Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

[jdinasia]

What is lost on the UDD apologist...

This very phrase indicates intolerance and lack of respect for contrary views.

Or accuracy without rancor.

The irony of jayboy's statement brings a new whole new level to "Amazing Thailand" I couldn't begin to list the personal attacks and characterizations he has made of posters that he disagrees with ... nor will I try

I saw his other post as well ... and it is a base and offensive misrepresentation of what I have maintained. I have maintained that the military was responsible for some deaths, the reds were responsible for some deaths and that Seh Daeng's "ronin"/the black shirts were responsible for some deaths. I do believe the body count amongst the reds (particularly on April 10th) was driven up deliberately by the blackshirts. There is certainly enough evidence of that possibility for any reasonable person not to rule it out entirely even if they think the idea is wrong ... (I think someone posted a video in this very thread that had a redshirt swearing it wasn't the army killing them!)

[Buchholz]

What is lost on the UDD apologist...

This very phrase indicates intolerance and lack of respect for contrary views.

Or accuracy without rancor.

The irony of jayboy's statement brings a new whole new level to "Amazing Thailand" I couldn't begin to list the personal attacks and characterizations he has made of posters that he disagrees with ...

Absolutely true with no shortage of evidence readily available.

Still, cue Siam Simon lamenting again about the decline of the level of discussion from the Golden Age of the News Forum (whenever the heck that was) when the high-brows dominated the talk and all were neutral and... and....

[nicknostitz]

What is lost on the UDD apologist

So far, we have had a mostly polite exchange.

But this label is not an acceptable base for me to continue the conversation with you.

Why did you take it as meaning you? I think he explicitly meant anyone that is an apologist -- whom we have seen many of here and on Twitter etc. (See: Andrew Spooner, Tony Hodges etc). While you are clearly biased I really don't think you have reached the apologist level - i.e. excusing UDD for any actions done.

So...chill out.

Well, in dubio pro rei.

And he is still wrong with his statement that no entirely peaceful protester with in the confines of the barricades was shot by the army. He forgets the corpses in the temple (and the army has admitted now during the relevant hearing in the fact finding committee of the National Truth for Reconciliation Commission that they have had soldiers on the BTS tracks. Evidence is also quiet clear, forensics, bullet trajectories of shots that were fired into the temple, grazed walls and ended up in another nearby wall in a straight line from the BTS tracks, no gunpowder residue on the hands of the corpses.

In addition to that, in other battle zones several completely innocent bystanders were shot by the military, such as one middle aged man - not a protester - at Bon Gai who was shot while going out to do shopping when the military suddenly fired - he is now paralized. One man was killed in one of the upper floors of the Complete Apartment . There are many such cases where there are witnesses, and where the forensics play out as well. The cases are shuffled around between police and DSI, and for some to me unknown reason have not yet reached the prosecution.

But thank you for understanding that i am not Andrew Spooner (i don't know the other name as i don't do Twitter). I do not do commentary.

[Puccini]

Why did you take it as meaning you? I think he explicitly meant anyone that is an apologist...

I read it the same way, but my mother tongue is Italian, so don't take my word for it.

[webfact]

Defendant not arrested for arson - witness

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

A prosecution witness in the CentralWorld and Zen Department Store fire case told the Criminal Court yesterday that he saw only one of the two defendants who are facing arson charges before the court being arrested on May 19 last year. However, the man was being arrested for robbery and not for setting the buildings alight.

Central World's assistant building and area manager Choophan Anongjanya said he remembered the face of Pinij Jannarong, 27, one of two defendants on trial for allegedly committing arson at CentralWorld. Choophan said he had no clue that Pinij was now also being tried for arson and causing the death of a person through arson - a crime punishable by death.

At least nine people were arrested by police inside Central World in the afternoon of May 19, 2010, soon after the army dispersed red shirt supporters at Rajprasong Intersection.

Amongst those arrested was Pinij, a red shirt guard, Choophan said.

He also testified that although a man was found dead inside CentralWorld on May 21, the army told staff at the shopping complex not to go to see the body. "The soldiers said they didn't want us to have a look [at the body], saying it was a matter of forensic evidence."

Prosecutor Sanit na Kalasin told The Nation after yesterday's hearing that he was confident he would be able to establish beyond doubt that both Pinij and Saichon Parbua were at least indirectly involved as "collaborators" in setting fire to CentralWorld."If [the two] knew that there was arson taking place and kept hitting sling shots at [non arsonists inside the building] did that then make them part of the [arson attack] or not?" he asked. "Collaborators need not set a fire at the same spot [by themselves]."

