These Bloody Clashes Must Cease Immediately: Thailand

[TPI]

Do you really think Thaksin will accept a unity government that will delay any elections?

No. Thaksin will keep using the mob until he gets what he wants - the overthrow of an elected government.

I don't understand what the problem is? 60 cents and a clear eye will solve the problem...either in Dubai or Montenegro!

All he wants is his money back, his position as PM back, his conviction squashed, his honour back and etc etc!

The man is as mad as a "loon", bring him back in chains and get him to sweep the blood from the streets.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Takhsin is no more on the agenda.

The situation is far more critical now. It is obvious that the Red Shirts are now struggling for themselves and their aspirations to a better society: they are very determined and they are still on the protest sites after the bloody events.

It is clear now, that they will not move for peanuts: they have to get a satisfactory proposal.

Army coup is to be discarded because Army is a mosaic, and now I doubt issaner conscripts will follow their chiefs if it goes that way, inside Army it is cracking... The militias operating without control are issued from Army. Army coup in the present situation is an adventure and nobody can predict the issue, only one thing the risks are high it will be a very bloody experience.

General Chavalit has proposed a Government of National Unity several times in other circumstances. I do believe it is on the table of discussions of the Higher hierarchy level.

As observer, if elections were going on soon, because of the events of this Saturday, the Campaign will be a butchery. It was an option before Saturday. But now, IMHO, it has to be avoided.

Abhisit has to resigned as a gentleman before he will be obliged to do it: he represents now a Party and he is blooded tainted, he cannot bring Peace to Thai People. His presence is now a factor of division and struggling. His resignation may put an end to the present conflict if it is accompanied by a government of National Unity, a responsible roadmap to Elections and immediate social measures to save the income of the farmers and Northern families.

[moresomekl]

The saddest thing is everyone had predicted this and there were so many opportunities to prevent it. In the end, either the curse was too strong or the dark wills of some of those involved to see it happen simply overwhelmed efforts to stop it from happening

Who holds the leash on the military?

Those that released the dogs of war are ultimately responsible.

Those protesters who engaged in the violence are also responsible.

But, if the army doesn't enter the fight, there is not a fight.

What do you expect them to do mate? The contry is being taken over by a violent mob wnich refuses to obey the law. No one wants bloodshead but you cannot expect the Govt & Army to sit on their hands forever. Numerous warnings were given.

Do you really think Thaksin will accept a unity government that will delay any elections?

No. Thaksin will keep using the mob until he gets what he wants - the overthrow of an elected government.

hahaha . Elected governement ? Elected by who ? By they themselves ?

Or by a court that dissolved the TRT while absolving the dems for exactly

the same charges , and then went on disolving the PPP .

Every time the army or the biased court destroy the elected governement (pro Thaksin)

and there is a popular election that governement is elected again .

Learn to live with it and please STOP talking non sense .

[moresomekl]

Takhsin is no more on the agenda.

The situation is far more critical now. It is obvious that the Red Shirts are now struggling for themselves and their aspirations to a better society: they are very determined and they are still on the protest sites after the bloody events.

It is clear now, that they will not move for peanuts: they have to get a satisfactory proposal.

Army coup is to be discarded because Army is a mosaic, and now I doubt issaner conscripts will follow their chiefs if it goes that way, inside Army it is cracking... The militias operating without control are issued from Army. Army coup in the present situation is an adventure and nobody can predict the issue, only one thing the risks are high it will be a very bloody experience.

General Chavalit has proposed a Government of National Unity several times in other circumstances. I do believe it is on the table of discussions of the Higher hierarchy level.

As observer, if elections were going on soon, because of the events of this Saturday, the Campaign will be a butchery. It was an option before Saturday. But now, IMHO, it has to be avoided.

Abhisit has to resigned as a gentleman before he will be obliged to do it: he represents now a Party and he is blooded tainted, he cannot bring Peace to Thai People. His presence is now a factor of division and struggling. His resignation may put an end to the present conflict if it is accompanied by a government of National Unity, a responsible roadmap to Elections and immediate social measures to save the income of the farmers and Northern families.

100% concurr . Abhisit is very unpopular in the countryside so far . Even the dems stand no chance of winning elections with him , not that they stand much chance anyway .

[siampolee]

Article somewhat abridged for publication here.

