Thai Red-Shirts Vow To Rally Until Deputy PM Suthep Is Charged

[brahmburgers]

As a conspiracy theorist, I would theorize that a good percentage of the funding behind the scene of the Reds came from Thaksin. I believe almost everyone would agree with that. Seh Daeng has also stated that Thaksin is one of the Reds' leaders and someone that can end the protest. We all also understand that the Abhisit's roadmap proposal and house dissolution are aimed towards ending the protest and possibly put this country on a right footing for the future. However, this proposal does not benefit, of course, Thaksin. We should also agree that Thaksin's ultimate goal is all about money and saving face.

All this charade with Reds agreeing to the roadmap but not willing to disperse is simply, IMHO, Thaksin's leverage and tactic (behind the scene) in trying to broker for the return of his money and possibly some face saving gesture. IMHO, this is not about democracy or helping the rural poor but one's greed!

Abhisit might be a puppet PM because he has no real control over the army or the police. But the real pawns are the rural poor and anyone that is a Red but not really fighting for the true cause of the Red's ideology. IMHO

All true, particularly: "......Thaksin's leverage and tactic (behind the scene) in trying to broker for the return of his money" Though it was not really his money, any more than a bank robber can call the money he hid in the bushes 'his money.'

Reminds me of a one-off scam that I read about years ago: A guy has some checks printed up in his basement, using paper that disintegrates in a day or two (some sort of delayed chemical action?).

Thai government can say, "OK, Mr. Thaksin, you're too much of a big shot to take to justice, so we'll give back the money, if you tell your hired thugs to disperse from downtown Bangkok." Bangkok Bank writes T a check for 1 billion bucks on funny paper. T gets the check, calls off the rally. The next day, when T is endorsing the check at his Montenegro bank counter, the check dissolves.

Only problem, what name to put on the check? ....Takki Shinegra? ....Tacky Shenanigans? .....The Scam Artist Formerly Known as Thaksin?

[Samuian]

They (the red's) have to, because they are told to... anyone ever had a good look at the "leaders faces"?

But then there is an ultimatum issued - they have to leave as of TODAY!

PM to red shirts: Leave today

.. Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva issued an ultimatum to the red shirts to leave the Rajprasong protest site by....

"If they have sincerely accepted the road map for national reconciliation as announced earlier, the protesters should go home by May 12 and we can discuss other matters in detail later....."

The red shirt movement, the hard core, NEEDS a move by the security forces to underline their "plight" to show "the world"

that they are "freedom" fighters, they desperately NEED bloodshed in the name of their master!

They need havoc, upheaval an uncontrollable situation to force the government out and new elections - what the result will be - should be CLEAR to anyone!

It will be a PT majority!

It's all rigged already.... the red carpet ready!

Edited May 12, 2010 by Samuian

[pornsasi]

==================================================================

If the unarmed person was visibly unarmed and not in a situation when it could not be known that he was unarmed

Or he was part of a mob firing at the police

In these circumstance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time

Saddly something he himself is responsible for

Too bad insnt it ? A reporter was shot doing his job , must be really

idiotic for a reporter to report . Well Thaksin policy killed hundreds of innocent

during Tai Bak and his war on drugs , for sure those victims were responsible

according to your logic .

You are so sad

PS : By the way am sure you have solid proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

Edited May 12, 2010 by pornsasi

[Humungus]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

[Humungus]

==================================================================

If the unarmed person was visibly unarmed and not in a situation when it could not be known that he was unarmed

Or he was part of a mob firing at the police

In these circumstance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time

Saddly something he himself is responsible for

Too bad insnt it ? A reporter was shot doing his job , must be really

idiotic for a reporter to report . Well Thaksin policy killed hundreds of innocent

during Tai Bak and his war on drugs , for sure those victims were responsible

according to your logic .

You are so sad

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

You could check the dead police for proof if you like.

