Thai Anti-Riot Squad Cut Up By Soldiers In Black

[humfurry]

Dont hate me simply because I'm right!

I never said I hated you at all. Why would you say something like that?

[hextac]

Of course only in Thailand would gunmen trying to remain anonymous ( if indeed he is a gunman ) wear a balaclava showing the whole bloody face.

Hope they're not thinking of becoming bank robbers....

Yeah, highly trained special operatives are so stupid that they would allow their picture to be taken just before a covert mission because:

a: They have Thai nationality.

b: They support the red shirts.

c: Both of the above.

Yellow apologists can answer on a postcard, others can just laugh at the stupidity of the suggestion...

[anotherpeter]

Manop told the press that on Saturday he was guarding the protest site at Rajprasong intersection when Natthawut and Arisman Pongreungrong decided that all the red shirts' strong men should move to the Phan Fa site. So, he joined them in the evening and was stationed at the school.

He added that he did odd jobs for a living and had never been trained in the military. He also said that since there were no other guards at the Satri Wittaya School, he singlehandedly unarmed the soldiers marching past.

This guy with no military training "single handedly unarmed the soldiers marching past". Only reds would believe all the contradictions in that.

And wasn't this the school where supposedly army snipers were positioned? Wouldn't he have been taken out if he was "single handedly" attacking the soldiers?

Natthawut also displayed the photograph of a man in red, riding a motorcycle and armed with a rifle. He said this man was not a real redshirt demonstrator and that he was seen handing the weapon over to soldiers posted by the Phadungkrungkasem Canal near Parliament.

More "fake reds".

He also warned TV executives not to be complacent with the belief that this government would stay to protect them, and instead they should report "nothing but the truth" to the public.

More "Red Democracy" on show.

"Nothing but the truth" according to the reds!

Why would they need protection? What will the reds do when they are in power? Allow their thugs to take out anyone that disagreed with them?

[warriorneedswarrior]

So how does anyone explain why snipers were obviously shooting at the monument rather than the crowd/individuals.

It was obviously a false flag false flag.

A double-triple bluff.

A faction of the yellow in black, pretending to be red

or

A faction of the blacks, pretending to be red, when in fact they are yellow. Or vice versa.

or not.

Either way, I find myself asking <deleted> am I doing in this nutcase country? could I really raise a child here, and would it remain sane? Or is this the sanest country on earth where ordinary people actually have the balls to stick their necks out for 'change', and I just can't see it....

Oh hello!

Here's your mate.

Spin on this:

Pictured man clarifies his position----- see his face closely -presented by Nathawut and see the orginal picture 2 days ago- not the same face - -correct me if I am wrong - i might be wrong - but pls have a close look - comapre the 2 pictures !

[rametindallas]

It's also necessary to know that while most government civil disorder and riot control personnel use 'blank' gunpowder to fire rubber bullets, thus causing the rubber bullets to move more slowly through the barrel of the firearm, and to travel more slowly and with less force towards its targets than a regular metal bullet, which useses far greater ignition force, some police/militaries use regular bullet explosive force in firing rubber bullets. This creates greater and more harmful injury to disorderly or rioting civilian mobs or organizations and also often causes more flame to occur as the rubber bullets exit the barrel of the weapon and suddenly come into contact with the oxygen outside of the narrow and intensely pressure-creating rifle barrel. The rubber bullet fired under such harsh circumstances also carries with it more of the ignition fire and thus is more likely to cause a flash upon exiting the barrel.

I don't know about the Thai military in general or in the recent specific clashes, but it's possible - possible but not necessarily so - the military uses the full gunpowder charge in firing its rubber bullets, although given Abhisit's great concern to handle the Redshirts by "international standards" and Gen Anupong's reluctance to do anything in the face of civil disorder, it's just highly doubtful the military would or is doing the full gunpowder charge in its use of rubber bullets.

Many human rights organizations strongly object to the use of rubber bullets at all given that the bullets are bullets and on numerous occasions over the decades have caused/resulted in serious injury to the demonstrating or rioting civilian populations.

