Sister Of Italian Killed In Thai Protests Slams Money Offer

[Siam Simon]

There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

That is simply not true. They even stormed locations guarded by the army and the soldiers just abandoning their posts (and equipment) to avoid shooting and harming any civilians. It wasn't until much later that they were given orders to contain the situation...

and all the while, facing Red grenades...

Suspects in Multiple M79 Attacks Arrested

The suspect admitted to eight other incidents in Bangkok, including the one near the home of Akaratorn Chularat, the President of the Administrative Court, as well as others at Bangkok Bank's Talingchan and Vibhavadi branches, Indra Hotel in Ratchathevi area, and the Government House.

He confessed that he fired 60 grenades into Lumpini Park on May 16, after the security forces threatened to launch a crackdown, and he engaged in a gun battle with security forces from within the red-shirt group during the clashes on May 18 and 19.

You got your chronology all wrong John. The posters you quoted were discussing events in March and April. You're referring to events in mid-May. Or maybe you just thought nobody'd notice?

[Buchholz]

There was no riot in either case before the army went in.

That is simply not true. They even stormed locations guarded by the army and the soldiers just abandoning their posts (and equipment) to avoid shooting and harming any civilians. It wasn't until much later that they were given orders to contain the situation...

and all the while, facing Red grenades...

Suspects in Multiple M79 Attacks Arrested

The suspect admitted to eight other incidents in Bangkok, including the one near the home of Akaratorn Chularat, the President of the Administrative Court, as well as others at Bangkok Bank's Talingchan and Vibhavadi branches, Indra Hotel in Ratchathevi area, and the Government House.

He confessed that he fired 60 grenades into Lumpini Park on May 16, after the security forces threatened to launch a crackdown, and he engaged in a gun battle with security forces from within the red-shirt group during the clashes on May 18 and 19.

You got your chronology all wrong John. The posters you quoted were discussing events in March and April. You're referring to events in mid-May. Or maybe you just thought nobody'd notice?

Sorry, Fred, not to include the other bit from the news:

The man has been accused of multiple M79 grenade attacks in Bangkok and Chiang Mai province between April and September.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The reds try and break every argument down into black and white "you're either for the poor, and for the reds, or you're for the elites and against the poor" being one of them, as is "The 'money before life' argument rears it's ugly head again". The argument is more the rights of people

No, it's about conflicting rights. Clearly there exists a right to free assembly and freedom of expression (claimed by the reds). In this case, that right conflicted with the rights of others to go about their business unimpeded (the shopkeepers, or whoever). The conflict is not - or certainly shouldn't be - about whether or not these rights exist but about how to adjudicate between them. If you say, the reds should be violently repressed because they're stopping the owners of Louis Vuitton exercising the right to make more money - a caricature, but not much of one - then it is quite possible that you are prioritising the right to accumulate capital - if there is one - over that of democratic activism. Of course, you could be right, but you can't deny what you're claiming.

Suppression and dispersal of over the top protests are hardly unknown in the West.

So what? You seem to think that the repressive actions of western governments are the high-water mark of moral purity, beyond which we presumably enter the realm of the divine. It's ridiculous. And the twin of this, that in western democracies, the state using force to suppress dissent does not provide a millimeter of cover for the shooting dead of demonstrators because (a) western democracies don't do this - which you more-or-less admit and so undo your own argument - and ( b ) western democracies are not guarantors of moral truths. I really can't understand how anyone can think that the actions of the government of Britain or - God forbid - the americans provide justification for the actions of other governments. It's a completely insane idea.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Lite Beer
Profanity Removed.

[whybother]

^ There exists a right to free assembly. Which is what they were given.

They DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to storm parliament, storm a TV station, storm a hospital, throw rocks and sticks at security personnel, barricade a public area denying people THEIR RIGHT to go about their daily business for two months, or to shoot guns and grenades at the army and civilians.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

^ Maybe, maybe not. But even if it's true that "They DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to storm parliament, storm a TV station, storm a hospital, throw rocks and sticks at security personnel, barricade a public area denying people THEIR RIGHT to go about their daily business for two months, or to shoot guns and grenades at the army and civilians." that doesn't establish that the army and the state are justified in doing whatever they like. Many people would agree with what you say but not agree that the army have free reign to use snipers to shoot demonstrators dead because that seems to belong under the heading of political repression, not policing.

[whybother]

^ Maybe, maybe not. But even if it's true that "They DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to storm parliament, storm a TV station, storm a hospital, throw rocks and sticks at security personnel, barricade a public area denying people THEIR RIGHT to go about their daily business for two months, or to shoot guns and grenades at the army and civilians." that doesn't establish that the army and the state are justified in doing whatever they like. Many people would agree with what you say but not agree that the army have free reign to use snipers to shoot demonstrators dead because that seems to belong under the heading of political repression, not policing.

