Samuian

[sriracha john]

PM to nominate Khunying Pornthip as head of investigating panel on October 7th clashes

Prime Minister and Defense Minister Somchai Wongsawat will nominate Director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science Khunying Pornthip Rojanasunand as chairperson of a panel investigating police’s operations to disperse demonstrators in front of the Parliament House during the Cabinet meeting today.

The Cabinet meeting today will be presided over by the premier. Apart from the premier’s request for the Cabinet to approve the nomination of Khunying Pornthip as head of the investigating panel, the meeting will review progress of the two committees conducting tests on police’s use of tear gas to disperse the protesters and assisting people affected by the October 7th incident.

The Cabinet will also officially appoint three Deputy Government Spokesmen.

- ThaiNews / 2008-10-14

=========================================

On the first news, good choice.

On the second news, perhaps former TRT MP, and Thaksin love interest?, Nahathai will get the job she was promised as Deputy Government Spokesman before Somchai's wife got involved...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=2247278

Edited October 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[younghusband]

1.This forum cannot provide a grown up place for discussion on Thai politics because of the rules.I'm not complaining and some great contributions are made from various points of view.But ultimately it cannot make very much sense because of what is off limits.We accept it but the obvious needs stating sometimes.For an adult discussion one has to look elsewhere.

h90: Even I almost never agree with you. You are complete right here. Specially point 1 is restricting a real discussion, no matter on which side you stay.

And I will disagree, it would open not only the gates "for adult discussion", but some very dangerous floodgates!

Leabve it as it is, if one is ADULT enough, is educated enough and has what is considered "good manners" will truly and fully accept these rules, cuase things can be discussed without mud slinging and without a highly specific target in the cross hairs!

A taboo, is a taboo, that is why it is simply taboo!

Those who wish ht o sling mud in a certain direction can do this on several other boards!

Do as you wish for more "adult discussion"!

Forum rules are forum rules and we therefore must respect them if we wish to participate.

I take your point about good manners and indeed I have stressed the need for foreigners to pay particular heed to Thai traditions.However the rest of your post remains somwhat obtuse.There are many forum rules but they are rules not taboos.Taboos are for forest dwelling savages not civilised or educated men.(OK incest may be the exception!)There are other Thai forums (not in my view as lively as ours) where grown up discussions, respectful and thoughtful, on Thai politics can take place in a way they can't here.

You are also profoundly mistaken if you believe - I can only speak for myself - there is any interest in mudslinging.On the contrary there is a profound respect and admiration for all important Thai institutions.But the fact remains that on this forum grown up discussion on politics is constrained.

[Plus]

Judging by amount af trolling and bullshit posted here, I'm absolutely convinced that royalty should be kept off limits.

"Respectful and thoughtful" is not how I would describe Thaivisa, or any other Thai related online community.

[hammered]

Chalerm says PAD deserves slap for hating police

Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung said Monday that leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy deserved a slap on their mouth for saying they hate police following last week's crackdown on protesters.

One wonders if the punishment for falsifying Parliament attendance records shouldn't also include "a slap on the mouth"....

Government whip looking to penalise 'absent' MPs

Deputy House Speaker Samart Kaewmeechai said that though three MPs from coalition parties were not at the parliamentary convention last week, they appeared present in the roll call.

Last week, the Opposition said it would file a complaint with the Constitution Court if it found irregularities in the October 7 parliamentary convention. It said that at least three MPs, including Public Health Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung and MP Sarit Ung-apinan, both from the People Power Party; and Manit Nopamornbodi from Matchima Thipataya Party were not there in person but the roll call showed them as present.

He also added that Chalerm and the other "absent" MPs would have to explain at the House meeting next week why their names showed up at the parliamentary roll-call when they were not there in person.

Chalerm was at his office in the ministry at the same time as he was shown present in Parliament, Witthaya said.

Deputy House Speaker Samart Kaewmeechai admitted three government MPs had not signed in during last week's joint meeting of parliament called to hear the government's policy statement, but asked colleagues to press voting cards to show they were present.

But removing the names of those MPs, two from the PPP and the other from a coalition party, would not affect the meeting quorum requirement, he said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.net/141008_News/14Oct2008_news06.php

The other questions are:

Who pushed the buttons or cards to make it SEEM that these persons were actualy there?

Are they not culpable for fraud, by pretending to be others to meet a quorum?

Are there any OTHERS yet to be proven absent also?

