Thai Probe Says Army Did Not Kill Japan Cameraman

[jayboy]

Hmmm more personal comments directed about me .... strange; now I am "shrill". Earlier in the thread I stated ALL sides with any power need to be viewed with a critical eye. I have never denied the Army's history. I have stonily, in the face of multiple personal attacks, pointed out that in this case ONLY the facts of this case are pertinent. The BBC report does not point out any prevarication as stated by a poster above, nor does it at all question the history of the Army. It points out a lack of cooperation from the police and military in showing up to meet with the independent investigation. It points out that there is an appearance that the current report and a leaked (unofficial?) report from earlier may be contradictory. No, in this case history isn't important. As Joe Friday always said ... "the facts, ma'am, just the facts"

BTW -- please don't alter my posts by deleting the majority of a post, particularly when in this instance the Army was mentioned prominently in the first paragraph.

I am afraid your comments are sometimes shrill (and more particularly you seem unwilling to give and take in a discussion), just an observation.I dare say some of my comments could also be characterised in some way.Let it go.

You have completely failed to make your case that context, history, and circumstantial evidence are all irrelevant in the case of the murdered Japanese journalist.The BBC report, which you quote, regarding the prevarication and non-cooperation with investigators over many cases demonstrates why your blinkered approach is not only unhelpful but positively misleading.

Finally I am sensitive when quoting members that my deletions do not alter the main sense, and try quite hard to be fair.However I think it's forum policy not to regurgitate posts endlessly, and mods have reminded us of this on several occasions.Nevertheless if you believe I have been misleading let me lnow

[rubl]

...

You have completely failed to make your case that context, history, and circumstantial evidence are all irrelevant in the case of the murdered Japanese journalist.The BBC report, which you quote, regarding the prevarication and non-cooperation with investigators over many cases demonstrates why your blinkered approach is not only unhelpful but positively misleading.

...

No offence, but this works both ways. The fact that to come with info which offers circumstantial evidence for is easier than against doesn't prove anything. Circumstantial evidence has to be treated with utmost care as it tends to put innocent people in jail.

[jdinasia]

Circumstantial evidence isn't the question ---- historical/anecdotal-historical evidence has no bearing at all. Circumstantial evidence, of course, should be considered and given only the weight that its probative value carries. Such as an eye-witness that claims the shot came from the direction of both military and redshirt armed forces. (Not exactly smoking gun stuff!)

What should get no weight at all in these discussions are terms like "shrill", "blinkered", "misleading" --- and I didn't quote the Beeb's article, I referred to it. There was no place I could have quoted it, because it didn't make any of the statements claimed. It left room, apparently, for some people to talk about irrelevant history (to this particular case) but didn't say anything about past interference, lies, misleading, prevaricating etc on the army's behalf.

I am still assuming that the Japanese either participated in/observed the autopsy (a fact not in evidence) OR will conduct an independent autopsy that should tell us more about the wound. I am not assuming that the "leaked initial report" was conclusive nor meant to be the final report. Neither Reuters nor the BBC seem to have made that distinction yet either. They do question WHY the two reports appear not to be consistent with each other.

[AleG]

You have completely failed to make your case that context, history, and circumstantial evidence are all irrelevant in the case of the murdered Japanese journalist.The BBC report, which you quote, regarding the prevarication and non-cooperation with investigators over many cases demonstrates why your blinkered approach is not only unhelpful but positively misleading

Well, lead by example; you say that the army's past history needs to be taken into account regarding the death of the journalist. So for example can you explain how the massacre of '76, the coup of '47 and the managing of the Southern insurgency help in finding out who's gun shot the bullet that killed the journalist.

[jayboy]

Circumstantial evidence isn't the question ---- historical/anecdotal-historical evidence has no bearing at all. Circumstantial evidence, of course, should be considered and given only the weight that its probative value carries. Such as an eye-witness that claims the shot came from the direction of both military and redshirt armed forces. (Not exactly smoking gun stuff!)

