Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

[phiphidon]

It was wise of the General to make it clear that the cycle of protests funded by Thaksin and beating down on BKK is no longer going to be tolerated

I think people from all sides of the argument expect there to be more protests at some point, which means the General has already backed himself into a corner whereby either there will be more guaranteed deaths, or he will end up looking silly for not living up to what he promised.

Of course, not living up to what one promises is a common trait of politicians the world over and Police, Army and Political figures in this country often put their foot in their mouths and end up looking stupid by speaking prematurely or irresponsibly about certain matters.

What concerns me more though, is that wise or unwise, it is a General who is going on about what is or isn't going to be tolerated. Please remind me - who's in charge of this country?

The General made a statement about a given event. Protest during the visit of the UN chief. In a specific place. BKK. That place is still covered by the SoE. That clearly makes it HIS purview.

So it is one event he's making a statement on, or a cycle of events? More from the General, taken from his first interview as Army Chief, source;

http://www.thaivisa....hai-army-chief/

"I have never said I hate Red Shirts... Thais have one colour," General Prayut Chan-O-Cha said at hisfirst news conference since taking the job on October 1.

"We are not involved in politics," he added. "There is already a lot to do." Prayut said that another coup "should be out of the question" but appeared

not to rule out the possibility of military intervention completely."Whatever can stabilise our country, go ahead and do it, the army will support it, but when our

country is in jeopardy we will act," he said. Prayut said the army was not responsible for the deaths of protestors."We are not killing or injuring them.

We have told them not to join rallies again because lives are at risk when there are weapons involved," he said.

I think he's made his position clear.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

No guesses for which position I agree with. Further Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha sees himself as a strongman determined to crush the Red-Shirt movement into oblivion.

The words of the general show quite clearly who is REALLY in charge of things....and it isn't Abhisit.

The general has been appointed, reports to his political boss the Minister of Defense and indirectly the PM.

The general's words simply indicate he conforms to the part

"The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) bans all gatherings but will allow a representative of any group to hand in letters to the UN chief if they wish, said Gen Prayuth."

Under the watchfull eye of police still a few hundred protesters had gathered and were NOT dispersed as could legally have been done.

So what's your problem, bulmercke?

jonclark(post#29)said:

"A general telling the public not to demonstrate....hmm surely it's the governments job to do that, as the army (in any democratic country, or a country that aspires to be democratic) is subserviant to the civillian adminstration and as such should keep its snout out of civillian matters, which is what a public demonstration is.

As far as i'm aware (and i may be wrong) in european or N. american countries the army would never dream of telling people if and when it can demostrate.

The words of the general show just how democratic Thailand is and it is something that both red and yellow should be deeply worried about."

>>>>>>>>>>

That's the problem.

Sorry, wrong assumptions. The general doesn't do this out of his own initiative. The general is only helping the CRES in enforcing the E.D. still in place in Bangkok. Ordered to as it were.

The 'unrest' during March - May 2010, the many grenade attacks, home-made bombs, etc. seem to have something to do with it. Something you normally don't see in democracies and/or European countries, which may explain why the reaction of the government is also a bit different from what you'd see in those countries. A single policeman holding up his hand an saying 'stop, no further' wouldn't help much, even in what some call 'real' democracies.

BTW since a red-shirt failed '101 bomb making' we haven't seen any terrorist attacks, now have we ?

PS so you say that what jonclark said is your problem?

Edited October 28, 2010 by rubl

[animatic]

91 people total died last spring, because of Red Shirts protesting,

and taking large parts of the city hostage, as a political tool.

But that total has always included the army personnel killed

and incidents where the army was clearly not involved.

But the red side always uses that 90 or 91 number,

as if all died on that one day solely because the army attacked.

When this is cumulative of multiple incidents over many days

and included those from all sides AND the innocent waiting at

the metro station when grenades struck it.

This is political gamesmanship, and no pretense of over all truth is included.

