Sister Of Italian Killed In Thai Protests Slams Money Offer

[Siam Simon]

So today's lesson is: don't accompany rioters while they roll tyres into a petrol station under watch by an armed force.

Frankly, if that was my petrol station and I was armed, for the safety of those surrounding the station I'd probably find it difficult to keep the thing mounted.

It would be if anybody had rolled any tyres into a petrol station. But nobody did. So the lesson will have to wait at least until the next series of troubles. Care to make any more subtle mis-representations before you log off for the day?

If there's red shirts, there's tyres nearby. And if they're running into a petrol station I doubt I'm the only one getting nervous.

I'll probably be hitting F5 on this page most of the day in between my day job. Not much effort involved in it really.

They ran into the petrol station because the tyres weren't providing adequate cover from the Army fire. Anyone looking at the photos in the linked report can clearly see that they were in kind of a hurry to get AWAY from the tyres. And Nick only got nervous when the Army started shooting. But please don't let any of this get in the way of a bit of spin .

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Were there snipers on April 10?

According to reports at the time, yes

Was he shot by a stray army bullet or a stray red shirt bullet?

An awful lot of people were shot in the head. Is it more likely that they were all victims of extremely improbable ricochets or that they were shot deliberately?

Do you really think he was targeted by the army?

Yes, it's clearly the most rational, reasonable explanation.

I wouldn't put it out of the realms of possibility

The question isn't what's possible - there are a virtually unlimited range of possibilities. It's a matter of what is the most rational explanation.

[Insight]

If there's red shirts, there's tyres nearby. And if they're running into a petrol station I doubt I'm the only one getting nervous.

I'll probably be hitting F5 on this page most of the day in between my day job. Not much effort involved in it really.

They ran into the petrol station because the tyres weren't providing adequate cover from the Army fire. Anyone looking at the photos in the linked report can clearly see that they were in kind of a hurry to get AWAY from the tyres. And Nick only got nervous when the Army started shooting. But please don't let any of this get in the way of a bit of spin .

And the army probably got nervous because there were red shirts in the vicinity of a petrol station, as would I and probably anybody else in the area who wasn't red shirt.

[animatic]

Were there snipers on April 10?

According to reports at the time, yes

Was he shot by a stray army bullet or a stray red shirt bullet?

An awful lot of people were shot in the head. Is it more likely that they were all victims of extremely improbable ricochets or that they were shot deliberately?

Do you really think he was targeted by the army?

Yes, it's clearly the most rational, reasonable explanation.

I wouldn't put it out of the realms of possibility

The question isn't what's possible - there are a virtually unlimited range of possibilities.

It's a matter of what is the most rational explanation.

Of course if you are hiding behind a barricade or around a corner shooting at people,

the likely shot to hit you will be a head shot.

There were snipers for both sides.

But nothing anywhere says the army was targeting unarmed people just crossing the streets or standing about. Running up a body count was not in the best interests of the army or government, they would not logically do so, since that would have been playing right into the red leaders game plan.

The only 5 reasons for the well documented "Men In Black" backing the Reds to take sniper shots was;

1 ) to protect reds in the streets from the army, in other words shot at the army,

Which of course invites a response.

2 ) to create chaos and cause public dismay, by causing deaths with war weapons, while making it appear to be army, or of such unknowable circumstances that the army can still be blamed.

3 ) to prevent their identities from becoming known, or their getting captured, which could include stopping their own photographs from being taking by the press.

4 ) to kill army commanders in the hopes of gaining tactical advantage.

5 ) Silencing 'loose cannons' who know too much and say too much, and thus put influencials at risk, while also potentially creating a high profile 'martyr for the cause'.

Is this all known truths, no, not all of it,

but is is it the most rational explanations. Very probably.

[oceano]

Yes, jayjay0 is right on this one - the offer of money was the standard offer of "compensation", not a bribe of silence or whatever.

It's still not known who was to blame - could have been on either side, but my guess is he was standing close to armed elements within the UDD, in a blume of tyre smoke, holding a camera and pointing it at the army.

If I was a soldier and had bullets whistling past my ears, I'm not sure if I'd have the self-discipline to get out my infra-red see-through-smoke binoculars - if I had any - before shooting what may well have looked like someone with a gun. Although that's not to say it was "right" - or even "wrong".

Dont forget the white word on the blu t-shirt " PRESS ".If I was a soldier( i was) i dont shoot in the middle of nowhere in the middle of a city whit the risk of kill woman and child, if I was that kind of soldier,like you said, i start to think " how can i make a real war, whit real soldier in front of me?".Than is reported from many " war journalist" that soldier shoot at them in the back when they was on the floor....sniper from the building.

Soldier MUST try save lives of civilian, is the first thing, kill all people stay in front of me is not a "war action" is a...how do you say in English?

[ballpoint]

There are so many inaccuracies and fallacies in this one it's difficult to know where to start.