Demonstrators in the streets of Bangkok have been taking Thailand one agonizing step further toward the end of its long, often gallant struggle for democracy. If freedom comes to an end in the Land of the Free – that is what the country's name means – this will mark its demise in most of Southeast Asia 35 years after the end of the Vietnam war. Communist China is eagerly waiting to pick up the pieces.

The red-shirted demonstrators, joined by some well-meaning orange-robed Buddhist monks, are not really for democracy. They are for the return to power of an exiled Sino-Thai kleptomaniac, Thaksin Shinawatra, who tore the country apart politically and economically when he was in power from 2001 to 2006, and will wreak more damage it if he comes back.

Mr. Thaksin and his followers, although most of them may not realize it, are anti-democracy

While robbing the government of at least $1.4-billion while he was prime minister – the sum determined in an unanimous order for repayment from Thailand's supreme court ordering him to pay it back (he was allowed to keep another $900-million) – Mr. Thaksin insidiously sought to undermine the democratic structure of Thailand,

Repeatedly, generals have been able to seize power. The worst such coup was in 1976; soldiers brutally beat students, and Mr. Seni, again prime minister, was overthrown. But within a year, enlightened generals ousted their regressive comrades and restored the bright shining dream of democracy.

Something similar needs to happen again. Westerners rightly view military coups as bad news. But some Thai generals who put their country above personal spoils. The army overthrew Mr. Thaksin in 2006, not to retake power but to stop him from stealing the country blind while throwing out scraps to impressionable villagers, which had enabled him to win the first majority in the Thai parliament.

An elected government led by the Prachatipat (Democrat) Party is in power now despite demands for its resignation, which if satisfied would be mob rule. Co-founded by Mr. Seni in 1946, Prachatipat is the only real political party the Thais have ever had; the others have been collections of hangers-on to overly ambitious figure, of whom Mr. Thaksin is the most recent and the worst. The Democrat Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, is not a member of the elite despite his Oxford education. He favours real democracy. But Thailand is deeply divided. It will take more than the Democrat Party to begin to heal potentially fatal wounds.

THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE

Thaksin cynically exploited the economic divide between a fast-growing middle class and established bureaucracies in the cities, on one hand and, on the other, subsistence rice-growing families in the countryside, used to being paid for their votes. He widened this gap by distributing largesse to the poor on an unprecedented scale during and after elections – but still a small fraction of what he pocketed personally.

If this was populism, it was unfair. If it was democracy, it was immoral.

The divide must be narrowed, if not bridged, so that democracy can work. This country at the heart of Southeast Asia, between India and China, has made steady economic progress over many years, interrupted only by regional or global crises. Annual income per person among almost 70 million Thais has risen to nearly $5,000.

The deeper divide is social, psychological and cultural – all at the same time and hard to define.

The inescapable if unprovable conclusion is that many well-off Thais, who worship wealth, are deep down afraid of democracy and the changes it can bring in their lives.

Mr. Thaksin identified this phenomenon and is still riding it as far he can. Clearly neither he nor any other demagogue is the solution. Nor is the Thai army as it sometimes had been, although it can continue to help safeguard democracy, in a way comparable to the Turkish military since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Another election is looming, not at the behest of bloody demonstrators, but under Thai law. Prachatipat must continue to be loyal to Thailand's democratic heritage as Thailand's only well-defined party. The Democrats need to erase any taint of corruption in their own ranks, and stimulate the creation of a responsible conservative party.

Mr. Seni in his long interviews with me kept coming back to one other thing: Siam Devi Dhiraj, the Siam guardian angel.

The angel has not been seen over Thailand for some time. But, like Harry Potter's good-news owl, he or she is bound to return. And, as Mr. Seni said, “You can't build democracy in a day, you simply cannot. It's not so much a form of government as it is a way of life.”

David Van Praagh, a former Globe and Mail correspondent in South and Southeast Asia, is a professor of journalism at Carleton University. He is the author of Thailand's Struggle for Democracy: The Life and Times of M. R. Seni Pramoj.

Edited April 12, 2010 by siampolee

[moresomekl]

In addition to my previous post, general Chavalit is currently the Chairman of the Red Shirts, he is one of the 4 participants to the above mentioned meeting and I do believe that he is very favourable to a Government of National Unity: this is an idea he has promoted several times in the past, in other circumstances. I do believe that at least 2 other ex-PMs are open to this solution....