I have seen this spurious act of addition for obvious partisan reasons

several times in this thread, and it utterly undermines the arguments

of those stating it as if it were fact.

Edited October 28, 2010 by animatic

[bulmercke]

"I have never said I hate Red Shirts... Thais have one colour," General Prayut Chan-O-Cha said at hisfirst news conference since taking the job on October 1.

"We are not involved in politics," he added. "There is already a lot to do." Prayut said that another coup "should be out of the question" but appeared

not to rule out the possibility of military intervention completely."Whatever can stabilise our country, go ahead and do it, the army will support it, but when our

country is in jeopardy we will act," he said. Prayut said the army was not responsible for the deaths of protestors."We are not killing or injuring them.

We have told them not to join rallies again because lives are at risk when there are weapons involved," he said.

Prayut has no shame and further he's a big liar. His statements above are one big lie from beginning to end.

[hyperdimension]

Lots of questions. I expect the DSI is under tremendous pressure to produce the report the military and government expects - i.e. that the Red-Shirts themselves were responsible for most of the deaths.

However - they could also possibly be compromised and prejudiced in order to produce a report with much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties. And ambiguous evidence introduced which wouldn't point the finger at one side or another - a sort of indeterminate - get off the hook - sort of report.

Do you think Amsterdam's "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" had "much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties" and "ambiguous evidence introduced"? Or would you say it is a highly factual and unbiased account of what happened?

[hyperdimension]

"Thai press card", "Student card", "techer card", "Driving license", etc are 200 Baht baht each, sold openly at Khao San Road. Yes, openly on the main street itself.

This is the last time i comment to such insinuations.

I am accredited in Thailand as a foreign correspondent. My press card has been issued by the Public Relations Department, after thorough check ups by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

If you suggest one more time that i have broken the law by using a fake press card - we will meet in court. Libel is a criminal offense in Thailand, and will be punished by a prison term. Be warned - the internet is not as anonymous as you may think.

I found this post funny. It reminds me of Jatuporn.

[bulmercke]

Lots of questions. I expect the DSI is under tremendous pressure to produce the report the military and government expects - i.e. that the Red-Shirts themselves were responsible for most of the deaths.

However - they could also possibly be compromised and prejudiced in order to produce a report with much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties. And ambiguous evidence introduced which wouldn't point the finger at one side or another - a sort of indeterminate - get off the hook - sort of report.

Do you think Amsterdam's "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" had "much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties" and "ambiguous evidence introduced"? Or would you say it is a highly factual and unbiased account of what happened?

Good one hyperdimension. A lawyer does what a lawyer has to do for his client. Amsterdam has to present a case - for his client - against the government and so - of course - it's bound to be biased to some extent BUT having said that I would have to admit that I agree wholeheartedly with much of its content.

Edited October 28, 2010 by bulmercke

[rubl]

"I have never said I hate Red Shirts... Thais have one colour," General Prayut Chan-O-Cha said at hisfirst news conference since taking the job on October 1.

"We are not involved in politics," he added. "There is already a lot to do." Prayut said that another coup "should be out of the question" but appeared

not to rule out the possibility of military intervention completely."Whatever can stabilise our country, go ahead and do it, the army will support it, but when our

country is in jeopardy we will act," he said. Prayut said the army was not responsible for the deaths of protestors."We are not killing or injuring them.

We have told them not to join rallies again because lives are at risk when there are weapons involved," he said.

Prayut has no shame and further he's a big liar. His statements above are one big lie from beginning to end.

Big Liar ? On your say so, I guess. Nice try. Mind you unless you have rock solid facts to prove your opinion the general may take you to court for slander. Ask Nick

[rubl]

Lots of questions. I expect the DSI is under tremendous pressure to produce the report the military and government expects - i.e. that the Red-Shirts themselves were responsible for most of the deaths.

However - they could also possibly be compromised and prejudiced in order to produce a report with much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties. And ambiguous evidence introduced which wouldn't point the finger at one side or another - a sort of indeterminate - get off the hook - sort of report.