Anyway, I'll start with labelling me "red", "pro-red poster", "red posters". I'm not. This is an old-time fave tactic of posters of a particular ilk when confronted with something that doesn't sit quite right in their manifesto. Wait for Ballpoint's chain of logic to 'prove' that I'm a Red that will surely follow: They're always hilarious .

Next up the 'money before life' argument being dressed up in new clothes. Surprise surprise.....it looks just as ugly as before.

Ugly or not, that's the way the world is. You have the right to protest, but that right ends when you start having long term negative affects on the lives of others. Again, this is from personal knowledge of people directly affected, not from sitting in my armchair watching some news reporter trying to tell me what to think.

There follows some speculation about Army being targeted by snipers which is passed off as fact, though strangely not one single member of the Army was hit by sniper fire prior to April 10 . This speculation then leads to the 'conclusion' that pro-red snipers were the first to open fire, and thus the careful, ordered retreat of The Army on April 10 who were unwilling to fight back. The fact that the Army CO and most of his aides had been murdered by a grenade attack, causing the dispersal operation to collapse in disarray had, I'm sure, nothing to do with it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You originally asked the question "why the change in tactics by the army"? Now you reveal that you knew the answer all along; they were attacked by the red shirts. And by the way, please point out in my post where I say that the army came under sniper fire on April 10th. I said targets for assassination were pointed out by lasers. There have been a number of reports of this. The grenade attacks did take place, the army did retreat, because they'd gone in with riot gear rather than large numbers of weapons. Your further twisting of my post ("ordered retreat of The Army" does not appear in it) is further proof of your inability to make a reasonable argument. Yes, maybe the retreat was disorderly, after all, as you admit now (but once again, didn't when you originally posed the question), the CO and aides were murdered, but the army did not then immediately regroup and wade on in, weapons blazing, as many here would have us believe. Or will you be telling us next that the CO and his aides were the only officers present?

Next there is a cursory acknowledgement of my examples of why live firing zones don't happen in the modern era West, which is queried suggesting that the West hasn't faced the prerequisite situation. Poor reading on Ballpoint's part. I'd already brought up the troubles in Northern Ireland, where the British Army were shot at and/or bombed on an almost daily basis for decades. No live firing zones there (other than on that fateful Bloody Sunday that I'd recounted). Maybe Ballpoint just forgot that bit.

Next up, the tragic story of Jean Charles de Menezes is used as an example of a live firing zone in modern day South London. Fact is, this story backs up my previous assertion that Western security forces use sophisticated specific targeting techniques based on intel and surveillance. Briefly: A police Anti-Terror Squad was surveilling a group men living in a block of flats in South London who were strongly suspected of being about to carry out a bombing attack on the London Underground. The officer surveilling the flats mistakenly identified de Menezes (who lived at the same block of flats) as one of the suspected bombers as he left the flats. He was followed, and when he boarded an Underground train he was immediately pinned to the ground by one officer whilst another one loosed seven gunshots into his head at point-blank range. Tragic. And I apologise for being so graphic, but the only 'live firing zone' that day was de Menezes' head.

Now you're trying to tell us that the British Army were not allowed to fire back when under attack? So the 1,879 civilians and 399 Republican paramilitary forces killed during the conflict were all suicides and friendly fire incidents? Yes, after Bloody Sunday there were no more mass firings into crowds, but there were still shootings whenever the military felt a definite threat. And, once again for the slower readers, the Thai army did not shoot indiscriminantly into the mass of protestors at any time. Similarly, in London, an unarmed man, running for the train is seen as a threat and so is held down and shot. And you're trying to make out there is no difference between what happened in Bangkok? Soldiers who had themselves come under attack, or had witnessed or just heard about other soldiers coming under attack, are not going to hesitate and risk the same thing for themselves when facing a possible threat. A man waves a broom handle and throws fireworks, another fires a rocket, another tries to set light to a gas tanker. A photographer points a lens through the smoke. While in the backgroung the man in black aims a rifle or a grenade launcher. Roll the dice, take your chance. You've only got your life to lose.

Then comes another comparison between the events on April 10 and dispersal of riots in the West, which falls on it's ar$e from the off because the Red Shirts weren't rioting at the time the Army made their move to disperse (nor had they rioted at any point in the weeks previous. Rowdy trespass? yes. Isolated incidences of violence? yes. Did I personally agree with their actions? no). This will no doubt lead us back round to the ugly 'money before life' need to disperse argument, but never mind. And then, previous speculation is re-iterated. One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb among all the speculation about the Army behaving in a whiter-than-white manner on April 10: The Thai Armed Forces have a nigh-on 100% track record for brutality and overreaction when requested to deal with internal security issues (Rohingya, the obscene cruelty of the mass-murder of Tak Bai are two that spring to mind, but I could go on and on and on). Hmmmm.....