This'll end up being under investigation and then court interpretation the way we are going. The government might just as well resuign as they cant do anything anyway;)

If it gets to the point that the quorum count was fixed or the policy announcement passed improperly this will get into constitutional crisis

Chamlong's ten day prediction is sounding about right now although no doubt Hun Sen will try to distract things a bit with all that ex-TRT investment moolah at stake in Cambodia. If the chosen party fall or lose power Hun Sen will have to find a new bunch of investors which probably isnt so easy right now

[younghusband]

Judging by amount af trolling and bullshit posted here, I'm absolutely convinced that royalty should be kept off limits.

"Respectful and thoughtful" is not how I would describe Thaivisa, or any other Thai related online community.

Fair enough even though your first sentence is a non-sequiter.Grown up discussions can take place elsewhere.

[sriracha john]

I hope this doesn't mean he's going to start hiding out in toilets for an hour like his predecessor...

Somchai asks reporters why they turn up in high number

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat smiling attended a weekly Cabinet meeting at the temporary Cabinet office at the Don Muang airport at 9:40 am Tuesday.

When he saw an army of reporters waiting for him, he asked whether there was anything special.

"Is there anything special? Why are there so many of you here? Today is just a normal Cabinet meeting day," Somchai greeted the reporters, smilingly.

- The Nation / 2008-10-14

===================================

He really is dumbfounded about his position, isn't he?

[fidelio]

Judging by amount af trolling and bullshit posted here, I'm absolutely convinced that royalty should be kept off limits.

"Respectful and thoughtful" is not how I would describe Thaivisa, or any other Thai related online community.

Without the possibility of criticism, there can be no real praise.

[Samuian]

.....edit..... I can only speak for myself - there is any interest in mudslinging.On the contrary there is a profound respect and admiration for all important Thai institutions.But the fact remains that on this forum grown up discussion on politics is constrained.

I used the word "taboo" decisively!

I knew it will cause a hick up with some of the audience!

Well, iyou say you can only speak for yourself, so NO ONE can ensure that there will be no trespassing of the fine line, this is why there are certain rules, and rules are rules, becoming a member here, you accepted these rules, so be it!

---------------------------------------------

"The big blow for Somchai came earlier in the day when results of a primary scientific probe were announced showing Angkana and other victims suffered from impact of China-made tear gas fired by police.

The police earlier claimed the victims might have been killed or wounded by explosives they or fellow protesters were carrying.

Both Somchai and the police have later said they regretted the casualties, but stopped short of apologizing for the bloodshed."

The Nation

Source:

This was anticipated by some here in this threat, right from the beginning, here comes the proof!

This government seems to dig his own grave with the speed of light!

The last sentence gives some picture of the real intentions and the "high moral grounds" this government including it's new PM, has build it's foundations!

[Plus]

Judging by amount af trolling and bullshit posted here, I'm absolutely convinced that royalty should be kept off limits.

"Respectful and thoughtful" is not how I would describe Thaivisa, or any other Thai related online community.

Without the possibility of criticism, there can be no real praise.

That's why Thaivisa is closed to ALL posts involving monarchy, either praise or critisism.

[cmsally]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

[Jai Dee]

Judging by amount af trolling and bullshit posted here, I'm absolutely convinced that royalty should be kept off limits.

"Respectful and thoughtful" is not how I would describe Thaivisa, or any other Thai related online community.

Without the possibility of criticism, there can be no real praise.

That's why Thaivisa is closed to ALL posts involving monarchy, either praise or critisism.

Exactly.

I would like to remind all members of the following excerpt from the Forum Rules:

No disrespect of the King of Thailand or The Thai Royal Family! Discussion of topics concerning the King or other current or deceased members of the Thai Royal Family is forbidden.

Unless members wish to quote news sources concerning the Thai Royal Family, all other posts will be deleted and the offending member warned and/or suspended.

Please adhere to the rules that you agreed to when you signed up to join this forum.

[sriracha john]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

The blame can also be placed upon whoever is currently running the weapons division of the police department. All weapons and ammo require routine qualitative inspection. Whoever is currently running the training division of the police department is also at fault as the nature of these explosive devices should have been well known in advance. They've had them for 13 years. They are also at fault for the indiscriminate nature of their usage, eg. firing them so randomly they ended up going into Dusit Zoo, and lots of video coverage of the police firing blindly as they were running in the opposite direction.

The actual firing of the weapons directly at persons, which should never be done, whether the teargas contains RDX or not, is something that needs to be sorted first.

