Red-Shirts Blamed For Gunfights, Bomb Attacks

[anotherpeter]

It is quite likely that snipers have been used. There was a video on u-tube where the cam panned around about 90 degrees or more. In the background you could see what appeared to be muzzle flashes from a building a few hundred feet away. People were hit and the way some of the crowd behaved it was apparent that they were trying to figure out where the shots were coming from....(the army was out front, but they were looking and pointing over to the side----towards the building?) Speculation off course, but snipers can not be ruled out. There is also a suggestion that the Japanese journalist was hit by a shot with a trajectory that would indicate a high up shooting position.

The question----who's snipers? If you connect this with the French TV video of soldiers firing on the crowd---isolated from the main force, you have to wonder.

I think you're making things up.

Where in the video can you even see a few hundred feet away?

People weren't looking UP to see where the shot came from. They were looking at a small group about 3-4 metres away from the guy that got shot.

[Rideau]

Interesting report from New York Times. Not sure if someone has posted it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/asia/11thai.html

Peaceful protesters, huh?

[tonywebster]

tomazbodner

the mystery surrounding the stolen weapons was solved, despite trying to pin this on the reds to create mass hysteria and justify the ISA, the army has since admitted that the weapons were taken by their own men and sold to southern insurgents.

Apologies, wasn't aware of that.

No problem mate, we all miss things when they are not widly publicized. It served the government better for the populace to still believe the reds were involved.

[vicco]

It is quite likely that snipers have been used. There was a video on u-tube where the cam panned around about 90 degrees or more. In the background you could see what appeared to be muzzle flashes from a building a few hundred feet away. People were hit and the way some of the crowd behaved it was apparent that they were trying to figure out where the shots were coming from....(the army was out front, but they were looking and pointing over to the side----towards the building?) Speculation off course, but snipers can not be ruled out. There is also a suggestion that the Japanese journalist was hit by a shot with a trajectory that would indicate a high up shooting position.

The question----who's snipers? If you connect this with the French TV video of soldiers firing on the crowd---isolated from the main force, you have to wonder.

I think you're making things up.

Where in the video can you even see a few hundred feet away?

People weren't looking UP to see where the shot came from. They were looking at a small group about 3-4 metres away from the guy that got shot.

You are not even talking about the same video.. and I am not making anything up. Thats what somebody said when I posted about the French TV video on another thread...and then somebody found it and posted it on this thread.... and I stated what something "appeared" to be...and I stated that it was speculative....

90% or more of everything on here is speculation until we get confirmation. Even confirmation is not good enough for some. I will happily post the video I was referring to if and when I can find it again, but there are so many its difficult. Seems anyone who raises the slightest doubt about what the establishment is saying had to be put on trial and "prove" everything...the rest can say what they like. Believe what you like...it will all come out in end.

[dino67]

The France24 video shows a soldier firing one shot from an M16 that may have been at the same elevation as the crowd - he may have shot at a wall !

The following shots are at an elevation well over the protestors heads.

I'm not taking sides but have 30+ years experience with ballistics and firearms.

In the other You tube video of the red protestor that was shot in the head look at a guy in black at the 9 -10 second mark exiting the building - he appears to be chambering a round or clearing a round from a handgun before he dissappears from sight, moments later our subject is shot in the head. It may have been an accidential discharge or he turned to quickly fire a shot in the armies direction and hit his own guy.

Edited April 12, 2010 by dino67

[moresomekl]

4 soldiers dead and hundreds wounded....

If thailand had a professional police, with anti riot force to front the insurgents, special forces to quickly and clean arrest the red leaders, they had no needs for the intervention of the Thai Army.

But cops are too busy to count the baht made with their corrupted activities and to scared to face to face a mob.

In France the Anti Riot Forces (named CRS) are recruited amidst Police and professional soldiers at the end of their contract with Army: all the CRS are experienced, no young conscrit. They have a special training. It will not take so long to create such a Force in Thailand.

It is particularly important that People doing this kind of work are mature, responsible, well informed about laws, consequences of their acts.

It is amateurism to engage the Army.

Exactly .

Its not an excuse to say Thailand dont have proper riot police , the courts are politicised , the constitution is not correct and so on and so forth .