What should get no weight at all in these discussions are terms like "shrill", "blinkered", "misleading" --- and I didn't quote the Beeb's article, I referred to it. There was no place I could have quoted it, because it didn't make any of the statements claimed. It left room, apparently, for some people to talk about irrelevant history (to this particular case) but didn't say anything about past interference, lies, misleading, prevaricating etc on the army's behalf.

I am still assuming that the Japanese either participated in/observed the autopsy (a fact not in evidence) OR will conduct an independent autopsy that should tell us more about the wound. I am not assuming that the "leaked initial report" was conclusive nor meant to be the final report. Neither Reuters nor the BBC seem to have made that distinction yet either. They do question WHY the two reports appear not to be consistent with each other.

I wondered about "circumstantial evidence" and on reflection I think Rubi and yourself are right.You also are correct that you referred to the BBC article, rather than quoted it.

My earlier comments stand on the rest of your post.You don't seem to have understood the implications of the BBC article at all.Failure by the army to cooperate with a murder investigation fully justifies all my comments.It has actually happened before and often (or in the Bizarro world of the military apologists does that have to be hushed up?)

[jdinasia]

You have completely failed to make your case that context, history, and circumstantial evidence are all irrelevant in the case of the murdered Japanese journalist.The BBC report, which you quote, regarding the prevarication and non-cooperation with investigators over many cases demonstrates why your blinkered approach is not only unhelpful but positively misleading

Well, lead by example; you say that the army's past history needs to be taken into account regarding the death of the journalist. So for example can you explain how the massacre of '76, the coup of '47 and the managing of the Southern insurgency help in finding out who's gun shot the bullet that killed the journalist.

Exactly -- not only is that history not probative ... it isn't mentioned in the BBC article.

[jdinasia]

Stonewalling, refusing to participate etc ... is not prevarication which implies actively lying about something it isn't even obfuscation like bringing events that have no bearing on the current discussion into play in an attempt to cloud the real issue. (In this case it is a single death of a reporter.) It is a failure to cooperate. I stated the BBC article pointed out non-cooperation from the police and military in an independent inquiry/investigation AND that there is nary a mention of the military's past.

[jayboy]

Stonewalling, refusing to participate etc ... is not prevarication which implies actively lying about something it isn't even obfuscation like bringing events that have no bearing on the current discussion into play in an attempt to cloud the real issue. (In this case it is a single death of a reporter.) It is a failure to cooperate. I stated the BBC article pointed out non-cooperation from the police and military in an independent inquiry/investigation AND that there is nary a mention of the military's past.

With these latest breathtakingly revealing words of yours, I don't think I could have demolished your case better myself.

[animatic]

Stonewalling, refusing to participate etc ... is not prevarication which implies actively lying about something it isn't even obfuscation like bringing events that have no bearing on the current discussion into play in an attempt to cloud the real issue. (In this case it is a single death of a reporter.) It is a failure to cooperate. I stated the BBC article pointed out non-cooperation from the police and military in an independent inquiry/investigation AND that there is nary a mention of the military's past.

It might equally be described as inadequate cooperation from the point of view of some observers. It is neither total non-cooperation, nor totally opening up of all documentation for outside scrutiny. The former is not in evidence, the latter is pretty much S.O.P. for ALL military organizations world wide.

Edited March 2, 2011 by animatic

[jdinasia]

Stonewalling, refusing to participate etc ... is not prevarication which implies actively lying about something it isn't even obfuscation like bringing events that have no bearing on the current discussion into play in an attempt to cloud the real issue. (In this case it is a single death of a reporter.) It is a failure to cooperate. I stated the BBC article pointed out non-cooperation from the police and military in an independent inquiry/investigation AND that there is nary a mention of the military's past.

With these latest breathtakingly revealing words of yours, I don't think I could have demolished your case better myself.