More twisting and putting words into my mouth. Any chance of showing me where I said "dispersal of riots in the West"? There are well documented cases of Western governments forcibly removing protestors, not just rioters. You seem to have a whiter than white view of the UK and US governments, but there is no doubt that either would allow a prolonged protest, no matter how "peaceful" it was that was blockading a major intersection in London or New York. (Embarassingly for you, one of your fellow reds, in another post, agrees with what I said and basically says "so what? The West is the last place to look to for human rights"). It's all very well to mock the fact that the Louis Vuitton shop had to shut for a month or so, or that the rich couldn't get into Central World, but these arguments conveniently forget the many small stall owners, shop workers, hotel workers, BTS commuters, and literally thousands of other poor people who were seriously affected, lost incomes, lost their savings and livelihoods, and were forced back upcountry to live the very lives the reds claim to be fighting to fix.

I've run out of quotes allowed. Your last statement was "Finally, another rant about Thaksin and his cronies. Why me? It's as baffling as it's boring: Ballpoint and I are more-or-less on the same page on the subject of Thaksin".

The rant is decidedly one sided, but if you feel you need to go ahead with your lies, personal attacks, deliberate misquotings and comforting "I'm not a red supporter" mantra, then feel free to do so without me. You red supporters take things far too personally.

Edited December 7, 2010 by ballpoint

[rubl]

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.....

The 'reds shot themselves' only comes as part of an argument by red-shirt supports and/or anti-government types or other seemingly interested posters.

As for the 'rightly expect' and 'deserve' an explanation, no doubt one has been given already. It most likely lacked details, no name of the 'killer'. Why that should be expected baffles me. The compensation offered by the Thai government is seen as bribe to silence questions, no compensation would lead to an outcry of injustice. One may wonder what Fabio would think of this all.

[SomTumTiger]

Were there snipers on April 10?

According to reports at the time, yes

Was he shot by a stray army bullet or a stray red shirt bullet?

An awful lot of people were shot in the head. Is it more likely that they were all victims of extremely improbable ricochets or that they were shot deliberately?

Do you really think he was targeted by the army?

Yes, it's clearly the most rational, reasonable explanation.

I wouldn't put it out of the realms of possibility

The question isn't what's possible - there are a virtually unlimited range of possibilities.

It's a matter of what is the most rational explanation.

Of course if you are hiding behind a barricade or around a corner shooting at people,

the likely shot to hit you will be a head shot.

There were snipers for both sides.

But nothing anywhere says the army was targeting unarmed people just crossing the streets or standing about. Running up a body count was not in the best interests of the army or government, they would not logically do so, since that would have been playing right into the red leaders game plan.

The only 5 reasons for the well documented "Men In Black" backing the Reds to take sniper shots was;

1 ) to protect reds in the streets from the army, in other words shot at the army,

Which of course invites a response.

2 ) to create chaos and cause public dismay, by causing deaths with war weapons, while making it appear to be army, or of such unknowable circumstances that the army can still be blamed.

3 ) to prevent their identities from becoming known, or their getting captured, which could include stopping their own photographs from being taking by the press.

4 ) to kill army commanders in the hopes of gaining tactical advantage.

5 ) Silencing 'loose cannons' who know too much and say too much, and thus put influencials at risk, while also potentially creating a high profile 'martyr for the cause'.

Is this all known truths, no, not all of it,

but is is it the most rational explanations. Very probably.

Lol at Animatic for bringing rational thought into a TV rant

[Pi Sek]

But putting all the prevarication aside, do you think Nick was telling the truth or lying in his eyewitness report?

There's bias on both sides, and this is a quite clear cut case of bias in favour of the reds. Sorry Nick.

I think that he was selective over which truths he chose to report.

I think that he is presenting his unproven (and possibly untrue) assumptions as given fact.

I think that he allowed his political persuasions to distort his interpretation of what was happening.

So I won't go so far as to say I think he was/is "lying" - but I will go so far as to say I think that he's not telling the whole story and that he bends the story to obscure the truth. Skeptical and cynical, I accept, but there it is.

[Pi Sek]

The compensation offered by the Thai government is seen as bribe to silence questions, no compensation would lead to an outcry of injustice.

No it's not! The compensation offered by the Thai government is... compensation! If it wasn't there would be some sort of waiver attached to it, and there's isn't one.

Unless you're suggesting that the compensation is seen as a bribe of silence by some parties...?

[SweeneyAgonistes]

Lol at Animatic for rational thought into a TV rant

Actually, I thought the most interesting about that little bit of delirium was how it cunningly combined both banality and irrationality. But, to be fair, as far as Thaivisa goes, it's much in keeping with the general tone of things; completely crazed speculation to support noxious political views and without any grounding in fact. Good work.

[rubl]

The compensation offered by the Thai government is seen as bribe to silence questions, no compensation would lead to an outcry of injustice.

No it's not! The compensation offered by the Thai government is... compensation! If it wasn't there would be some sort of waiver attached to it, and there's isn't one.

Unless you're suggesting that the compensation is seen as a bribe of silence by some parties...?

I only repeat what others have said on this topic and suggest that whatever done or not done, the government gets blamed.