Do you think Amsterdam's "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" had "much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties" and "ambiguous evidence introduced"? Or would you say it is a highly factual and unbiased account of what happened?

Good one hyperdimension. A lawyer does what a lawyer has to do for his client. Amsterdam has to present a case - for his client - against the government and so - of course - it's bound to be biased to some extent BUT having said that I would have to admit that I agree wholeheartedly with much of its content.

A report submitted to the ICC should not be biased. The ICC needs objective information. If obviously biased it will be thrown out. With a detailed and objective explanation as to why.

One of the items which seemed really wrong to me was the description of 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters on the 10th of April'*. Only 25 killed (10 protesters, 9 bystanders, 1 Jap. journalist, 5 army). Some having a grenade lopped on them. Thousands of round fired into the protesters? The report seems more a political statement than a solid, fact based accusation asking for ICC condemnation.

Go back to do your homework again.

(*: page 16 point 35 in report)

Edited October 28, 2010 by rubl

[bulmercke]

"I have never said I hate Red Shirts... Thais have one colour," General Prayut Chan-O-Cha said at hisfirst news conference since taking the job on October 1.

"We are not involved in politics," he added. "There is already a lot to do." Prayut said that another coup "should be out of the question" but appeared

not to rule out the possibility of military intervention completely."Whatever can stabilise our country, go ahead and do it, the army will support it, but when our

country is in jeopardy we will act," he said. Prayut said the army was not responsible for the deaths of protestors."We are not killing or injuring them.

We have told them not to join rallies again because lives are at risk when there are weapons involved," he said.

Prayut has no shame and further he's a big liar. His statements above are one big lie from beginning to end.

Big Liar ? On your say so, I guess. Nice try. Mind you unless you have rock solid facts to prove your opinion the general may take you to court for slander. Ask Nick

"We are not involved in politics," he added.

This one statement just about says it all. The military run the country in collusion with the police - certain factions within the business community etc. and to say they are not involved in politics is a shameless lie.

Take me to court for slander? My IP address can be readily identified by a computer expert. Who are you kidding?

[rubl]

"I have never said I hate Red Shirts... Thais have one colour," General Prayut Chan-O-Cha said at hisfirst news conference since taking the job on October 1.

"We are not involved in politics," he added. "There is already a lot to do." Prayut said that another coup "should be out of the question" but appeared

not to rule out the possibility of military intervention completely."Whatever can stabilise our country, go ahead and do it, the army will support it, but when our

country is in jeopardy we will act," he said. Prayut said the army was not responsible for the deaths of protestors."We are not killing or injuring them.

We have told them not to join rallies again because lives are at risk when there are weapons involved," he said.

Prayut has no shame and further he's a big liar. His statements above are one big lie from beginning to end.

Big Liar ? On your say so, I guess. Nice try. Mind you unless you have rock solid facts to prove your opinion the general may take you to court for slander. Ask Nick

"We are not involved in politics," he added.

This one statement just about says it all. The military run the country in collusion with the police - certain factions within the business community etc. and to say they are not involved in politics is a shameless lie.

Take me to court for slander? My IP address can be readily identified by a computer expert. Who are you kidding?

Shameless lie, again on your say so. An opinion at the most.

[bulmercke]

Lots of questions. I expect the DSI is under tremendous pressure to produce the report the military and government expects - i.e. that the Red-Shirts themselves were responsible for most of the deaths.

However - they could also possibly be compromised and prejudiced in order to produce a report with much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties. And ambiguous evidence introduced which wouldn't point the finger at one side or another - a sort of indeterminate - get off the hook - sort of report.

Do you think Amsterdam's "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" had "much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties" and "ambiguous evidence introduced"? Or would you say it is a highly factual and unbiased account of what happened?