As the trial continues, what witnesses are testifying before the two presiding judges and what others are discussing both outside and inside the court is become increasingly dissimilar.

-- The Nation 2011-07-27

[Buchholz]

What is lost on the UDD apologist

So far, we have had a mostly polite exchange.

But this label is not an acceptable base for me to continue the conversation with you.

Why did you take it as meaning you? I think he explicitly meant anyone that is an apologist

So...chill out.

I read it the same way, but my mother tongue is Italian, so don't take my word for it.

x 3.

Some people seemingly mistake the thread title to include their name in it.

[Insight]

In addition to that, in other battle zones several completely innocent bystanders were shot by the military, such as one middle aged man - not a protester - at Bon Gai who was shot while going out to do shopping when the military suddenly fired - he is now paralized. One man was killed in one of the upper floors of the Complete Apartment . There are many such cases where there are witnesses, and where the forensics play out as well. The cases are shuffled around between police and DSI, and for some to me unknown reason have not yet reached the prosecution.

AFAIR during this time the military were advising people to keep off their balconies as there were unknown snipers targeting people (didn't an actor also get killed on a balcony while holding a camera...?). If need be I can dig around for a YouTube clip video stating something similar in the commentary. Reading the above it seems like you're fingering the military for these deaths - on what evidence?

/edit here's two clips - the commentary of both state they have been told to keep off the balcony:

If the army didn't want them to film and they're apparently responsible for snipering others, why didn't they sniper these guys as well. Instead it looks like they went through the trouble of getting in touch to tell them to stop filming and keep out of site...

Edited July 27, 2011 by Insight

[thaihome]

.. in other [b]battle zones [/b] several completely innocent bystanders were shot by the military ...

If you stop and take a minute to think about it, this statement is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

In a battle zone there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

TH

[AleG]

In addition to that, in other battle zones several completely innocent bystanders were shot by the military, such as one middle aged man - not a protester - at Bon Gai who was shot while going out to do shopping when the military suddenly fired - he is now paralized. One man was killed in one of the upper floors of the Complete Apartment . There are many such cases where there are witnesses, and where the forensics play out as well. The cases are shuffled around between police and DSI, and for some to me unknown reason have not yet reached the prosecution.

AFAIR during this time the military were advising people to keep off their balconies as there were unknown snipers targeting people (didn't an actor also get killed on a balcony while holding a camera...?). If need be I can dig around for a YouTube clip video stating something similar in the commentary. Reading the above it seems like you're fingering the military for these deaths - on what evidence?

/edit here's two clips - the commentary of both state they have been told to keep off the balcony:

If the army didn't want them to film and they're apparently responsible for snipering others, why didn't they sniper these guys as well. Instead it looks like they went through the trouble of getting in touch to tell them to stop filming and keep out of site...

Back during the Red Shirt insurgency there was a poster here, living in an apartment (high floor) that one day found a high velocity bullet in his bathroom, it had gone right through the building's wall, made a dent on the opposite wall and was just lying on the bathroom floor. He took photos of the bullet and one through the entry hole that, surprise!, pointed right into one of the Red Shirt barricades so there was no doubt whatsoever of the direction the bullet came from.

I wish I could remember the poster name or the thread/post with the photos.

[nicknostitz]

Back during the Red Shirt insurgency there was a poster here, living in an apartment (high floor) that one day found a high velocity bullet in his bathroom, it had gone right through the building's wall, made a dent on the opposite wall and was just lying on the bathroom floor. He took photos of the bullet and one through the entry hole that, surprise!, pointed right into one of the Red Shirt barricades so there was no doubt whatsoever of the direction the bullet came from.

I wish I could remember the poster name or the thread/post with the photos.

Entirely possible. As well all know there were armed Red Shirt militants.

But i cannot say any more about that when i don't know the circumstances, date, time, etc, and have seen the picture of the bullet. If you or anybody can find this post i would be very interested.

[nicknostitz]

AFAIR during this time the military were advising people to keep off their balconies as there were unknown snipers targeting people (didn't an actor also get killed on a balcony while holding a camera...?). If need be I can dig around for a YouTube clip video stating something similar in the commentary. Reading the above it seems like you're fingering the military for these deaths - on what evidence?