The army didn't do "whatever they liked". On April 10, they basically retreated after being attacked by grenades. What was it on that night 25 deaths - 7 of them army personnel? 18 protesters dead from an army doing "whatever they liked" ... maybe they liked to live and just returned fire when they were being shot at. If they did whatever they liked, there would have been 100's dead.

They didn't do anything for a month. Then in early May, they surrounded the Ratchaprasong protest area, but well away from the barricades. The protesters came out from their barricades and attacked the army, shooting at the army and civilians with grenades once again.

Hardly an army doing "whatever they liked".

[SweeneyAgonistes]

OK. Not whatever they liked but using snipers is not - under most people's definition - a proportionate response. And because it's not a proportionate response - in fact, it's pretty clear that it was wildly disproportionate to any threat - it was an unjustifiable and immoral act and at least ought to criminal. I think most people would agree that grenade attacks on the army were wrong and the use of force in response to those immediate threats would be justified, but that hardly extends to totally separate actions hours, days or weeks later and there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people (unless, perhaps, you think that simply slipping on a red t-shirt makes you guilty of a capital crime). Yes, they were disrupting the lives of others but that doesn't warrant being shot dead. Now it could be the case that the soldiers were shooting dead people who were holding - or who the soldiers had good reason to believe were holding grenade launchers - but if they were, we would know that.

[whybother]

What is a proportionate response to being attacked by grenades?

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from. The people shooting may not have been killed, just the ones supporting them.

Edited December 7, 2010 by whybother

[neverdie]

The guy took a hit whilst wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of army combat trousers which was the garb worn by many 'red guards\men in black' and would have dramatically increased the chances of him being mistaken as such. In a photo I saw, he was also wearing a blue helmet with' PRESS ' printed on it in yellow.As to whether this helmet is standard issue for the press and should be recognised from a distance by the army or whether it was 'home made' from a motorbike helmet i must admit ignorance but I didn't spot a 'PRESS' armband on the guy which many other journalists and photographers did have. Anyway, he died doing what he loved but maybe didn't have proper training on how to move around in a combat zone as a member of the press. The guys from CNN and BBC all came home safely. Anyway, RIP Fabio.

I had this same set of opinions at the time.

He didn't understand the 'dress code'

He went in without clearly understanding the dynamics of the situation.

He went into an obvious war zone situation.

He carried a long lenses on a camera that could easily be mistaken for a grenade launcher. While joining a group who were thought to have members dressed as he was with grenade launchers.

If I saw something from a distance pointed at me that resembled a deadly weapon in such a situation, I can't say I would not fire on them if I thought I was targeted. Not to mentiuon those who absolutely did not want their image taken, and would prevent that at all costs.

Sad to say, but it seems he is more than a little responsible for his own end. Doesn't mean his sister will accept the answers she will get, nor find ones she thinks she wants. And no, I doubt it is being handled in anything resembling a western manner.

You nailed this one right on the head.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

What is a proportionate response to being attacked by grenades?

If you think that's a sensible question then it seems you must think either:

1 - All instances of demonstrators being shot occurred as a direct result of soldiers acting in self-defence having (i) come under grenade attack (ii) good reason to think that they had come grenade attack or (iii) reason to think that they were under immediate threat of grenade attack. Good luck establishing that.

2 - Some kind of collective guilt was carried by the demonstrators; those who were shot were legitimate targets of lethal violence simply in virtue of being a demonstrator, presumably because somebody else at the demonstration - though not necessarily at the same point in either time or space - might have been legitimately shot by the soldiers. Good luck establishing that.

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[SweeneyAgonistes]

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from.

That's just not true. There is, or at least was, plenty of video evidence on youtube which directly contradicts that statement.

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[whybother]

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from.

That's just not true. There is, or at least was, plenty of video evidence on youtube which directly contradicts that statement.

Which statement? What evidence?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Your statement that the army was returning fire. And the evidence which I was talking about is, as I said, video on youtube. Here's one for you, but there's plenty more if you look:

I should say, it's a nasty video so if you're the sensitive type, don't click play but snipers shooting people in the head is generally nasty.

Edited December 7, 2010 by metisdead
Video clip removed.

[philw]

What is a proportionate response to being attacked by grenades?

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from. The people shooting may not have been killed, just the ones supporting them.

That's not quite true.

Over several days the army deployed snipers, seemingly shooting at randomly selected human targets.

It also seems, from the evidence available, that very few, if any, dead reds were actually carrying or using arms.

Are you seriously trying to defend / justify the use of snipers as a means of mob control ???

[whybother]

Your statement that the army was returning fire. And the evidence which I was talking about is, as I said, video on youtube. Here's one for you, but there's plenty more if you look:

<snipped video>

I should say, it's a nasty video so if you're the sensitive type, don't click play but snipers shooting people in the head is generally nasty.

