Red Shirt Leader Jatuporn To Reveal 'Solid Evidence' Of Abhisit's UK Citizenship

[rubl]

You, by the way, have completely ignored my comment regarding the use by the state of the Blue Shirts (no red shirt militants present then), or the early morning attack at Samliem Dindaeng in which rounds were fired by the military directly into the protesters, and the lack of investigations into those incidents.

I try, but not really succeeding to get back to the OP. Ignoring a new subject on April 2009 is part of that.

Is no-one really interested anymore that this 'enemy of the poor', 'kill them all' maniac, 'stealer of an election' PM happens to be a British oppressor of the worst colonial stamp?

[nicknostitz]

A quick search doesn't give me a clear time line and I'm reluctant to accept what you write here. Total death toll that day was five soldiers and 13 civilians, including a Japanese cameraman. No info on sequence of deaths (at least i haven't yet).

There are many things that happened in that period but which are entirely unclear to the general public, and/or are still kept from public knowledge.

Don't judge before you have the facts.

[nicknostitz]

You, by the way, have completely ignored my comment regarding the use by the state of the Blue Shirts (no red shirt militants present then), or the early morning attack at Samliem Dindaeng in which rounds were fired by the military directly into the protesters, and the lack of investigations into those incidents.

I try, but not really succeeding to get back to the OP. Ignoring a new subject on April 2009 is part of that.

Is no-one really interested anymore that this 'enemy of the poor', 'kill them all' maniac, 'stealer of an election' PM happens to be a British oppressor of the worst colonial stamp?

Well, all that can be said at the moment has been said about this, hasn't it?

As long as we get further confirmation, inane tit for tat comments will continue. Why not derail the discussion into something more productive?

[whybother]

A quick search doesn't give me a clear time line and I'm reluctant to accept what you write here. Total death toll that day was five soldiers and 13 civilians, including a Japanese cameraman. No info on sequence of deaths (at least i haven't yet).

There are many things that happened in that period but which are entirely unclear to the general public, and/or are still kept from public knowledge.

Don't judge before you have the facts.

When is your book being published, so we can get the facts?

[Ricardo]

I try, but not really succeeding to get back to the OP. Ignoring a new subject on April 2009 is part of that.

Is no-one really interested anymore that this 'enemy of the poor', 'kill them all' maniac, 'stealer of an election' PM happens to be a British oppressor of the worst colonial stamp?

But his government's policies show him to be a friend (not enemy) of the poor, he was heavily-criticised for failing to issue orders to 'kill them all' and rather letting the (while peaceful) protests go-ahead, he didn't steal any election (the E.C. might have acted if he had done so), he denies being British (and Jatuporn has failed to deliver proof to-the-contrary as-promised), and anyway we Brits aren't colonialists these days ?

So "No case to answer, m'lud" !

[AleG]

I don't know why you address this to me. I have never stated that the Red Shirts are entirely peaceful protesters. Fact is that the majority of Red Shirts are peaceful, or try to be peaceful, but that within the Red Shirts is a hardcore militant underground existing.

How underground can it be when you have the very leaders of the movement standing up on stage urging violent acts, with the red mass before them - majority of whom you tell us are peaceful people - cheering and applauding?

Your are building a strawman.

First of all - in no speech on the stage has any UDD leader urged anyone to take up rifles and shoot people. The two speeches in question are two speeches by Nattawut and Arisaman, in which the use of petrol and the burning of city halls was mentioned, in case of dispersal respectively of a military coup (as far as i am aware, as the important part regarding a coup in nattawut's speech has been cut out by in infamous youtube video).

There is nevertheless a vast difference between this and the actions of militants (whose existence i have never denied). On now stage though has ever been the use of underground militants been advocated.

In Egypt and Tunesia, for example, have protesters set many more places aflame, but i do not see here anyone now stating that these protester's demands were not legitimate, and that the ousted Strongmen/Dictators should therefore be allowed to shoot all those protesters, and that it was legitimate to kill those protesters.

I do remember Red leaders "asking" for "protection" from the Black Shirts in some speeches; or insinuating that this armed group would come in to help the Red Shirts in case they needed protection. again with enthusiastic reception from the mob as in the case of burning and razing assorted buildings and institutions in other speeches.