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

Edited October 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[sylviex]

QUOTE (sylviex @ 2008-10-13 15:53:34) QUOTE Father does not allow daughter's bathing rite to be held at Government House

The father of a woman who was killed Tuesday when police cracked down on protesters did not allow the bathing rite be held at the Government House.

Jinda Radubpanyawut said he would like to handle the funeral services on his own.

Earlier, the People's Alliance for Democracy announced that it would hold a bathing rite for Angkhana Radubpayawut at the Government House Wednesday.

"They are still busy with their mission and I feel sorry for my daughter so I'll take care of it on my own," the father said.

The Nation

I am glad to see this. Good on you, Jinda Radubpanyawut.

____________________

So as to clarify any implication or misunderstanding, the above article was not published today, but 5 days ago...

Sorry, if that's so. No wish to mislead -- where do you find the publication date ? This is a problem with some of these news sites.

If I google the item I find:

"13 Oct 2008 ... Home > Breakingnews > Father does not allow daughter's bathing rite to be held at Government House. Search. keyword section ...

nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30085471 - 31k - "

and seems to me that is where I saw it .

In any case, other events have made this item plainly redundant.

Edited October 14, 2008 by sylviex

[h90]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

The blame can also be placed upon whoever is currently running the weapons division of the police department. All weapons and ammo require routine qualitative inspection. Whoever is currently running the training division of the police department is also at fault as the nature of these explosive devices should have been well known in advance. They've had them for 13 years. They are also at fault for the indiscriminate nature of their usage, eg. firing them so randomly they ended up going into Dusit Zoo, and lots of video coverage of the police firing blindly as they were running in the opposite direction.

The actual firing of the weapons directly at persons, which should never be done, whether the teargas contains RDX or not, is something that needs to be sorted first.

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

In Thailand?

Not even in other countries.....I know from other middle european countries where they "find" rooms of guns and bullets. Which are in no list, they should not exist at all......And the Thai police....what shall I say? There is not much time between collecting bribe and spending it as the massage......

[Thai at Heart]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

The blame can also be placed upon whoever is currently running the weapons division of the police department. All weapons and ammo require routine qualitative inspection. Whoever is currently running the training division of the police department is also at fault as the nature of these explosive devices should have been well known in advance. They've had them for 13 years. They are also at fault for the indiscriminate nature of their usage, eg. firing them so randomly they ended up going into Dusit Zoo, and lots of video coverage of the police firing blindly as they were running in the opposite direction.

The actual firing of the weapons directly at persons, which should never be done, whether the teargas contains RDX or not, is something that needs to be sorted first.

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

I think you will find that modern tear gas can and is aimed and fired directly at people without causing explosive damage.

[younghusband]

In terms of PAD strategy exemplified by the recent events there's an interesting opinion piece over at New Mandala which I have edited to keep within forum rules:

"If you do the numbers it is clear that the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leadership has chosen bloodshed over ballots.

The PAD has abandoned electoral politics. With no coherent or credible political platform their only hope is that sufficient blood will be spilt to prompt a military strike against Thailand’s democratically elected government. But the army appears unwilling to act.The international community, for its part, is standing firmly by the government.

Make no mistake, the PAD leadership wants blood on the streets and have rushed to turn the imagery of violence to their advantage.

The numerous well-intentioned statements and petitions that are circulating calling on “all sides to avoid violence” are missing this basic point. Violence is not an unfortunate by-product of the current political standoff. It is now the core plank in the PAD provocateur platform.

What occurred last Tuesday is the inevitable result of a deliberate strategy that the PAD has pursued since early 2008. In the wake of the disappointing 2007 election, which returned a Thaksin-esque government to power, the PAD has abandoned any pretence of respect for electoral decisions. Their central ideological claim has been that the “tyranny of the majority” can only be overcome by extraordinary action. Just how extraordinary remains to be seen.

The “tyranny of the majority” is a bogeyman that has been effectively deployed by the PAD to create an impression of a government that enjoys a hegemonic dictatorship of democracy.

But how firm are the electoral foundations of the government’s so-called tyranny?

Let’s take a look at the December 2007 election results. In that election there were two electoral components - a constituency vote in which 400 seats were up for grabs; and a “party-list” vote for an additional 80 seats.

The government’s People Power Party (PPP) won 199 constituency seats with about 37 percent of constituency votes cast. It was a solid victory over the Democrats who won 132 seats with about 30 percent of constituency votes cast. And that is where the electoral difference lay. In the party list system the vote was virtually even, with PPP gaining only one more party list seat than the Democrats.