You're kidding aren't you? Is there anything to even suggest that this guy was even shot by the army?

[Piengrudee]

Maybe, maybe not. But even if it's true that "They DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to storm parliament, government house, AIRPORTS, throw rocks and sticks at security personnel, barricade a public area denying people THEIR RIGHT to go about their daily business for SEVEN months, or to shoot guns and grenades at the army and civilians." that does establish that the army and the state are justified in doing whatever they like. Many people would not agree with what you say but to agree that the army have free reign to use snipers to shoot demonstrators dead because that seems to belong under the heading of political repression policing.

[whybother]

What is a proportionate response to being attacked by grenades?

The army were being shot at. They shot back at where the shots were coming from. The people shooting may not have been killed, just the ones supporting them.

That's not quite true.

Over several days the army deployed snipers, seemingly shooting at randomly selected human targets.

It also seems, from the evidence available, that very few, if any, dead reds were actually carrying or using arms.

Are you seriously trying to defend / justify the use of snipers as a means of mob control ???

Are you trying to say that protesters armed with guns and grenades are "a mob"?

There were no snipers deployed until May. Have you seen any of the evidence of those killed, besides the video of maybe half a dozen? Do you really think the army would have gone in and collected the bodies and guns the red shirts might have been carrying while they were being shot at? Given that most injured and dead turned up at hospital, don't you think they might have got rid of any guns BEFORE they were taken to hospital?

Edited December 7, 2010 by whybother

[SweeneyAgonistes]

You're kidding aren't you? Is there anything to even suggest that this guy was even shot by the army?

OK. I assumed that there were some basic ground-rules for participating in this - sanity and reason being two of the more important ones. If you want to believe that the reds were shooting themselves to frame the otherwise blameless government, you're obviously free to do so. Of course, at the same time, you rule yourself out from being treated like a sane adult so it's up to you. I would just say that it would be a good idea to decide what it is that you believe. You've already agreed that the army were shooting the demonstrators so then wanting to claim that videos of demonstrators being shot are somehow suspect is hardly convincing/

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[SweeneyAgonistes]

This guy hold a flag that could be gun in disguise.....What if the flag is really a riffle with cloth tie to the end?

I didn't know Mr Magoo was moonlighting for the Thai army.

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[AleG]

OK. Not whatever they liked but using snipers is not - under most people's definition - a proportionate response. And because it's not a proportionate response - in fact, it's pretty clear that it was wildly disproportionate to any threat - it was an unjustifiable and immoral act and at least ought to criminal. I think most people would agree that grenade attacks on the army were wrong and the use of force in response to those immediate threats would be justified, but that hardly extends to totally separate actions hours, days or weeks later and there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people (unless, perhaps, you think that simply slipping on a red t-shirt makes you guilty of a capital crime). Yes, they were disrupting the lives of others but that doesn't warrant being shot dead. Now it could be the case that the soldiers were shooting dead people who were holding - or who the soldiers had good reason to believe were holding grenade launchers - but if they were, we would know that.

I'm calling the bluff, show us that ton, even half a tonm of videos and pictures showing soldiers shooting unarmed civilians.

Not that I don't think it happened but I'm sick of seen "facts" like those thrown around.

The only video I've seen where a civilian is shot and unequivocally attributed to an army sniper is the yokel that was trying to set the gas tank of a truck on fire and got a round on the foot.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this is true has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[Piengrudee]

CRES lie that it is a fuel truck. However, in reality, it is a yellow water truck used by BMA to water the road side plant.

[philw]

Are you asking for videos showing a bullet's flight from the end of a sniper's riffle to the body of demonstrator? I don't think there are any.. But the unarguable presence of army soldiers and snipers shooting at demonstrators, and the unarguable existence of dead and wounded demonstrators and the pretty much complete absence of any other explanation must convince any sane adult that the army shot the demonstrators. Of course, there could have been legions of red shirt ninjas sneaking around murdering these guys on the direct orders of Satan himself but the fact that more than half a year later, as far as I know, no evidence to think this has come to light - and quite clearly, the government has a pretty big interest in uncovering this material - would seem to indicate that it doesn't exist and the reason it doesn't exist is - probably - because it never happened.

Now, unlike the rabidly pro-government crowd here, I'm quite aware that I could be mistaken so I'm always open to offers.

Absolutely !!

You dead right.

Why all the nutters on here maintain that the reds all shot themselves or deserved to be shot for their civil disobedience is beyond me and the facts........

But back to the subject, the Italian's family and the Italian Government rightly expect and deserve an explanation from the Thai Government, which I doubt will ever be forthcoming.....