No, they didn't say they'd come and shoot at soldiers and/or non Red people, but that's what the Black Shirts are known to have done.

It all sounded like a coy, plausible deniability, wink-wink nudge-nudge way of implying armed support for the Red Shirts.

[Ricardo]

When is your book being published, so we can get the facts?

That book will indeed be well-worth reading, one might not always agree with Nick's interpretation, but he did undoubtedly witness much more of the events unfolding, than RA for-example. :jap:

[nicknostitz]

A quick search doesn't give me a clear time line and I'm reluctant to accept what you write here. Total death toll that day was five soldiers and 13 civilians, including a Japanese cameraman. No info on sequence of deaths (at least i haven't yet).

There are many things that happened in that period but which are entirely unclear to the general public, and/or are still kept from public knowledge.

Don't judge before you have the facts.

When is your book being published, so we can get the facts?

My book on 2009's events is getting into the shops these days, and i am right now in the process of writing my book on the mess in 2010. It will take some more time though, unfortunately though. I need to do some more remaining research, and the writing is not easy either.

[rubl]

A quick search doesn't give me a clear time line and I'm reluctant to accept what you write here. Total death toll that day was five soldiers and 13 civilians, including a Japanese cameraman. No info on sequence of deaths (at least i haven't yet).

There are many things that happened in that period but which are entirely unclear to the general public, and/or are still kept from public knowledge.

Don't judge before you have the facts.

You judge saying a red-shirt was killed by a sniper first. In response to my reply to oberfuhrer on 'order for army to kill came first'.

The facts? Who knows. I only find vague info open to interpretation and opinion forming according to one's beliefs.

"The sequence of events on the night of April 10 remains shadowy. Witnesses and video footage indicated that the violence was kicked off by mysterious black-clad gunmen who both sides on the conflict have disowned."

http://myvietnamnews.com/2010/04/20/thai-red-shirts-mull-next-move-after-troop-deployment/

Unless you put more faith in the recent statement of Joe Witty currently employed by the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT and witness to the 'possible crime against human rights' by the British impostor.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/01/30/expert-testimony-alleges-criminal-acts-by-thai-army-in-april-may-2010/

[nicknostitz]

I do remember Red leaders "asking" for "protection" from the Black Shirts in some speeches; or insinuating that this armed group would come in to help the Red Shirts in case they needed protection. again with enthusiastic reception from the mob as in the case of burning and razing assorted buildings and institutions in other speeches.

No, they didn't say they'd come and shoot at soldiers and/or non Red people, but that's what the Black Shirts are known to have done.

It all sounded like a coy, plausible deniability, wink-wink nudge-nudge way of implying armed support for the Red Shirts.

If it would be so, my work would be a lot easier. Things are a lot more complex though.

[neilf]

We have the same problem in the USA. Can't find out where our president is from. I guess the big differences is that we were able to vote for him (or not). As for Chinese ancestry, just look at a map, and look at the people. It's not hard to see where that China and India come into the picture. We need to have an election. .

thats easy he is half thai and has the same mother as tiger woods

[rubl]

I try, but not really succeeding to get back to the OP. Ignoring a new subject on April 2009 is part of that.

Is no-one really interested anymore that this 'enemy of the poor', 'kill them all' maniac, 'stealer of an election' PM happens to be a British oppressor of the worst colonial stamp?

But his government's policies show him to be a friend (not enemy) of the poor, he was heavily-criticised for failing to issue orders to 'kill them all' and rather letting the (while peaceful) protests go-ahead, he didn't steal any election (the E.C. might have acted if he had done so), he denies being British (and Jatuporn has failed to deliver proof to-the-contrary as-promised), and anyway we Brits aren't colonialists these days ?

So "No case to answer, m'lud" !

Case dismissed and thank you for your attention

[nicknostitz]

When is your book being published, so we can get the facts?

That book will indeed be well-worth reading, one might not always agree with Nick's interpretation, but he did undoubtedly witness much more of the events unfolding, than RA for-example. :jap:

Thank you.