Overall, PPP won 233 seats, just 7 short of an absolute majority. They clearly won a right to govern and it is unsurprising that minor parties joined with PPP to form a coalition. It was, under all the circumstances, a solid PPP victory. But does the result really form a basis for electoral tyranny? Is now the time for opposition forces to abandon electoral hope? Does a 7 percent victory in the constituency vote justify a street rebellion? Is there no other way of changing an elected government?

Just think about the figures for a moment. On the face of it, if four out of every hundred constituency voters had cast their votes for the Democrats instead of PPP the political landscape after December 2007 would have been very different. If the Democrats had managed to win just 34 more constituency seats they would have been the largest party in the parliament with, one must assume, a very strong claim to government.

And there were plenty of constituency seats that could have been won. We’ve taken a quick look at the constituency results, and some of the figures are very interesting indeed.

We have identified 22 close constituency contests where a Democrat was the highest ranked unsuccessful candidate (remember that most consistencies elect more than one MP). On average, across these 22 constituencies, an additional 6381 votes would have put an extra Democrat into parliament. Some contests were very close. One Democrat missed out by just 36 votes, another by 539. In many contests only a few thousand votes, less than a couple of percent of votes cast, were required for an additional Democrat seat in parliament. There were 12 seats where a Democrat candidate lost by less than 5000. Just over 140,000 votes, in total, would have delivered an additional Democrat MP in all of these 22 constituencies. This represents just over 1.25 % of the total constituency votes cast in these contests. Hardly an insurmountable target.

Note that this is a very preliminary analysis based on cases where a Democrat was the highest ranked unsuccessful candidate. There are other cases (we have identified 6) where lower ranked Democrats could have succeeded with similarly modest increases in their vote. Of course, there are also constituencies where PPP would have lost to minor parties with small shifts in voting patterns.

And, don’t forget, there is also a substantial percentage of the electorate (around 20 percent) that didn’t vote in 2007 that could probably be persuaded to enter the electoral fray by a well executed political campaign. Motivating just one in ten of these to get out and vote against the PPP could have an enormous impact.

The notion that the current government enjoys an unassailable electoral hegemony is simply wrong.

Like any elected government, PPP is electorally vulnerable and could be defeated. Its performance since the election has hardly been stunning. It has been pummelled by the courts and the media. It won’t escape the electoral backlash that follows the international economic crisis. Factions within the deeply divided PPP are flexing their muscle. Party dissolution and reformation will shift the political landscape yet again.

Plenty of parliamentary seats are there for the taking.

But the PAD leadership doesn’t want to embark on a broad based political campaign to unseat the government by electoral means, either in alliance with any existing party or independently. The PAD might not love the Democrats but they clearly represent a basis for an alternative government.

In October 2006 we saw Sondhi Limthongkul speak (at SOAS in London) about his plans for an education campaign to win over a vanguard of provincial middle-class voters as a counterweight to Thaksin’s populism. It was an elitist vision, but still an electoral one. But Sondhi’s electoral stamina was short-lived. Now it seems that persuading a small percentage of the electorate to vote against the government is beyond the wit of Sondhi, the PAD and their formidable public relations machine. Instead they have adopted an electorally unsaleable “new politics” in which some parliamentarians (perhaps 70 percent) would be appointed. There is simply no need for such electoral defeatism.

We can only conclude that Sondhi and the PAD leadership have deliberately chosen blood rather than ballots.

They will happily sacrifice the bodies of their hard-core supporters because they have neither the ability nor the will to shift the hearts and minds of even a small portion of Thailand’s swinging voters."

[animatic]

I hope this doesn't mean he's going to start hiding out in toilets for an hour like his predecessor...

Somchai asks reporters why they turn up in high number

Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat smiling attended a weekly Cabinet meeting at the temporary Cabinet office at the Don Muang airport at 9:40 am Tuesday.

When he saw an army of reporters waiting for him, he asked whether there was anything special.

"Is there anything special? Why are there so many of you here? Today is just a normal Cabinet meeting day," Somchai greeted the reporters, smilingly.

- The Nation / 2008-10-14

===================================

He really is dumbfounded about his position, isn't he?

A Fish Out Of Mud

[animatic]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

Ah but there is no FACT it wasn't tested at all.

For all we know someone KNEW for SURE what this stuff does.

Would you JUST BUY a bunch if this without testing it?? Come on!

Gee sure, I'll take a thousand rounds of this, who cares how it works.

Gee lets stock pile this for future use

and leave NO DIRECTIONS on the packages!!

And then the WAY they used it.

