Thai Anti-Riot Squad Cut Up By Soldiers In Black

britmaveric · April 16, 2010

^shhhhhhh not suppose to point out the dem vote buying.

monkfish · April 16, 2010

Hey may be this is a new World Record!!

26,293,456 Terrorists in 1 country?

danc · April 16, 2010

^shhhhhhh not suppose to point out the dem vote buying.

ok that's it - you are yellow carded..I would red card you but I gave all those out already - that's fair and even-handed isn't it? Good stuff

Edited April 16, 2010 by danc

Pikey · April 16, 2010

It's unbelievable the amount of <deleted> that gets spouted here. Keep your heads down you speculating a*holes and read the news. Unbelievable but probably down to too many wasters with too much (internet) time on their hands.

Pikey.

Pikey · April 16, 2010

Double post - deleted

Edited April 16, 2010 by Pikey

commons · April 16, 2010

{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...

Yes, it is only an opinion, just like yours. I fully agree that what I posted is pure theory....does that mean it didn't happen?

The red to non-red ratio must be 12:1 on TV…. most are one liner bandwagon trolls. Anything that goes against the master plan is attacked 12 different ways and is not welcome. Why have a forum if everyone needs to agree on everything?

Do you have proof that your facebook buddies didn't open several accounts each? I wonder how many of that 291000 would be willing to get beat up, gassed, and shot at before joining your friends group.

Sorry, I can't post links to certain news media because it is against the rules... this forum is based in democratic Thailand remember? As far as the emotional ratio you speak of, don't tell me… go tell the women who were holding the babies. They would probably disagree with you, among other things.

I told you that I think Abhisit could have prevented all this and I told you why... deal with it. You know, there is another way he could have avoided all this mess. If he had been voted in by the people in the first place! He would have earned respect instead of demanding it.

Have a nice day!!

1) as usual with "red" spin... --- once asked to corroborate original instigating accuses, comments, remarks..., nothing comes... but side-stepping:

*

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

you replied: Yes, it is only an opinion, just like yours. I fully agree that what I posted is pure theory....does that mean it didn't happen?

a) first of all, in your initial statements you claim _absolute_ discourse supremacy: _I_ KNOW! _I_ AM ENTITLED TO TELL THE TRUTH! {sorry for the caps. just to make my point clear ;-)}

_now_ you retreat. & ask us to consider, it _maybe_ "it could have happened" according to your narrative. wanna learn something about post-modernist media-theory?

*

3) _i_ said: 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?

you replied: Do you have proof that your facebook buddies didn't open several accounts each? I wonder how many of that 291000 would be willing to get beat up, gassed, and shot at before joining your friends group.

a) you evade central argument. central argument was that _obvious_ there are people in thailand who _disagree_, even _oppose_ "red shirt" _bullying_ ways to "get their way". i asked you if _those_ voices are entitled to have a say?

instead of answering, you go off:

b.I) just by belittling _both_ "number" of fb-friends, as well as "raise" during last week. if i may say so: either you're deluding yourself ("this is _not_ happening") or you just try to discredit information that doesn't fit your view - & _you_ _obviously_ _cannot_ counter with arguments.

b.II) instead of that you indulge in romantic heroism rhetoric. yes, sound is good ;-)

b.III) same time you're spinning same narrative again: i'd say, _not one_ "authentic" red-shirt is out there to be experience being beaten up, gassed or shot at --- same same is true for army & police. _but_, as i oppose your "views": events had shown it's _not_ government that worked on "escalation of conflict" but ... "red shirt" _leaders_. _these_, definitely, have _nothing_ to loose anymore.

*

4) _i_ say: 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)

you replied: Sorry, I can't post links to certain news media because it is against the rules... this forum is based in democratic Thailand remember?

a) yes, this forum is based in democratic thailand. how about expressing some gratitude you're allowed to post your dissent?

nonsense. i & many others regularly support our posts with links to "outside" sources. there exist some forum rules - but if you wanna discuss forum rules; why not better set up your own?

c) nonsense: you can mention media names, or keywords for a google search, or you can send me a pm. none of that happened. btw, it never happens with "red spin" apologists, how comes?