Please also note part of the OP:

BANGKOK, December 3, 2010 (AFP) - The sister of an Italian photographer killed in Bangkok during this year's anti-government protests accused Thai authorities of offering money to "close our mouths," in a letter released Friday.

Edited December 7, 2010 by rubl

[rubl]

Lol at Animatic for rational thought into a TV rant

Actually, I thought the most interesting about that little bit of delirium was how it cunningly combined both banality and irrationality. But, to be fair, as far as Thaivisa goes, it's much in keeping with the general tone of things; completely crazed speculation to support noxious political views and without any grounding in fact. Good work.

It sure makes a change with unfounded accusations, fact distortion and subtle suggestions made by others who I will not name (but sweety-pies might be one of them )

[SergeiY]

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.

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.

You get it all wrong. The number of killed soldiers is wrong, the number of dead civilians is wrong.

To assume it would be the right of the army and justified to fire into the crowd and shoot some 'supporters' is also wrong.

The government nor the CRES never admit or declared that they shoot and killed people in that night in April.

If you have evidence for it, that the army or soldiers indeed shot at and wounded or even killed red shirts, please come forward with it.

If you keep repeating that false and unfounded story you seems to be nothing else but a liar.

[animatic]

Lol at Animatic for rational thought into a TV rant

Actually, I thought the most interesting about that little bit of delirium was how it cunningly combined both banality and irrationality. But, to be fair, as far as Thaivisa goes, it's much in keeping with the general tone of things; completely crazed speculation to support noxious political views and without any grounding in fact. Good work.

And who's your daddy?

[Siam Simon]

Siam Simon wrote: "There are so many inaccuracies and fallacies in this one it's difficult to know where to start.

Anyway, I'll start with labelling me "red", "pro-red poster", "red posters". I'm not. This is an old-time fave tactic of posters of a particular ilk when confronted with something that doesn't sit quite right in their manifesto. Wait for Ballpoint's chain of logic to 'prove' that I'm a Red that will surely follow: They're always hilarious .

Next up the 'money before life' argument being dressed up in new clothes. Surprise surprise.....it looks just as ugly as before."

Ugly or not, that's the way the world is. You have the right to protest, but that right ends when you start having long term negative affects on the lives of others. Again, this is from personal knowledge of people directly affected, not from sitting in my armchair watching some news reporter trying to tell me what to think.

There follows some speculation about Army being targeted by snipers which is passed off as fact, though strangely not one single member of the Army was hit by sniper fire prior to April 10 . This speculation then leads to the 'conclusion' that pro-red snipers were the first to open fire, and thus the careful, ordered retreat of The Army on April 10 who were unwilling to fight back. The fact that the Army CO and most of his aides had been murdered by a grenade attack, causing the dispersal operation to collapse in disarray had, I'm sure, nothing to do with it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You originally asked the question "why the change in tactics by the army"? Now you reveal that you knew the answer all along; they were attacked by the red shirts. And by the way, please point out in my post where I say that the army came under sniper fire on April 10th. I said targets for assassination were pointed out by lasers. There have been a number of reports of this. The grenade attacks did take place, the army did retreat, because they'd gone in with riot gear rather than large numbers of weapons. Your further twisting of my post ("ordered retreat of The Army" does not appear in it) is further proof of your inability to make a reasonable argument. Yes, maybe the retreat was disorderly, after all, as you admit now (but once again, didn't when you originally posed the question), the CO and aides were murdered, but the army did not then immediately regroup and wade on in, weapons blazing, as many here would have us believe. Or will you be telling us next that the CO and his aides were the only officers present?

Next there is a cursory acknowledgement of my examples of why live firing zones don't happen in the modern era West, which is queried suggesting that the West hasn't faced the prerequisite situation. Poor reading on Ballpoint's part. I'd already brought up the troubles in Northern Ireland, where the British Army were shot at and/or bombed on an almost daily basis for decades. No live firing zones there (other than on that fateful Bloody Sunday that I'd recounted). Maybe Ballpoint just forgot that bit.

Next up, the tragic story of Jean Charles de Menezes is used as an example of a live firing zone in modern day South London. Fact is, this story backs up my previous assertion that Western security forces use sophisticated specific targeting techniques based on intel and surveillance. Briefly: A police Anti-Terror Squad was surveilling a group men living in a block of flats in South London who were strongly suspected of being about to carry out a bombing attack on the London Underground. The officer surveilling the flats mistakenly identified de Menezes (who lived at the same block of flats) as one of the suspected bombers as he left the flats. He was followed, and when he boarded an Underground train he was immediately pinned to the ground by one officer whilst another one loosed seven gunshots into his head at point-blank range. Tragic. And I apologise for being so graphic, but the only 'live firing zone' that day was de Menezes' head.