There has been what ? 40 years to correct that .

Things must change , and on the whole training police for riot control is the less chalenging of all the tasks

[moresomekl]

It is quite likely that snipers have been used. There was a video on u-tube where the cam panned around about 90 degrees or more. In the background you could see what appeared to be muzzle flashes from a building a few hundred feet away. People were hit and the way some of the crowd behaved it was apparent that they were trying to figure out where the shots were coming from....(the army was out front, but they were looking and pointing over to the side----towards the building?) Speculation off course, but snipers can not be ruled out. There is also a suggestion that the Japanese journalist was hit by a shot with a trajectory that would indicate a high up shooting position.

The question----who's snipers? If you connect this with the French TV video of soldiers firing on the crowd---isolated from the main force, you have to wonder.

I think you're making things up.

Where in the video can you even see a few hundred feet away?

People weren't looking UP to see where the shot came from. They were looking at a small group about 3-4 metres away from the guy that got shot.

It is very very clear in the videos that the red shirts were dancing and doing nothing agressive and suddenly were shot at . Who shot them is unknown . So much so for the "violent" red shirts , violent in talk only yes ...

Of course AFTER beein shot at they started throwing things at the soldiers assuming it was them . Thats quite human .

Or should they be slaughtered without making noise ? .

[TAWP]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

[jdinasia]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

It is easier to hold the red propoganda line if you ignore the fact of the armed reds AND ignore the public statements of the red leaders.

[yoshiwara]

It is quite likely that snipers have been used. There was a video on u-tube where the cam panned around about 90 degrees or more. In the background you could see what appeared to be muzzle flashes from a building a few hundred feet away. People were hit and the way some of the crowd behaved it was apparent that they were trying to figure out where the shots were coming from....(the army was out front, but they were looking and pointing over to the side----towards the building?) Speculation off course, but snipers can not be ruled out. There is also a suggestion that the Japanese journalist was hit by a shot with a trajectory that would indicate a high up shooting position.

The question----who's snipers? If you connect this with the French TV video of soldiers firing on the crowd---isolated from the main force, you have to wonder.

I think you're making things up.

Where in the video can you even see a few hundred feet away?

People weren't looking UP to see where the shot came from. They were looking at a small group about 3-4 metres away from the guy that got shot.

It is very very clear in the videos that the red shirts were dancing and doing nothing agressive and suddenly were shot at . Who shot them is unknown . So much so for the "violent" red shirts , violent in talk only yes ...

Of course AFTER beein shot at they started throwing things at the soldiers assuming it was them . Thats quite human .

Or should they be slaughtered without making noise ? .

Would those 'things' be the petrol bombs Jatuporn urged the reds to stock up on in advance of the conflict?

Or are you suggesting that the 'dancing' reds just spontaneously responded?

Your ingenuity in painting the second picture is certainly audacious.

next you will be telling us that the incitement to set Bangkok ablaze was not an instruction but just the name of a well-known hip-hop dance.

[moresomekl]

It is quite likely that snipers have been used. There was a video on u-tube where the cam panned around about 90 degrees or more. In the background you could see what appeared to be muzzle flashes from a building a few hundred feet away. People were hit and the way some of the crowd behaved it was apparent that they were trying to figure out where the shots were coming from....(the army was out front, but they were looking and pointing over to the side----towards the building?) Speculation off course, but snipers can not be ruled out. There is also a suggestion that the Japanese journalist was hit by a shot with a trajectory that would indicate a high up shooting position.

The question----who's snipers? If you connect this with the French TV video of soldiers firing on the crowd---isolated from the main force, you have to wonder.

I think you're making things up.

Where in the video can you even see a few hundred feet away?

People weren't looking UP to see where the shot came from. They were looking at a small group about 3-4 metres away from the guy that got shot.

It is very very clear in the videos that the red shirts were dancing and doing nothing agressive and suddenly were shot at . Who shot them is unknown . So much so for the "violent" red shirts , violent in talk only yes ...

Of course AFTER beein shot at they started throwing things at the soldiers assuming it was them . Thats quite human .

Or should they be slaughtered without making noise ? .