*

5) _i_ said: 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?

you replied: As far as the emotional ratio you speak of, don't tell me… go tell the women who were holding the babies. They would probably disagree with you, among other things.

a) you're side-stepping again: i stated that in emotionally heated discussion it's of _dis-advantage_ to incite even _more_ "excitement of mind/heart". instead, for the benefit of many, it'd be wise... to calm down, step back from one's opinion, engage exchange of views, discussion.

instead of a reply to that "rational" approach - you _even_ escalate your "rhetorics", by, again evoking same imagery of "go tell the women who were holding the babies".

c) may i tell you something? _YOU_ are neither in charge of ..._NOR_ _entitled_ to speak for these "women who're holding the babies." it's a disgusting & sickening rhetoric manoeuver to conceive anyone _opposed_ to your "limited views" (see above) as a violent _inhuman_ going after "women holding babies". _you_ are using emotionally charged images to further incite a volatile situation. q.e.d. that, imho, is _not_ a rational approach. i doubt its benefits.

*

6) _i_ said: 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.

you replied: I told you that I think Abhisit could have prevented all this and I told you why... deal with it. You know, there is another way he could have avoided all this mess. If he had been voted in by the people in the first place! He would have earned respect instead of demanding it.

a) again you're side-stepping. actually i even gave you my evaluation of events so you'd have some material for critique. did that happen? no.

instead of _replying_ to my post... you're just continuing proclaiming the very absurdities that i _challenged_ - & _YOU_ _obviously_ are unable to address or counter.

c) again, as with so many "red shirts" apologists - besides all rhetorics, you _want_ other minds/hearts/people to _act&behave_ _ACCORDING_ to _YOUR_ inclinations! you even claim to know what's best for Abhisit to do! & - as shown above - you simply don't care that there others out there who disagree with you. YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO BEHAVE AS YOU WANT THEM TO. was that clear enough?

*

7) you say: Have a nice day!!

i try to enjoy a happy heart/mind.

commons · April 16, 2010

i'm not sure i get your point.

Sadly I think there are several points that you don't get. The simplest is that if troops fire off live rounds in the direction of protesters, as Ministers now admit they did, people get killed. The fatalities weren't all central head shots, which might lead to the conclusion that only elite snipers were involved (for example the BBC report concerned a chest wound). But I sense that you are not the kind of person to whom the obvious explanation is going to appeal. This is also the case with other posters who think that M16s fire rubber bullets from the magazine.

don't run into an open knife...

1) if you backtrack posts of mine & others... it was obvious soldiers fired. problem is, they did that _after_ having been attacked.

2) now _i_ advise you to do 2 things: backtrack discussions on several threads & learn to use media, as internet, for corroboration or falsification of claims.

3) you say, " The fatalities weren't all central head shots," --- i'm not sure if you've heard about autopsy results... but _those_ stated people were killed by "head & chest shots". it's all in the open. i don't even get your _point_ of argument?

4) i'm not sure i understand what you're calling "bbc report"? there had _not_ been "any" bbc report narrating along the lines you try to evoke. they hosted an "eye witness" report that speaks of a killing. that's all. even that eye witness report does _not_ substantiate any "causalities". you know that word, i hope?

5) "This is also the case with other posters who think that M16s fire rubber bullets from the magazine." i am _not_ going to argue - as your sentence is such a mix-up of assumptions & distortions. instead: thanks, case closed. poster dismissed.

6) btw: i posted it some days ago already. "in good faith", let's assume you missed it. here's france24, back-pedaling from their "objective reporting" 555

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

RandyWhite · April 16, 2010

{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...

Yes, it is only an opinion, just like yours. I fully agree that what I posted is pure theory....does that mean it didn't happen?

The red to non-red ratio must be 12:1 on TV…. most are one liner bandwagon trolls. Anything that goes against the master plan is attacked 12 different ways and is not welcome. Why have a forum if everyone needs to agree on everything?

Do you have proof that your facebook buddies didn't open several accounts each? I wonder how many of that 291000 would be willing to get beat up, gassed, and shot at before joining your friends group.

Sorry, I can't post links to certain news media because it is against the rules... this forum is based in democratic Thailand remember? As far as the emotional ratio you speak of, don't tell me… go tell the women who were holding the babies. They would probably disagree with you, among other things.