That's nice --- I thought you didn't have an argument to begin with and that by pointing out past history is irrelevant in this case AND that it wasn't mentioned as claimed pretty well took out your only 2 points. The fact that you had previously stated that the facts of this case and that benefit of the doubt should be considered, and that I stated ALL power groups in Thailand need close scrutiny certainly make your claims to the relevancy of history moot points indeed

Perhaps it is an issue of vocabulary?

prevaricate [prɪˈværɪˌkeɪt]

vb(intr) to speak or act falsely or evasively with intent to deceive[from Latin praevāricārī to walk crookedly, from prae beyond + vāricare to straddle the legs; compare Latin vārus bent]

which just isn't the same as a failure to appear at an independent inquiry --- Prevarication is an action to deceive whilst not answering is something entirely different

[Emptyset]

The RTA never denied that the RTA shot people during the 3 major clashes that occurred.

What has not been declared is that

All 91 were shot by the army, because that is not so. But appears to be a red side accusation,

That individuals were matched to specific weapons in specific instances in most all cases.

Baggage is just that, something from before, and not always with even the current leaders as active players,

but they get saddled with history not necessarily of their doing. In many cases the active players from before

are now on opposing sides, rendering these claims more moot than valid.

What IS clear is that some of these older generation leaders tried to use the weight of historical baggage, as a societal cudgel, or reason to believe that creating enough citizen vs army violence would bring down the government, and set that violence in motion, to their shock it did NOT work. But still believe they will have political traction flogging that dead horse still one more time.

The army visibly resisted being manipulated into this debacle as long as was possible, but society, the greater society, demanded an end to the Racha. occupation and public disruptoin, and so they were forced to move. Their hand was forced, and society in general made it happen, but the Red Shirts over-lord leaders made this untenable situation to be so, trying to make old baggage bring down a current government.

Seems the modern media was not the 'adder and abettor 'they had counted on, in fact the inverse happened. The handheld personal media proliferation actually showed them for what they were to the whole world TWICE. And twice as fast.

You're right, another good point, Animatic. The RTA didn't deny shooting anyone, just denied hurting or killing them, because as the immature, hysterical reds are incapable of understanding, you can shoot without killing: http://asiancorrespondent.com/43962/thai-military-we-have-not-hurt-or-killed-any-reds/

Anywayt, nevermind about that. You're spot on about the army, mate! Yep, they tried not to get involved didn't they? I admire them for it. Politics is a dirty game and they've tried to keep their hands clean as far as I can see. Obviously refusal to disperse PAD, call for PPP to resign and general interference in the political process (helping Dems form a govt for instance) etc... let's not mention the coup... well, all of that is Thaksin's fault I suppose. He made it necessary. Stupid reds can't see it though. Why don't they just go home and be quiet? This govt will take care of their needs better than anyone else can, why don't they just see it? The govt should take stronger measures to make sure these trouble makers don't bother anyone again. Why not try house arrest for a few years to stop them instigating trouble or agitating within society? Abhisit has handled this like a genius though. Up there with Gen David Petraus, he set the trap and the reds walked right into it! Masterful.

[animatic]

The irony above is not lost....

No one can possibly portray the RTA as lilly white, non-corrupt and without a history that 'puts all their movements into some context' or other. That said, we can also see that some political players tried to use that to their advantage and it failed, and the army did resist being entrapped into this political gamesmanship for some surprising amount of time.

Lets also remember while the army is a ongoing entity there is a continual change in the command over time and those changes must reflect changes in society both politically, via upgrades in communications technologies, and philosophically, as time goes on.

The leaders of '76 would have a quite different mind set than those of 2006, different reasonings and also different views on what the outcomes could and should be. I would hope there is greater progress in the future to winnow out the old guard mindsets and install more modern thinkers. But equally it appears there is a pressing need to install better working checks and balances on the political classes to prevent the same sets of problems that seems to make the army move out of balance. They don't do it in a vacuum.

Edited March 2, 2011 by animatic

[jayboy]

The leaders of '76 would have a quite different mind set than those of 2006, different reasonings and also different views on what the outcomes could and should be. I would hope there is greater progress in the future to winnow out the old guard mindsets and install more modern thinkers. But equally it appears there is a pressing need to install better working checks and balances on the political classes to prevent the same sets of problems that seems to make the army move out of balance. They don't do it in a vacuum.