There are some strong analogies with the 1933 situation in Spain which has leaded to the Civil war three years later. However we are in Asia and the European History cannot be transposed directly in South East Asia. However, we have to be cautious and everybody must be of good will for defusing the situation.

Do you know anything about Chevalit? gads ... he sank the Thai economy and triggered the 1997 asian collapse. But hey, he's a friend of Thaksin!

Everyone did mistake in the past , now the dems are begging Chavalit to talk to the reds . Why should he do that if he has no share in the decision making .

Abhisit should take responsability for his failure to unite thais and the bloodshed and give way to a governement of national unity .

This is the political side .

Judiciary side an enquiry into last events must be done and culrprits brought to justice .

Ps : And all senior politicians are friends in a way of Thaksin . They are former colleagues of him

Edited April 12, 2010 by moresomekl

[traderjm]

Abhisit, you must resign.

The single WORST idea ever stated in the history of TV.

He MUST stay and now MUST stay until the next scheduled elections or until the REDS go home and the leaders and gov't negoiate on a early election..

If he resigns now he is simply saying the future if your party does not win, simply come spill some blood and you too will get your own way.

[jdinasia]

Abhisit, you must resign.

The single WORST idea ever stated in the history of TV.

He MUST stay and now MUST stay until the next scheduled elections or until the REDS go home and the leaders and gov't negoiate on a early election..

If he resigns now he is simply saying the future if your party does not win, simply come spill some blood and you too will get your own way.

As soon as Thai blood hit the streets (well not the infected blood poured by the reds) it was a foregone conclusion that Abhisit would have to resign at some point. The question is can the Dems maintain the coalition long enough to deal with the current issues in front of the country. Budget. Charter Reform, Military reshuffle.

If the reds keep acting out it will be a coup and nothing else that ends this.

[golferchin76]

Sorry for those perished that day. I knew there will be blood, but I was still shocked about the news.

What I read, was that there were weapons in the red's crowd, whoever have them and who were they and what were their motives I don't know. When tear gas and water canon started to go off, someone started to shoot. Some reds use force to take rifles from soldiers.

That's what I read, and these days I remain doubtful about what news I hear or read.

Now, if that's true, then things really got out of hand and went south really fast.

You don't take soldier's weapons by force. And you don't take them and start a war with troops, because they are trained to shoot back automatically with deadly efficiency.

I can imagine why that many people got injured. A bunch of soldiers emptied their magazines into the crowd. These soldiers had been stressful for week. Now someone actually attack them with real firearms. I don't think they would have simply hide for protection. They will just empty their magazines for the protection of their own lives.

I think they didn't want to kill their own kind, and many of them are going to have nightmares.

This is very very wrong. normal people paid their lives for elites' interests.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Sorry for those perished that day. I knew there will be blood, but I was still shocked about the news.

What I read, was that there were weapons in the red's crowd, whoever have them and who were they and what were their motives I don't know. When tear gas and water canon started to go off, someone started to shoot. Some reds use force to take rifles from soldiers.

That's what I read, and these days I remain doubtful about what news I hear or read.

Now, if that's true, then things really got out of hand and went south really fast.

You don't take soldier's weapons by force. And you don't take them and start a war with troops, because they are trained to shoot back automatically with deadly efficiency.

I can imagine why that many people got injured. A bunch of soldiers emptied their magazines into the crowd. These soldiers had been stressful for week. Now someone actually attack them with real firearms. I don't think they would have simply hide for protection. They will just empty their magazines for the protection of their own lives.

I think they didn't want to kill their own kind, and many of them are going to have nightmares.

This is very very wrong. normal people paid their lives for elites' interests.

You confirm that Army should have never been engaged in such operation: it is the role of a POLICE anti-riot force.

ARMY is symbol of Unity and should be engaged only for external threats or when Territory integrity is in balance.

It is still more true with an Army composed by Conscrits.

This is a Major issue in Thailand. ARMY was not in its normal role saturday.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[Neurath]

Abhisit, you must resign.

The single WORST idea ever stated in the history of TV.

He MUST stay and now MUST stay until the next scheduled elections or until the REDS go home and the leaders and gov't negoiate on a early election..

If he resigns now he is simply saying the future if your party does not win, simply come spill some blood and you too will get your own way.

Well, looks like he's gone anyway. EC votes for Democrat Party dissolution.