[pornsasi]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

[pornsasi]

==================================================================

If the unarmed person was visibly unarmed and not in a situation when it could not be known that he was unarmed

Or he was part of a mob firing at the police

In these circumstance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time

Saddly something he himself is responsible for

Too bad insnt it ? A reporter was shot doing his job , must be really

idiotic for a reporter to report . Well Thaksin policy killed hundreds of innocent

during Tai Bak and his war on drugs , for sure those victims were responsible

according to your logic .

You are so sad

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

You could check the dead police for proof if you like.

Yes and shot by whom . As i said any proof ?

[Herm]

Are there not laws in Thailand RE: endangering the life of a child

In Australia the parents would loose the rights to have these children

Are there not laws in Thailand about shooting unarmed civilians?

u have a problem this is not australia. this is thailand and the soldiers are dealing with people that are armed with M16's and M79 grenade lauchers. we ae not talking about some people armed with sticks and battons. these people have serious fire power. now if the people want to danger there kids lives by putting them in the firing range. then the blame be on the parents not the soldiers who have to put the country first. The soldiers jobs are to protect the country at any cost.

as for shooting an armed " cilvilans" i think that by wearing the colour red. means that they are no longer civilans.

there again if the PM was more ruthless. then he know that the majority of the voters staying in one area and well. i did say ruthless. though i am not the PM and i have no voice to i am not insighting anything. just another what if

There is only one side to blame if children get injured or die - the parents who have brought them to be part of the mob. The government have but one choice now and that is to put an end to this farce. After, if anyone should be prosecuted for the child's death, it should be the parents and no one else and they should be locked up for manslaughter.

Everyone inside the red mob area should know by now what the deal is or they are so thick that Darwin's law should apply anyway.

Cutting off their water and electricity will not do much since they have generators and ample supply of bottled water for just that purpose. Until now they have been steeling power from shopping malls and Hotels etc.... for which the surviving leaders (if there are any) should be prosecuted and billed once this is over. Well, I think it is safe to assume they will all survive since they are going to be hiding behind woman's frocks and children once the action starts.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Herm

[brahmburgers]

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

Yes, there's a lot of evidence of people in the Red camp firing at security forces. We've seen some, and am sure a lot more will emerge when trials start. Denial is not a river in Egypt, yet some people who post on T.Visa will deny the most obvious transgressions by the Reds and the people they harbor. It's like repeatedly stating the government killed 24 people on April 10th. You can say it over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that Reds and their supporters were the instigators of the deaths and injuries that night. If combat weapons had not been used against riot troops, then there would have been far less deaths and injuries on both sides.

Proof: when troops were shooting initially (rubber bullets in air), Reds were standing their ground and milling around (not crouching, not falling, not running). It was only after the Reds launched the grenade, which killed the Colonel and his mates, that the serious firing began.

[quiksilva]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

I think you should because you forgot the bit about

in most countries protesters dont have assault rifles, RPG's and grenade launchers (well I suppose that's not strictly true because Somalia, Iraq, and Kabul springs to mind)

Edited May 12, 2010 by quiksilva

[Herm]

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

Proof: when troops were shooting initially (rubber bullets in air), Reds were standing their ground and milling around (not crouching, not falling, not running). It was only after the Reds launched the grenade, which killed the Colonel and his mates, that the serious firing began.

This is useless, those reds here will now claim that those grenades were launched by the government ...........

They are repeating the same rubbish time and time again until they believe it themselves - try to convince a delusional schizophrenic that he is not Napoleon and you will fail. In that respect, the reds here are either delusional schizophrenics who believe in their own lies or paid to spread red propaganda.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Herm

[brahmburgers]

Good thing (for the Reds) that the Thai army doesn't have a Napoleon in their upper ranks.

That's how Napoleon first gained notice in France. There was a demonstration rally in Paris, and Napoleon was a young officer in charge of a cannon brigade. He set the cannon up in front of a church. When the demonstrators came up the approaching road, he gave the order to pound them, literally, down to the ground.

