Bhum Jai Thai Tight-Lipped About PM Abhisit's Furor

[rubl]

Out of the blue:

When I've make a few posts on a topic I feel a need to check what I said and how I said it. Till now I never bothered to just print a complete topic to sort things out. Sometimes I'm tempted though, especially when I've got this nagging feeling of inconsistencies somewhere

[Insight]

I love it when certain posters make fools of themselves with their yellow rhetoric.

Well done guys, keep it.

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

It is clear to all those who are not yellow (politics and bravery it would appear) that the autopsy results have not been released as they will show that people were killed at the hands of the military, investigation will also show that many of these were unarmed, such as the journalists. We have all seen footage on youtube of unarmed people laying on the ground as the army are taking potshots at them, and you expect us to believe that these soldiers missed ALL their targets with their random shooting.

Anyway like I said, keep it up, normally I like to make people look stupid when they are, but you guys are doing a good enough job by yourselves

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Edited October 21, 2010 by Insight

[jdinasia]

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

It is clear to all those who are not yellow (politics and bravery it would appear) that the autopsy results have not been released as they will show that people were killed at the hands of the military, investigation will also show that many of these were unarmed,

You claim expert (in-depth is synonymous) --- your claims about what an autopsy will reveal are incorrect as I stated above. Your following remark was not only specious is contained a straw man argument. Please produce evidence of what the autopsies will reveal if and when they are given out (fair since you asked the same "produce evidence" question to others.)

Please feel free to use a thesaurus if you choose to be pedantic about expert, in depth etc ... but YOUR claim states in absolutes what an autopsy will reveal and it is not accurate.

[random]

I love it when certain posters make fools of themselves with their yellow rhetoric.

Well done guys, keep it.

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

It is clear to all those who are not yellow (politics and bravery it would appear) that the autopsy results have not been released as they will show that people were killed at the hands of the military, investigation will also show that many of these were unarmed, such as the journalists. We have all seen footage on youtube of unarmed people laying on the ground as the army are taking potshots at them, and you expect us to believe that these soldiers missed ALL their targets with their random shooting.

Anyway like I said, keep it up, normally I like to make people look stupid when they are, but you guys are doing a good enough job by yourselves

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Feel free to tell us

[rubl]

Was this journalist in the declared 'live fire zone' ?

As for 'didn't see weapons', those who were led around the main stage on Ratchaprasong also saw nothing. Didn't mean there was nothing. The UDD is very good at propaganda and staging shows. Some learned it in Vietnam in the 70's.

I suppose he only pretended to get shot as well

Clear answer: no, he was shot.

Can we now get some answers more related to my question ?

I don't think it is in dispute that some red shirts had weapons, as well as the secretive men in black. The issue is as to whether all those killed by the army were in fact armed or even constituting a direct threat, and the fact that this journalist was unarmed and shot by the army, and his point is there was no direct threat around him that constituted the army firing live rounds in his direction, and even if there was a threat around him then the live firing was at best random.

Whether or not 'live fire' is random, people were warned. If you venture inside a 'live fire' zone, you know the risks you take, or at least should know.

With the army starting to peacefully disperse protesters on April 10th and getting clobbered, no one should be amazed at a somewhat more forceful approach next time. The encirclement and cleanup of Ratchaprasong was announced, broadcasted, repeatedly. Any who wanted to leave could, government (i.e. I as tax payer) would provided buses. At every step the army was taunted, provoked, shot at and have grenades lopped on them. The only miracle I see is that from the 14th to 19th of May we had less than 50 deaths in total. I dislike the fact the army was needed for the cleanup, but applaud their restrain under difficult circumstances. Especially with the whole world watching over their shoulders while they were trying to do the job the government ordered them to do.

[random]

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

It is clear to all those who are not yellow (politics and bravery it would appear) that the autopsy results have not been released as they will show that people were killed at the hands of the military, investigation will also show that many of these were unarmed,

You claim expert (in-depth is synonymous) --- your claims about what an autopsy will reveal are incorrect as I stated above. Your following remark was not only specious is contained a straw man argument. Please produce evidence of what the autopsies will reveal if and when they are given out (fair since you asked the same "produce evidence" question to others.)

Please feel free to use a thesaurus if you choose to be pedantic about expert, in depth etc ... but YOUR claim states in absolutes what an autopsy will reveal and it is not accurate.

