Thai Anti-Riot Squad Cut Up By Soldiers In Black

[elcent]

From Amnesty International

Dear Supporter,

In Thailand today, a sea of red-shirted protesters organized by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) once again took to the streets demanding dissolution of Parliament and new elections. Similar protests launched this past weekend by the UDD resulted in bloodshed and death.

Thai security forces used water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition against protesters. Eyewitnesses reported seeing protesters fire assault rifles and attack soldiers with makeshift weapons and explosive devices.

After Saturday's unrest, hundreds were injured and 23 people - including security agents - were killed.

Call on the authorities to refrain from using unnecessary or excessive force against protesters.

The UDD has the right to organize peaceful protests. But they should be undertaken with respect for the rights of others and the rule of law. The Thai government should respect the right of the protesters to gather, and use force only as a last resort and to the minimum extent possible.

Over the past several decades, Thailand has made considerable progress in the advancement of human rights. But today the country stands on the brink of a crisis that could devastate that progress.

We welcome the Thai government's pledge to promptly investigate violence and abuses by all sides. But the state of emergency decree, passed by the government days ago, confers immunity on anyone carrying out emergency powers in good faith. In other words, Thai security forces have sweeping policing powers to crack down on violence at all costs. That means all tactics from brutality to web and news censorship are fully permitted and currently being employed.

We've got to steer authorities from this dangerous path now!

Urge Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya not to abandon or sideline human rights during this state of emergency.

[Publicus]

Edit : 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?

shell markings will be different as well as the casing. You wouldn't want to mistake the two.

The question has to do about the force of the discharge from the weapon firing actual bullets vs rubber bullets. The force required to propel a 'rubber' bullet is less than the explosive force required to fire a 'real' bullet. While a real bullet is intended to penetrate the body with leathal force, the 'rubber' bullet is intented to have the effect of stinging, stunning and stopping a person without penetrating the body and without inflicting leathal or serious harm or injury.

The point that the watermelon doesn't have bones or brain tissue etc is another point of reality that cannot be overlooked as there is a world of difference between a bullet from any caliber weapon penetrating a watermelon and a human head with its skull and brain tissue. Even a melonhead would know and realize the enormous difference and never in a million years try to offer the two as analogous or even remotely same or similar.

Thanks for the detailed answer

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 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.)

Redshird posters looking for the 'smoking gun' answer can know that if the army is firing weapons and there are only a constant presence of flames emitting from the barrels of weapons, continually and without variation, it is likely live bullets are being fired. So far as I've seen, there isn't any such occurrance in any of the army's responses to weapons fire from the Redshirts. Rifle grenades, which are 100% different from hand grenades invariably do emit a flame on firing.

The variances have to do with the fact a real bullet is entirely metal and has a much greater ignition explosion and heat friction inside the weapon barrel, a greater friction inside the barrel which causes a flame when the real bullet and all the pressure and force of the real bullet's rapid transit through the rifle barrel comes into contact with the oxygen outside of the tip of the rifle barrel. A rubber bullet has a soft metal core but a rubber covering which causes much less friction and pressure inside the barrel of the weapon thus creating less of a flame, or no flame, when the rubber coated bullet emerges into the oxygen outside the enclosed barrel of the weapon.

Also tellingly, the rubber bullet is fired with blank ammunition quality so naturally causes a lesser or no flame when it comes inti contact with the oxygen outside the barrel, whereas a real bullet is ignited and propelled by a far more powerful exposive ignition force, thus creating a far greater and rapid movement of the bullet throug the barrel of the weapon and thus a greater constant and more pronounced flame on contact with the oxygen outside the barrel.

[rametindallas]

Why are they so hel_l bent on trying to provoke more bloodshed? The reds get goonier every day. Creeps, thugs and murderers.

Because they'd rather die than carry on being treated like the useless turds you consider them to be?

I can already hear a reposte - 'Well when they start acting like civilized people, then they'll be treated as such...'

How do people get 'civilized' if it isn't through the co-operation of the entire nation-state.

How did you get 'civilized' - were you born that way?

"turd is as turd does" Forrest Gump

Using Forrest Gump to back up your arguments does rather highlight the insubstantial nature of your position.

Got any quotes from the Muppets?

Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Here's one I like:

"It's not often you see a guy that green have the blues that bad." - Rowlf the Dog (Muppet Movie)

Maybe he had a premonition about Anupong?

I've not made any argument to back up and I haven't elucidated my position as it is still fluid. Translation: 'My mind is not made up'

The reason I commented was your blanket statement on the way Reds are treated. Having been married to a nice girl from Yasothon and having spend many weeks in her moobaan and also staying with poor friends in Buri Ram I believe those people I know there don't give a fig about anybody in Bangkok because they never see peple from Bangkok. The Reds at the protest site have inconvienced the residents of Bangkok so of course the residents of Bangkok look with disdain on them. As I've just illustrated by my last post, If you irritate someone you will get irritation back.