[pornsasi]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

I think you should because you forgot the bit about

in most countries protesters dont have assault rifles, RPG's and grenade launchers (well I suppose that's not strictly true because Somalia, Iraq, and Kabul springs to mind)

No I did not . I said those who do are immediately arrested . Check my post .

Perhaps if the security force did not bring firearms with live bullets , then nobody would .

Again you got no proof of red shirt firing at police/army , if you have show them here

[brahmburgers]

Again you got no proof of red shirt firing at police/army , if you have show them here

Deny, deny, deny. Rest assured, there will be a whole lot of proof when the trials start.

[pornsasi]

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

Proof: when troops were shooting initially (rubber bullets in air), Reds were standing their ground and milling around (not crouching, not falling, not running). It was only after the Reds launched the grenade, which killed the Colonel and his mates, that the serious firing began.

This is useless, those reds here will now claim that those grenades were launched by the government ...........

They are repeating the same rubbish time and time again until they believe it themselves - try to convince a delusional schizophrenic that he is not Napoleon and you will fail. In that respect, the reds here are either delusional schizophrenics who believe in their own lies or paid to spread red propaganda.

Thank you for your proofs

[pornsasi]

Again you got no proof of red shirt firing at police/army , if you have show them here

Deny, deny, deny. Rest assured, there will be a whole lot of proof when the trials start.

That remains to be seen .

[Humungus]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

go on.....

The army was assisting the police not replacing them.

In most countries police don't turn a blind eye to criminals.

In most countries the law is enforced.

In most countries protesters don't shoot police.

In most countries protest leaders don't evade police.

In most countries high ranking army generals don't turn traitor.

[pornsasi]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

go on.....

The army was assisting the police not replacing them.

In most countries police don't turn a blind eye to criminals.

In most countries the law is enforced.

In most countries protesters don't shoot police.

In most countries protest leaders don't evade police.

In most countries high ranking army generals don't turn traitor.

Yes , i could agree except that no proof that protesters did shoot police .

[Tejas]

It is clear that the "mastermind" of this mess (who currently lives abroad) is intent on provoking the military/police to take massive action.

I wonder if the govt. will seize all (not half) of his money/assets/property left in Thailand to pay for the economic chaos the Reds have caused.

The govt. has done everything in its power to prevent bloodshed.

The Reds are not going to walk away (foolishly thinking they are actually winning).

I do not see a happy ending for the Reds.

I am certain that the govt. will not allow this situation to continue.

[Herm]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

go on.....

The army was assisting the police not replacing them.

In most countries police don't turn a blind eye to criminals.

In most countries the law is enforced.

In most countries protesters don't shoot police.

In most countries protest leaders don't evade police.

In most countries high ranking army generals don't turn traitor.

In most countries looters are shot on sight during a state of emergency !!

As far as the police is concerned, well .. in Thailand, to state the obvious, they are more of a bribe collecting force than a real police force which is the reason for the army to be brought in.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Herm

[Humungus]

"Yes , i could agree except that no proof that protesters did shoot police . "

And what makes proof for old Pornsasi? Will only the testimony of the red leaders be sufficient? Would video of people among the protesters firing weapons, bullets taken from the dead, witness accounts, would any of these convince him? Maybe if Thaksin's ghost appeared to him in a dream and told him he might believe. I guess the rest of us will just have to live in the real world where reds actually have committed crimes and are guilty of them.

[AleG]

Perhaps if the security force did not bring firearms with live bullets , then nobody would .

And how are the security forces going to foresee that noone is armed in the mob?

[way2muchcoffee]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

go on.....

The army was assisting the police not replacing them.

In most countries police don't turn a blind eye to criminals.

In most countries the law is enforced.

In most countries protesters don't shoot police.

In most countries protest leaders don't evade police.

In most countries high ranking army generals don't turn traitor.

Yes , i could agree except that no proof that protesters did shoot police .

Just watch the video. You know, the one you posted earlier.