[nicknostitz]

[

You judge saying a red-shirt was killed by a sniper first. In response to my reply to oberfuhrer on 'order for army to kill came first'.

The facts? Who knows. I only find vague info open to interpretation and opinion forming according to one's beliefs.

"The sequence of events on the night of April 10 remains shadowy. Witnesses and video footage indicated that the violence was kicked off by mysterious black-clad gunmen who both sides on the conflict have disowned."

http://myvietnamnews...oop-deployment/

Unless you put more faith in the recent statement of Joe Witty currently employed by the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT and witness to the 'possible crime against human rights' by the British impostor.

http://asiapacific.a...april-may-2010/

I cannot say for sure if the snipers on April 10 was indeed from the army, or from an outside force, what is clear though is that snipers operated (which the military has denied). The time of the first victim (which i won't disclose now) was before the first sighting of the "Men in Black". But i will continue to check, and if any evidence comes along that counters what i have found so far i will of course love to see it.

But so far, nothing came out, other than lies. Such as the insistence of Burapha force officers that they have not fired a single bullet that day, even though there is clear proof that huge amounts of bullets were fired at Red Shirts.

[AleG]

I do remember Red leaders "asking" for "protection" from the Black Shirts in some speeches; or insinuating that this armed group would come in to help the Red Shirts in case they needed protection. again with enthusiastic reception from the mob as in the case of burning and razing assorted buildings and institutions in other speeches.

No, they didn't say they'd come and shoot at soldiers and/or non Red people, but that's what the Black Shirts are known to have done.

It all sounded like a coy, plausible deniability, wink-wink nudge-nudge way of implying armed support for the Red Shirts.

If it would be so, my work would be a lot easier. Things are a lot more complex though.

A cursory search about the subject yielded an Asia Times article about the Black Shirts; here's a quote:

When hundreds of pro-government protestors rallied near the UDD's fortress on April 22, he (Khattiya) announced the imminent arrival of ''some men wearing black'' to aid the reds. Soon thereafter, five M79 grenades landed near a pro-government group, killing a 26-year-old woman and injuring nearly 100 others.

[nicknostitz]

A cursory search about the subject yielded an Asia Times article about the Black Shirts; here's a quote:

When hundreds of pro-government protestors rallied near the UDD's fortress on April 22, he (Khattiya) announced the imminent arrival of ''some men wearing black'' to aid the reds. Soon thereafter, five M79 grenades landed near a pro-government group, killing a 26-year-old woman and injuring nearly 100 others.

Yes, i know the article.

While it gives interesting information in witness account style on how the militants operated, it gives no information whatsoever on their background, hierarchies, etc.

As i said, it is a very complex subject matter, and has to be brought into context.

[Buchholz]

I do remember Red leaders "asking" for "protection" from the Black Shirts in some speeches; or insinuating that this armed group would come in to help the Red Shirts in case they needed protection. again with enthusiastic reception from the mob as in the case of burning and razing assorted buildings and institutions in other speeches.

No, they didn't say they'd come and shoot at soldiers and/or non Red people, but that's what the Black Shirts are known to have done.

It all sounded like a coy, plausible deniability, wink-wink nudge-nudge way of implying armed support for the Red Shirts.

If it would be so, my work would be a lot easier. Things are a lot more complex though.

A cursory search about the subject yielded an Asia Times article about the Black Shirts; here's a quote:

When hundreds of pro-government protestors rallied near the UDD's fortress on April 22, he (Khattiya) announced the imminent arrival of ''some men wearing black'' to aid the reds. Soon thereafter, five M79 grenades landed near a pro-government group, killing a 26-year-old woman and injuring nearly 100 others.

Thanks for that, AleG.

It was amazing how many times Sae Daeng discussed about the potential of grenades or shootings... and then they happened.

He was uncanny with his extremely high level of clairvoyance.

[rubl]

I cannot say for sure if the snipers on April 10 was indeed from the army, or from an outside force, what is clear though is that snipers operated (which the military has denied). The time of the first victim (which i won't disclose now) was before the first sighting of the "Men in Black". But i will continue to check, and if any evidence comes along that counters what i have found so far i will of course love to see it.