Would those 'things' be the petrol bombs Jatuporn urged the reds to stock up on in advance of the conflict?

Or are you suggesting that the 'dancing' reds just spontaneously responded?

Your ingenuity in painting the second picture is certainly audacious.

next you will be telling us that the incitement to set Bangkok ablaze was not an instruction but just the name of a well-known hip-hop dance.

Is Bangkok ablaze ? I did not see that .

What i saw is many deads

Of course if the soldiers start it all by shooting live ammunition at the reds (which is not prooven)

the reds must be prepared to defend themselves .

Or should they wait partiently to be all exterminated ?

[moresomekl]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

It is easier to hold the red propoganda line if you ignore the fact of the armed reds AND ignore the public statements of the red leaders.

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

[Tingnongnoi]

did you not see the guys in black with AK-47's either

your argument works both ways, if the reds fired first (also unproven) then what are the soldiers supposed to do just stand and get blown up and shot?

[kissdani]

/b]The government had everything to lose by the death of even a single protesto......

Looks like they lost a lot..... there's plenty of dead protesters....

Indeed they did lose a lot because of that. The question is: who shot them and who would have something to gain by the deaths?

Last week, when a grenade was fired into a parking lot, next to the Democrats head quarter, the exlosion shuttered the glass doors of a snooker parlour andresulting in injuries of two police officers. Both were taking a break in the parlour.

Later in the hospital, it was a big news show when the PM and Suthep visited the two injured police officer. in the hospital. Abhisits visit was escorted by dozens of cameramen and reporters. The room to small for all of them.

Last hour on Thai TV i saw 3 man in uniform and the presenter explaining me what happen. Lot of footage of the wounded soldiers played over and over again and the clip of the black masked guy with the rifle.

Not much about how the red shirts got killed or injured, actually nothing.

Only when the reports about the clashes have been nearly live i saw also a short report from a hospital, showing a continuous stream of injured reds shirts arriving. Next morning TV showed only soldiers in the hospital. How many of the red shirt have gunshot wounds?

Yesterday in the evening i was at the red rally site at Central World Plaza, at one corner there were some very graphic photos on display. The rally itself and the street didn't tell much about saturdays clashes. Looked like before. Okay, no music when i was there, only speeches, but with the people of all ages around and the food stalls it was like the a normal thai festival.

At the democracy monument and ratchadamnergn road the reds parked the sized army tanks and hummvees, dismantled and heavy damaged. Looks impressive.

Nothing about this on thai TV. Wounded soldiers instead again. same clip on repeat.

Nothing visual about dead reds, only about soldiers that retreat, run away from the reds, or footage of soldiers fire into the air while hurled with water bottle. At the beginning of the crackdown, at the afternoon Thai TV showed how soldiers fired rounds into the people, the rubber bullets at close distance, but that don't get repeated anymore.

What was your question again? Is it legitimate to ask such a question?

[moresomekl]

did you not see the guys in black with AK-47's either

your argument works both ways, if the reds fired first (also unproven) then what are the soldiers supposed to do just stand and get blown up and shot?

Yes works both way of course problem is that here many are blaming the reds ONLY .

There was even reports of soldiers shooting at other soldiers ....

[jdinasia]

did you not see the guys in black with AK-47's either

your argument works both ways, if the reds fired first (also unproven) then what are the soldiers supposed to do just stand and get blown up and shot?

Yes works both way of course problem is that here many are blaming the reds ONLY .

There was even reports of soldiers shooting at other soldiers ....

Care to show us one of those reports of soldiers shooting other soldiers? Or do you mean Sae daeng's soldiers attacking the military?

[jdinasia]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

It is easier to hold the red propoganda line if you ignore the fact of the armed reds AND ignore the public statements of the red leaders.

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

Wrong --- inciting violence is illegal. Inciting insurrection and declaring "war" is more than just a little illegal. It is in and of itself violence and in many places will will be met with a charge of treason and execution.

[tonywebster]

did you not see the guys in black with AK-47's either

your argument works both ways, if the reds fired first (also unproven) then what are the soldiers supposed to do just stand and get blown up and shot?

Yes works both way of course problem is that here many are blaming the reds ONLY .