For some of the deaths there are witnesses, i have spoken with some of the injured, and there are some cases where the forensics do also match. You should have gone to the public hearings of the fact finding committee of the National Reconciliation Commission - some very interesting details came to light there about some of the cases. They were public - that means not just journalists were allowed to attend, also the general public. You cannot blame me for not taking the opportunities that were offered to find out more about what happened.

And yes, the military did want people off the balconies. Some videos that were taken off balconies are quite damning evidence against the military. And yes, balconies may also have possibly drawn attention by Red Shirt militants that were utterly paranoid about the military snipers. They did exist. Prachatai has a translation on their website of ananalysis that appeared in a military published academic journal written by an officer. I am not sure if i am allowed to post a link to prachatai here, but if you google: "Lessons from Operation Encirclement at Ratchaprasong" - I am sure that you will find it. Interesting reading, it also confirms the deployment of snipers.

[nicknostitz]

.. in other [b]battle zones [/b] several completely innocent bystanders were shot by the military ...

If you stop and take a minute to think about it, this statement is exactly the point I have been trying to make.

In a battle zone there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

TH

As this battlezones were in the middle of normal neighborhoods, and there were many people living there, there were more than a few innocent bystanders. In the house i was stuck in for hours one of the people hiding out with us was a woman that had nothing whatsoever to do with the protests.

The paralyzed man i wrote about who was shot in Bon Gai was not a protester, and just went out of his apartment to go to Tesco Lotus when he got shot. The bullets there came from the direction of where only the military was.

Additionally, in most areas the military did neither evacuate the inhabitants, nor making any effort to, nor supplying these inhabitants with food during the time they declared these zones as "life fire zones". I have spoken with several such inhabitants, and some were actually supporters of the government, and not the Red Shirts (well, some have had second thoughts about whom they gave their support after the mess was over).

[animatic]

Most modern battle zones ARE in the midst of innocent neighborhoods.

Urban warfare is by it's nature in neighborhoods.

There is NO evidence presented by anyone in official capacity that states categorically that it was army snipers and ONLY armyt snipers that killed those people on their balconies. Maybe things might look interesting, but is THAT proof or just a leaning toward a preconceived outcome?

There is documentary evidence that a clandestine force of snipers were shooting at soldiers in several instances at several occasions.

That fact, and the lack of any facts showing anyone in the army actually shot those spectators, leaves a huge window of doubt that 'the other sides snipers' were the ones picking off observers or video camera people to prevent their actions from be documented or just to blame the army with.

So it either statement has equal weight of consideration.

a ) The army snipers picked off innocents.

b ) Black force snipers picked of innocents

to blame the army with, and/or prevent their actions from being recorded.

To say 'either is proved'is patently untrue, except to the biased.

No one has yet shown a logical motive for the army to pick off innocent observers. What is their motive? Why do it, when it can only cause problems later?

The OTHER question here is,:

Did the army force the fight there, or was the army forced into a fight there?

The army had a legal order to restore order to the neighborhood,

they had no choice about where the clearing out would have to happen.

We know, from copious videos, and even NN's photographs, who set up an illegal rally for months on end and refused to leave for months on end, and were gearing up VISIBLY for a battle against 'which ever state organ of order' was needed to stop the occupation of a innocent neighborhood.

In very few instances is there anything resembling a burdon of proof met

except for those many video taped incitement speeches from the red stages. They of course have not traversed courtrooms, yet. The reasons for lack of proof are many and not strictly one sided except in the opinions of the highly biased.

Edited July 27, 2011 by animatic

[OzMick]

Maybe other posters were also witness to some of the events and have a different take of the situation.

Personally I do not believe people that burn tires in the middle of a major road, throw Molotov cocktails and fire rockets at emplaced Army positions as well as activly supporing armed militants that are firing deadly weapons at the army are accomplishing anything other than trying to create mayhem. They should suffer the consequence of their actions, which will include being shot at.

TH

Actually, there are rules of engagement. These rules forbid to shoot protesters that are not armed militants.

The reason for having burned tires in the streets is quite simple - they gave a smoke screen and therefore a cover against the military snipers.

Naive sir. ROE determine who you shoot AT, not who gets hit. If you want to mix with armed militants in a smoke screen, expect to get shot, or GO HOME.

Edited July 27, 2011 by OzMick

[animatic]

Maybe other posters were also witness to some of the events and have a different take of the situation.