No escape area, they surrounded the protesters, and fired 100 rounds directly at them.

Like shooting Ducks In A Barrel. A most disgusting display of power gone wrong.

It was punishing PAD, not clearing out protesters or simple crowd control.

The forensics and the video and eye witnesses all confirm this.

Somebody wanted to gain back face by beating PAD to the ground.

Someone was foolish enough to think this would discourage them too.

All it did was bring them MORE sympathetic eyes, ears and hands.

[Rajah]

Policeman run over by a PAD supporter - reported by foreign media - not Thai (that I am aware of)

You mean this?

http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/13987

[Old Man River]

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

I agree, the issue of culpability for this slaughter is far more important. Apparently, according to eye witness reports, this was never intended to be crowd control as the police surrounded the demonstrators and then shot at them point blank.

From what I understand, the main reason canisters were found in the Dusit Zoo is that zoo workers opened up some gates so the surrounded demonstrators had a place to escape. While they ran into the zoo, some police ran after them and continued shooting.

[cmsally]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

Ah but there is no FACT it wasn't tested at all.

For all we know someone KNEW for SURE what this stuff does.

Would you JUST BUY a bunch if this without testing it?? Come on!

Gee sure, I'll take a thousand rounds of this, who cares how it works.

Gee lets stock pile this for future use

and leave NO DIRECTIONS on the packages!!

And then the WAY they used it.

No escape area, they surrounded the protesters, and fired 100 rounds directly at them.

Like shooting Ducks In A Barrel. A most disgusting display of power gone wrong.

It was punishing PAD, not clearing out protesters or simple crowd control.

The forensics and the video and eye witnesses all confirm this.

Somebody wanted to gain back face by beating PAD to the ground.

Someone was foolish enough to think this would discourage them too.

All it did was bring them MORE sympathetic eyes, ears and hands.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a huge supply bought and never tested at all before use.

[Plus]

Those tear gas canisters are reported to be 5cm in diameter and 17cm long. That's a one mean projectile flying at the speed of several hundred meters per second, and then it explodes.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/rea...newsid=30085836

It's in the "The truth about brutality" letter.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Plus

[sriracha john]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

The blame can also be placed upon whoever is currently running the weapons division of the police department. All weapons and ammo require routine qualitative inspection. Whoever is currently running the training division of the police department is also at fault as the nature of these explosive devices should have been well known in advance. They've had them for 13 years. They are also at fault for the indiscriminate nature of their usage, eg. firing them so randomly they ended up going into Dusit Zoo, and lots of video coverage of the police firing blindly as they were running in the opposite direction.

The actual firing of the weapons directly at persons, which should never be done, whether the teargas contains RDX or not, is something that needs to be sorted first.

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

I think you will find that modern tear gas can and is aimed and fired directly at people without causing explosive damage.

Would you have a reference for that?

The information I seem to find on the issue references firing directly at people as an adverse, incorrect, and criminal manner to use it, such as when it was done so on crowds in Peru, Zimbabwe, and Colombia.

Edited October 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[^_^]

After the clash, the Police did a live demonstration on NBT by throwing-detonating some U.S. made Smoke-Grenades which they claimed was the only type of smoke grenades they used to disperse the PAD at the Parliament, to prove that it's harmless and also to counter the claim that the polices' smoke-grenades causes the dead and injured.

If the Police didn't know that China made smoke-grenade could cause serious damage, why didn't they admit that they used China made smoke grenades on the PAD at the Parliament?

Why didn't they use China made smoke grenades during the live demonstration televised on NBT to prove that it's "harmless" as they claimed?

Edited October 14, 2008 by ^_^

[sriracha john]

QUOTE (sylviex @ 2008-10-13 15:53:34) QUOTE Father does not allow daughter's bathing rite to be held at Government House

The father of a woman who was killed Tuesday when police cracked down on protesters did not allow the bathing rite be held at the Government House.

Jinda Radubpanyawut said he would like to handle the funeral services on his own.

Earlier, the People's Alliance for Democracy announced that it would hold a bathing rite for Angkhana Radubpayawut at the Government House Wednesday.

"They are still busy with their mission and I feel sorry for my daughter so I'll take care of it on my own," the father said.

The Nation

I am glad to see this. Good on you, Jinda Radubpanyawut.

____________________

So as to clarify any implication or misunderstanding, the above article was not published today, but 5 days ago...

Sorry, if that's so. No wish to mislead -- where do you find the publication date ? This is a problem with some of these news sites.