Good one hyperdimension. A lawyer does what a lawyer has to do for his client. Amsterdam has to present a case - for his client - against the government and so - of course - it's bound to be biased to some extent BUT having said that I would have to admit that I agree wholeheartedly with much of its content.

A report submitted to the ICC should not be biased. The ICC needs objective information. If obviously biased it will be thrown out. With a detailed and objective explanation as to why.

One of the items which seemed really wrong to me was the description of 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters on the 10th of April'. Only 25 killed (10 protesters, 9 bystanders, 1 Jap. journalist, 5 army). Some having a grenade lopped on them. Thousands of round fired into the protesters? The report seems more a political statement than a solid, fact based accusation asking for ICC condemnation.

Go back to do your homework again.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the gun fire lasted for about ten minutes. Interpreting 'thousands of rounds' as being just two thousand rounds - which would technically be correct that works out at around two hundred rounds a minute. Twenty odd soldiers firing off ten rounds each a minute wouldn't be beyond the realms of reality.

[rubl]

Do you think Amsterdam's "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" had "much obfuscation of facts and with deliberate and intentional uncertainties" and "ambiguous evidence introduced"? Or would you say it is a highly factual and unbiased account of what happened?

Good one hyperdimension. A lawyer does what a lawyer has to do for his client. Amsterdam has to present a case - for his client - against the government and so - of course - it's bound to be biased to some extent BUT having said that I would have to admit that I agree wholeheartedly with much of its content.

A report submitted to the ICC should not be biased. The ICC needs objective information. If obviously biased it will be thrown out. With a detailed and objective explanation as to why.

One of the items which seemed really wrong to me was the description of 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters on the 10th of April'. Only 25 killed (10 protesters, 9 bystanders, 1 Jap. journalist, 5 army). Some having a grenade lopped on them. Thousands of round fired into the protesters? The report seems more a political statement than a solid, fact based accusation asking for ICC condemnation.

Go back to do your homework again.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the gun fire lasted for about ten minutes. Interpreting 'thousands of rounds' as being just two thousand rounds - which would technically be correct that works out at around two hundred rounds a minute. Twenty odd soldiers firing off ten rounds each a minute wouldn't be beyond the realms of reality.

Completely besides the point. When you say 'it's bound to be biased' regarding the report submitted to the ICC, you already give a very good reason why the ICC should reject it. On this judicial level objectivity is expected.

As for how many rounds a soldier can fire off, my fault I picked out a single point of the report. Your fault to use it to ignore the 'biased' part.

Now that I've mentioned the point and you started calculations, let me say this. When I was in the army many years ago, having an UZI I could have fired off more shots than you calculate and put them within a 1-2 inch group at 200 yards. Twenty odd soldiers with M16's could have killed up to hundred people in a single minute if they were really up to 'massacring'. They weren't. There is no proof they fired thousands of rounds into protesters. Stop the biilsh1tting around. Objectivity is what is expected when you want the ICC involved.

Edited October 28, 2010 by rubl

[bulmercke]

And there's no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into protesters. But as I mentioned before I'm no big fan of Thaksin but you know the score and I know the score. There goin' to present the best possible case and in my opinion they have a very good case - a strong case in fact - and so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of months.

[chantorn]

And there's no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into protesters. But as I mentioned before I'm no big fan of Thaksin but you know the score and I know the score. There goin' to present the best possible case and in my opinion they have a very good case - a strong case in fact - and so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of months.

And there's no proof they did fire thousands of rounds into protesters.

A few odd warning shot rounds here and there, yes. Not thousands.

[rubl]

And there's no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into protesters. But as I mentioned before I'm no big fan of Thaksin but you know the score and I know the score. There goin' to present the best possible case and in my opinion they have a very good case - a strong case in fact - and so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of months.

Moving away from OP and the 'biased' report which suggest you either accept me saying 'objectivity is required' or you simply don't know what else to say which might make sense.