This protest has made it's point but has the revolution they are inciting made it's point? They have long since passed the 'protest' state are into (armed?) insurrection territory. In the meantime, I'll be staying informed as best as I can and not be too hasty in my conclusions. I trust you'll help me.

[rametindallas]

Why are they so hel_l bent on trying to provoke more bloodshed? The reds get goonier every day. Creeps, thugs and murderers.

Because they'd rather die than carry on being treated like the useless turds you consider them to be?

I can already hear a reposte - 'Well when they start acting like civilized people, then they'll be treated as such...'

How do people get 'civilized' if it isn't through the co-operation of the entire nation-state.

How did you get 'civilized' - were you born that way?

"turd is as turd does" Forrest Gump

Using Forrest Gump to back up your arguments does rather highlight the insubstantial nature of your position.

Got any quotes from the Muppets?

Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Here's one I like:

"It's not often you see a guy that green have the blues that bad." - Rowlf the Dog (Muppet Movie)

Maybe he had a premonition about Anupong?

I've not made any argument to back up and I haven't elucidated my position as it is still fluid. Translation: 'My mind is not made up'

The reason I commented was your blanket statement on the way Reds are treated. Having been married to a nice girl from Yasothon and having spend many weeks in her moobaan and also staying with poor friends in Buri Ram I believe those people I know there don't give a fig about anybody in Bangkok because they never see peple from Bangkok. The Reds at the protest site have inconvienced the residents of Bangkok so of course the residents of Bangkok look with disdain on them. As I've just illustrated by my last post, If you irritate someone you will get irritation back.

This protest has made it's point but has the revolution they are inciting made it's point? They have long since passed the 'protest' state are into (armed?) insurrection territory. In the meantime, I'll be staying informed as best as I can and not be too hasty in my conclusions. I trust you'll help me.

[rametindallas]

Why are they so hel_l bent on trying to provoke more bloodshed? The reds get goonier every day. Creeps, thugs and murderers.

Because they'd rather die than carry on being treated like the useless turds you consider them to be?

I can already hear a reposte - 'Well when they start acting like civilized people, then they'll be treated as such...'

How do people get 'civilized' if it isn't through the co-operation of the entire nation-state.

How did you get 'civilized' - were you born that way?

"turd is as turd does" Forrest Gump

Using Forrest Gump to back up your arguments does rather highlight the insubstantial nature of your position.

Got any quotes from the Muppets?

Oh well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Here's one I like:

"It's not often you see a guy that green have the blues that bad." - Rowlf the Dog (Muppet Movie)

Maybe he had a premonition about Anupong?

I've not made any argument to back up and I haven't elucidated my position as it is still fluid. Translation: 'My mind is not made up'

The reason I commented was your blanket statement on the way Reds are treated. Having been married to a nice girl from Yasothon and having spend many weeks in her moobaan and also staying with poor friends in Buri Ram I believe those people I know there don't give a fig about anybody in Bangkok because they never see peple from Bangkok. The Reds at the protest site have inconvienced the residents of Bangkok so of course the residents of Bangkok look with disdain on them. As I've just illustrated by my last post, If you irritate someone you will get irritation back.

This protest has made it's point but has the revolution they are inciting made it's point? They have long since passed the 'protest' state are into (armed?) insurrection territory. In the meantime, I'll be staying informed as best as I can and not be too hasty in my conclusions. I trust you'll help me.

[hextac]

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

[whiterussian]

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....

Edited April 14, 2010 by whiterussian

[hextac]

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.

or not.

Does a false flag false flag not equal a true flag?

[hextac]

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 wft 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....

If you're not already committed then I would run for the hills.

[Publicus]

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.

[Neurath]

Dunno I fired M16A into watermelons and didnt have the same effect that's why I think it was higher caliber, smth like a 50mm 7.62 round or above.

Uh, the last time I had water melon I didn't find any bones in it. The 5.56 will tumble after about 3" in tissue but nearly immediately after hitting bone. This starts the tumbling which causes the bullet to rapidly lose energy as it scatters. This energy is transfered to the tissue as a pressure wave which can cause the weakened skull to rupture. The below is the ballistics effects on only soft tissue. The pressure wave is greater based on velocity and in the case of the 5.56 around 2800-3300 fps.

BTW - the same medical ballistics graph for a 7.62 shows nearly a straight narrow path, that is in and out (a through and through).

Shot in left temple. Exit right temple. Pressure wave accounting for back of head. Hence the remaining hanging forehead bone from crown to near nose. Anything's possible judging from that video alone.