But so far, nothing came out, other than lies. Such as the insistence of Burapha force officers that they have not fired a single bullet that day, even though there is clear proof that huge amounts of bullets were fired at Red Shirts.

Set the stage: On Obercommando's remarks I asked what come first 'chicken or egg', he replied 'order for army to kill', I replied again and then you came with 'red-shirt by sniper'.

Now you state you don't know who the snipers belonged to, but they were there.

Beside the point, the issue was when the killing started. It's nice for you to say 'time was before the sighting of MiB, which i won't disclose now', but that doesn't help.

Sorry, but you sound like k. Thaksin with 'I have the solution to your problems, but that can wait, get me back first'. 'clear proof of huge amount of bullets fired at red shirts' suggest but doesn't explicitly state like Robert A. did 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters'. Only 18 killed that day?

(edit: add: 18 = 13 civilians, 5 army. In Libya they shoot better and really to kill)

(edit: emphasise with bold)

Edited February 20, 2011 by rubl

[rixalex]

Your are building a strawman.

First of all - in no speech on the stage has any UDD leader urged anyone to take up rifles and shoot people.

Didn't say they had. I said they urged violence. Whether the violence suggested came in the form of a rifle or a petrol bomb, and whether the violence suggested was in response to a coup or anything else, i don't believe that any genuinely peace-loving protester would have stood there cheering and applauding what they were hearing.

The two speeches in question are two speeches by Nattawut and Arisaman, in which the use of petrol and the burning of city halls was mentioned, in case of dispersal respectively of a military coup (as far as i am aware, as the important part regarding a coup in nattawut's speech has been cut out by in infamous youtube video).

It wasn't just city halls that the protesters were being directed to burn down, there was a long and extensive list of targets.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

[nicknostitz]

I cannot say for sure if the snipers on April 10 was indeed from the army, or from an outside force, what is clear though is that snipers operated (which the military has denied). The time of the first victim (which i won't disclose now) was before the first sighting of the "Men in Black". But i will continue to check, and if any evidence comes along that counters what i have found so far i will of course love to see it.

But so far, nothing came out, other than lies. Such as the insistence of Burapha force officers that they have not fired a single bullet that day, even though there is clear proof that huge amounts of bullets were fired at Red Shirts.

Set the stage: On Obercommando's remarks I asked what come first 'chicken or egg', he replied 'order for army to kill', I replied again and then you came with 'red-shirt by sniper'.

Now you state you don't know who the snipers belonged to, but they were there.

Beside the point, the issue was when the killing started. It's nice for you to say 'time was before the sighting of MiB, which i won't disclose now', but that doesn't help.

Sorry, but you sound like k. Thaksin with 'I have the solution to your problems, but that can wait, get me back first'. 'clear proof of huge amount of bullets fired' suggest but doesn't explicitly state like Robert A. did 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters'. Only 18 killed that day?

(edit: add: 18 = 13 civilians, 5 army. In Libya they shoot better and really to kill)

I am not Oberkommando, i am just me. I don't think that i have ever stated that the snipers on April 10 came from the military. What i stated is that the first dead was a Red Shirt protester, and he was killed before the "Men in Black" appeared on scene, and was most likely killed by one of the snipers.

The proof of huge amounts of bullets fired is that the day after i spend about 3 hours walking the scene together with a professional. We looked at the holes, from which direction the bullets came, in which height they were fired, etc. And we took photos.

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

[nong38]

Abisit was born in Newcastle, he supports Newcastle Utd he is a geordie so he is entitled to British citizenship and a British Passport. You would be stupid not to accept it wouldnt you, all the world is trying to get into the UK and claim benefits. I do not have a problem with that, there are plenty of people who have dual nationality, some have more dont they Mr Taksin Shinupawatra? So I hope good old Jata remembers tell everyone about his chum.

I would be happy to have Thai citizenship along with my UK one who wouldnt?

I would be happy if the Thai PM were running the UK,so, I wish him luck in the up coming its a knock out!

[rubl]

I cannot say for sure if the snipers on April 10 was indeed from the army, or from an outside force, what is clear though is that snipers operated (which the military has denied). The time of the first victim (which i won't disclose now) was before the first sighting of the "Men in Black". But i will continue to check, and if any evidence comes along that counters what i have found so far i will of course love to see it.