There was even reports of soldiers shooting at other soldiers ....

Care to show us one of those reports of soldiers shooting other soldiers? Or do you mean Sae daeng's soldiers attacking the military?

care to show us footage or the admittance from sae deang that he threw the specific grenade you mention in the other thread before the soldiers start shooting live ammunition at the protestors?

[termad]

I think we can all agree it would not be below the Red Shirt mentality to spill some of its own blood to play the sympathy card. They killed their own people, shame on the reds!

That must be the most stupid post to date.

[tonywebster]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

It is easier to hold the red propoganda line if you ignore the fact of the armed reds AND ignore the public statements of the red leaders.

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

Wrong --- inciting violence is illegal. Inciting insurrection and declaring "war" is more than just a little illegal. It is in and of itself violence and in many places will will be met with a charge of treason and execution.

he never said it was legal, he just said words don't kill anyone, but live bullets do kill people, and he is right, I am yet to meet someone killed by a witty retort

[jdinasia]

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

Wrong --- inciting violence is illegal. Inciting insurrection and declaring "war" is more than just a little illegal. It is in and of itself violence and in many places will will be met with a charge of treason and execution.

he never said it was legal, he just said words don't kill anyone, but live bullets do kill people, and he is right, I am yet to meet someone killed by a witty retort

By that same reasoning (inane) then no general and no PM is guilty of anything either. They gave orders but didn't pull the trigger.

Inciting people to violence is participating directly in the violence.

[tonywebster]

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

Wrong --- inciting violence is illegal. Inciting insurrection and declaring "war" is more than just a little illegal. It is in and of itself violence and in many places will will be met with a charge of treason and execution.

he never said it was legal, he just said words don't kill anyone, but live bullets do kill people, and he is right, I am yet to meet someone killed by a witty retort

By that same reasoning (inane) then no general and no PM is guilty of anything either. They gave orders but didn't pull the trigger.

Inciting people to violence is participating directly in the violence.

Law is obviously not your strong point is it?

keep on twisting there twisty boy. At no point did the poster say it was legal or illegal, you jumped in with your usual ham fisted way and got it wrong, you did not address his post, you simply spouted some garbage that has no relation to what was written, the man was right, words do not kill people, bullets do. I see nowhere in his post that incitement is either legal or illegal.

In your hurry to start yet another little internet spat you missed on important thing, what is actually written. stop haring round the forum trying to be the big 'I am', read what people write, let is sink in, think about your reply, does your reply make sense to what is written? Then reply, it saves cluttering up the forum with nonsensical posts that have no relation to what is written.

[animatic]

The video where the guy is shot in the head is NOT during 'dance and fun' time.

It is easier to hold the red propoganda line if you ignore the fact of the armed reds AND ignore the public statements of the red leaders.

Public statement are regretable but they havent killed anyone .

Live bullets do kill people !!!

Most clearly that statement is dead wrong.

The reds rabble rousing from stage has caused at least 21 dead.

[termad]

/b]The government had everything to lose by the death of even a single protesto......

Looks like they lost a lot..... there's plenty of dead protesters....

Indeed they did lose a lot because of that. The question is: who shot them and who would have something to gain by the deaths?

Last week, when a grenade was fired into a parking lot, next to the Democrats head quarter, the exlosion shuttered the glass doors of a snooker parlour andresulting in injuries of two police officers. Both were taking a break in the parlour.

Later in the hospital, it was a big news show when the PM and Suthep visited the two injured police officer. in the hospital. Abhisits visit was escorted by dozens of cameramen and reporters. The room to small for all of them.

Last hour on Thai TV i saw 3 man in uniform and the presenter explaining me what happen. Lot of footage of the wounded soldiers played over and over again and the clip of the black masked guy with the rifle.

Not much about how the red shirts got killed or injured, actually nothing.

Only when the reports about the clashes have been nearly live i saw also a short report from a hospital, showing a continuous stream of injured reds shirts arriving. Next morning TV showed only soldiers in the hospital. How many of the red shirt have gunshot wounds?

Yesterday in the evening i was at the red rally site at Central World Plaza, at one corner there were some very graphic photos on display. The rally itself and the street didn't tell much about saturdays clashes. Looked like before. Okay, no music when i was there, only speeches, but with the people of all ages around and the food stalls it was like the a normal thai festival.