[Gambles]

Eye witness accounts on the BBC website today say that army fired live rounds directly into the crowd.

and these eye-witnesses are reliable and can tell between live and rubber bullets??

I think we should all wait for the facts to emerge......

[britmaveric]

^rubber bullets do kill if shot too close, so this does not matter much. Not to mention their are soldiers on tape firing live rounds.

Edited April 12, 2010 by britmaveric

[anotherpeter]

You confirm that Army should have never been engaged in such operation: it is the role of a POLICE anti-riot force.

ARMY is symbol of Unity and should be engaged only for external threats or when Territory integrity is in balance.

It is still more true with an Army composed by Conscrits.

This is a Major issue in Thailand. ARMY was not in its normal role saturday.

Why does everyone talk about these fantasy anti-riot police?

News for you!! There aren't any in Thailand. That is still managed (?? ok ... you know what I mean) by the army.

Not a perfect situation, but that's the way it is.

[hanuman1]

Honestly... I've read several editorials and articles pleading for the red-shirts and government to stop fighting because "We are all Thais".

Is that really necessary? Is that the real solution, or merely a cry for help?

The real TEMPORARY solution is for Abhisit to resign. I know it might not help long term, but he is the epicenter of violence now. We need to stop the blood flow now, we need to do something practical.

Asking Thaksin to stop is like asking a wild boar to think..... that route is useless....telling Thais to stop killing each other because "we are all Thais" works as well as a water pistol at the Chicago Fire.

Abhisit, you must resign.

This is not Abhisits' fault so why should he resign? As far as I can see, he is the only one (or at least one of the few people) who is still thinking clearly. No other government in the world would have tolerated protests for such a long period of time. I think he is doing a good job under the circumstances.

Please kindly check your fact.

Samak / Somchai have tolerated protests for HALF A YEAR (contineous) + the seizure of BOTH Bangkok airports, and also the government house. Now, is this a different order of magnitute? Please kindly ask your heart.

ASTV is no better than PTV. Sondhi is no better than Jatupon. Airports is suffering no more than Central World/Gayson Plaza/Siam Paragon/Hyatt/Swisshotel/etc.

Also, Abhisit should NOT resign. Because if he does, Suthep will take over as PM. Who is worst, maybe you should ask your heart this question too.

Talking of 'tolerance' in this context is misleading. The Thai army did exactly what it wanted to in both situations. When the Yellows took the airport, it was in the army's interests to do absolutely nothing. Now with a more sympathetic puppet at the helm, it felt obliged to make an effort - again in it's own best interests.

To suggest that any Thai government has that degree of control over the army which allows it to really be seen as 'tolerant' or otherwise is like saying that we allow the sun to rise every morning because we fancy having a new day.

Edited April 12, 2010 by hanuman1

[VegasVic]

Honestly... I've read several editorials and articles pleading for the red-shirts and government to stop fighting because "We are all Thais".

Is that really necessary? Is that the real solution, or merely a cry for help?

The real TEMPORARY solution is for Abhisit to resign. I know it might not help long term, but he is the epicenter of violence now. We need to stop the blood flow now, we need to do something practical.

Asking Thaksin to stop is like asking a wild boar to think..... that route is useless....telling Thais to stop killing each other because "we are all Thais" works as well as a water pistol at the Chicago Fire.

Abhisit, you must resign.

You are correct there Red! A week ago Abhisit could have brokered early elections within 90 days that might have appeaased the red shirts and saved him some face, however now it would appear that Abhisit will need to resign in disgrace

[hextac]

^rubber bullets do kill if shot too close, so this does not matter much. Not to mention their are soldiers on tape firing live rounds.

There is a video on youtube that proves that someone was firing live munitions targeted specifically at redshirts. If you haven't seen the video, in which one of the redshirts get their brains blown (on camera) out of the back of their head I suggest you get a Thai national to help you locate the video before it disappears. Warning: the video is extremely graphic.

[britmaveric]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

[hanuman1]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

That guy Sah Daeng was saying there were army snipers in elevated positions in a nearby school. Did the army think that if they took out a few reds the rest would back off?

I notice that at least a few of the dead were conspicuous by waving flags - the guy whose brain fell out was carrying a large red flag on a stick taller than himself, and another older guy was standing high up in the back of a pickup, also waving a flag - that was the one reported by an eyewitness to the BBC. So this would suggest that the killers were going for 'high-visibility' targets, suggesting that they would be seen going down, possibly with the effect of scaring others away.