So move to the thousand of rounds fired. There may be no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into the protesters, but there is also no proof they did fire thousands of rounds into the protesters. The evidence seem to point to 'not fired thousands of rounds into the protesters'. Till now no report, video, other comment on multiple wounds by gun fire. Have you ever seen a few soldiers firing only a single magazine each as rapidly as possible? Probably not. Firing with M16's into protesters will leave many dead, many multiple hits, blood running down the street.

Conclusion, you have no case. And certainly for this page 16, point 35 Robert A. has no case.

Objectivity, my dear chap.

Edited October 28, 2010 by rubl

[chantorn]

And there's no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into protesters. But as I mentioned before I'm no big fan of Thaksin but you know the score and I know the score. There goin' to present the best possible case and in my opinion they have a very good case - a strong case in fact - and so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of months.

Moving away from OP and the 'biased' report which suggest you either accept me saying 'objectivity is required' or you simply don't know what else to say which might make sense.

So move to the thousand of rounds fired. There may be no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into the protesters, but there is also no proof they did fire thousands of rounds into the protesters. The evidence seem to point to 'not fired thousands of rounds into the protesters'. Till now no report, video, other comment on multiple wounds by gun fire. Have you ever seen a few soldiers firing only a single magazine each as rapidly as possible? Probably not. Firing with M16's into protesters will leave many dead, many multiple hits, blood running down the street.

Conclusion, you have no case. And certainly for this page 16, point 35 Robert A. has no case.

Objectivity, my dear chap.

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

[Siam Simon]

Rubl, hope this thread stays open so I can compose a reasonable reply to Pi Sek and hanuman1's posts.

Siam Simon - "man or a mouse" - PM me.

No need for a PM. The discussion started on the open forum so it should end here. Please explain your allegation that I can edit my posts without leaving an edit timestamp. You've tried hiding behind a moderator and that failed. Now you try to hide behind the PM system. Pathetic.

[Siam Simon]

"Thai press card", "Student card", "techer card", "Driving license", etc are 200 Baht baht each, sold openly at Khao San Road. Yes, openly on the main street itself.

This is the last time i comment to such insinuations.

I am accredited in Thailand as a foreign correspondent. My press card has been issued by the Public Relations Department, after thorough check ups by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

If you suggest one more time that i have broken the law by using a fake press card - we will meet in court. Libel is a criminal offense in Thailand, and will be punished by a prison term. Be warned - the internet is not as anonymous as you may think.

I found this post funny. It reminds me of Jatuporn.

Yes, so much. Jatuporn is also a German national working as a journalist and photographer in Thailand, and he also had his journalism accreditations libelled on Thai Visa. Just like I warned, Nick, the embedded trolls are getting down to business.

[jdinasia]

begin removed ...

No guesses for which position I agree with. Further Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha sees himself as a strongman determined to crush the Red-Shirt movement into oblivion.

The words of the general show quite clearly who is REALLY in charge of things....and it isn't Abhisit.

The general has been appointed, reports to his political boss the Minister of Defense and indirectly the PM.

The general's words simply indicate he conforms to the part

"The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) bans all gatherings but will allow a representative of any group to hand in letters to the UN chief if they wish, said Gen Prayuth."

Under the watchfull eye of police still a few hundred protesters had gathered and were NOT dispersed as could legally have been done.

So what's your problem, bulmercke?

jonclark(post#29)said:

"A general telling the public not to demonstrate....hmm surely it's the governments job to do that, as the army (in any democratic country, or a country that aspires to be democratic) is subserviant to the civillian adminstration and as such should keep its snout out of civillian matters, which is what a public demonstration is.

As far as i'm aware (and i may be wrong) in european or N. american countries the army would never dream of telling people if and when it can demostrate.

The words of the general show just how democratic Thailand is and it is something that both red and yellow should be deeply worried about."

>>>>>>>>>>

That's the problem.

And it's wrong since BKK is still under a SoE.

[Insight]

Rubl, hope this thread stays open so I can compose a reasonable reply to Pi Sek and hanuman1's posts.