Have the full autopsy reports been released yet? I read that a large percentage of the killed on both sides were shot between the eyes; I think I read it in The Nation or TAN. Doese anyone have the links?

[animatic]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I’m sure you can respect the fact that it’s not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I’m sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn’t want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

A mass of absurdities.

Abhisit by his many public pronouncements has proven he does NOT hate the red shirt rank and file at all.

He has been solicitous and considered their well being. So much so it got the leaders rather wound up

trying to counter it, partly causing escalations. After their leaders insisted in creating 'a showdown',

and causing the need to clear them out, he sent in the minimum force needed to theoretically clear out

a 'peaceful demonstration'. That demonstration proved to be anything but peaceful, and salted with much

more violent provocateurs intent on giving the impression of government created carnage.

He never chastised the army for not enough violence, but only for not getting the job done

and for getting their butt kicked. He never called for more violence.

Red Leaders have called for violence, and then other ones tried to recall that call for violence,

only to have the same sequence repeated again and again.

Shock and awe snipers because he hates red shirts.... your on glue... SNIFF, a ludicrous series of statements.

Don't confuse the 'appearances' of Red even handedness for PR purposes with the desire to win the day at all costs.

What the people massing on the street think is far from the real ball game.

Edited April 15, 2010 by animatic

[rametindallas]

so he was collecting guns? what time was the picture taken. The info should be still in the camera.

Did he collect the guns and riffles before it all started?

No way a soldier's rife would be allowed to get rusty or dirty as this one. No way he is returning this rifle to the Army because it doesn't belong to the Army.

[RandyWhite]

its interesting reading over on the other paper we cannot quote on here

headed ''Slain camerman may have caught 'third hand' killers''

google it

the intimation seems to be that the cameraman may have been shot by the men in black

Though it's *all* speculation, I assumed the Japanese cameraman must have been targeted.

More speculation (admittedly far out). I have been wondering who would have taken the picture published at the top of the page? If you look at the shadow of the gun barrel on the other guy's red shirt, it is well below the gun barrel, meaning the picture was taken at very close range, probably by an expensive camera with a separate flash attachment.

How is the guy who took the picture still alive, if the picture is what it is insinuated to be?

Where is the Japanese cameraman's camera?

Questions or trying to connect the dots, nothing more.

The first dot you can connect is that there is no shadow at all on the red shirt.It is a vow of the shirt or maybe something hidden under the shirt.

Have a closer look.

RED denials notwithstanding, this guy in front has now been identified by the army as an ex-Ranger and 'current' Red Shirt guard - the paramilitary run by Big Jew for Thaksin.

Well he sure looked a lot like someone from Montenegro to me! Nyuk Nyuk!

[animatic]

There are lots of convoluted theories on this thread. The way the body count is split should tell us something. France 24 has shown film of troops firing live rounds directly at protesters. The Minister has admitted that this was the case but has said it was to cover troops already under fire. The BBC states that a reporter saw live rounds being fired by troops and also published a teacher's eyewitness report of a fatality arising from a shot coming from the direction of the army. There is also the point that the soldiers put into the vanguard had a reputation and a track record. Yes, there seem to have been some nefarious behavior by men in black, but is anybody seriously arguing that some soldiers did not fire live rounds with lethal results? The Prime Minister and Deputy PM publicly expressed their anger at the lack of military action on the previous day and pressed the army to do its duty. What followed was a botched crackdown, and that is what most of the world's media have reported.

Abhisit pressed the army about not getting the job done the day before,

the army was routed at Thaicom and their weapons taken from the,.

ANY national leader would have commented on that unfavorably.

I question how France 24 can tell the difference between live rounds and plastic rounds?

They never explained how they reached this conclusion.

[animatic]

So how does anyone explain why snipers were obviously shooting at the monument rather than the crowd/individuals.

It was obviously a false flag false flag.

A double-triple bluff.

A faction of the yellow in black, pretending to be red

or

A faction of the blacks, pretending to be red, when in fact they are yellow. Or vice versa.

or not.

Either way, I find myself asking <deleted> am I doing in this nutcase country? could I really raise a child here, and would it remain sane? Or is this the sanest country on earth where ordinary people actually have the balls to stick their necks out for 'change', and I just can't see it....