Now you're trying to tell us that the British Army were not allowed to fire back when under attack? So the 1,879 civilians and 399 Republican paramilitary forces killed during the conflict were all suicides and friendly fire incidents? Yes, after Bloody Sunday there were no more mass firings into crowds, but there were still shootings whenever the military felt a definite threat. And, once again for the slower readers, the Thai army did not shoot indiscriminantly into the mass of protestors at any time. Similarly, in London, an unarmed man, running for the train is seen as a threat and so is held down and shot. And you're trying to make out there is no difference between what happened in Bangkok? Soldiers who had themselves come under attack, or had witnessed or just heard about other soldiers coming under attack, are not going to hesitate and risk the same thing for themselves when facing a possible threat. A man waves a broom handle and throws fireworks, another fires a rocket, another tries to set light to a gas tanker. A photographer points a lens through the smoke. While in the backgroung the man in black aims a rifle or a grenade launcher. Roll the dice, take your chance. You've only got your life to lose.

Then comes another comparison between the events on April 10 and dispersal of riots in the West, which falls on it's ar$e from the off because the Red Shirts weren't rioting at the time the Army made their move to disperse (nor had they rioted at any point in the weeks previous. Rowdy trespass? yes. Isolated incidences of violence? yes. Did I personally agree with their actions? no). This will no doubt lead us back round to the ugly 'money before life' need to disperse argument, but never mind. And then, previous speculation is re-iterated. One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb among all the speculation about the Army behaving in a whiter-than-white manner on April 10: The Thai Armed Forces have a nigh-on 100% track record for brutality and overreaction when requested to deal with internal security issues (Rohingya, the obscene cruelty of the mass-murder of Tak Bai are two that spring to mind, but I could go on and on and on). Hmmmm.....

More twisting and putting words into my mouth. Any chance of showing me where I said "dispersal of riots in the West"? There are well documented cases of Western governments forcibly removing protestors, not just rioters. You seem to have a whiter than white view of the UK and US governments, but there is no doubt that either would allow a prolonged protest, no matter how "peaceful" it was that was blockading a major intersection in London or New York. (Embarassingly for you, one of your fellow reds, in another post, agrees with what I said and basically says "so what? The West is the last place to look to for human rights"). It's all very well to mock the fact that the Louis Vuitton shop had to shut for a month or so, or that the rich couldn't get into Central World, but these arguments conveniently forget the many small stall owners, shop workers, hotel workers, BTS commuters, and literally thousands of other poor people who were seriously affected, lost incomes, lost their savings and livelihoods, and were forced back upcountry to live the very lives the reds claim to be fighting to fix.

I've run out of quotes allowed. Your last statement was "Finally, another rant about Thaksin and his cronies. Why me? It's as baffling as it's boring: Ballpoint and I are more-or-less on the same page on the subject of Thaksin".

The rant is decidedly one sided, but if you feel you need to go ahead with your lies, personal attacks, deliberate misquotings and comforting "I'm not a red supporter" mantra, then feel free to do so without me. You red supporters take things far too personally.

***I had to change the first quote in order to keep within the allowed number of quotes and not modify the substance content of the quoted post***

"Ugly or not, that's the way the world is. You have the right to protest, but that right ends when you start having long term negative affects on the lives of others. Again, this is from personal knowledge of people directly affected, not from sitting in my armchair watching some news reporter trying to tell me what to think."

No real attempt to change the clothes this time. Just the same ugly argument.

"Now you're contradicting yourself. You originally asked the question "why the change in tactics by the army"? Now you reveal that you knew the answer all along; they were attacked by the red shirts."

I don't remember asking you this question in our discussions. You wrote this: "That is why the army changed tactics". Maybe you are confusing what you wrote with what I wrote? Or maybe you are referring to something I wrote in an earlier discussion wrt the change from containment to move in and disperse?

Wrt knowing the answer, all we know is that the army moved in to disperse and large-scale violence then occured. Most of the rest is speculation. Which leads us to:

"And by the way, please point out in my post where I say that the army came under sniper fire on April 10th. I said targets for assassination were pointed out by lasers. There have been a number of reports of this."

Do you have any idea how a sniper team operates? A spotter locates and spots the target, then informs the rifleman of distance, wind direction, etc, then the rifleman sets up accordingly and fires at the target. Just spotting a target with a lazer for some unspecified future hit date is utterly pointless.

"The grenade attacks did take place"

Agreed.

"the army did retreat, because they'd gone in with riot gear rather than large numbers of weapons. Your further twisting of my post ("ordered retreat of The Army" does not appear in it) is further proof of your inability to make a reasonable argument."

Speculation. And speculation that beggars belief. "and that the army initially withdrew following the events of that first dispersal attempt, rather than press on, indiscriminantly shooting anyone in their way" reads like an attempt to portray an ordered retreat to me. Which leads us to:

"Yes, maybe the retreat was disorderly, after all, as you admit now (but once again, didn't when you originally posed the question), the CO and aides were murdered, but the army did not then immediately regroup and wade on in, weapons blazing, as many here would have us believe. Or will you be telling us next that the CO and his aides were the only officers present?"