Siam Simon - "man or a mouse" - PM me.

No need for a PM. The discussion started on the open forum so it should end here. Please explain your allegation that I can edit my posts without leaving an edit timestamp. You've tried hiding behind a moderator and that failed. Now you try to hide behind the PM system. Pathetic.

Let's recap.

Previously on this post Siam Simon claimed that there were a "small-but-organised gang" of people in this forum commenting on Thai political affairs. I asked him to elaborate three times, and each time was met with a diverting reply - itself a fabrication - stating that I'm claiming he can modify a post without leaving a time stamp. This is completely off topic (part of Siam Simon's agenda) so bear with me, but here's the post he's referring to:

I didn't keep anything whatsoever by TallForeigner in the post. You are a bare faced liar. Here is the post:

... Which has since been modified, as plenty of other people on the forum can attest to. Interesting below-the-belt tactics you're resorting to here, Simon, but again am completely unsurprised.

Red shirt supporters

(The post above links back to the thread if anybody would like to see more of Siam Simon's tactics in action.)

For the record, anybody with basic comprehension skills can see the post doesn't accuse anybody but simply highlights the post has since been modified. SBK later clarifies this was probably done my a moderator.

So Siam Simon has completely failed to clarify his baseless and paranoid "small-but-organised gang" accusation, instead attempting to bring the thread off-topic each time. He's also made personal comments on this thread and others, including his "man or mouse" challenge, "pathetic" and previously accusing me of being a "bare faced liar". I'm sure most would agree these off-topic posts and accompanying slanderous statements belong off this thread in personal messages so they can be perused further without disrupting the forum, yet clearly Siam Simon refuses to do so. Where I was raised a refusal to such a challenge would leave you with a very low profile indeed.

His spineless agenda must be pretty transparent to everybody right now. Any future public attempts at provocation by Siam Simon be responded to by being referred back to this post.

I won't be monitoring the forum any further today, but will be checking for and responding to PM's.

[rubl]

And there's no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into protesters. But as I mentioned before I'm no big fan of Thaksin but you know the score and I know the score. There goin' to present the best possible case and in my opinion they have a very good case - a strong case in fact - and so it'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the next couple of months.

Moving away from OP and the 'biased' report which suggest you either accept me saying 'objectivity is required' or you simply don't know what else to say which might make sense.

So move to the thousand of rounds fired. There may be no proof they didn't fire thousands of rounds into the protesters, but there is also no proof they did fire thousands of rounds into the protesters. The evidence seem to point to 'not fired thousands of rounds into the protesters'. Till now no report, video, other comment on multiple wounds by gun fire. Have you ever seen a few soldiers firing only a single magazine each as rapidly as possible? Probably not. Firing with M16's into protesters will leave many dead, many multiple hits, blood running down the street.

Conclusion, you have no case. And certainly for this page 16, point 35 Robert A. has no case.

Objectivity, my dear chap.

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

[jdinasia]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

[chantorn]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

And what did he say about personally (Dan himself) seeing protesters with weapons? My English is not too good, and I could not really make it out. Maybe he should speak slower.

Edited October 29, 2010 by chantorn

[rubl]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

And what did he say about personally (Dan himself) seeing protesters with weapons? My English is not too good, and I could not really make it out. Maybe he should speak slower.

You may want to read this NewMandela article from Nick N., April 15th.

Amongst others it says 'I found again many bullet holes, mostly from the direction of the army towards the protesters, but here also from the direction of the protesters, assumed to be fired by the now infamous black dressed group of fighters.'

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/04/15/mourning-and-definance/

Edited October 29, 2010 by rubl

[jdinasia]

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

And what did he say about personally (Dan himself) seeing protesters with weapons? My English is not too good, and I could not really make it out. Maybe he should speak slower.

You may want to read this NewMandela article from Nick N., April 15th.