Oh hello!

Here's your mate.

Spin on this:

Pictured man clarifies his position----- see his face closely -presented by Nathawut and see the orginal picture 2 days ago- not the same face - -correct me if I am wrong - i might be wrong - but pls have a close look - comapre the 2 pictures !

I agree this does NOT look like the same guy....

[rametindallas]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I'm sure you can respect the fact that it's not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I'm sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

That's what the Army thought. Stampede the crowd with teargas, baton/shield, rubber bullets for the truely aggressive, and live rounds in the back firing upwards for sound effect. Then.... Somebody changed the rules. Instead of a bottle, molotov cocktail, brick-throwing mob, they were facing live rounds and M-79 grenades incoming. At this point they have only two choices. Attack in full combat mode (killing as many of the 'enemy' as possible) or run for their very lives thereby stopping the killing? Fortunately for all involved the Army chose correctly and quickly pulled back as option 'A' was never on the table. This is a Army that Thai can be proud of as they acted in he most professional and moral way.

Do you really believe "Abhisit chastized the Army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking". That's a terrible thing to say about anybody. Just where DO you get this valuable information you are sharing with us now?

You need't respond to me as you are now officially added to my 'skip over (not-worth-reading)' list.

[anotherpeter]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I'm sure you can respect the fact that it's not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I'm sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

That's what the Army thought. Stampede the crowd with teargas, baton/shield, rubber bullets for the truely aggressive, and live rounds in the back firing upwards for sound effect. Then.... Somebody changed the rules. Instead of a bottle, molotov cocktail, brick-throwing mob, they were facing live rounds and M-79 grenades incoming. At this point they have only two choices. Attack in full combat mode (killing as many of the 'enemy' as possible) or run for their very lives thereby stopping the killing? Fortunately for all involved the Army chose correctly and quickly pulled back as option 'A' was never on the table. This is a Army that Thai can be proud of as they acted in he most professional and moral way.

Do you really believe "Abhisit chastized the Army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking". That's a terrible thing to say about anybody. Just where DO you get this valuable information you are sharing with us now?

You need't respond to me as you are now officially added to my 'skip over (not-worth-reading)' list.

If there was ANY evidence of *Army* snipers, it would be plastered all over the internet.

The only evidence of any sniper was of someone possibly firing in the direction of the army.

[RandyWhite]

Manop told the press that on Saturday he was guarding the protest site at Rajprasong intersection when Natthawut and Arisman Pongreungrong decided that all the red shirts' strong men should move to the Phan Fa site. So, he joined them in the evening and was stationed at the school.

He added that he did odd jobs for a living and had never been trained in the military. He also said that since there were no other guards at the Satri Wittaya School, he singlehandedly unarmed the soldiers marching past.

This guy with no military training "single handedly unarmed the soldiers marching past". Only reds would believe all the contradictions in that.

And wasn't this the school where supposedly army snipers were positioned? Wouldn't he have been taken out if he was "single handedly" attacking the soldiers?

Natthawut also displayed the photograph of a man in red, riding a motorcycle and armed with a rifle. He said this man was not a real redshirt demonstrator and that he was seen handing the weapon over to soldiers posted by the Phadungkrungkasem Canal near Parliament.

More "fake reds".

He also warned TV executives not to be complacent with the belief that this government would stay to protect them, and instead they should report "nothing but the truth" to the public.

More "Red Democracy" on show.

"Nothing but the truth" according to the reds!

Why would they need protection? What will the reds do when they are in power? Allow their thugs to take out anyone that disagreed with them?

I'm not sure the REDS have ever had or will ever have a coherent ideology, but the practice of rarely if ever being able to discuss politics calmly and rationally for more than say 60 seconds is now deeply ingrained through political indoctrination via RED propaganda. The human hardware has been (re)programmed with RED software designed to produce an automatic (and therefore reliable) response:

HELLO - YOU HAVE REACHED THE RED MOB...PRESS 1 FOR FOOT CLAPPERS...PRESS TWO FOR MASS CELEBRATIONS...PRESS THREE FOR INTIMIDATION...PRESS FOUR FOR MAYHEM...PRESS FIVE FOR VIOLENCE...TO CONTACT MONTENEGRO PLEASE PRESS ZERO AND HAVE A NICE DAY.