But so far, nothing came out, other than lies. Such as the insistence of Burapha force officers that they have not fired a single bullet that day, even though there is clear proof that huge amounts of bullets were fired at Red Shirts.

Set the stage: On Obercommando's remarks I asked what come first 'chicken or egg', he replied 'order for army to kill', I replied again and then you came with 'red-shirt by sniper'.

Now you state you don't know who the snipers belonged to, but they were there.

Beside the point, the issue was when the killing started. It's nice for you to say 'time was before the sighting of MiB, which i won't disclose now', but that doesn't help.

Sorry, but you sound like k. Thaksin with 'I have the solution to your problems, but that can wait, get me back first'. 'clear proof of huge amount of bullets fired' suggest but doesn't explicitly state like Robert A. did 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters'. Only 18 killed that day?

(edit: add: 18 = 13 civilians, 5 army. In Libya they shoot better and really to kill)

I am not Oberkommando, i am just me. I don't think that i have ever stated that the snipers on April 10 came from the military. What i stated is that the first dead was a Red Shirt protester, and he was killed before the "Men in Black" appeared on scene, and was most likely killed by one of the snipers.

The proof of huge amounts of bullets fired is that the day after i spend about 3 hours walking the scene together with a professional. We looked at the holes, from which direction the bullets came, in which height they were fired, etc. And we took photos.

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

Late Sunday afternoon, nothing better to do. I didn't say you said an army sniper shot the first person on April 10th, 2010. I just wondered how come you know the first person shot was a red-shirt and shot by a sniper. I'm not questioning who the snipers might be, not even whether or not they were there (at least a few were, enough proof of that). Wonder about the 'I won't disclose now' only, too easy answer. So relax.

As for the 'huge amounts of bullets fired at' even if I would accept the 'huge', bullet holes suggest not 'fired at protesters'. That probably explains why with 'thousands of rounds' fired 'only 12 civilians killed'. The five army personel killed had grenades lobbed on them, no bullets there

Edited February 20, 2011 by rubl

[rubl]

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

Thanks for the link Nick. I like this snippet:

"Nick Nostitz // Apr 16, 2010 at 2:11 am

“Steveâ€:

Fortunately i was during the two battles at the “wrong†place. When the heavy fighting took place in Khok Wua i was at Dinso Road, and walked over to Khok Wua just before the fighting began at Dinso. When i got back to Dinso, maybe last round of sniper fire passed when i was hiding behind the tanks, and that came clearly from the direction of the school.

Looking at the videos i am not too unhappy at all that i missed the heavy fighting. I do not want to become news – i want to continue telling the story."

I also saw it with my own eyes, sitting at home in BKK though, not walking around.

[nicknostitz]

I cannot say for sure if the snipers on April 10 was indeed from the army, or from an outside force, what is clear though is that snipers operated (which the military has denied). The time of the first victim (which i won't disclose now) was before the first sighting of the "Men in Black". But i will continue to check, and if any evidence comes along that counters what i have found so far i will of course love to see it.

But so far, nothing came out, other than lies. Such as the insistence of Burapha force officers that they have not fired a single bullet that day, even though there is clear proof that huge amounts of bullets were fired at Red Shirts.

Set the stage: On Obercommando's remarks I asked what come first 'chicken or egg', he replied 'order for army to kill', I replied again and then you came with 'red-shirt by sniper'.

Now you state you don't know who the snipers belonged to, but they were there.

Beside the point, the issue was when the killing started. It's nice for you to say 'time was before the sighting of MiB, which i won't disclose now', but that doesn't help.

Sorry, but you sound like k. Thaksin with 'I have the solution to your problems, but that can wait, get me back first'. 'clear proof of huge amount of bullets fired' suggest but doesn't explicitly state like Robert A. did 'thousands of rounds fired into the protesters'. Only 18 killed that day?

(edit: add: 18 = 13 civilians, 5 army. In Libya they shoot better and really to kill)

I am not Oberkommando, i am just me. I don't think that i have ever stated that the snipers on April 10 came from the military. What i stated is that the first dead was a Red Shirt protester, and he was killed before the "Men in Black" appeared on scene, and was most likely killed by one of the snipers.