Quite sensible but I think you would find some startling similarities between the elite mindset (sorry I know that overused term pisses people off, but better than "amart"?) in 1976 and 2006.The objectives were pretty much the same.In some cases we are actually talking about the same people.Ironies abound not least that in 1976 the progressive forces were harassed, even murdered, by Red Gaurs/Village Scouts - uneducated peasants brought in from the country side.But who financed, supported and protected them? I do wish intelligent people like yourself would read some Thai history.

[rubl]

The leaders of '76 would have a quite different mind set than those of 2006, different reasonings and also different views on what the outcomes could and should be. I would hope there is greater progress in the future to winnow out the old guard mindsets and install more modern thinkers. But equally it appears there is a pressing need to install better working checks and balances on the political classes to prevent the same sets of problems that seems to make the army move out of balance. They don't do it in a vacuum.

Quite sensible but I think you would find some startling similarities between the elite mindset (sorry I know that overused term pisses people off, but better than "amart"?) in 1976 and 2006.The objectives were pretty much the same.In some cases we are actually talking about the same people.Ironies abound not least that in 1976 the progressive forces were harassed, even murdered, by Red Gaurs/Village Scouts - uneducated peasants brought in from the country side.But who financed, supported and protected them? I do wish intelligent people like yourself would read some Thai history.

Going off topic now, but the amazing thing is that the late PM Samak of the PPP who was 'nominated' by k. Thaksin was one of the 'wrong-doers' in 1976. When he said 'only one died' in a CNN interview in February 2008 some of the real democracy fighters got very upset.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

[TAWP]

Going off topic now, but the amazing thing is that the late PM Samak of the PPP who was 'nominated' by k. Thaksin was one of the 'wrong-doers' in 1976. When he said 'only one died' in a CNN interview in February 2008 some of the real democracy fighters got very upset.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

And we all remember how much protests Jutaporn or any red leaders put forward to that statement...

[rubl]

...

Abhisit has handled this like a genius though. Up there with Gen David Petraus, he set the trap and the reds walked right into it! Masterful.

Just read on nytimes:

< content removed >

Now why didn't the UDD think of that after the April 10th massacre and slaughter ? I don't want to sound too cynical, but the red-shirt thing is largely forgotten in Europe and the USA. The Middle East unrest and real strife for democracy gets much more attention

Edited March 2, 2011 by metisdead
Provide source.

[animatic]

It is imposible to believe the extreme change in availability of world wide communications that has affected even up country poor Thais has NOT had a similar widening of perceptions affect on the so called Elite and their attitudes.

So to say they haven't changed seems a pretty small chance. Everyone's changed.

[jdinasia]

Going off topic now, but the amazing thing is that the late PM Samak of the PPP who was 'nominated' by k. Thaksin was one of the 'wrong-doers' in 1976. When he said 'only one died' in a CNN interview in February 2008 some of the real democracy fighters got very upset.

http://www.asiamedia...?parentid=87178

And we all remember how much protests Jutaporn or any red leaders put forward to that statement...

And just like the history of the Army, Samak's history just isn't relevant in THIS case.

Ani --- the reason I think that, for the most part, young people and student groups have not gone in on the side of the poor oppressed masses is that they are capable of seeing the redshirt leadership for what it is AND have seen and heard the calls for violence from the reds.

[metisdead]

...

Abhisit has handled this like a genius though. Up there with Gen David Petraus, he set the trap and the reds walked right into it! Masterful.

Just read on nytimes:

< removed >

Now why didn't the UDD think of that after the April 10th massacre and slaughter ? I don't want to sound too cynical, but the red-shirt thing is largely forgotten in Europe and the USA. The Middle East unrest and real strife for democracy gets much more attention

If you are going to quote content from a source, according to fair use, you should also provide a link when doing so. Content has been removed.

[rubl]

...

Abhisit has handled this like a genius though. Up there with Gen David Petraus, he set the trap and the reds walked right into it! Masterful.

Just read on nytimes:

< removed >

Now why didn't the UDD think of that after the April 10th massacre and slaughter ? I don't want to sound too cynical, but the red-shirt thing is largely forgotten in Europe and the USA. The Middle East unrest and real strife for democracy gets much more attention

If you are going to quote content from a source, according to fair use, you should also provide a link when doing so. Content has been removed.