Take away your nonsense that I mad a claim to be an expert and we can discuss, clearly you were wrong in this assertion, we both know it, everyone reading knows it, remove it and we can discuss.

At no point did I claim to be an expert or have in depth knowledge, or claim that others did not have this knowledge, why keep pretending otherwise and wasting everyone's time, clearly you want an answer from me and you can have one as soon as you do what is asked of you.

The ball is in your court, no need for a thesaurus, we both know what you were trying to say and are now trying to backpedal from whilst saving face.

[random]

Whether or not 'live fire' is random, people were warned. If you venture inside a 'live fire' zone, you know the risks you take, or at least should know.

With the army starting to peacefully disperse protesters on April 10th and getting clobbered, no one should be amazed at a somewhat more forceful approach next time. The encirclement and cleanup of Ratchaprasong was announced, broadcasted, repeatedly. Any who wanted to leave could, government (i.e. I as tax payer) would provided buses. At every step the army was taunted, provoked, shot at and have grenades lopped on them. The only miracle I see is that from the 14th to 19th of May we had less than 50 deaths in total. I dislike the fact the army was needed for the cleanup, but applaud their restrain under difficult circumstances. Especially with the whole world watching over their shoulders while they were trying to do the job the government ordered them to do.

So if a soldier was to stray into that live fire zone he deserves to be killed in friendly fire, or should the shooters take more care? surely a live fire zone does not mean that the army can shoot recklessly and kill unarmed people.

[random]

It seems this thread has gone very off topic

[way2muchcoffee]

Random says:

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

And later Random says:

At no point did I claim to be an expert or have in depth knowledge....

And one final quote from Random:

Anyway like I said, keep it up, normally I like to make people look stupid when they are, but you guys are doing a good enough job by yourselves

Hmm....

Edited October 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Insight]

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Feel free to tell us

I want the opinion of an ex cop on this one. If somebody is constantly (and I mean constantly, over a period of two months, and not to mention refusing what they were initially protesting for in the early stages of the protest) antagonising armed services in to taking action, what would you suspect the motive is?

[jdinasia]

Random has obfuscated enough .... He made a claim as to what autopsies will reveal based upon expert knowledge (ex police that has attended "quite a few".) His absolute assertions in that claim were simply wrong. Instead of addressing it .. (or his personal attacks) .. he just harps on and on about not having made a claim that he did indeed make.

I am finished with him

[random]

Random says:

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

And later Random says:

At no point did I claim to be an expert or have in depth knowledge....

Hmmm...

nope, I have read this many times and at no point do i claim to have expert knowledge, I have been to many pubs but don't know how to brew ale, it seems you are making this claim, not me.

[random]

Random has obfuscated enough .... He made a claim as to what autopsies will reveal based upon expert knowledge (ex police that has attended "quite a few".) His absolute assertions in that claim were simply wrong. Instead of addressing it .. (or his personal attacks) .. he just harps on and on about not having made a claim that he did indeed make.

I am finished with him

boo hoo, you made a false claim and are not man enough to take it back.

Ok, no problem, luckily others are able to read and make their own decisions on what constitutes and expert, at least you and your buddies have left others alone while while you tried to attack me a feat that you would no doubt shy away from in the real world.

[rubl]

Whether or not 'live fire' is random, people were warned. If you venture inside a 'live fire' zone, you know the risks you take, or at least should know.

With the army starting to peacefully disperse protesters on April 10th and getting clobbered, no one should be amazed at a somewhat more forceful approach next time. The encirclement and cleanup of Ratchaprasong was announced, broadcasted, repeatedly. Any who wanted to leave could, government (i.e. I as tax payer) would provided buses. At every step the army was taunted, provoked, shot at and have grenades lopped on them. The only miracle I see is that from the 14th to 19th of May we had less than 50 deaths in total. I dislike the fact the army was needed for the cleanup, but applaud their restrain under difficult circumstances. Especially with the whole world watching over their shoulders while they were trying to do the job the government ordered them to do.

So if a soldier was to stray into that live fire zone he deserves to be killed in friendly fire, or should the shooters take more care? surely a live fire zone does not mean that the army can shoot recklessly and kill unarmed people.

Your type of logic somehow conflicts with my type of logic. I will stop replying on this before my blood pressure starts playing up

[whybother]

Random says:

As ex uk police I am more than aware what an autopsy consists of having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire, of course this will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

And later Random says:

At no point did I claim to be an expert or have in depth knowledge....