Are you suggesting that I was concealing my opinion that the retreat was disorderly? Baffling if you are. Or are you suggesting that I was previously not prepared to acknowledge the murder of Col Romklao and his colleagues? If the latter, you are plain wrong. I've made numerous references to it in the past, and felt the need to do so again because you were suggesting a different reason for the retreat: . "There are numerous accounts of laser pointers being used at this stage to point out targets for assassination. The facts that those targetted were military, and that the army initially withdrew following the events of that first dispersal attempt, rather than press on, indiscriminantly shooting anyone in their way, leads to the conclusion that the shots were from the red camp." (my underlines). And a soundly-commanded, well-ordered retreat would not have left all that hardware behind. Oops!

"Now you're trying to tell us that the British Army were not allowed to fire back when under attack? So the 1,879 civilians and 399 Republican paramilitary forces killed during the conflict were all suicides and friendly fire incidents? Yes, after Bloody Sunday there were no more mass firings into crowds, but there were still shootings whenever the military felt a definite threat. And, once again for the slower readers, the Thai army did not shoot indiscriminantly into the mass of protestors at any time. Similarly, in London, an unarmed man, running for the train is seen as a threat and so is held down and shot. And you're trying to make out there is no difference between what happened in Bangkok? Soldiers who had themselves come under attack, or had witnessed or just heard about other soldiers coming under attack, are not going to hesitate and risk the same thing for themselves when facing a possible threat. A man waves a broom handle and throws fireworks, another fires a rocket, another tries to set light to a gas tanker. A photographer points a lens through the smoke. While in the backgroung the man in black aims a rifle or a grenade launcher. Roll the dice, take your chance. You've only got your life to lose."

Ah, so you've dropped the lies about live firing zones existing in the West, and have changed tack to equating the behaviour of British security forces with that of the Thai Army, so that any occasional lapses by British security forces justify the routine brutality of the Thai Army. Interesting one, that . Also, for one particular slower reader, the Army didn't always shoot at anything that moved. Only sometimes, such as the incident documented by Nick Nostitz which I linked earlier in this thread.

"More twisting and putting words into my mouth. Any chance of showing me where I said "dispersal of riots in the West"? There are well documented cases of Western governments forcibly removing protestors, not just rioters. You seem to have a whiter than white view of the UK and US governments, but there is no doubt that either would allow a prolonged protest, no matter how "peaceful" it was that was blockading a major intersection in London or New York. (Embarassingly for you, one of your fellow reds, in another post, agrees with what I said and basically says "so what? The West is the last place to look to for human rights")."

Not twisting, just trying to cut through all the lies and inaccuracies, and interpret what you are prattling on about. And I don't have "fellow reds", nor do I feel embarrassed by other posters, whatever they write. But I do feel embarrassed for some posters .

"It's all very well to mock the fact that the Louis Vuitton shop had to shut for a month or so, or that the rich couldn't get into Central World, but these arguments conveniently forget the many small stall owners, shop workers, hotel workers, BTS commuters, and literally thousands of other poor people who were seriously affected, lost incomes, lost their savings and livelihoods, and were forced back upcountry to live the very lives the reds claim to be fighting to fix."

the money before lives argument appears in yet another set of clothes .

"I've run out of quotes allowed. Your last statement was "Finally, another rant about Thaksin and his cronies. Why me? It's as baffling as it's boring: Ballpoint and I are more-or-less on the same page on the subject of Thaksin".

The rant is decidedly one sided, but if you feel you need to go ahead with your lies, personal attacks, deliberate misquotings and comforting "I'm not a red supporter" mantra, then feel free to do so without me. You red supporters take things far too personally."

So, let me get this straight: You keep seeing personal attacks against you but other posters take things far too seriously? Uh....right.

Anyway, I could keep on correcting your lies, mis-representations and mis-interpretations. But I've had enough, I'm bored. And you'll just carry on lying, anyway, so It's pointless. Last word to you if you want it. (Hope you like the red font btw )

[SamritT]

Those 91 are killed by the RED. 'reds shot themselves'. This statement is true, because the army have strict order to shoot if only necessary, and in any case ONLY SHOT AT LEG to immobile. Hence a shot is the chest (The Italian) or in the head (Seh Deang) is NOT the work of the army, as it is against the instruction of CRES. Said CRES.

[oldsailor35]

The Thai authorities have badly handled this one it would seem.

The usual Asian response that you can solve anything with money, or at least make it go away, may well apply to the many powerless Thai people, but it doesn't work overseas. Especially, in modern Europe.

When in a hole stop digging, but of course they won't. Neither will some Thai with vision take over and make the right overtures as that would mean causing the losing of face. As we all know, a Thai can not lose face.

They do all the time of course in our well focussed Western eyes, but here, where justice is buried along with many of those who do protest, acceptance and giving up hope is a way of surviving. Survivng all those terrible injustices that happen on a daily basis to ordinary Thais themselves.

Shame no-one had the foresight to see this one, the death of a foreign journalist, as being the potential time bomb that it is. The International media has two journalists killed covering the same story, in the same City, at the same time. I can't re-call many of those in Iraq or in Helmund province where the details are not made known.