At the democracy monument and ratchadamnergn road the reds parked the sized army tanks and hummvees, dismantled and heavy damaged. Looks impressive.

Nothing about this on thai TV. Wounded soldiers instead again. same clip on repeat.

Nothing visual about dead reds, only about soldiers that retreat, run away from the reds, or footage of soldiers fire into the air while hurled with water bottle. At the beginning of the crackdown, at the afternoon Thai TV showed how soldiers fired rounds into the people, the rubber bullets at close distance, but that don't get repeated anymore.

What was your question again? Is it legitimate to ask such a question?

It is worth mentioning that the rubber bullet was invented by the British Army, mainly for use as a non-lethal deterent in Northern Ireland, however it was subsequently discovered that the rubber bullet could in fact be very lethal - especially if somebody is struck in the head or upper torso. There has been no information as to whether any of the people killed on Saturday were killed by rubber bullets.

Their use was discontinued by the British Army back in the late seventies and they were replaced by a safer plastic bullet. Rubber bullets were never fired at close range as they were on Saturday.

The rubber bullets used by the British Army were produced against a British Army specification and as far as I remember they were fired from a special gun (and not from the standard SLR fitted with an adaptor) so the velocity on impact was known.

The point I'm making with all of this is that the Thai army has ordered thousands of these rubber bullets from a local manufacturer but to what specification? Also, the wounds shown on Thai TV over the weekend look nothing like the wounds that were shown on British TV all those years ago. So what is the impact velocity of these locally manufactured rubber bullets and who manufactures the adaptor?

[aussimike]

This Thread should not have been opened as it is in Contradiction with the aim of what the Nation has written in "our darkest day".

Yesterday morning, before any incident, I have underlined that Army should stay in its barracks because Army is a symbol of National Unity and should not be used against any fellow citizen- only reserved to external threats.

Young soldiers with several rounds of rubber and some (for warning) live ones, can confuse easily in the heat of a battle. Once everything begins to degenerate, everybody is warming up and the situatiion is escalading on both sides.

The decision to engage army (reluctant initially to be involved) is the key to this tragic saturday.

People engaged in a battle are loosing restraints it is well known: this kind of situation nearly always is degenerating.

The real responsability belongs to those who have created the situation, not to the fighters.

ARMY should have never been involved in this action.

I totally disagree with your opinion

The ARMY had to be engaged

wrong --- the purpose of any countries army is to defend that country against foreign invasion and to assist in disaster relief when and where needed -- the internal control of the country rests with the police forces of that country - to up hold the law of the land - seems too often that the army has been used in this country to do the bidding of the govt in power -- or to stage coups when needed - not to be killing their own countrymen - would be interested to know if u can quote what country has used the armed forces to supress local situations like this = apart from burma - but i refer to developed countries - so sad we see thai killing thai -- who was first to throw the first stone does not really matter -- the over reaction by the army was the problem -- and as quoted earlier - if action had been taken against the yellow shirts like this what would the reaction have been also - takes two to have a fight -- or two to tango -- and finally -- the army did not have to be engaged -- but if it was it should have been better controlled and not let these young men run around with weapons primed with live rounds -- the fact that they did have live rounds clearly shows the intent they were going to be used for --

[thepodest]

This Thread should not have been opened as it is in Contradiction with the aim of what the Nation has written in "our darkest day".

Yesterday morning, before any incident, I have underlined that Army should stay in its barracks because Army is a symbol of National Unity and should not be used against any fellow citizen- only reserved to external threats.

Young soldiers with several rounds of rubber and some (for warning) live ones, can confuse easily in the heat of a battle. Once everything begins to degenerate, everybody is warming up and the situatiion is escalading on both sides.

The decision to engage army (reluctant initially to be involved) is the key to this tragic saturday.

People engaged in a battle are loosing restraints it is well known: this kind of situation nearly always is degenerating.

The real responsability belongs to those who have created the situation, not to the fighters.

ARMY should have never been involved in this action.