Personally I do not believe people that burn tires in the middle of a major road, throw Molotov cocktails and fire rockets at emplaced Army positions as well as activly supporing armed militants that are firing deadly weapons at the army are accomplishing anything other than trying to create mayhem. They should suffer the consequence of their actions, which will include being shot at.

TH

Actually, there are rules of engagement. These rules forbid to shoot protesters that are not armed militants.

The reason for having burned tires in the streets is quite simple - they gave a smoke screen and therefore a cover against the military snipers.

Naive sir. ROE determine who you shoot AT, not who gets hit. If you want to mix with armed militants in a smoke screen, expect to get shot, or GO HOME.

A very good point. When shooting in a smoke environment it's not always possible to know where your misses will go, but it is pretty simple to know if you are behind one side,and it and another side are BOTH shooting, you are also in the line of fire, with smoke, created by your side, in between preventing one side from knowing if you are there or not.

If ROE say 'don't shoot if there is smoke behind your target', then they can't but if it doesn't but they can 'shoot against someone targeting them or their fellows', they can hope to be accurate, but don't have an injunction not to shoot against aggressive attackers

In any case it's quite obvious the smoke was intentional and having innocents behind groups of combatants, is similar to using human shields, but behind you. Maybe because that means more putative innocents can

accidentally hit in the fog of war, because THAT fits

the political goals of the set battle.

Edited July 27, 2011 by animatic

[OzMick]

But thanks for agreeing that those people are loons.

All sides of any conflict have what you may describe as "loons". But not all people that use the term massacre as loons.

Some just may have a wrong perception of what this term defines.

And nevertheless - there were several incidents last year, where soldiers indeed did fire indiscriminately at everything that moved, including ambulances, without any appearant reason, such as being fired upon, and where teargas and as an extreme measure rubber bullets would have been more than sufficient. About one of those incidents i have published an account of - the "killing zone" story. What i wrote is supported by video footage from four different angles - one of the best documented incidents of last year.

So far i have not seen you acknowledging these uncomfortable facts at all. Therefore, please, don't throw around with accusation of people that disagree with you as "loons"...

Please try to understand that a soldier in this sort of situation uses the equipment he is issued with - unlike Hollywood, he doesn't have unlimited ammunition or a huge range of options. Rubber bullets and launchers, and tear gas are not the normal issue when you are facing armed militants, and that is quite understandable when you have been fired upon with grenades and auto-rifle fire while issued with riot shields and batons. BTW a slingshot using marbles/ball bearings is a lethal weapon, if not a very effective one - a bit like bringing your knife to a gunfight - strangely though when the body is examined there is no gunshot residue.

[OzMick]

but you can also expect me to crop out further comments beyond this.

As expected.

i remember the red shirt sword picture as an example of the resident red shirt haters example of evidence

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3999598

Too true! See that cut-out piece on the top- it's actually an ornamental bottle opener.

[animatic]

I know someone who hunts with a Slingshot and ball bearings, as the next move after bow hunting. And feeds his family with it. Country boy of course and different country, but like they say he hits what he aims at. And I have no reason to think Issan boys are worse shots in the forrest putting food on the family table with slingshots.

[nicknostitz]

Naive sir. ROE determine who you shoot AT, not who gets hit. If you want to mix with armed militants in a smoke screen, expect to get shot, or GO HOME.

Well, that is the problem when watching a situation like this from the screens. There were many situations where there neither was a smokescreen, nor militants around. But there were still military shooting, even in daytime, with good visibility and many journalists around - which are here now labeled as biased (during and right after the incident worse terms were used, against some even witch hunts were started, such as against Dan Rivers.

There are of course incidents where the military will be able to come up with such an explanation, some may even be somewhat justified along those lines (which though would make the military liars as they have stated numerous times that they have not killed one single protester). But there are other incidents which are quite clear, and more than a few people wonder why they have not even been forwarded to the prosecution, but shuffled between police and DSI.

Every incident is different, and has to be looked at in detail. A day time shooting incident where there were no burning barricades, with military and protesters in close proximity (less than 100 meters) is quite different from night time and long distance with bad visibility and smoke, which again is different from night time incident with good visibility and no smoke. Every incident has to be looked in terms of appropriateness of response as well.

"Expect to be shot or go home" sounds strong on a webforum, but fortunately the justice system does not take such an approach. At least, i hope so.

People easily tend to forget past incidents. Let me introduce a brief comparison.