Furthermore, when we are told the bare facts of the death of hostages in botched rescue attempts by grenade throwing Americans, and we cope with the truth, the unfortunate truth, should it not be best that the facts are made known here?

Apparently not. But it's all the family want. But then there's face to consider.

So the story won't go away. Thailand's reputation goes further down the pan. The years will be dragged out as the family pursue justice and the truth. Journalist Associations will hang it around Thailand's neck.

Is there any hope that one day things will improve? Any hope that truth will replace lies and deceit in Thailand.

We can only hope.

Disgusting is'nt it !........Reminds us all of the case of the murdered Canadian in Pai, where the Pol sgt., was allowed to go free only to murder again !.................Talk about loss of face.

[oldsailor35]

Wavefloater, i agree that the journalists were going into a dangerous situation, knew what they were getting into and presumably accepted the risks.

What I can't accept that even in this extreme situation a person gives up their human rights and is fair game for extra judicial killings.

The family have a right to know the circumstances of their loved ones death and if that means someone in the Thai military being called to book then so be it.

He got what you get in a war zone.

What are you going to do. Analyze every death. What will it serve other than to keep the battle going.

If I remember correctly offering them money is the standard operating procedure. It in no way denies blame. Remember the red shirt who blew him self up. His relatives received money. The Government was in no way hiding any thing. They were just following SOP.

The best way in the world to keep there pain alive is to fight it

Funny how the red shirts can start it and deny they had any thing to do with it in spite of many videos of them inciting and participating in it. And every one jumps on the Government.

This was not a war zone. It was the scene of a repressive govt who had sent the army in to control protesters, fully armed, not with just riot gear, but guns. Surely no journalist would be expecting to be shot by the PM's soldiers.

[oldsailor35]

If you give a brainwashed individual with not even half a brain a weapon, live ammunition and a "free fire zone" what you think is going to happen?

How much brain do you credit the photographer with?

Plenty, he was doing an international job.

[oldsailor35]

A better wording may have made it plain that I meant the really vast majority of protesters were not armed and that the army's approach should have been in that light. I meant that an individual in the army may have been targeted by an armed man. The army were not in any sense going to face an armed horde. The point is, that many weapons could and should have been used before live rounds. Water cannon and tear gas (or other nonfatal gasses) should have been used first. These are quite effective even against armed men.

The use of APC against the (possibly mined) barriers was quite obviously a correct tactic, but they did not need the protection of live fire.

Again, I say that a good investigation (and clear report) would show what the army faced and whether they, at a local level, were given the orders that were announced publically and did act responsibly. If it can be established who fired first that would be a very important fact. If the Army had used non fatal weapons until they were fired on, they could have made it very clear who was at fault and they would have gained backing in their action.

At the moment, I don't see that the conclusion that unnecessary force was used, is based on unreliable reports. Were armed civilian casualties found?

Yes. The vast majority of the protesters were not armed. Also, a vast majority of the red shirt protesters were not provoking and attacking the army. AND a vast majority of the protesters were not killed or injured.

There were rubber bullets and water cannons used, particularly at Thaicom, where it made little difference. Even on April 10, rubber bullets were used. But at what stage should the army start using live rounds when they are being hit by live bullets and grenades from the red shirts. We don't know, and it will be impossible to know, who started firing on April 10, but the point is, the red shirts were armed on that night. WHY WERE THEY ARMED? They were supposed to be peaceful protesters.

Ofcourse the army needed the protection of live fire on May 19. They were being shot at!!!

Here is a similar story from Brazil where the police went in to some slums to get armed drug gangs out of there. http://www.latimes.c...0,1390151.story

Do you think they should have gone in with rubber bullets and water cannons?

So much blatent exageration ! And such incomparable situations. This post is utterly stupid.

[Buchholz]

^ with your 4 posts (and counting) bump of this over 1 month-old thread, do you plan to rehash all 200 posts with one liners?

[whybother]

So much blatent exageration ! And such incomparable situations. This post is utterly stupid.

Blatant exaggeration? Did I exaggerate on the number of protesters being armed or the number of protesters provoking and attacking the army.

It's quite amazing there weren't more killed then given the number of armed protesters and protesters provoking and attacking the army that you say there were.

[Siam Simon]

So much blatent exageration ! And such incomparable situations. This post is utterly stupid.

Blatant exaggeration? Did I exaggerate on the number of protesters being armed or the number of protesters provoking and attacking the army.

It's quite amazing there weren't more killed then given the number of armed protesters and protesters provoking and attacking the army that you say there were.

How many armed protestors were there? Journalists literally putting their lives on the line struggled to find more than a handful. What a disingenuous reply to a valid call on an earlier post. But no surprise there.

[JWJ]

We will eventually find out the truth about the deaths. Not in the Thai press but on blocked websites.

Why is the current Gov so aggressive at blocking websites and only allowing their version to be published?