Hmmm...

nope, I have read this many times and at no point do i claim to have expert knowledge, I have been to many pubs but don't know how to brew ale, it seems you are making this claim, not me.

" ... having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy WILL show ..."

So, do you have enough knowledge to know what an autopsy will show?

[random]

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Feel free to tell us

I want the opinion of an ex cop on this one. If somebody is constantly (and I mean constantly, over a period of two months, and not to mention refusing what they were initially protesting for in the early stages of the protest) antagonising armed services in to taking action, what would you suspect the motive is?

A resolution to their demands for an immediate election. (however this is speaking from a western perspective where the protest would not have lasted this long, I cant speak for what goes on in the mind of a Thai, as I guess you can't either).

Now maybe you can give us your opinion

[random]

" ... having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy WILL show ..."

So, do you have enough knowledge to know what an autopsy will show?

will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

[Insight]

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Feel free to tell us

I want the opinion of an ex cop on this one. If somebody is constantly (and I mean constantly, over a period of two months, and not to mention refusing what they were initially protesting for in the early stages of the protest) antagonising armed services in to taking action, what would you suspect the motive is?

A resolution to their demands for an immediate election. (however this is speaking from a western perspective where the protest would not have lasted this long, I cant speak for what goes on in the mind of a Thai, as I guess you can't either).

Now maybe you can give us your opinion

They had an election within 3 months - reasonable amount of time by any means. They still chose to continue protesting requesting a immediate election, on what grounds?

You still haven't answered why they chose to repeatedly antagonise the army into firing at them through the use of both live rounds and improvised devices made to appear as real artillery. Here's an example:

[random]

Whether or not 'live fire' is random, people were warned. If you venture inside a 'live fire' zone, you know the risks you take, or at least should know.

With the army starting to peacefully disperse protesters on April 10th and getting clobbered, no one should be amazed at a somewhat more forceful approach next time. The encirclement and cleanup of Ratchaprasong was announced, broadcasted, repeatedly. Any who wanted to leave could, government (i.e. I as tax payer) would provided buses. At every step the army was taunted, provoked, shot at and have grenades lopped on them. The only miracle I see is that from the 14th to 19th of May we had less than 50 deaths in total. I dislike the fact the army was needed for the cleanup, but applaud their restrain under difficult circumstances. Especially with the whole world watching over their shoulders while they were trying to do the job the government ordered them to do.

So if a soldier was to stray into that live fire zone he deserves to be killed in friendly fire, or should the shooters take more care? surely a live fire zone does not mean that the army can shoot recklessly and kill unarmed people.

Your type of logic somehow conflicts with my type of logic. I will stop replying on this before my blood pressure starts playing up

at least you didn't join in my little gang of stalkers frothing at the mouth trying to score brownie points at belittle me like it actually matters :jap:

[whybother]

It's also pretty clear to most that the "red shirts" were trying every trick in the book antagonising the military into firing at them. Why?

Feel free to tell us

I want the opinion of an ex cop on this one. If somebody is constantly (and I mean constantly, over a period of two months, and not to mention refusing what they were initially protesting for in the early stages of the protest) antagonising armed services in to taking action, what would you suspect the motive is?

A resolution to their demands for an immediate election. (however this is speaking from a western perspective where the protest would not have lasted this long, I cant speak for what goes on in the mind of a Thai, as I guess you can't either).

Now maybe you can give us your opinion

How does antagonsing the army into shooting you help your demands for an immediate election? Were they trying to be shot so that they got sympathy and more support?

[random]

They had an election within 3 months - reasonable amount of time by any means. They still chose to continue protesting requesting a immediate election, on what grounds?

You still haven't answered why they chose to repeatedly antagonise the army into firing at them through the use of both live rounds and improvised devices made to appear as real artillery. Here's an example:

I clearly gave you an answer in my reply as to why, do you go blind when an answer contradicts what you believe. read my reply, the answer is clearly there.

[whybother]

" ... having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy WILL show ..."

So, do you have enough knowledge to know what an autopsy will show?

will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

Will "an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire"?

[random]

How does antagonsing the army into shooting you help your demands for an immediate election? Were they trying to be shot so that they got sympathy and more support?

you tell me, you are the one that is saying they were trying to antagonize the army into shooting them, I never said that.

It seems you guys in your little ganging up exercise are starting to confuse yourselves now

[random]

" ... having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy WILL show ..."