[Publicus]

Dunno I fired M16A into watermelons and didnt have the same effect that's why I think it was higher caliber, smth like a 50mm 7.62 round or above.

Uh, the last time I had water melon I didn't find any bones in it. The 5.56 will tumble after about 3" in tissue but nearly immediately after hitting bone. This starts the tumbling which causes the bullet to rapidly lose energy as it scatters. This energy is transfered to the tissue as a pressure wave which can cause the weakened skull to rupture. The below is the ballistics effects on only soft tissue. The pressure wave is greater based on velocity and in the case of the 5.56 around 2800-3300 fps.

BTW - the same medical ballistics graph for a 7.62 shows nearly a straight narrow path, that is in and out (a through and through).

Shot in left temple. Exit right temple. Pressure wave accounting for back of head. Hence the remaining hanging forehead bone from crown to near nose. Anything's possible judging from that video alone.

This at least is arguable and well beyond the shooting of watermelons by melonheads.

[yoshiwara]

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:

[Neurath]

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:

Nattawut already did.

[hextac]

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:

Nattawut already did.

huh?

[Neurath]

> He said that the chap in black balaclava had merely picked up weapons that the military had dropped and that the photograph merely showed him behind the red's stage, not in the ruckus of Saturday evening. We are to believe that the weapons strapped to his thigh, over his shoulder and the gloves were also picked up on his stroll. The chap behind him in the photograph was merely helping to carry what he had picked up.

[dino67]

So we have a video showing what appears to be muzzle flash from the top floor of a building overlooking Democracy Monument.

Range is around 80 metres. Any half competent shooter can makes head shots all day long at that range.

How did they get into the building ? Guys in black moving around the reds without challenge all day. It would take 10mins to slip into the building before the shit-fight started and take up a position on the roof - maybe it was the guy in black who single handedly disarmed armed soldiers walking past his position while wearing rubber gloves !

Why would you shoot at the monument ? To add some weight to your story that the army used live rounds by leaving bullet impact damage on a large object.

I think some people want to believe the army initiated this, but there is a far degree of circumstantial evidence pointing to the men in black - leave it to you to decide whose agenda they further by creating chaos.

Peaceful protests and pouring blood on Govt House wasn't going to get the desired result was it ?

I think Abhisit's mistake was letting it drag on for so long hoping the movement would fizzle out, instead the Reds regrouped and had a change of strategy - the more radical factions of the Red movement have been pushing for violence all along knowing they need a heavy response from the standing govt to further their cause.

Edited April 14, 2010 by dino67

[Neurath]

I'd not discount some of what appear to be muzzle flashes turning out to have been cameras

[dino67]

Sorry mate, Camera flashes illuminate the subject several meters in front of the camera !

No way would they be used to take photos of people 40 - 120 metres below, spread out around the democracy monument.

[shawndoc]

Sorry mate, Camera flashes illuminate the subject several meters in front of the camera !

No way would they be used to take photos of people 40 - 120 metres below, spread out around the democracy monument.

Most point and shoots will turn the flash on anyway. Just go to a basketball game and watch all the flashes as people take photos of the game. Most people don't bother to turn off the flash, or as is the case in my camera, if I disable the flash the shutter stays open too long causing blurring. However with flash on, it uses a more reasonable shutter speed, and if the target is well lit (such as the court at a basketball match, the ring at a boxing match, or the area around the monument as seen in the video) the photos will turn out a bit dark, but usable.

[tominbkk]

LOL, so when are sources required on TV? Especially from the Red apologists?

Well I realize why you are so cranky mate... BTW how is the noise level these days outside your flat, not sure you have updated us on it in a while?

I have no idea who you are talking about. I live on the outskirts of town, nice village, 4 bedroom house. You have me confused with someone else!

[elcent]

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?

[humfurry]

> He said that the chap in black balaclava had merely picked up weapons that the military had dropped and that the photograph merely showed him behind the red's stage, not in the ruckus of Saturday evening. We are to believe that the weapons strapped to his thigh, over his shoulder and the gloves were also picked up on his stroll. The chap behind him in the photograph was merely helping to carry what he had picked up.

Well I guess it's a simple enough thing to verify that those were all Thai military weapons that he's carrying by looking at the photographs. If he indeed was just picking them up.

[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.

[citizen33]

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.

[humfurry]

^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 a.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.

Propaganda? Did you bother to read your own text before you posted it M8?

[elcent]

so far so good then. Where are the pictures of collecting the guns? Must be available in the sea of cameras and mobiles also available to the reds.

[hextac]

The video clearly shows multiple bullets hitting the monument. How could this occur?

Snipers couldn't miss by that margin, and soldiers firing in the air would miss by miles.

[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 a.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.

Propaganda? Did you bother to read your own text before you posted it M8?

Dont hate me simply because I'm right!

[mca]

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....