[tracymeaw]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I’m sure you can respect the fact that it’s not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I’m sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn’t want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

A mass of absurdities.

Abhisit by his many public pronouncements has proven he does NOT hate the red shirt rank and file at all.

He has been solicitous and considered their well being. So much so it got the leaders rather wound up

trying to counter it, partly causing escalations. After their leaders insisted in creating 'a showdown',

and causing the need to clear them out, he sent in the minimum force needed to theoretically clear out

a 'peaceful demonstration'. That demonstration proved to be anything but peaceful, and salted with much

more violent provocateurs intent on giving the impression of government created carnage.

He never chastised the army for not enough violence, but only for not getting the job done

and for getting their butt kicked. He never called for more violence.

Red Leaders have called for violence, and then other ones tried to recall that call for violence,

only to have the same sequence repeated again and again.

Shock and awe snipers because he hates red shirts.... your on glue... SNIFF, a ludicrous series of statements.

Don't confuse the 'appearances' of Red even handedness for PR purposes with the desire to win the day at all costs.

What the people massing on the street think is far from the real ball game.

The only absurdities here are your personal insults. It only shows that you are as weak as the puppet you choose to defend. I would not begin to believe that everything Abhisit says on his broadcast is true. If you do, then I am happy for you.

I believe that his actions speak louder than his words. I’m fortunate that my news isn’t censored, blocked, or banned and that I can form my opinions based on all the information available to me and not just what the Abhisit government wants me to hear.

Do you also believe him when he says that the men in black were Terrorists? Being Abhisits, the logical explanation may soon be that they were in Thailand on vacation and inadvertently stumbled into the chaos. But then, you would believe that too if Abhisit said it!

[rametindallas]

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

That's what the Army thought. Stampede the crowd with teargas, baton/shield, rubber bullets for the truely aggressive, and live rounds in the back firing upwards for sound effect. Then.... Somebody changed the rules. Instead of a bottle, molotov cocktail, brick-throwing mob, they were facing live rounds and M-79 grenades incoming. At this point they have only two choices. Attack in full combat mode (killing as many of the 'enemy' as possible) or run for their very lives thereby stopping the killing? Fortunately for all involved the Army chose correctly and quickly pulled back as option 'A' was never on the table. This is a Army that Thai can be proud of as they acted in he most professional and moral way.

Do you really believe "Abhisit chastized the Army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking". That's a terrible thing to say about anybody. Just where DO you get this valuable information you are sharing with us now?

You need't respond to me as you are now officially added to my 'skip over (not-worth-reading)' list.

If there was ANY evidence of *Army* snipers, it would be plastered all over the internet.

The only evidence of any sniper was of someone possibly firing in the direction of the army.

That's what I said, "they (the Army) were facing live rounds and M-79 grenades incoming.". The Army had 100 troops with shrapnel injuries. Does anyone know when the autopsy reports will be released?

[animatic]

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I’m sure you can respect the fact that it’s not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I’m sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn’t want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

A mass of absurdities.

Abhisit by his many public pronouncements has proven he does NOT hate the red shirt rank and file at all.

He has been solicitous and considered their well being. So much so it got the leaders rather wound up

trying to counter it, partly causing escalations. After their leaders insisted in creating 'a showdown',

and causing the need to clear them out, he sent in the minimum force needed to theoretically clear out

a 'peaceful demonstration'. That demonstration proved to be anything but peaceful, and salted with much

more violent provocateurs intent on giving the impression of government created carnage.

He never chastised the army for not enough violence, but only for not getting the job done

and for getting their butt kicked. He never called for more violence.

Red Leaders have called for violence, and then other ones tried to recall that call for violence,

only to have the same sequence repeated again and again.

Shock and awe snipers because he hates red shirts.... your on glue... SNIFF, a ludicrous series of statements.