I told you that I think Abhisit could have prevented all this and I told you why... deal with it. You know, there is another way he could have avoided all this mess. If he had been voted in by the people in the first place! He would have earned respect instead of demanding it.

Have a nice day!!

1) as usual with "red" spin... --- once asked to corroborate original instigating accuses, comments, remarks..., nothing comes... but side-stepping:

*

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

you replied: Yes, it is only an opinion, just like yours. I fully agree that what I posted is pure theory....does that mean it didn't happen?

a) first of all, in your initial statements you claim _absolute_ discourse supremacy: _I_ KNOW! _I_ AM ENTITLED TO TELL THE TRUTH! {sorry for the caps. just to make my point clear ;-)}

_now_ you retreat. & ask us to consider, it _maybe_ "it could have happened" according to your narrative. wanna learn something about post-modernist media-theory?

*

3) _i_ said: 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?

you replied: Do you have proof that your facebook buddies didn't open several accounts each? I wonder how many of that 291000 would be willing to get beat up, gassed, and shot at before joining your friends group.

a) you evade central argument. central argument was that _obvious_ there are people in thailand who _disagree_, even _oppose_ "red shirt" _bullying_ ways to "get their way". i asked you if _those_ voices are entitled to have a say?

instead of answering, you go off:

b.I) just by belittling _both_ "number" of fb-friends, as well as "raise" during last week. if i may say so: either you're deluding yourself ("this is _not_ happening") or you just try to discredit information that doesn't fit your view - & _you_ _obviously_ _cannot_ counter with arguments.

b.II) instead of that you indulge in romantic heroism rhetoric. yes, sound is good ;-)

b.III) same time you're spinning same narrative again: i'd say, _not one_ "authentic" red-shirt is out there to be experience being beaten up, gassed or shot at --- same same is true for army & police. _but_, as i oppose your "views": events had shown it's _not_ government that worked on "escalation of conflict" but ... "red shirt" _leaders_. _these_, definitely, have _nothing_ to loose anymore.

*

4) _i_ say: 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)

you replied: Sorry, I can't post links to certain news media because it is against the rules... this forum is based in democratic Thailand remember?

a) yes, this forum is based in democratic thailand. how about expressing some gratitude you're allowed to post your dissent?

nonsense. i & many others regularly support our posts with links to "outside" sources. there exist some forum rules - but if you wanna discuss forum rules; why not better set up your own?

c) nonsense: you can mention media names, or keywords for a google search, or you can send me a pm. none of that happened. btw, it never happens with "red spin" apologists, how comes?

*

5) _i_ said: 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?

you replied: As far as the emotional ratio you speak of, don't tell me… go tell the women who were holding the babies. They would probably disagree with you, among other things.

a) you're side-stepping again: i stated that in emotionally heated discussion it's of _dis-advantage_ to incite even _more_ "excitement of mind/heart". instead, for the benefit of many, it'd be wise... to calm down, step back from one's opinion, engage exchange of views, discussion.

instead of a reply to that "rational" approach - you _even_ escalate your "rhetorics", by, again evoking same imagery of "go tell the women who were holding the babies".

c) may i tell you something? _YOU_ are neither in charge of ..._NOR_ _entitled_ to speak for these "women who're holding the babies." it's a disgusting & sickening rhetoric manoeuver to conceive anyone _opposed_ to your "limited views" (see above) as a violent _inhuman_ going after "women holding babies". _you_ are using emotionally charged images to further incite a volatile situation. q.e.d. that, imho, is _not_ a rational approach. i doubt its benefits.

*

6) _i_ said: 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.

you replied: I told you that I think Abhisit could have prevented all this and I told you why... deal with it. You know, there is another way he could have avoided all this mess. If he had been voted in by the people in the first place! He would have earned respect instead of demanding it.

a) again you're side-stepping. actually i even gave you my evaluation of events so you'd have some material for critique. did that happen? no.

instead of _replying_ to my post... you're just continuing proclaiming the very absurdities that i _challenged_ - & _YOU_ _obviously_ are unable to address or counter.

c) again, as with so many "red shirts" apologists - besides all rhetorics, you _want_ other minds/hearts/people to _act&behave_ _ACCORDING_ to _YOUR_ inclinations! you even claim to know what's best for Abhisit to do! & - as shown above - you simply don't care that there others out there who disagree with you. YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO BEHAVE AS YOU WANT THEM TO. was that clear enough?