It wouldn't be the first time elements of the Thai army - or any other army for that matter - adopted erroneous tactics in the heat of the battle.

[tominbkk]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

Special Red forces, yes. Definitely not against killing their own for political (eg Thaksin's) gain. Mere meat puppets in the eyes of the reds.

[hanuman1]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

Special Red forces, yes. Definitely not against killing their own for political (eg Thaksin's) gain. Mere meat puppets in the eyes of the reds.

Don't you think the Thai army were stupid? They could have wiped out a company here and there and won the PR battle hands down. You might be a nice guy, but your post is idiotic.

[anotherpeter]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

That guy Sah Daeng was saying there were army snipers in elevated positions in a nearby school. Did the army think that if they took out a few reds the rest would back off?

I notice that at least a few of the dead were conspicuous by waving flags - the guy whose brain fell out was carrying a large red flag on a stick taller than himself, and another older guy was standing high up in the back of a pickup, also waving a flag - that was the one reported by an eyewitness to the BBC. So this would suggest that the killers were going for 'high-visibility' targets, suggesting that they would be seen going down, possibly with the effect of scaring others away.

It wouldn't be the first time elements of the Thai army - or any other army for that matter - adopted erroneous tactics in the heat of the battle.

What would the army gain by killing protestors?

It makes them look bad. Why would they do it?

Edit: And where was Sae Daeng to see any of this? I would assume he wasn't anywhere near the protests.

Edited April 12, 2010 by anotherpeter

[britmaveric]

Snipers cause mass confusion and mayhem. I wouldn't put it past the Thai Army to use sniping as a urban warfare tactic. You have the high ground you control the battlefield. I think kill a few well observed targets and get the enemy to run. Things didnt go to plan and well the rest is history.

[anotherpeter]

Snipers cause mass confusion and mayhem. I wouldn't put it past the Thai Army to use sniping as a urban warfare tactic. You have the high ground you control the battlefield. I think kill a few well observed targets and get the enemy to run. Things didnt go to plan and well the rest is history.

Even IF the protestors ran, the army would come out of it very badly. I still don't see what's in it for them.

[hanuman1]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

That guy Sah Daeng was saying there were army snipers in elevated positions in a nearby school. Did the army think that if they took out a few reds the rest would back off?

I notice that at least a few of the dead were conspicuous by waving flags - the guy whose brain fell out was carrying a large red flag on a stick taller than himself, and another older guy was standing high up in the back of a pickup, also waving a flag - that was the one reported by an eyewitness to the BBC. So this would suggest that the killers were going for 'high-visibility' targets, suggesting that they would be seen going down, possibly with the effect of scaring others away.

It wouldn't be the first time elements of the Thai army - or any other army for that matter - adopted erroneous tactics in the heat of the battle.

What would the army gain by killing protestors?

It makes them look bad. Why would they do it?

Edit: And where was Sae Daeng to see any of this? I would assume he wasn't anywhere near the protests.

Over half of my post was exactly about why the army would kill protesters. Not any old protesters, just the most visible ones.

As for making them look bad, that would only be the case if it was proven beyond all doubt. I'm no expert, but I believe a major objective of the 'successful' sniper is to remain hidden. And given the obvious downsides to it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt, together with the globally-observed tendency of armed forces to 'back their own' in cases of alleged impropriety it's no wonder we probably won't ever get to the bottom of this case.

[britmaveric]

^ruin Abhisit and his group for starters. No better way to get rid of a PM then get blood on his hands. I think Abhisit fell into a well orchestrated trap. Military reshuffle is coming up... food for thought. (mind you highly speculative, but lot of stuff is going on in the background)

[way2muchcoffee]

The spokesman of the Internal Security Operations Commanded said Monday that either an active or a retired military officer identified Col Romklao Thuwatham for a gunman to take him out with M79 grenade.

Pol Maj Gen Disthaporn Sasamit said a laser beam was pointed to the group of commanders before an MP79 was fire at them, killing Romklao and injuring other senior officers.

Disthaporn said it was not a coincidence but everything was planned by the other side.

The spokesman said the other side was angry that Romklao led troops to restore order during riots last year so the other side was angry and would like to take a revenge.

Disthaporn said gunmen also fired at military officers from buildings so everything was planned by the other side.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/ISOC-...o-30127130.html

Another interesting tidbit to spur on even more speculation....