Edited December 7, 2010 by philw

[Piengrudee]

Unles the PM of Italian is know as Oblama. Else, why would my country listen to you. Go join the queue and wait for your turn to submit the correct color form. We will contact you if you feel generous.

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Unles the PM of Italian is know as Oblama. Else, why would my country listen to you. Go join the queue and wait for your turn to submit the correct color form. We will contact you if you feel generous.

You started early today, didn't you dear?

But I am feeling surprisingly generous this morning so do please get in touch.

Pip pip!

[philw]

OK. Not whatever they liked but using snipers is not - under most people's definition - a proportionate response. And because it's not a proportionate response - in fact, it's pretty clear that it was wildly disproportionate to any threat - it was an unjustifiable and immoral act and at least ought to criminal. I think most people would agree that grenade attacks on the army were wrong and the use of force in response to those immediate threats would be justified, but that hardly extends to totally separate actions hours, days or weeks later and there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people (unless, perhaps, you think that simply slipping on a red t-shirt makes you guilty of a capital crime). Yes, they were disrupting the lives of others but that doesn't warrant being shot dead. Now it could be the case that the soldiers were shooting dead people who were holding - or who the soldiers had good reason to believe were holding grenade launchers - but if they were, we would know that.

I'm calling the bluff, show us that ton, even half a tonm of videos and pictures showing soldiers shooting unarmed civilians.

Not that I don't think it happened but I'm sick of seen "facts" like those thrown around.

The only video I've seen where a civilian is shot and unequivocally attributed to an army sniper is the yokel that was trying to set the gas tank of a truck on fire and got a round on the foot.

"yokel" , so that's all right then.

Barman, trebles all round.

[animatic]

OK. Not whatever they liked but using snipers is not - under most people's definition - a proportionate response. And because it's not a proportionate response - in fact, it's pretty clear that it was wildly disproportionate to any threat - it was an unjustifiable and immoral act and at least ought to criminal. I think most people would agree that grenade attacks on the army were wrong and the use of force in response to those immediate threats would be justified, but that hardly extends to totally separate actions hours, days or weeks later and there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people (unless, perhaps, you think that simply slipping on a red t-shirt makes you guilty of a capital crime). Yes, they were disrupting the lives of others but that doesn't warrant being shot dead. Now it could be the case that the soldiers were shooting dead people who were holding - or who the soldiers had good reason to believe were holding grenade launchers - but if they were, we would know that.

I'm calling the bluff, show us that ton, even half a tonm of videos and pictures showing soldiers shooting unarmed civilians.

Not that I don't think it happened but I'm sick of seen "facts" like those thrown around.

The only video I've seen where a civilian is shot and unequivocally attributed to an army sniper is the yokel that was trying to set the gas tank of a truck on fire and got a round on the foot.

"yokel" , so that's all right then.

Barman, trebles all round.

So you figure someone should have just run out there and told him don't torch the gas truck.

The shot in the foot was a prudent decision, in very dangerous circumstances,

for more than just the soldier and the wannabe arsonist.

The rioters apologists are really clutching at straws this week.

I wonder why?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

...

Edited December 7, 2010 by SweeneyAgonistes

[supaprik]

May be I am reading a different article to the rest of TV members?

The way I understand the article is that she isn't really complaining about the fact he was killed.

But about the fact that no information is being released.

was just thinking the same...hmmmm

[Buchholz]

OK. Not whatever they liked but using snipers is not - under most people's definition - a proportionate response. And because it's not a proportionate response - in fact, it's pretty clear that it was wildly disproportionate to any threat - it was an unjustifiable and immoral act and at least ought to criminal. I think most people would agree that grenade attacks on the army were wrong and the use of force in response to those immediate threats would be justified, but that hardly extends to totally separate actions hours, days or weeks later and there's a ton of video and photographic evidence around of soldiers shooting unarmed people (unless, perhaps, you think that simply slipping on a red t-shirt makes you guilty of a capital crime). Yes, they were disrupting the lives of others but that doesn't warrant being shot dead. Now it could be the case that the soldiers were shooting dead people who were holding - or who the soldiers had good reason to believe were holding grenade launchers - but if they were, we would know that.

I'm calling the bluff, show us that ton, even half a tonm of videos and pictures showing soldiers shooting unarmed civilians.

Not that I don't think it happened but I'm sick of seen "facts" like those thrown around.

The only video I've seen where a civilian is shot and unequivocally attributed to an army sniper is the yokel that was trying to set the gas tank of a truck on fire and got a round on the foot.

"yokel" , so that's all right then.

Barman, trebles all round.

So you figure someone should have just run out there and told him don't torch the gas truck.

The shot in the foot was a prudent decision, in very dangerous circumstances,

for more than just the soldier and the wannabe arsonist.

The rioters apologists are really clutching at straws this week.

I wonder why?

usually it's a warm-up to some escalation