So, do you have enough knowledge to know what an autopsy will show?

will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

Will "an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire"?

it is possible as you very well know

[rubl]

How does antagonsing the army into shooting you help your demands for an immediate election? Were they trying to be shot so that they got sympathy and more support?

you tell me, you are the one that is saying they were trying to antagonize the army into shooting them, I never said that.

It seems you guys in your little ganging up exercise are starting to confuse yourselves now

Not sure they're the ones confused, but hope you feel more happy and maybe even a little bit proud now. Doesn't really help this discussion though.

[jdinasia]

"will show" = an absolute

"it is possible" = "I was wrong"

[whybother]

" ... having been to quite a few over the years myself, an autopsy WILL show ..."

So, do you have enough knowledge to know what an autopsy will show?

will help in proving who was responsible, along with an in depth investigation.

Will "an autopsy will show the weapon and calibre, and elevation of fire"?

it is possible as you very well know

No. I don't know. I'm just trying to clarify. You said it "will", someone disagreed with you, now you are saying "it is possible".

Maybe you should read the post that was disagreeing with you and comment on that.

[Insight]

I clearly gave you an answer in my reply as to why, do you go blind when an answer contradicts what you believe. read my reply, the answer is clearly there.

You explained to us why they were protesting. You did not explain your opinion on why they chose to antagonise the military in the way they did.

You don't seem to be able to answer that one, and it's obvious why.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Insight

[phiphidon]

Clear answer: no, he was shot.

Can we now get some answers more related to my question ?

Yes, he was in a Live Fire Zone. Satisfied? Here is a quote from Lt-Gen Dapong Rattanasuwan about dealing with violent protesters;

Troops have been armed with only M16 rifles and HK rifles, not war weapons, deputy chief of staff Lt-Gen Dapong Rattanasuwansaid on national television on Saturday afternoon.Soldiers will use both live arounds and rubber bullets in dealing with the protesters depending on the situation, he said.

Theydo not have heavy weapons like M79 grenades or RPG, he continued.

Lt-Gen Dapong said troops have been ordered to target lower parts of the body or to fire live rounds into the air if they are engaged in violent fights with protesters.

He reaffirmed that security personnel have no intention of killing the protesters as claimed by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD).

Now re-read the eyewitness account. A Photographer, taking photographs, clearly identifiable as "Press" is shot in the leg. Was he involved in a violent fight with the Army? Also notice the comment about the protesters trying to recover one ( eventually 2) dead bodies but were unable to because the troops were shooting at them. One of those bodies was of 15 year old Samaphan Srithep. Here's an excerpt of what his sister said about him on facebook;

I last saw him on April 11, 2010. He came to the event commemorating those who had died in the government's "reclaiming the space" operation. He was the one who tiedthe white glove, the symbol for stopping the murder of citizens, to the Democracy Monument. He did whatever he could, willingly, that was probably also part of his learning experience. Today he was impertinent enough to go into the danger zone. Someone in there was cruel enough to shoot him until he fell. The blood from his head left a long trail. I guesshe didn't die immediately. He must have suffered immense pain.

I don't know what it feels like for a body to still be breathing, for the pulse to still be racing, while your head lies smashed on the pavement like a watermelon droppedfrom a great height.

He laid there for almost an hour before the rescue people managed to bring out that faintly breathing body. The soldiers would not let anyone go in to help him. They shoteveryone who tried to do so. One of the rescue people nearly got shot in the arm.

The doctor said he died at the hospital. That shocked me and made me cry. It meant that for an unbearably long time Cher must have been aware that it was his own head lying on the pavement like a smashed watermelon.

I know that you will reply that it was a Live Fire Zone and therefore anyone there was at risk of being shot but was shooting a 15 year old in the head really necessary, even in a "Live Fire Zone", let alone firing on the people who were trying to recover the bodies?

[random]

How does antagonsing the army into shooting you help your demands for an immediate election? Were they trying to be shot so that they got sympathy and more support?

you tell me, you are the one that is saying they were trying to antagonize the army into shooting them, I never said that.

It seems you guys in your little ganging up exercise are starting to confuse yourselves now

Not sure they're the ones confused, but hope you feel more happy and maybe even a little bit proud now. Doesn't really help this discussion though.

I didn't derail the discussion, and there is no confusion here my friend. I never said they were trying to antagonize the army into shooting them so how can I answer this pointless question?