Just imagine in 2008 the military would have called in against the PAD occupation of Government House to disperse the protesters and dealt with these protesters the same way (who have occupied a key government installation far longer than the Red Shirts have occupied Rajaprasong, and brought Bangkok's international airports to a standstill for about 10 days or so)? The PAD was armed as well, be under no illusions of that (i have photographed, for example one arrested Naclop Srivichai with one of the about a dozen Uzi's they have stolen from a police station in Government House - that is the only one of these weapons that were returned to the state, the remainder is still missing). There were clearly documented incidents where the PAD has used guns against people and against police, recently even a few PAD guards were now sentenced to a whopping 2 years prison for having abducted a bus and briefly kidnapping the driver while armed with a home made pistol that uses buckshot and a ping pong bomb (imagine what sentence somebody in the west would get for that?). I have photographed the guards and their arms right after the arrest back then.

But in 2008 no military was called in to disperse the protesters (well, they actually were, but refused to obey the government's orders). So, just imagine how Bangkok would have looked like when the state then would have used the same force against the PAD as in 2010 against the Red Shirts? Do you think it would have looked any different than in 2010? Do you think PAD guards and Naclop Srivichai would have sang Kumbayamelord if they would have been shot at by the military? Hardly, as Oct. 7 2008 has proven - where PAD protesters have shot and wounded a few police officers.

Both times you had protesters, both times you have had armed militants mixed under the peaceful protesters. Both times you have had political parties supporting the protest groups. Both groups had financial backers (of course - no movement can operate without money).

But one group was treated quite differently than the other. A naive question - why is that so?

[nicknostitz]

Please try to understand that a soldier in this sort of situation uses the equipment he is issued with - unlike Hollywood, he doesn't have unlimited ammunition or a huge range of options. Rubber bullets and launchers, and tear gas are not the normal issue when you are facing armed militants, and that is quite understandable when you have been fired upon with grenades and auto-rifle fire while issued with riot shields and batons. BTW a slingshot using marbles/ball bearings is a lethal weapon, if not a very effective one - a bit like bringing your knife to a gunfight - strangely though when the body is examined there is no gunshot residue.

No need to teach me about the effects of slingshot projectiles - back in 2008 i was hit by one from the PAD, fortunately in my gut - and not a few centimeters higher into my ribs, which would have broken them, instead just causing a massive and painful bruise for 2 or 3 weeks.

I blame less the ordinary soldier than the state that has sent these soldiers unprepared, ill-equipped, and for these situations hardly trained. Read for example the article in the FCCT magazine Dispatch, in which a security expert has analyzed the mistakes made during the May 19 dispersal. Quite educating.

There were situations where the military was justified to use live ammo, i do not deny that. But there were situations where the military was not, and where conventional non-lethal crowd control measures would have been more than sufficient.

Many people here imagine that Red Shirt militants were everywhere. This is not so. Why do you think there is so little actual footage of these militants available? It is not because we journalists would not have taken these photos. On the opposite - during the time almost every journalist would have loved to get these images. Very few journalists actually managed to see them. I am one of the few who have. But this was not a situation where photos would have been possible, it was pitch dark, and i was the only journalist there.

There were many incidents recorded on both still and video where dozens of journalists were hunting for images - if there would have been militants - they would have been on many cameras. What we saw though was shots fired from the military. On many fronts larger networks had a team with protesters and another team with the military at the same time, at the same incident. That is why you have had reports where journalists said that military shot, injured and killed protesters. Don't you think we do not work together on the ground in such a messy situation, and don't inform each other on what we saw, where we were, and that we don't call each other regularly during such a mess, especially when we are in the middle of such a mess?

Fact is, that there were only very few militants, who came out on occasion, and preferably when there were no cameras around. Not when dozens of cameras hunt for every possible image, wait for every injured or killed, and looking if they can get the real money shot - which would have been an armed militant.

[animatic]

No one would have been that surprised if the army had moved out PAD from government house, it would have been better than the night time grenade attacks that drove them out, and off to the airports in a rage. We know how well that worked out.

[nicknostitz]

No one would have been that surprised if the army had moved out PAD from government house, it would have been better than the night time grenade attacks that drove them out, and off to the airports in a rage. We know how well that worked out.

Well, but the security forces didn't (police tried, but was hindered in anything they did back then, also by the military).