*

7) you say: Have a nice day!!

i try to enjoy a happy heart/mind.

Thanks - you really nailed that xxx.

Too bad nearly every RED of the dozens I know and work with and live in the same soi with (many of whom I like as persons by the way) are so indoctrinated with RED propaganda that they can't hold a calm rational discussion for more than 60 seconds - except with a 'tourist' or another RED.

Try it and see.

TAWP · April 16, 2010

^^ What does that have to do with a spotter highlighting the targets for the shooters?

Absolutely,Thanks! Was in a big hurry, correction made..

I don't believe it necessarily had to be a spotter…both the standard Amy issue TAR-21 and SAR-21 Assault rifles come with an integrated IR (Green) laser pointer.

I think you misunderstand the point.

In the video mentioned and the one with the soldier ontop of the APC and the one with red shirts claiming to shoot at military snipers in a building there is exactly one green laser dot being used by someone on the ground-level to point out/highlight/prioritize targets. Yes, this could be a layman doing this, or it could be someone with some training background. We cannot tell. What I however was saying is that the video above again showed just the single green laser, on ground level, close to where the action happened. Notice the size of the beam and the angle of it.

JohnLeech · April 16, 2010

Did you read the followup article on France24:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100412-thaila...-protest-troops

The hypothesis of a third party has been reinforced by autopsies of the wounded. In the morgues and hospitals, we have seen at least six civilians killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads. This is the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper – and not a shot of deterrence.

If these six were the only casualties the point would be valid; as they made up a very small percentage of the casualties who had been shot, however, the point is simply rubbish. If you fired a random burst of a hundred rounds into a crowd, for example, some people would probably be "killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads". That would not be "the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper"; it may be, it may not, nothing more.

TAWP · April 16, 2010

Did you read the followup article on France24:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100412-thaila...-protest-troops

The hypothesis of a third party has been reinforced by autopsies of the wounded. In the morgues and hospitals, we have seen at least six civilians killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads. This is the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper – and not a shot of deterrence.

If these six were the only casualties the point would be valid; as they made up a very small percentage of the casualties who had been shot, however, the point is simply rubbish. If you fired a random burst of a hundred rounds into a crowd, for example, some people would probably be "killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads". That would not be "the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper"; it may be, it may not, nothing more.

And by the law of random chance we would have many more killed and wounded with hits in other locations of the body...

animatic · April 16, 2010

A mob who won 26,293,456 votes in the last Election.
Do you really think that all red shirts are Bangkok?

These are just the brave ones.

Won or bought?

In point of fact there were at most 100,000 redshirts.

So at most 100,000 votes.

JohnLeech · April 16, 2010

Does anybody know if the discharge from a weapon is the same when firing rubber bullets and live ammo.
i.e When firing rubber bullets does fire come out the end of the rifle? .....

In some of the evening video clips on youtube you see what huge flames coming out of the barrels.

Would that mean they firing live rounds or rubber?

From what I have heard you probably wouldn't see a flame at all with rubber bullets.

The question has to do about the force of the discharge from the weapon firing actual bullets vs rubber bullets. ....etc ...The short answer is that generally rubber bullets sometimes cause a flame to emit from the barrel of a firearm but not usually. (I wrote a detailed answer to your question but it got lost in cyberspace so I'm not going to the trouble again of providing the same answer.)...etc ...

Sorry, but although not entirely wrong Publicus, your answer is misleading.

Firstly, it is obvious when rubber bullets are being fired here rather than live rounds as the weapons used are either different or visibly modified.

The live rounds in question are fired from rifles (AR-16s and TARs). Rubber bullets are fired from shotguns, purpose built weapons such as Federal Riot Guns (FRGs), M79 granade launchers, (all of which have a very visible muzzle flash or "flame"), or from AR-16s with a large cylindrical extension on the end of the barrel. They are not 5.56mm bullets made of rubber!