Don't confuse the 'appearances' of Red even handedness for PR purposes with the desire to win the day at all costs.

What the people massing on the street think is far from the real ball game.

The only absurdities here are your personal insults. It only shows that you are as weak as the puppet you choose to defend. I would not begin to believe that everything Abhisit says on his broadcast is true. If you do, then I am happy for you.

I believe that his actions speak louder than his words. I’m fortunate that my news isn’t censored, blocked, or banned and that I can form my opinions based on all the information available to me and not just what the Abhisit government wants me to hear.

Do you also believe him when he says that the men in black were Terrorists? Being Abhisits, the logical explanation may soon be that they were in Thailand on vacation and inadvertently stumbled into the chaos. But then, you would believe that too if Abhisit said it!

'You're on glue.' is a colloquialism meaning you are not thinking clearly... and such appears the case.

Nice to try and paint me as weak, LOL, no insult there eh maow....?

And spin that into the usual puppet/master, black and white world you're inhabiting.

I don't need Abhisit's public proclamations for me to see what's happening.

You insult my intelligence by trying to cram this ill considered red apologia down my throat.

[rabo]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I'm sure you can respect the fact that it's not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I'm sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

You might be a bit careful with your insidious and inciteful commentary. You must know that you are in the middle of an extremely dangerous and potentially tragic situation of historical proportions. No one in this country, Abihist, the shady politicians, the aloof army generals, the elite, the red country folk, the black guards, or even Seh Daeng himself (whom a friend of mine knows very well) would ever consider the kind of hatred you post here. I have been married to a *really* big northeastern family (read red) for 18 years, none of whom could imagine that which you insinuate is fact.

No insult or injury intended, just my concern for the Kingdom and its people. Perhaps a bit macabre, but what is really going on is fascinating beyond imagination, and you are missing it!!!.

Before posting I thought to ask some of my family, who are staying with us for the holiday, what was the general feeling about Abhisit. They thought most people (probably more redish) did not like Abhisit's government and wanted him to leave. They said they did not dislike Abhisit personally and admired his honesty and western style direct approach to doing things. They said with some admiration, "You know, he was educated over seas!". There you go, a real Thai answer. Love him, get him out now!

BTW I'm pro country folk and vehemently opposed Taksin. Can't comment on the "reds" as they are a mix of many things.

Edited April 15, 2010 by rabo

[Publicus]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I'm sure you can respect the fact that it's not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I'm sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

OTT post if I've ever seen one. You go to my musn't read list.

[TAWP]

What I find interesting is that at 6.00-6.05 (and possible at more times) we can see the green laser pointer walking at stomach-height and shaking in the crowd, i.e. someone in the red crowd was the 'spotter of targets' (lose use of the term) for the later shots we could see in the other videos - anyone have time and patience to trace who could be wielding it?

[tracymeaw]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I'm sure you can respect the fact that it's not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I'm sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn't want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

You might be a bit careful with your insidious and inciteful commentary. You must know that you are in the middle of an extremely dangerous and potentially tragic situation of historical proportions. No one in this country, Abihist, the shady politicians, the aloof army generals, the elite, the red country folk, the black guards, or even Seh Daeng himself (whom a friend of mine knows very well) would ever consider the kind of hatred you post here. I have been married to a *really* big northeastern family (read red) for 18 years, none of whom could imagine that which you insinuate is fact.

No insult or injury intended, just my concern for the Kingdom and its people. Perhaps a bit macabre, but what is really going on is fascinating beyond imagination, and you are missing it!!!.

Before posting I thought to ask some of my family, who are staying with us for the holiday, what was the general feeling about Abhisit. They thought most people (probably more redish) did not like Abhisit's government and wanted him to leave. They said they did not dislike Abhisit personally and admired his honesty and western style direct approach to doing things. They said with some admiration, "You know, he was educated over seas!". There you go, a real Thai answer. Love him, get him out now!

BTW I'm pro country folk and vehemently opposed Taksin. Can't comment on the "reds" as they are a mix of many things.

You don’t have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don’t understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

[anotherpeter]

You don't have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don't understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

Obviously for the reds, 15 days is more important than 23 lives.