And this has increased even more the feeling of alienation from their own state under the Red Shirts that pro-Thaksin sectors of the population first experienced through the military coup, and has therefore massively contributed to the events of 2009 and then 2010. The term "Song Matrathan" (double standards), which every Red Shirt can cite like a mantra, does not come from nowhere.

[OzMick]

Naive sir. ROE determine who you shoot AT, not who gets hit. If you want to mix with armed militants in a smoke screen, expect to get shot, or GO HOME.

Well, that is the problem when watching a situation like this from the screens. There were many situations where there neither was a smokescreen, nor militants around. But there were still military shooting, even in daytime, with good visibility and many journalists around - which are here now labeled as biased (during and right after the incident worse terms were used, against some even witch hunts were started, such as against Dan Rivers.

There are of course incidents where the military will be able to come up with such an explanation, some may even be somewhat justified along those lines (which though would make the military liars as they have stated numerous times that they have not killed one single protester). But there are other incidents which are quite clear, and more than a few people wonder why they have not even been forwarded to the prosecution, but shuffled between police and DSI.

Every incident is different, and has to be looked at in detail. A day time shooting incident where there were no burning barricades, with military and protesters in close proximity (less than 100 meters) is quite different from night time and long distance with bad visibility and smoke, which again is different from night time incident with good visibility and no smoke. Every incident has to be looked in terms of appropriateness of response as well.

"Expect to be shot or go home" sounds strong on a webforum, but fortunately the justice system does not take such an approach. At least, i hope so.

People easily tend to forget past incidents. Let me introduce a brief comparison.

Just imagine in 2008 the military would have called in against the PAD occupation of Government House to disperse the protesters and dealt with these protesters the same way (who have occupied a key government installation far longer than the Red Shirts have occupied Rajaprasong, and brought Bangkok's international airports to a standstill for about 10 days or so)? The PAD was armed as well, be under no illusions of that (i have photographed, for example one arrested Naclop Srivichai with one of the about a dozen Uzi's they have stolen from a police station in Government House - that is the only one of these weapons that were returned to the state, the remainder is still missing). There were clearly documented incidents where the PAD has used guns against people and against police, recently even a few PAD guards were now sentenced to a whopping 2 years prison for having abducted a bus and briefly kidnapping the driver while armed with a home made pistol that uses buckshot and a ping pong bomb (imagine what sentence somebody in the west would get for that?). I have photographed the guards and their arms right after the arrest back then.

But in 2008 no military was called in to disperse the protesters (well, they actually were, but refused to obey the government's orders). So, just imagine how Bangkok would have looked like when the state then would have used the same force against the PAD as in 2010 against the Red Shirts? Do you think it would have looked any different than in 2010? Do you think PAD guards and Naclop Srivichai would have sang Kumbayamelord if they would have been shot at by the military? Hardly, as Oct. 7 2008 has proven - where PAD protesters have shot and wounded a few police officers.

Both times you had protesters, both times you have had armed militants mixed under the peaceful protesters. Both times you have had political parties supporting the protest groups. Both groups had financial backers (of course - no movement can operate without money).

But one group was treated quite differently than the other. A naive question - why is that so?

"Expect to be shot or go home' is exactly how the justice system works when under a SoE with exactly that directive, but that may change after the latest election. I won't argue with you re PAD, because I don't claim to know the ins and outs, but as ex-army I will say that you have over-estimated your ability to judge where fire is being directed, where it is coming from, the accuracy abilities and capabilities of your average soldier under fire, and the general level of chaos in an urban warfare situation.

[nicknostitz]

[

"Expect to be shot or go home' is exactly how the justice system works when under a SoE with exactly that directive, but that may change after the latest election. I won't argue with you re PAD, because I don't claim to know the ins and outs, but as ex-army I will say that you have over-estimated your ability to judge where fire is being directed, where it is coming from, the accuracy abilities and capabilities of your average soldier under fire, and the general level of chaos in an urban warfare situation.

See, you mentioned here the term "urban warfare". This was not your usual "urban warfare". In incidents where soldiers were under fire, than return fire is justified (to some degree, depending on incident). I do not deny that there were such incidents. What i am talking about is that i have been at incidents where there was simply no fire directed against the soldiers, and soldiers have initiated fire and used life ammo against visibly unarmed protesters (don't forget intel here as well - at every front line were intelligence officers under the protesters who have relayed their intel, and it's important to understand that there certain problems with that as well - some of related problems i have described in one of my books), and where there was even was no return fire because militants simply were not present there.