If I google the item I find:

"13 Oct 2008 ... Home > Breakingnews > Father does not allow daughter's bathing rite to be held at Government House. Search. keyword section ...

nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30085471 - 31k - "

and seems to me that is where I saw it .

In any case, other events have made this item plainly redundant.

How did you find it initially before knowing the words to google?

btw, the correct link is:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/ads...ter%27s+bathing

October 8, 2008

Edited October 14, 2008 by sriracha john

[animatic]

)-->

QUOTE ( @ 2008-10-14 14:15:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After the clash, the Police did a live demonstration on NBT by throwing-detonating some U.S. made Smoke-Grenades which they claimed was the only type of smoke grenades they used to disperse the PAD at the Parliament, to prove that it's harmless and also to counter the claim that the polices' smoke-grenades causes the dead and injured.

If the Police didn't know that China made smoke-grenade could cause serious damage, why didn't they admit that they used China made smoke grenades on the PAD at the Parliament?

Why didn't they use China made smoke grenades during the live demonstration televised on NBT to prove that it's "harmless" as they claimed?

These were not SMOKE grenades, but TEAR GAS grenades.

Smoke can be used to obscure and approaching assault till the last seconds

Tear gas it to TEMPORARILY disable an opponent till they can be physically controled.

It is not to be used to PERMANENTLY injure people. That is not it's design intent or use.

In any case once it was witnessed that the weapon and tactics were causing grevious

nodily harm,

both the weapon and tactic should have been dropped,

UNLESS the INTENT was grevious bodily harm and not control and disorientation.

[jdinasia]

isn't the whole teargas launcher thing a moot point?

Can anyone deny that the police fired weapons that KILLED and either were not properly trained for crowd control or had no intent to control the crowd and instead were attempting to punish the crowd?

We should probably create a death toll count on all sides to help folks like TG2 out ....

[Thai at Heart]

So presumably the blame lays with the purchase contract of the tear gas and the fact that it wasn't tested after purchase.

If what I heard was correct, in that the purchase contract was initiated in 2538, then it might take a bit digging to find someone to place the blame on.

The blame can also be placed upon whoever is currently running the weapons division of the police department. All weapons and ammo require routine qualitative inspection. Whoever is currently running the training division of the police department is also at fault as the nature of these explosive devices should have been well known in advance. They've had them for 13 years. They are also at fault for the indiscriminate nature of their usage, eg. firing them so randomly they ended up going into Dusit Zoo, and lots of video coverage of the police firing blindly as they were running in the opposite direction.

The actual firing of the weapons directly at persons, which should never be done, whether the teargas contains RDX or not, is something that needs to be sorted first.

Actually, IMO, the issue of who specifically procured these deadly weapons 13 years ago is a lower priority issue for this incident when compared to the current culpability issues. Nearly the entire present police force shares responsibility with the ultimate responsibility being assumed by the politicians who gave these specific orders to attack.

I think you will find that modern tear gas can and is aimed and fired directly at people without causing explosive damage.

Would you have a reference for that?

The information I seem to find on the issue references firing directly at people as an adverse, incorrect, and criminal manner to use it, such as when it was done so on crowds in Peru, Zimbabwe, and Colombia.

I found a video of crowd control in the US from the Republican convention and posted it into the discussion a couple of days ago. This assumes that the US police force are well drilled in how to use this kind of stuff. No one paid the post much attention because we are all too busy apportioning blame. It is available in youtube somewhere also.

The police are in crouch position and fire a combined flash bang and gas rounds directly at the oncoming protestors. The rounds explodes no more than a few feet away from the protestors. Loud bang and some teargas is expelled.

One round appears to go off between the legs of a protestor/bystander while he is wearing shorts. The explosive force of the bang appears to do him no damage and is enormously smaller than those used last week. Interestingly, it appears on the video that there may be away even to change the distance the round travels before it expels it's gas.

As for Peru or Colombia, I can't say, as for Zim and knowing their political connections with China, they are probably using Chinese munitions too.

[sriracha john]

In any case once it was witnessed that the weapon and tactics were causing grievous

bodily harm,

both the weapon and tactic should have been dropped,

UNLESS the INTENT was grievous bodily harm and not control and disorientation.

Khunying Pornthip wants answers to the same point....

Central Institute of Forensic Science Director Pornthip Rojanasunan....

She noted that firing only a few tear gas canisters would have been more than enough to disperse the crowds, instead of the hundreds used. She also questioned why police fired new rounds of tear gas in the evening of Oct 7 when it was known injuries and deaths had resulted from such actions in the morning.