Abhisit didn't use ANY force for about 3 weeks. I can't see how that is excessive.

The use of snipers IS unimaginable. And I haven't seen any evidence of the army using snipers.

But the big question that always fails to get a response from red supporters - what would the army/government have to gain from the deaths of ANY protestors?

[Insight]

If it was army snipers in there, why were the front lines initially so unprepared? Why did the govt call a ceasefire just an hour into the attack? If the army wanted deaths why are they so hesitant to go in there again?

The govt has nothing to benefit from using agent provocateurs. The reds, however, do. And now we're witnessing an all-out attempt to pin this one on the army.

[way2muchcoffee]

You don’t have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don’t understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

Of course you have the right to believe whatever you choose, but you are making wild accusations without a shred of evidence. You are using highly emotive language. Yes there were elderly people in the redshirts. Yes there may have been children. In case you missed it the protesters are there illegally in defiance of regular law, the ISA, and the State of Emergency. They have been violent, their rhetoric even more so. Seven soldiers were killed and hundreds injured. This does not happen with a peaceful demonstration of grannies and babies.

Edited April 15, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[britmaveric]

If it was army snipers in there, why were the front lines initially so unprepared? Why did the govt call a ceasefire just an hour into the attack? If the army wanted deaths why are they so hesitant to go in there again?

The govt has nothing to benefit from using agent provocateurs. The reds, however, do. And now we're witnessing an all-out attempt to pin this one on the army.

Left out the 3rd option that it was factions within the army responsible and specific targeting of Rambo/command structure. (who benefits from the power vacuum?) hmmmmmmmm So this well could have nothing to do with the Reds or the Govt. This would explain how they were aware of the plan and how to easily ID the command structure. So in essence use the protests as a cover of sorts and shift blame to the govt or red shirts.

[commons]

There are lots of convoluted theories on this thread. The way the body count is split should tell us something. France 24 has shown film of troops firing live rounds directly at protesters. The Minister has admitted that this was the case but has said it was to cover troops already under fire. The BBC states that a reporter saw live rounds being fired by troops and also published a teacher's eyewitness report of a fatality arising from a shot coming from the direction of the army. There is also the point that the soldiers put into the vanguard had a reputation and a track record. Yes, there seem to have been some nefarious behavior by men in black, but is anybody seriously arguing that some soldiers did not fire live rounds with lethal results? The Prime Minister and Deputy PM publicly expressed their anger at the lack of military action on the previous day and pressed the army to do its duty. What followed was a botched crackdown, and that is what most of the world's media have reported.

Abhisit pressed the army about not getting the job done the day before,

the army was routed at Thaicom and their weapons taken from the,.

ANY national leader would have commented on that unfavorably.

I question how France 24 can tell the difference between live rounds and plastic rounds?

They never explained how they reached this conclusion.

Animatic,

in case you don't know: journalism in 21st century more often than not is _not_ about "truth" or "analysis" - it's just guys supplying content for mind-inclinations of customer base.

anyhow, france24 back-pedaled already. i thought everybody knew:

http://www.france24.com/en/20100412-thaila...-protest-troops

[commons]

{snip}

You don't have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don't understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

1) that is _YOUR_ very limited personal opinion. last days you posted grand panorama theories.

2) here's a link: facebook page _against_ house resolution went from ab 170,000 to 291,000 in _less than a week_! are these people & voices entitled to have a say in your compulsive interpretation of events? _they_ DO NOT WANT house to be disolved. what about that?

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=108372992525155

3) i read your posts. you seem to insinuate whoever disagrees with your opinion is a) either an addict to gov-mind-spin or incapable to access media. 555. (btw, i'm still waiting for a source of "independent" media you claim you've access to)

4) anyone ever told you a mind-state flooded by emotions ("capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms" etc) doesn't necessarily favor ratio?

5) in _your_ opinion, " Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately." in _my_ opinion, Abhisit tries to break this vicious cycle of weak judiciary, corruption, disregard for "law&order" - & next coup. by trying to _establish_ some rules of civic rule&order.

6) btw, personally, ... but before being banned again...