[animatic]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

In most countries the army goes in domesticly

if it deteriorates enough to warrant that.

If the USA state national guard can't do it the army DOES go in.

[Eurod]

Just have the election,

do a coup, then wait for the fight to begin.

Possible outcomes of a real fight.

10s of thousands dead

Half of Bangkok burned to the ground

Nation split into three or more pieces

Baht at 120

Sky-train now called the blownup train

Subway a war zone too

Taxis used as car bombs

Farangs run out of the nation

You can guess the rest.

it may still happen. On Saturday, I leave Thailand until this mess resoves, one way ot the other.

[animatic]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

go on.....

The army was assisting the police not replacing them.

In most countries police don't turn a blind eye to criminals.

In most countries the law is enforced.

In most countries protesters don't shoot police.

In most countries protest leaders don't evade police.

In most countries high ranking army generals don't turn traitor.

Yes , i could agree except that no proof that protesters did shoot police .

Yes, there is plenty, but it hasn't OFFICIALLY gone through court yet.

One more recent example:

The Forensic lab said that cop shot from the motorcycle was NOT friendly fire.

And reporters caputured an armed black shirt coming from the building

where the shots are believed to have come from.

In the end this will slowly wind through the courts and make proof officially known.

But your reds are innocent till proven guilty defense

is correct morally, even legally for the moment,

but incorrect based on the prepondernace of viewable facts in the public sphere.

[noahvail]

Anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by the reds can see that Suthep will not be convicted of anything. Sure he ordered the police to disperse a riot, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Allowing a group of rioters to go unchecked, now that would be criminal. He gave the order to protect truly innocent people, the citizens of Bangkok who were not involved in criminal activity. The police responded using batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. A perfectly legal response to a riot in progress.

These people were not innocent, not peaceful and not unarmed. They were in the act of committing a crime and they attacked the soldiers and police with guns and grenades. The fact that after being attacked in that manner that the army and police only killed 20 protesters and then retreated to prevent further losses shows incredible restraint. If anything the police were acting out of self defense. In most countries none of the security forces would charged with any crime.

In most countries police is used , not army

In most countries the security forces facing protesters are not armed with live bullets

in most country security forces are trained to handle this kind of situation

in most countries violent or armed trouble makers are arrested prior to protests

in most countries soldiers dont shoot at other soldiers

.... Shall i continue ?????

I think you should because you forgot the bit about

in most countries protesters dont have assault rifles, RPG's and grenade launchers (well I suppose that's not strictly true because Somalia, Iraq, and Kabul springs to mind)

No I did not . I said those who do are immediately arrested . Check my post .

Perhaps if the security force did not bring firearms with live bullets , then nobody would .

Again you got no proof of red shirt firing at police/army , if you have show them here

Tell you what...I will offer you the proof. One of your compatriots on the forum a few days ago, claimed that there were dozens of Youtube videos proving that the army fired M16s set to automatic. I checked a few from April 10 and 13, and all the shots were single shots. He never offered a link, and never responded to my post.

So....look at Youtube. Don't ask for a link, don't ask me to do your work for you. But unlike the lie your compatriot told, you will find your proof there.

[cougar52]

==================================================================

If the unarmed person was visibly unarmed and not in a situation when it could not be known that he was unarmed

Or he was part of a mob firing at the police

In these circumstance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time

Saddly something he himself is responsible for

Too bad insnt it ? A reporter was shot doing his job , must be really

idiotic for a reporter to report . Well Thaksin policy killed hundreds of innocent

during Tai Bak and his war on drugs , for sure those victims were responsible

according to your logic .

You are so sad

PS : By the way am sure you have any proof of a mob (red shirts) firing at the police

You could check the dead police for proof if you like.

Yes and shot by whom . As i said any proof ?

The proof that you are asking for---you posted yourself, I believe it was "France 24" or something like that from another thread. You sir, are sounding just like the Red Stage Actors/Leaders, and are going thread to thread with the same BS about--Any Proof??? Please give it a break