You do not need to see the "fire" or "huge flames" to be able to tell, and if you do it will not necessarily be any indication as it will depend far more on the ambient light than on any friction, pressure, oxygen, etc, etc. A shotgun, additionally, firing a rubber bullet (or most shotgun ammunition) will have a far greater muzzle flash (fire / flame) than a conventional military rifle firing live rounds (or blanks), as military ammunition is specifically designed to mimimise the muzzle flash, for obvious reasons, while shotgun ammunition is not.

I should also point out that most "rubber bullets" in use do not have a soft metal core, and only those fired from the adaptor on the AR-16 are propelled by blank ammunition.

It's also necessary to know that while most government civil disorder and riot control personnel use 'blank' gunpowder to fire rubber bullets, ...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.

This is incorrect. Rubber bullets are not fired from "the narrow and intensely pressure-creating rifle barrel" but, when fired from rifles here, are fired from an adaptor fitted to the end of the barrel; they can only be fired by blank rounds. What you are probably talking about, which are very different, are plastic bullets which are used by very few countries (Israel being the main one).

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 ....

"Possible" in theory, but extremely unlikely (and potentially very dangerous to the users). Again, those fired from the AR-16 are propelled by a blank cartridge which in the case of the Armalite has a plastic body totally different to the metal casing of live rounds. Using the equivalent of a "full gunpowder charge" would not only mean someone emptying and re-loading individual blank cartridges with higher loads, and keeping those uprated blank cartridges separate from conventional blank rounds, but would result in constant stoppages as the expended blank cases would deform under the excess pressure; it is simply not realistic.

If you are looking for excessive use of force with rubber bullets, I would suggest that you look for other signs - those using FRGs, for example, occasionally used 45 grain rubber bullets (supposedly only to be used for knocking down doors and similar tasks) against people instead of 25 grain rounds - I have seen a very few people stand up to being hit by three or four successive 25 grain rounds, but I have never seen anyone, even with body armour, stand up to a 45 grain round; alternatively, a 'D' cell battery makes an useful addition to the load, although it is best to use Duracell rather than Army issue green batteries as this tends to give it away!

JohnLeech · April 16, 2010

Did you read the followup article on France24:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100412-thaila...-protest-troops

The hypothesis of a third party has been reinforced by autopsies of the wounded. In the morgues and hospitals, we have seen at least six civilians killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads. This is the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper – and not a shot of deterrence.

If these six were the only casualties the point would be valid; as they made up a very small percentage of the casualties who had been shot, however, the point is simply rubbish. If you fired a random burst of a hundred rounds into a crowd, for example, some people would probably be "killed by bullets shot squarely in the middle of their foreheads". That would not be "the mark of an elite shooter – a sniper"; it may be, it may not, nothing more.

And by the law of random chance we would have many more killed and wounded with hits in other locations of the body...

At last! Someone with some intelligence.

tgw · April 16, 2010

^Yes!

monkfish · April 16, 2010

A mob who won 26,293,456 votes in the last Election.
Do you really think that all red shirts are Bangkok?

These are just the brave ones.

Won or bought?

In point of fact there were at most 100,000 redshirts.

So at most 100,000 votes.

Never mind, what ever makes you happy.

I was going on actual fact based on 2007 elections results.

We will see in the next election!

tracymeaw · April 16, 2010

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...

Yes, it is only an opinion, just like yours. I fully agree that what I posted is pure theory....does that mean it didn't happen?

The red to non-red ratio must be 12:1 on TV…. most are one liner bandwagon trolls. Anything that goes against the master plan is attacked 12 different ways and is not welcome. Why have a forum if everyone needs to agree on everything?

Do you have proof that your facebook buddies didn't open several accounts each? I wonder how many of that 291000 would be willing to get beat up, gassed, and shot at before joining your friends group.

Sorry, can't post links to certain news media because it is against the rules... this forum is based in democratic Thailand remember? As far as the emotional ratio you speak of, don't tell me… go tell the women who were holding the babies. They would probably disagree with you, among other things.

I told you that I think Abhisit could have prevented all this and I told you why... deal with it. You know, there is another way he could have avoided all this mess. If he had been voted in by the people in the first place! He would have earned respect instead of demanding it.

Have a nice day!!