I totally disagree with your opinion

The ARMY had to be engaged

wrong --- the purpose of any countries army is to defend that country against foreign invasion and to assist in disaster relief when and where needed -- the internal control of the country rests with the police forces of that country - to up hold the law of the land - seems too often that the army has been used in this country to do the bidding of the govt in power -- or to stage coups when needed - not to be killing their own countrymen - would be interested to know if u can quote what country has used the armed forces to supress local situations like this = apart from burma - but i refer to developed countries - so sad we see thai killing thai -- who was first to throw the first stone does not really matter -- the over reaction by the army was the problem -- and as quoted earlier - if action had been taken against the yellow shirts like this what would the reaction have been also - takes two to have a fight -- or two to tango -- and finally -- the army did not have to be engaged -- but if it was it should have been better controlled and not let these young men run around with weapons primed with live rounds -- the fact that they did have live rounds clearly shows the intent they were going to be used for --

How about the L.A. Riot 1992???

The National Guard and Marine were called in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCYdUItkGuY

Edited April 12, 2010 by thepodest

[moresomekl]

This Thread should not have been opened as it is in Contradiction with the aim of what the Nation has written in "our darkest day".

Yesterday morning, before any incident, I have underlined that Army should stay in its barracks because Army is a symbol of National Unity and should not be used against any fellow citizen- only reserved to external threats.

Young soldiers with several rounds of rubber and some (for warning) live ones, can confuse easily in the heat of a battle. Once everything begins to degenerate, everybody is warming up and the situatiion is escalading on both sides.

The decision to engage army (reluctant initially to be involved) is the key to this tragic saturday.

People engaged in a battle are loosing restraints it is well known: this kind of situation nearly always is degenerating.

The real responsability belongs to those who have created the situation, not to the fighters.

ARMY should have never been involved in this action.

I totally disagree with your opinion

The ARMY had to be engaged

wrong --- the purpose of any countries army is to defend that country against foreign invasion and to assist in disaster relief when and where needed -- the internal control of the country rests with the police forces of that country - to up hold the law of the land - seems too often that the army has been used in this country to do the bidding of the govt in power -- or to stage coups when needed - not to be killing their own countrymen - would be interested to know if u can quote what country has used the armed forces to supress local situations like this = apart from burma - but i refer to developed countries - so sad we see thai killing thai -- who was first to throw the first stone does not really matter -- the over reaction by the army was the problem -- and as quoted earlier - if action had been taken against the yellow shirts like this what would the reaction have been also - takes two to have a fight -- or two to tango -- and finally -- the army did not have to be engaged -- but if it was it should have been better controlled and not let these young men run around with weapons primed with live rounds -- the fact that they did have live rounds clearly shows the intent they were going to be used for --

secunded

[aussimike]

/b]The government had everything to lose by the death of even a single protesto......

Looks like they lost a lot..... there's plenty of dead protesters....

Indeed they did lose a lot because of that. The question is: who shot them and who would have something to gain by the deaths?

Last week, when a grenade was fired into a parking lot, next to the Democrats head quarter, the exlosion shuttered the glass doors of a snooker parlour andresulting in injuries of two police officers. Both were taking a break in the parlour.

Later in the hospital, it was a big news show when the PM and Suthep visited the two injured police officer. in the hospital. Abhisits visit was escorted by dozens of cameramen and reporters. The room to small for all of them.

Last hour on Thai TV i saw 3 man in uniform and the presenter explaining me what happen. Lot of footage of the wounded soldiers played over and over again and the clip of the black masked guy with the rifle.

Not much about how the red shirts got killed or injured, actually nothing.

Only when the reports about the clashes have been nearly live i saw also a short report from a hospital, showing a continuous stream of injured reds shirts arriving. Next morning TV showed only soldiers in the hospital. How many of the red shirt have gunshot wounds?

Yesterday in the evening i was at the red rally site at Central World Plaza, at one corner there were some very graphic photos on display. The rally itself and the street didn't tell much about saturdays clashes. Looked like before. Okay, no music when i was there, only speeches, but with the people of all ages around and the food stalls it was like the a normal thai festival.

At the democracy monument and ratchadamnergn road the reds parked the sized army tanks and hummvees, dismantled and heavy damaged. Looks impressive.