My mistake, I thought just saying 'from nytimes' would be enough.

The page I quoted from I can't find anymore, too much dynamics in pages. It was about Libyan rebels debating asking the UN for (preventive) airstrikes. Maybe this CNN page is a good substitute, shows a real fight for democracy and human rights, and lots and lots of people killed:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/02/libya.conflict/index.html?hpt=T1

Edited March 2, 2011 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

cut// The page I quoted from I can't find anymore, too much dynamics in pages. It was about Libyan rebels debating asking the UN for (preventive) airstrikes. Maybe this CNN page is a good substitute, shows a real fight for democracy and human rights, and lots and lots of people killed:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/02/libya.conflict/index.html?hpt=T1

I agree, and it's a situation that may well happen in Thailand sooner rather than later If Abhisit and his reformers aren't allowed to put the political patronage and overly powerful and corrupt Armed forces issues into history.

Btw, our own splendidly eccentric Scoots takes a different view:

http://info-wars.org/author/tony-cartalucci/

[Siam Simon]

Thankyou to the posters who have taken the trouble to find video evidence of the handful of non-army people carrying and using lethal weapons. They confirm what we already knew.. Anyone would think that this justifies creating a live firing zone and shooting into crowds of people such as happened here:

http://blogs.aljazee...had-huge-impact

We all know the Thai army is not the most advanced in the World, But can anyone seriously argue that they don't do intel and surveillance? That they don't have special forces and snatch squads? Who would've had a problem with them taking out the handful of people carrying and using lethal weapons illegaly during the troubles last year? I would not be arguing in defence of anybody taken out with lethal force, having resisted arrest for carrying illegal firearms. Why is the firing on thousands of civilians acceptable in this instance?

Do you really think they had time to do intel and surveillance on April 10?

Yes.

Do you really think they could have sent a squad behind barricades to take out gunmen, who could quite easily hide their guns and mingle with the crowd?

If they are any good at their jobs, yes.

You tried before to compare this situation to how the British army dealt with the IRA, but did the British army send a squad into a large protest to take individuals out?

British security forces policies were much more mature: They took out the troublecausers away from potential collateral damage.

[rubl]

Just to go back to the OP after some interesting detours.

A single death is already one to many.

When some protesters are armed, someone is bound to get hurt or killed. On April 10th 2010 19 killed including Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto. May he rest in peace. Also the other 18 including five army personel killed by grenades.

Some here indicate this would never be allowed to happen in Europe, police would be able to handle the situation with water cannons and teargas. Now please tell me, when last did the police in Europe encounter protesters with arms and grenades?

[whybother]

Do you really think they had time to do intel and surveillance on April 10?

Yes.

Do you really think they could have sent a squad behind barricades to take out gunmen, who could quite easily hide their guns and mingle with the crowd?

If they are any good at their jobs, yes.

You tried before to compare this situation to how the British army dealt with the IRA, but did the British army send a squad into a large protest to take individuals out?

British security forces policies were much more mature: They took out the troublecausers away from potential collateral damage.

The British had years to identify known trouble makers, and took them out in their houses, not in the middle of protests. They also had years to train the army in dealing with the IRA in urban areas.

How exactly does a squad go into an urban area several square kms in size filled with tens of thousands of unarmed protesters and pick out a few unidentified gunmen? Do they shoot anyone that tries to attack them? The protesters had already shown their willingness to attack the army before April 10.

Edited March 3, 2011 by whybother

[Siam Simon]

The British had years to identify known trouble makers, and took them out in their houses, not in the middle of protests. They also had years to train the army in dealing with the IRA in urban areas.

How exactly does a squad go into an urban area several square kms in size filled with tens of thousands of unarmed protesters and pick out a few unidentified gunmen? Do they shoot anyone that tries to attack them? The protesters had already shown their willingness to attack the army before April 10.