[animatic]

In no way is the use of tear gas on a crowd by hand or helicopter

in any way equatable to using snipers on a crowd either for or against your side.

The absurdity of the comparison diminishes the logical persuasion of he who attempts it.

[rabo]

[clip]

You might be a bit careful with your insidious and inciteful commentary. You must know that you are in the middle of an extremely dangerous and potentially tragic situation of historical proportions. No one in this country, Abihist, the shady politicians, the aloof army generals, the elite, the red country folk, the black guards, or even Seh Daeng himself (whom a friend of mine knows very well) would ever consider the kind of hatred you post here. I have been married to a *really* big northeastern family (read red) for 18 years, none of whom could imagine that which you insinuate is fact.

No insult or injury intended, just my concern for the Kingdom and its people. Perhaps a bit macabre, but what is really going on is fascinating beyond imagination, and you are missing it!!!.

Before posting I thought to ask some of my family, who are staying with us for the holiday, what was the general feeling about Abhisit. They thought most people (probably more redish) did not like Abhisit's government and wanted him to leave. They said they did not dislike Abhisit personally and admired his honesty and western style direct approach to doing things. They said with some admiration, "You know, he was educated over seas!". There you go, a real Thai answer. Love him, get him out now!

BTW I'm pro country folk and vehemently opposed Taksin. Can't comment on the "reds" as they are a mix of many things.

You don't have to like what I said, agree with it…or read it. In my opinion, Abhisit could have prevented the deaths on both sides by agreeing to dissolution of parliament and calling for elections…immediately. Elections are coming anyway and for me, the value of life is worth more than his nine month timeframe. And, being his decision as PM, I think he should take full responsibility for the outcome.

I think he used excessive force from the very start and I don't understand why the use of Snipers is so unimaginable. Do your family members and friends seriously believe that Abhisits military, capable of dropping tear gas from helicopters on the elderly and on women with infant children in their arms is incapable of using Snipers? And how would tear gassing old people and babies not be considered hatred? Also, every Army I can think of has Snipers… and this one decided to use everything in their arsenal except Snipers? I remember just yesterday, people were called crazy for saying that the Army may have fired live rounds at Redshirts…

There is an enormous amount of historical data concerning the use of Snipers for psychological effect. This is actually only one of the Snipers common battlefield uses. The desire for a demoralizing psychological effect is why I believe the Army could have used Snipers. This demoralizing effect was also their objective when blasting the psychological warfare music.

Wikipedia

Psychological warfare

Due to the unexpected aspect of sniper fire, high lethality of aimed shots and frustration at the inability to locate and attack snipers, sniper tactics have a significant effect on morale. Extensive use of sniper tactics can be used as a psychological strategy in order to induce constant stress in opposing forces.

One may note that by many aspects (constant threat, high "per event" lethality, inability to strike back), the psychological impact imposed by snipers is quite similar to those of landmines, booby-traps, and IED's.

We obviously differ in opinion and that's OK. But, I can't understand why you are not more concerned about the possibility that Thaksin's private militia purposefully started shooting up both sides to insure the fall of the government, which he has so clearly been working towards.

But let me ask you a question. Who do you think tried to Kill Sondhi Limthongkul by spraying his van with 200 rounds of automatic weapons fire? Do some research and find out what is the prevailing opinion/analysis.

I didn't ask any of my relatives how they felt about the Army purposefully killing innocent people with secret snipers, for obvious reasons. I did ask one of my nieces what she thought about the Army throwing tear gas out of helicopters onto the crowds (verbatim). She said some people felt that there was no need to use teargas while others thought there was. She said throwing it from helicopters and tossing it was much better than the way the Somsak government used the shooting kind of tear gas a point blank rage, which caused at least one death. She was also pleased (in a sense) that Aphisit's government tried hard to follow international standards for applying crowd control measures.

Some of their answers are surprising, particularly how well thought out they are.

Edited April 15, 2010 by rabo

[scorecard]

A neutral national unity government may be the best solution if these two parties and their supporters don't calm down soon.

- What exactly is a 'national unity' government?

