Deadly Riots In Bangkok Let Local Photographers Shine In Top Photo Contest

[thaihome]

I don't think anyone is denying there were armed reds, but why do people feel the need to deny that unarmed people were shot and killed by the army. the fact is they were either targeted or the victims of random shooting by the military.

We all know the japanese photographer was unarmed, he was posing no immediate threat, he was shot by the military as all the evidence would suggest (we know the army were not exactly careful with their shooting as could be seen when they blew one of their uniformed colleagues brains out when he approached on a moped to help them), so was he targeted or the victim of random shooting?

I again post this photo. If you are standing anywhere near this person, behind a barricade of burning tires, facing a trained army in full combat mode (and having been warned by constant radio and TV broadcasts to stay away), are you an unarmed innocent bystander? What if you have a petrol bomb in your hand? What if you are helping to pile tires on a already burning pyre? Are you an unarmed innocent bystander?

If you choose to stand in area where the Army was under fire, from gunfire, grenades or even homemade rockets and petrol bombs, you were not an unarmed innocent bystander. You were a full participant and there is likely a price you are going to pay.

If you were a journalist, you knew the risk and that green armband did not make you invulnerable or invisible. I have no doubt the Japanese photographer got caught in the middle of a fire fight that erupted after the grenades were thrown at the Army on April 10th.

The fact is, the Army was very careful and restrained in their shooting, if they hadn't been, hundreds would have been killed.

TH

[whybother]

I don't think anyone is denying there were armed reds, but why do people feel the need to deny that unarmed people were shot and killed by the army. the fact is they were either targeted or the victims of random shooting by the military.

We all know the japanese photographer was unarmed, he was posing no immediate threat, he was shot by the military as all the evidence would suggest (we know the army were not exactly careful with their shooting as could be seen when they blew one of their uniformed colleagues brains out when he approached on a moped to help them), so was he targeted or the victim of random shooting?

Who is denying that unarmed people were shot?

There were 80 people (non-army) killed. How many reports have you seen about the circumstances of individual deaths? Less than 10? What about the circumstances of the other 70?

The reporters were shot in cross-fire - even the Reporters Without Borders (or one of the Reporter groups) say that.

Even of the 10 deaths that have been widely reported, do you know the full circumstances of each of those? How many of those happened to be hiding behind barricades when armed red shirts were shooting at the army? Also, when red shirts were taken to hospital (injured or dead), do you think they were taking their guns with them? Were their armed mates carrying them to hospital?

Even if some unarmed people were shot, does that give any excuse for the armed red shirts to be there, or for the red shirts to burn down buildings?

[Buchholz]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Another clearly ridiculous post - posting their opinion like "random shooting of unarmed people by the army" when they have not been able to provide any reasonable source of information.

Here is a fact, not opinion - you monotonously keep coming up with the same claims, despite these claims consistently being opposed by undeniable ambiguities. Why is that? I can only think of three reasons: 1) you are an idiot; 2) you are a "devil's advocate" troll fishing for an argument; 3) you are being paid to spread hatred based on lies. Did I miss another reason? Please enlighten me.

And before I get labelled as a red-hater or whatever - my objection is that opinion is being painted as fact, on many occasions by the same people, not the opinion itself. You don't see me painting "Thaksin funded both the Red Shirts to create a popular movement and the 'Ronin Warriors' as a separate agency to create chaos by summary killings of those on both sides to instigate civil war, with a view to clearing a path for him to return as the country's saviour", which is my opinion, as fact. It's not fact, at least not a proven fact.

Wholeheartedly agree. Moronic rhetoric based on assumption not fact with obvious intent to incite.

It doesn't stop him from coming back over a week later to and rejuvenate the dead thread by trotting out even more erroneous stuff

.