Firstly, intel and surveillance identify the gunmen and grenadiers for the special forces squads assigned, they also inform the squads of the habits (noticeable routines, eating habits, places where they sleep, etc, etc) of the assigned targets. I could go on and on and on about how special forces operate, it's a fascinating subject, but nothing will be enough for you because you only want to present the usually clumsy and often brutal way that the Army dealt with last year's troubles as being the only way, against any and all reasonable argument.

And more of your hyperbole: "The protesters had already shown their willingness to attack the army before April 10." ALL the protestors? Roughly what percentage committed acts of violence toward Army personnel prior to April 10? Again, we are discussing very small numbers, who should've been dealt with in isolation but weren't. The fact that these small numbers of extremely violent agitators weren't dealt with directly should be one of the biggest issues in the aftermath of last year's troubles. But it won't be, because the armed forces wear the biggest hat in Thailand, and they don't accept criticism.

[barrybankruad]

Going off topic now, but the amazing thing is that the late PM Samak of the PPP who was 'nominated' by k. Thaksin was one of the 'wrong-doers' in 1976. When he said 'only one died' in a CNN interview in February 2008 some of the real democracy fighters got very upset.

http://www.asiamedia...?parentid=87178

And we all remember how much protests Jutaporn or any red leaders put forward to that statement...

And just like the history of the Army, Samak's history just isn't relevant in THIS case.

Ani --- the reason I think that, for the most part, young people and student groups have not gone in on the side of the poor oppressed masses is that they are capable of seeing the redshirt leadership for what it is AND have seen and heard the calls for violence from the reds.

Could it not be that the student groups that you refer to are almost exclusively of the upper (amaart) class. Surely they would not want to rock the boat.

[Buchholz]

Going off topic now, but the amazing thing is that the late PM Samak of the PPP who was 'nominated' by k. Thaksin was one of the 'wrong-doers' in 1976. When he said 'only one died' in a CNN interview in February 2008 some of the real democracy fighters got very upset.

http://www.asiamedia...?parentid=87178

And we all remember how much protests Jutaporn or any red leaders put forward to that statement...

And just like the history of the Army, Samak's history just isn't relevant in THIS case.

Ani --- the reason I think that, for the most part, young people and student groups have not gone in on the side of the poor oppressed masses is that they are capable of seeing the redshirt leadership for what it is AND have seen and heard the calls for violence from the reds.

Could it not be that the student groups that you refer to are almost exclusively of the upper (amaart) class. Surely they would not want to rock the boat.

That's highly doubtful as tens of thousands of students at places like Mara Sarakham University and Khon Kaen University and Rajabhat Institutes around the country are absolutely NOT "upper (amaart) class."

They outnumber those that are "amaart" by a factor that must be in double digits. That they, by and large, have not become involved in the Red Shirts, even in communities where the Red Shirt presence is large, speaks to their aversion to buying into what the Red Shirts are trying to sell.

.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

That's highly doubtful as tens of thousands of students at places like Mara Sarakham University and Khon Kaen University and Rajabhat Institutes around the country are absolutely NOT "upper (amaart) class."

They outnumber those that are "amaart" by a factor that must be in double digits. That they, by and large, have not become involved in the Red Shirts, even in communities where the Red Shirt presence is large, speaks to their aversion to buying into what the Red Shirts are trying to sell.

.

Or maybe it speaks to their studies and student lifestyles being the major focus of their 'raisons d'etre' at this point in their lives?

[whybother]

Firstly, intel and surveillance identify the gunmen and grenadiers for the special forces squads assigned, they also inform the squads of the habits (noticeable routines, eating habits, places where they sleep, etc, etc) of the assigned targets. I could go on and on and on about how special forces operate, it's a fascinating subject, but nothing will be enough for you because you only want to present the usually clumsy and often brutal way that the Army dealt with last year's troubles as being the only way, against any and all reasonable argument.

I am not saying the army did the best that they could have. But you're suggesting that they knew who the gunmen were before April 10, and knew their eating habits and where they slept. How is that going to help them in one evening?