- Do you really believe the red shirts ()meaning thaksin) would agree to that?

- Who appoints the members of a national unity government or in other words, whats the actual process to form a national unity government?

[scorecard]

^tell that to the lad who lost half his head.

No Doubt, shot by a black shirt sniper.

Cheers, Rick

Thanks for another dose of your bandwaggon anti-redshirt propaganda.

Of course, you are ignoring the 4th element... the specialized group of elite Army Snipers that were inserted by Abhisit for the shock and awe effect. In case you missed it, the entire free world watched while Abhisit introduced a severely disproportionate amount of force from the very beginning. Shock and awe was his desired effect and employed from day one.

Shock and awe: technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

As we have seen in the many videos, it was all fun and games until the boys in black gave the government a taste of their own medicine and shut down Abhisits killing machine. I’m sure you can respect the fact that it’s not easy to dominate a super human 500 baht a day crowd of redshirts! I’m sure you can also respect the fact that some of the redshirts murdered by the Army were Bangkokians. From every account I have seen, only the Army killed people that were unarmed and last time I checked, killing unarmed civilians is murder.

For those that will surely dispute the shock and awe argument, please get over your hatred long enough to look at what Abhisit brought to the fight. Fueled by his hatred for redshirts he brought helicopters, armored personnel carriers, shotguns, Kevlar body armor, gas masks, pistols, TAR21/M16/SAR21 assault rifles, tear gas, thousands of troops in full battle-rattle, shields, water cannons, psychological warfare music, and elite trained Army Snipers.

And what was this incredibly dangerous force Abhisit was up against?

The redshirt crowd, with their bare hands, blood, bottles, sticks, motorcycle helmets, surgical mask, rocks, umbrellas, loudspeakers, slingshots, flags, tiger balm, clappers, and somtam! … thousands of elderly, mostly female, so-called uneducated country folks that spent weeks in the scorching sun, refusing to surrender or stand still to be slaughtered.

Abhisit chastised the army for their failure to inflict enough violence for his liking. Meanwhile, the redshirts kept giving the army their weapons back and asking for nonviolence... and consistently providing aid to injured troops. The Army responded by using those same weapons against the redshirts again. In my opinion, bad karma was stacking against the Army from day one. Most of them didn’t want to be there in the first place and resisted Abhisits immoral orders. For many, their will was broken before it even started and Abhisit was hardly enough reason for them to sell their souls.

A mass of absurdities.

Abhisit by his many public pronouncements has proven he does NOT hate the red shirt rank and file at all.

He has been solicitous and considered their well being. So much so it got the leaders rather wound up

trying to counter it, partly causing escalations. After their leaders insisted in creating 'a showdown',

and causing the need to clear them out, he sent in the minimum force needed to theoretically clear out

a 'peaceful demonstration'. That demonstration proved to be anything but peaceful, and salted with much

more violent provocateurs intent on giving the impression of government created carnage.

He never chastised the army for not enough violence, but only for not getting the job done

and for getting their butt kicked. He never called for more violence.

Red Leaders have called for violence, and then other ones tried to recall that call for violence,

only to have the same sequence repeated again and again.

Shock and awe snipers because he hates red shirts.... your on glue... SNIFF, a ludicrous series of statements.

Don't confuse the 'appearances' of Red even handedness for PR purposes with the desire to win the day at all costs.

What the people massing on the street think is far from the real ball game.

Abhisit has never said that he hates the red shirts.

Red apologits might like to do some serious checking about the overriding policy directives PM Abhisit announced several months ago aimed at building a civil society, a society where there is less gap between the rich and the poor, better sharing of the total wealth of Thailand. And he appointed an independant committee with massive power to make real and fast changes to education, all aimed at providing better opportunity for all. (Why did he appoint an independant committe with massive implementation powers? Because he knows full well that giving such a directive to the education ministry would be a waste of time. Well done.)

His policies are correct, they are aimed at fixing the problems, and are not occasional hand-outs (red vote buyers).

And by the way, thaksin had plenty of time to make all the same changes to policy and achieve the same thing, he didn't, he manipulated the poor, he bought their votes, nothing more.