Some of these incidents lasted a long time, some where very brief. All though had dead and/or injured protesters, bystanders or journalists with very visible armbands as identification.

Some situations were indeed absolutely chaotic, but others were definitely not.

It is quite natural that as an ex-soldier you will instinctively side with soldiers. And i do not have a problem with that - i have many close friends that are Thai soldiers. But you should familiarize yourself with some of the ins and outs here, because they are elemental. This is a very perverted situation here, and which in the country, and in the army you served would just not be possible. And even more so - the military in Thailand is not exactly unified, there are, for example, more than a few soldiers who hold a deep grudge against the military leadership for what they have ordered the military to do last year, the incompetence displayed (the leadership has not just played with the lives of the protesters, but also needlessly with the lives of their soldiers - they still, for example have not publicly admitted to the friendly fire incident in which one soldier died - in front of me and a few colleagues - on April 28), and by far not all of them are what is here called "melon soldiers".

This whole mess has a long history, and knowing that is essential not only to understand motivations and reasons of all sides here, but also sheds some light to why militant Red Shirts used violence, and why military at times used completely inappropriate and excessive violence.

Regardless of State of Emrgency - but there are still rules of engagement.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nicknostitz

[Roadman]

This whole mess has a long history, and knowing that is essential not only to understand motivations and reasons of all sides here, but also sheds some light to why militant Red Shirts used violence, and why military at times used completely inappropriate and excessive violence.

The double standard does not suprise.

[Roadman]

[ I have maintained that the military was responsible for some deaths, the reds were responsible for some deaths and that Seh Daeng's "ronin"/the black shirts were responsible for some deaths. I do believe the body count amongst the reds (particularly on April 10th) was driven up deliberately by the blackshirts. There is certainly enough evidence of that possibility for any reasonable person not to rule it out entirely even if they think the idea is wrong ... (I think someone posted a video in this very thread that had a redshirt swearing it wasn't the army killing them!)

Very correct brief summary of the whole sad bloody mess.

[jdinasia]

[ I have maintained that the military was responsible for some deaths, the reds were responsible for some deaths and that Seh Daeng's "ronin"/the black shirts were responsible for some deaths. I do believe the body count amongst the reds (particularly on April 10th) was driven up deliberately by the blackshirts. There is certainly enough evidence of that possibility for any reasonable person not to rule it out entirely even if they think the idea is wrong ... (I think someone posted a video in this very thread that had a redshirt swearing it wasn't the army killing them!)

Very correct brief summary of the whole sad bloody mess.

and just as sadly, in most cases the shooter or even the overt affiliation of the shooter will never be known. What seems to be fully damning evidence to some people will always leave an area of doubt to others; such as the supposed direction of fire etc.

[473geo]

[ I have maintained that the military was responsible for some deaths, the reds were responsible for some deaths and that Seh Daeng's "ronin"/the black shirts were responsible for some deaths. I do believe the body count amongst the reds (particularly on April 10th) was driven up deliberately by the blackshirts. There is certainly enough evidence of that possibility for any reasonable person not to rule it out entirely even if they think the idea is wrong ... (I think someone posted a video in this very thread that had a redshirt swearing it wasn't the army killing them!)

Very correct brief summary of the whole sad bloody mess.

As far as uncorroborated fiction goes......as in........ " I do believe the body count among the reds (particularly on April 10th) was driven up deliberately by the blackshirts"

Edited July 27, 2011 by 473geo

[nicknostitz]

This whole mess has a long history, and knowing that is essential not only to understand motivations and reasons of all sides here, but also sheds some light to why militant Red Shirts used violence, and why military at times used completely inappropriate and excessive violence.

The double standard does not suprise.

Thanks for arguing semantics while ignoring the far more pertinent points i raised.

Sometimes i really wonder why i make the effort...

[473geo]

This whole mess has a long history, and knowing that is essential not only to understand motivations and reasons of all sides here, but also sheds some light to why militant Red Shirts used violence, and why military at times used completely inappropriate and excessive violence.

The double standard does not suprise.

Thanks for arguing semantics while ignoring the far more pertinent points i raised.

Sometimes i really wonder why i make the effort...

Do continue your interesting and informative posting Nick, if their sad diatribe does nothing else, there are some interesting facts from your man on the ground experiences surfacing in your responses, which I am sure are read with interest by many.