And more of your hyperbole: "The protesters had already shown their willingness to attack the army before April 10." ALL the protestors? Roughly what percentage committed acts of violence toward Army personnel prior to April 10? Again, we are discussing very small numbers, who should've been dealt with in isolation but weren't. The fact that these small numbers of extremely violent agitators weren't dealt with directly should be one of the biggest issues in the aftermath of last year's troubles. But it won't be, because the armed forces wear the biggest hat in Thailand, and they don't accept criticism.

Hyperbole? Very small numbers? Did you watch any of it?

At both Thaicom and Government house, there were at least hundreds that pushed through army lines. That's not small numbers and can't be dealt with in isolation. And if you have a small squad going into an area where there are tens of thousands of protesters, what do they do when a hundred people get in their way?

In the days leading up to May 19, the army didn't shoot innocent flag waving protesters. The army had set up well outside the red shirt barricades, but the red shirts came out to attack them. And it was shown when the army went in on May 19 that the red shirts fought back with guns and grenades. It was not just innocent, flag waving protesters then either.

I agree that the army were incompetent in the way they handled the whole protests. They shouldn't have allowed the protesters to storm Government House or Thaicom. They shouldn't have allowed the red shirts to set up stages in Ratchaprasong. They shouldn't have allowed them to set up their barricades around their protest area and then bring in tyres in final days.

But to suggest that the army had enough time or information to be able to do surveillance and gather intel in less than 4 weeks leading up to April 10, or enough intel to be able to send squads into the Ratchprasong area to take out trouble makers, is just fantasy.

[Siam Simon]

Firstly, intel and surveillance identify the gunmen and grenadiers for the special forces squads assigned, they also inform the squads of the habits (noticeable routines, eating habits, places where they sleep, etc, etc) of the assigned targets. I could go on and on and on about how special forces operate, it's a fascinating subject, but nothing will be enough for you because you only want to present the usually clumsy and often brutal way that the Army dealt with last year's troubles as being the only way, against any and all reasonable argument.

I am not saying the army did the best that they could have. But you're suggesting that they knew who the gunmen were before April 10, and knew their eating habits and where they slept. How is that going to help them in one evening?

And more of your hyperbole: "The protesters had already shown their willingness to attack the army before April 10." ALL the protestors? Roughly what percentage committed acts of violence toward Army personnel prior to April 10? Again, we are discussing very small numbers, who should've been dealt with in isolation but weren't. The fact that these small numbers of extremely violent agitators weren't dealt with directly should be one of the biggest issues in the aftermath of last year's troubles. But it won't be, because the armed forces wear the biggest hat in Thailand, and they don't accept criticism.

Hyperbole? Very small numbers? Did you watch any of it?

At both Thaicom and Government house, there were at least hundreds that pushed through army lines. That's not small numbers and can't be dealt with in isolation. And if you have a small squad going into an area where there are tens of thousands of protesters, what do they do when a hundred people get in their way?

In the days leading up to May 19, the army didn't shoot innocent flag waving protesters. The army had set up well outside the red shirt barricades, but the red shirts came out to attack them. And it was shown when the army went in on May 19 that the red shirts fought back with guns and grenades. It was not just innocent, flag waving protesters then either.

I agree that the army were incompetent in the way they handled the whole protests. They shouldn't have allowed the protesters to storm Government House or Thaicom. They shouldn't have allowed the red shirts to set up stages in Ratchaprasong. They shouldn't have allowed them to set up their barricades around their protest area and then bring in tyres in final days.

But to suggest that the army had enough time or information to be able to do surveillance and gather intel in less than 4 weeks leading up to April 10, or enough intel to be able to send squads into the Ratchprasong area to take out trouble makers, is just fantasy.

So unarmed protestors pushing through Army lines in civil disobedience is the precursor violence that you use to justify subsequent responses by the army. Oh, well.

The Army did so much shooting outside their rules of engagement, it's laughable to STILL suggest that they didn't.

I will give the rest of your comments about why surveillance, intel and lack of special forces ops weren't used the disdain they deserve. I gave you a few pointers on this in my last post in this thread, and I rightly speculated that you would ignore them. No surprise there.