Amongst others it says 'I found again many bullet holes, mostly from the direction of the army towards the protesters, but here also from the direction of the protesters, assumed to be fired by the now infamous black dressed group of fighters.'

http://asiapacific.a...-and-definance/

LOL

Dan Rivers most carefully did NOT say that the protesters were unarmed. He stated only that he didn't see weapons. He then stated that live fire was coming from every direction. (not just the direction of the Army). One can assume that Dan Rivers was not allowed to go willy nilly anywhere he wanted inside the red insurgents' compound. That he was escorted wherever he went if and when he went in there. The reds kept proclaiming that they were unarmed but events show that to be untrue including video. Their spin control was pretty decent. The fact that Dan Rivers was unwilling to go on record saying that it was army snipers shooting people (note, people and not civilians) is more telling than almost anything in the story. The fact that he repeated it twice certainly leaves it up in the air.

[chantorn]

You may want to read this NewMandela article from Nick N., April 15th.

Amongst others it says 'I found again many bullet holes, mostly from the direction of the army towards the protesters, but here also from the direction of the protesters, assumed to be fired by the now infamous black dressed group of fighters.'

http://asiapacific.a...-and-definance/

Fully agree with you.

It was also disclosed later that:

YES, army have send it spy dress, mix, and live with the Red-shirt.

NO, red-shirt have NOT send it spy dress, mix, and live with the army.

So, yes, shooting came from the protesters side, but by the army in disguise, because only them have army supplied weapons.

It was caught on tape in youtube. Let me search for it.

Edited October 29, 2010 by chantorn

[bulmercke]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

QUOTE(jdinasia):"Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them."

Really. That's news to me. The video quite clearly shows army snippers in action. Agreed?

And who do you suppose they were inclined to target? Yes - you've guessed it. Red-Shirts.

If anyone's seriously skewing the facts - it's you - jdinasia -

What's your agenda? I would be most interested to know.

[philw]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

QUOTE(jdinasia):"Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them."

Really. That's news to me. The video quite clearly shows army snippers in action. Agreed?

And who do you suppose they were inclined to target? Yes - you've guessed it. Red-Shirts.

If anyone's seriously skewing the facts - it's you - jdinasia -

What's your agenda? I would be most interested to know.

Good one Bulmercke

philw

[jdinasia]

"CNN Exclusive Footage Thai army snipers shooting at civilians in Bangkok 15-5-201"

... youtube link removed, no need to duplicate ...

(This is from youtube / CNN, not me)

Dear Chantorn, snipers mostly fire single, accurate shots from a distance. That's slightly different from thousands of rounds.

Listen to that report by Dan Rivers.

"Clearly shows army shooting at people" (not civilians)

"Bullets flying in all directions" (not just from the Army side)

"Not clear who was shooting the people who were being shot"

and again

"We don't know if the people being picked off were being picked off by army snipers"

he even backtracked on the army thing at one point by saying people dressed in army style camouflage/fatigues

Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them.

QUOTE(jdinasia):"Dan gave some heavily skewed reports during the crisis, but this isn't one of them."

Really. That's news to me. The video quite clearly shows army snippers in action. Agreed?

And who do you suppose they were inclined to target? Yes - you've guessed it. Red-Shirts.

If anyone's seriously skewing the facts - it's you - jdinasia -

What's your agenda? I would be most interested to know.

Oh .. I would suggest that they were

1) firing to kill people that were firing at them (yeah, you are right, Red shirts)

2) laying down suppressing fire (keeping red shirts pinned down)

3) firing in the direction of people that were firing at them to keep those people pinned down where they couldn't get clear shots (another version of suppressing fire)

4) targeting redshirt "ronin" probably dressed in black, but possibly even dressed in army gear.

Bulmerke ---- please stick to what is being discussed. Did you even listen to what Dan Rivers was saying? He was one of the most "red leaning" biased reporters out there short of Nick. He wouldn't go on the record as saying that the Army (or only the army) was shooting the people