Nothing about this on thai TV. Wounded soldiers instead again. same clip on repeat.

Nothing visual about dead reds, only about soldiers that retreat, run away from the reds, or footage of soldiers fire into the air while hurled with water bottle. At the beginning of the crackdown, at the afternoon Thai TV showed how soldiers fired rounds into the people, the rubber bullets at close distance, but that don't get repeated anymore.

What was your question again? Is it legitimate to ask such a question?

It is worth mentioning that the rubber bullet was invented by the British Army, mainly for use as a non-lethal deterent in Northern Ireland, however it was subsequently discovered that the rubber bullet could in fact be very lethal - especially if somebody is struck in the head or upper torso. There has been no information as to whether any of the people killed on Saturday were killed by rubber bullets.

Their use was discontinued by the British Army back in the late seventies and they were replaced by a safer plastic bullet. Rubber bullets were never fired at close range as they were on Saturday.

The rubber bullets used by the British Army were produced against a British Army specification and as far as I remember they were fired from a special gun (and not from the standard SLR fitted with an adaptor) so the velocity on impact was known.

The point I'm making with all of this is that the Thai army has ordered thousands of these rubber bullets from a local manufacturer but to what specification? Also, the wounds shown on Thai TV over the weekend look nothing like the wounds that were shown on British TV all those years ago. So what is the impact velocity of these locally manufactured rubber bullets and who manufactures the adaptor?

well written and infomed comment - pity there were not more like this here - so many soap box experts - but this one is very informing - thank u

[jdinasia]

Wrong --- inciting violence is illegal. Inciting insurrection and declaring "war" is more than just a little illegal. It is in and of itself violence and in many places will will be met with a charge of treason and execution.

he never said it was legal, he just said words don't kill anyone, but live bullets do kill people, and he is right, I am yet to meet someone killed by a witty retort

By that same reasoning (inane) then no general and no PM is guilty of anything either. They gave orders but didn't pull the trigger.

Inciting people to violence is participating directly in the violence.

Law is obviously not your strong point is it?

keep on twisting there twisty boy. At no point did the poster say it was legal or illegal, you jumped in with your usual ham fisted way and got it wrong, you did not address his post, you simply spouted some garbage that has no relation to what was written, the man was right, words do not kill people, bullets do. I see nowhere in his post that incitement is either legal or illegal.

In your hurry to start yet another little internet spat you missed on important thing, what is actually written. stop haring round the forum trying to be the big 'I am', read what people write, let is sink in, think about your reply, does your reply make sense to what is written? Then reply, it saves cluttering up the forum with nonsensical posts that have no relation to what is written.

Yes, I can see you are caught in your own words and thus need to attack someone that responds directly to the issues. Words do kill. When a General Officer says to open fire his words kill and he is responsible for the issuance of the order. When a red shirt leader tells his followers to attack he is responsible for the issuance of the order and the results. You don't get to blame Abhisit or any general if you are unwilling to place the blame on the red leadership for what they say as well.

You or I can reasonably expect that as political nobodies in this situation that what we say will be overlooked by the participants. Leadership in these events cannot. Abhisit (depending on who you listen to) is guilty of being "murderous" or of being "too soft" but he will be held accountable for his words and actions as a leader. The same goes for Arisman, Veera, Sae Daeng, Jatuporn, Dr. Weng, etc.

Guilt lies at the feet of the Red leadership for escalating the violence.

It is grounded in law that what you say when inciting violence is part and parcel to the act of violence that follows when you are a leader.

[termad]

did you not see the guys in black with AK-47's either

your argument works both ways, if the reds fired first (also unproven) then what are the soldiers supposed to do just stand and get blown up and shot?

Yes works both way of course problem is that here many are blaming the reds ONLY .

There was even reports of soldiers shooting at other soldiers ....

In the BP yesterday they printed the running account a British reporter tweetered as he made his way across central Bangkok. He said that he had seen two Redshirts who had been shot - one in the head and one in the groin. He also said that a French reporter had told him that she had seen soldiers taking shots at medics trying to evacuate wounded. Reading that and from what I saw on TV I have the impression that those young soldiers were pretty scared, badly trained and badly led.