Edited April 12, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[lannarebirth]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

That guy Sah Daeng was saying there were army snipers in elevated positions in a nearby school. Did the army think that if they took out a few reds the rest would back off?

I notice that at least a few of the dead were conspicuous by waving flags - the guy whose brain fell out was carrying a large red flag on a stick taller than himself, and another older guy was standing high up in the back of a pickup, also waving a flag - that was the one reported by an eyewitness to the BBC. So this would suggest that the killers were going for 'high-visibility' targets, suggesting that they would be seen going down, possibly with the effect of scaring others away.

It wouldn't be the first time elements of the Thai army - or any other army for that matter - adopted erroneous tactics in the heat of the battle.

What would the army gain by killing protestors?

It makes them look bad. Why would they do it?

Edit: And where was Sae Daeng to see any of this? I would assume he wasn't anywhere near the protests.

Over half of my post was exactly about why the army would kill protesters. Not any old protesters, just the most visible ones.

As for making them look bad, that would only be the case if it was proven beyond all doubt. I'm no expert, but I believe a major objective of the 'successful' sniper is to remain hidden. And given the obvious downsides to it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt, together with the globally-observed tendency of armed forces to 'back their own' in cases of alleged impropriety it's no wonder we probably won't ever get to the bottom of this case.

The video evidence I've seen would seem to suggest that the snipers were not linked to the army. It shows initial shots from behind of Red Shirt fighters. This was immediately followed by a fusillade of weapons fire and fire bombs and grenades coming from the Red side. The Army side was in shock because they were standing there with weapons full of rubber bullets (which you wouldn't think they would be under your scenario). They almost immediately went into full retreat, which again, wouldn't happen if they'd just instigated an assault.

Edited April 12, 2010 by lannarebirth

[hanuman1]

The spokesman of the Internal Security Operations Commanded said Monday that either an active or a retired military officer identified Col Romklao Thuwatham for a gunman to take him out with M79 grenade.

Pol Maj Gen Disthaporn Sasamit said a laser beam was pointed to the group of commanders before an MP79 was fire at them, killing Romklao and injuring other senior officers.

Disthaporn said it was not a coincidence but everything was planned by the other side.

The spokesman said the other side was angry that Romklao led troops to restore order during riots last year so the other side was angry and would like to take a revenge.

Disthaporn said gunmen also fired at military officers from buildings so everything was planned by the other side.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/ISOC-...o-30127130.html

Another interesting tidbit to spur on even more speculation....

So military commanders were sighted with a laser and hit with a grenade, while other officers were fired upon from rooftops.

We'd obviously need an expert to get into that, but i'd imagine the trajectory of a grenade compared to a high powered round would be quite different. Lasers travel in straight lines, as do bullets over relatively short distances, but a grenade? How would that work?

[anotherpeter]

^looked like a special forces sniper from behind/above.

That guy Sah Daeng was saying there were army snipers in elevated positions in a nearby school. Did the army think that if they took out a few reds the rest would back off?

I notice that at least a few of the dead were conspicuous by waving flags - the guy whose brain fell out was carrying a large red flag on a stick taller than himself, and another older guy was standing high up in the back of a pickup, also waving a flag - that was the one reported by an eyewitness to the BBC. So this would suggest that the killers were going for 'high-visibility' targets, suggesting that they would be seen going down, possibly with the effect of scaring others away.

It wouldn't be the first time elements of the Thai army - or any other army for that matter - adopted erroneous tactics in the heat of the battle.

What would the army gain by killing protestors?

It makes them look bad. Why would they do it?

Edit: And where was Sae Daeng to see any of this? I would assume he wasn't anywhere near the protests.

Over half of my post was exactly about why the army would kill protesters. Not any old protesters, just the most visible ones.

As for making them look bad, that would only be the case if it was proven beyond all doubt. I'm no expert, but I believe a major objective of the 'successful' sniper is to remain hidden. And given the obvious downsides to it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt, together with the globally-observed tendency of armed forces to 'back their own' in cases of alleged impropriety it's no wonder we probably won't ever get to the bottom of this case.

Yes, high targets and snipers out of sight and all that. Your post talks about who, but not why.

Look at the posts on here. Protestor deaths make the army look bad - perception. What is the value to the army for that?

Edited April 12, 2010 by anotherpeter