[whybother]

So much blatent exageration ! And such incomparable situations. This post is utterly stupid.

Blatant exaggeration? Did I exaggerate on the number of protesters being armed or the number of protesters provoking and attacking the army.

It's quite amazing there weren't more killed then given the number of armed protesters and protesters provoking and attacking the army that you say there were.

How many armed protestors were there? Journalists literally putting their lives on the line struggled to find more than a handful. What a disingenuous reply to a valid call on an earlier post. But no surprise there.

Oh ... you're still around. I thought you might have a few days holiday after your little out burst the other day.

Anyway, what did I exaggerate?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT armed. Is that an exaggeration?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT provoking the army. Is that an exaggeration?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT killed. Is that an exaggeration?

If it's blatant exaggeration, why do you have such difficulty pointing out what was exaggerated?

Maybe because attacking the poster is easier for you than actually coming out with facts to support your statements.

[Siam Simon]

So much blatent exageration ! And such incomparable situations. This post is utterly stupid.

Blatant exaggeration? Did I exaggerate on the number of protesters being armed or the number of protesters provoking and attacking the army.

It's quite amazing there weren't more killed then given the number of armed protesters and protesters provoking and attacking the army that you say there were.

How many armed protestors were there? Journalists literally putting their lives on the line struggled to find more than a handful. What a disingenuous reply to a valid call on an earlier post. But no surprise there.

Oh ... you're still around. I thought you might have a few days holiday after your little out burst the other day.

Anyway, what did I exaggerate?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT armed. Is that an exaggeration?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT provoking the army. Is that an exaggeration?

I said a vast majority of the protesters WERE NOT killed. Is that an exaggeration?

If it's blatant exaggeration, why do you have such difficulty pointing out what was exaggerated?

Maybe because attacking the poster is easier for you than actually coming out with facts to support your statements.

'Whybother', you joined this forum at the height of the troubles last year alongside your twin brother jcbangkok, and 'both' of you ran up 1000 posts (yes, that's one thousand posts) in the space of a month. ALL of them in the politics discussions.

Anyway, back to the pertinent discussions: How many armed protestors do you think there were? The independant journalists who were quite literally putting their lives on the line on the ground struggled to find more than a small handful.

[whybother]

'Whybother', you joined this forum at the height of the troubles last year alongside your twin brother jcbangkok, and 'both' of you ran up 1000 posts (yes, that's one thousand posts) in the space of a month. ALL of them in the politics discussions.

Anyway, back to the pertinent discussions: How many armed protestors do you think there were? The independant journalists who were quite literally putting their lives on the line on the ground struggled to find more than a small handful.

"twin brother jcbangkok" ... huh? "ALL of them in the politics discussions" ... who's exaggerating now? And what is the relevance of it anyway?

I don't know how many armed protesters that there were. That's why I said "a vast majority WERE NOT armed". IS THAT AN EXAGGERATION?

[Siam Simon]

'Whybother', you joined this forum at the height of the troubles last year alongside your twin brother jcbangkok, and 'both' of you ran up 1000 posts (yes, that's one thousand posts) in the space of a month. ALL of them in the politics discussions.

Anyway, back to the pertinent discussions: How many armed protestors do you think there were? The independant journalists who were quite literally putting their lives on the line on the ground struggled to find more than a small handful.

"twin brother jcbangkok" ... huh? "ALL of them in the politics discussions" ... who's exaggerating now? And what is the relevance of it anyway?

I don't know how many armed protesters that there were. That's why I said "a vast majority WERE NOT armed". IS THAT AN EXAGGERATION?

Are the exaggerations for you or your twin brother? The relevance is that you joined the forum to post propaganda: you are here almost 24/7 with your pro-establishment propaganda. Thread where the Establishment is being attacked? No worries. Whybother will be jumping in to defend. It's a given.

[whybother]

'Whybother', you joined this forum at the height of the troubles last year alongside your twin brother jcbangkok, and 'both' of you ran up 1000 posts (yes, that's one thousand posts) in the space of a month. ALL of them in the politics discussions.

Anyway, back to the pertinent discussions: How many armed protestors do you think there were? The independant journalists who were quite literally putting their lives on the line on the ground struggled to find more than a small handful.

"twin brother jcbangkok" ... huh? "ALL of them in the politics discussions" ... who's exaggerating now? And what is the relevance of it anyway?

I don't know how many armed protesters that there were. That's why I said "a vast majority WERE NOT armed". IS THAT AN EXAGGERATION?

Are the exaggerations for you or your twin brother? The relevance is that you joined the forum to post propaganda: you are here almost 24/7 with your pro-establishment propaganda. Thread where the Establishment is being attacked? No worries. Whybother will be jumping in to defend. It's a given.

More personal attacks.

Once again, failure to answer the question. What did I exaggerate?

If you don't agree with the content of my posts, then you are quite welcome to highlight what you don't agree with and provide some sort of argument showing it is incorrect. But it seems you are unable to do that, so just continue with the personal attacks.