The proof of huge amounts of bullets fired is that the day after i spend about 3 hours walking the scene together with a professional. We looked at the holes, from which direction the bullets came, in which height they were fired, etc. And we took photos.

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

Late Sunday afternoon, nothing better to do. I didn't say you said an army sniper shot the first person on April 10th, 2010. I just wondered how come you know the first person shot was a red-shirt and shot by a sniper. I'm not questioning who the snipers might be, not even whether or not they were there (at least a few were, enough proof of that). Wonder about the 'I won't disclose now' only, too easy answer. So relax.

As for the 'huge amounts of bullets fired at' even if I would accept the 'huge', bullet holes suggest not 'fired at protesters'. That probably explains why with 'thousands of rounds' fired 'only 12 civilians killed'. The five army personel killed had grenades lobbed on them, no bullets there

Sorry, but when there are huge amounts of bullet holes to be seen in parked cars, traffic sign posts etc, in knee hight, stomach height, and head height (and some overhead as well), where you can see clearly that the entry holes came from the soldiers lines, and when existing, exit holes towards protesters, you know that of course more bullets did not hit anyting in between, when you know that there were many injured protesters at the locations, than you can conclude that the soldiers have fired straight at protesters, and not just in the air.

It's just a matter of applying logic. Fortunately, in this situation, the soldiers have blocked Dinso road with their APC's, giving protesters some sort of cover against the fire.

[nicknostitz]

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

Thanks for the link Nick. I like this snippet:

"Nick Nostitz // Apr 16, 2010 at 2:11 am

“Steveâ€:

Fortunately i was during the two battles at the “wrong†place. When the heavy fighting took place in Khok Wua i was at Dinso Road, and walked over to Khok Wua just before the fighting began at Dinso. When i got back to Dinso, maybe last round of sniper fire passed when i was hiding behind the tanks, and that came clearly from the direction of the school.

Looking at the videos i am not too unhappy at all that i missed the heavy fighting. I do not want to become news â€" i want to continue telling the story."

I also saw it with my own eyes, sitting at home in BKK though, not walking around.

Well, thanks

I feel extremely uncomfortable during firefights, especially at night, and generally try to avoid being too close to the bullets. These things are really scary.

[rubl]

Sorry, but when there are huge amounts of bullet holes to be seen in parked cars, traffic sign posts etc, in knee hight, stomach height, and head height (and some overhead as well), where you can see clearly that the entry holes came from the soldiers lines, and when existing, exit holes towards protesters, you know that of course more bullets did not hit anyting in between, when you know that there were many injured protesters at the locations, than you can conclude that the soldiers have fired straight at protesters, and not just in the air.

It's just a matter of applying logic. Fortunately, in this situation, the soldiers have blocked Dinso road with their APC's, giving protesters some sort of cover against the fire.

Just curious, are there statistics as to injured people and type of injuries?

As for applying logic, don't get me started. Let's just say I'm happy the APC's were of use

[Buchholz]

The two speeches in question are two speeches by Nattawut and Arisaman, in which the use of petrol and the burning of city halls was mentioned, in case of dispersal respectively of a military coup (as far as i am aware, as the important part regarding a coup in nattawut's speech has been cut out by in infamous youtube video).

It wasn't just city halls that the protesters were being directed to burn down, there was a long and extensive list of targets.

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

[whybother]

Here is a brief article on this (one mistake though, which was corrected as you can read in the comments):

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

If you swipe your mouse over the images, you can read the captions of the photos.

I'd have to say, looking at the video in one of the comments, it looks to me like the sniper is firing towards the army (at about 1.00). It's probably not enough information to be certain though.

[rubl]

Well, thanks

I feel extremely uncomfortable during firefights, especially at night, and generally try to avoid being too close to the bullets. These things are really scary.

Only fools don't know how to be afraid and those fools are the most likely to get you killed as well. I've served, but never in combat. Even 'life-fire' exercises are no substitute for the real thing I've come to understand. Seen enough 'instruction' films to get an idea. Payed attention with the 'first aid' lessons as well. Those were the days