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

[nicknostitz]

will always leave an area of doubt

That is a major problem indeed, and is a dirty trail throughout modern Thai history, and the countless incidents of bloodshed - October 14, 1973, October 6, 1976, May 1992, the drug war killings, and now, April and May 2010, just to name the major incidents.

Major contributing factors here are lack of transparency, lack of independent and competent investigations, lack of power and authority of investigating commissions (in the rare occasions that there actually have been investigations), a tradition of impunity of state security forces, state control over important media - direct or implied, and a tendency of self censorship in the media, fear under potential witnesses (often not unjustified either), and/or refusal to testify, etc.

As a result you have people often deciding more on perception than reason, also because fact is so difficult to come by because of the aforementioned factors.

[473geo]

will always leave an area of doubt

That is a major problem indeed, and is a dirty trail throughout modern Thai history, and the countless incidents of bloodshed - October 14, 1973, October 6, 1976, May 1992, the drug war killings, and now, April and May 2010, just to name the major incidents.

Major contributing factors here are lack of transparency, lack of independent and competent investigations, lack of power and authority of investigating commissions (in the rare occasions that there actually have been investigations), a tradition of impunity of state security forces, state control over important media - direct or implied, and a tendency of self censorship in the media, fear under potential witnesses (often not unjustified either), and/or refusal to testify, etc.

As a result you have people often deciding more on perception than reason, also because fact is so difficult to come by because of the aforementioned factors.

If one cannot keep an open mind, it is easy to become distracted by the turmoiled waters on the surface, rather than looking to the controlling undercurrents below. How easily people absorb explanation that suits their line of thinking, and reject eyewitness fact because it contradicts.

[AleG]

It's a dam_n shame that the Red Shirts disabled all the street CCTV cameras in and around the protest camp, things would be much more clear with the videos recorded from them.

[Insight]

It's a dam_n shame that the Red Shirts disabled all the street CCTV cameras in and around the protest camp, things would be much more clear with the videos recorded from them.

They really didn't like being watched. Mr Stickman himself (who was also well aware of the red shirt plans to torch CTW should the army breach the barricades) had the feeling he was being followed when he went inside camp red to interview protesters.

[ballpoint]

If one cannot keep an open mind, it is easy to become distracted by the turmoiled waters on the surface, rather than looking to the controlling undercurrents below. How easily people absorb explanation that suits their line of thinking, and reject eyewitness fact because it contradicts.

Which makes the fact that so many red sympathisers have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about eyewitnesses to the red's looting and burning of Central World very ironic. The fact that these accounts, by CW management, tally with those given by CW security guards in the HRW report, and also with those independantly given by Channel 3 employees and security guards in the attempted arson and killing of anyone in that building - an attempt that was beyond doubt made by the reds, points to the modus operandi of the red shirts. Burn and use force to prevent fire fighting or even escape from the building. There is something sinister in the organised attempt here by the red supporters to detract from the OP. The red rewrite of history continues.

[rixalex]

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.

Not the first time you have mentioned your belief that the coup was in part what fuelled red protesters' violent acts in 2009 and 2010. My question to you is, if these people really felt so personally and so emotionally outraged at the staging of the coup to the point of it driving them to shooting, throwing bombs and setting light to things, how did they manage to hold these feelings in at the actual time the coup took place? Surely this would have been the natural time to express their feelings, no?

Granted, there may not have been the time to protest in an organised fashion, but i put it to you that if people are genuinely outraged by what the state does, what happens is that people take it upon themselves, on impulse, to leave their homes and take to the streets right there and then, immediately, they don't leave it 36 months and then get angry.

Delayed reaction? Yeah right. More like contrived reaction. A man with his own ulterior motives and in need of a cause that looks a bit more noble and altruistic than simply an attempt at winning back power and money he feels he is owed, just about sums it up.

So, tell me, why did not a single person take to the streets when the tanks rolled out in 2006?

The term "Song Matrathan" (double standards), which every Red Shirt can cite like a mantra, does not come from nowhere.

No, indeed it does not. It comes from propaganda which instils a belief in people that double standards are only ever applied against them, when in fact double standards are prevalent throughout the entire political spectrum. The list of examples is endless on all sides. When you here this mantra being chanted by the reds, do you never feel the slightest inclination to reply with one such example, such as something like, "now hold on a sec, how about all that business of you reds fighting for what you saw as justice in the case of Surayud's land in Korat, but then doing absolutely nothing about the Alpine Golf Course scandal?". If not to say it, at least to think it.

Edited July 28, 2011 by rixalex

[jdinasia]

will always leave an area of doubt

That is a major problem indeed, and is a dirty trail throughout modern Thai history, and the countless incidents of bloodshed - October 14, 1973, October 6, 1976, May 1992, the drug war killings, and now, April and May 2010, just to name the major incidents.

Major contributing factors here are lack of transparency, lack of independent and competent investigations, lack of power and authority of investigating commissions (in the rare occasions that there actually have been investigations), a tradition of impunity of state security forces, state control over important media - direct or implied, and a tendency of self censorship in the media, fear under potential witnesses (often not unjustified either), and/or refusal to testify, etc.

As a result you have people often deciding more on perception than reason, also because fact is so difficult to come by because of the aforementioned factors.

Nick --- you are using the quote function improperly. My statement as a whole says why there is room for doubt, including doubting eyewitnesses. You took it out of context to build a different argument. No need to quote me to make an argument that I was not making.

my statement was ....

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.

[jdinasia]

I thought the term "double standards" came into popular use after a 2001 court decision that let Thaksin escape the charges of hiding assets with maids and drivers? It was co-opted by the reds later.

[jayboy]

Which makes the fact that so many red sympathisers have hijacked a thread that is supposed to be about eyewitnesses to the red's looting and burning of Central World very ironic. The fact that these accounts, by CW management, tally with those given by CW security guards in the HRW report, and also with those independantly given by Channel 3 employees and security guards in the attempted arson and killing of anyone in that building - an attempt that was beyond doubt made by the reds, points to the modus operandi of the red shirts. Burn and use force to prevent fire fighting or even escape from the building. There is something sinister in the organised attempt here by the red supporters to detract from the OP. The red rewrite of history continues.

The HRW Report is as fair and accurate report that we have available given the failure of the government sponsored investigations, and the refusal of the military to co-operate.

I take your point about the the arson and looting, and as someone broadly with redshirt sympathies (albeit with many important caveats) I don't deny a word of the HRW Report on this subjects.

As far as this thread is concerned I don't think there's anything sinister or organised in the responses.I think what most of want, regardless of affiliation, is the nearest possible version of the truth.

Incidentally let's take the opportunity of reminding ourselves of the conclusions of the HRW Report:

"Descent into Chaos

Thailand’s 2010 Red Shirt Protests and the Government Crackdown

In April and May 2010, Thailand experienced its most serious political violence in decades. At least 90 people died and more than 2,000 were wounded in clashes between government security forces and anti-government protesters led by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the “Red Shirts.” Arson attacks in and outside Bangkok caused billions of dollars of damage.

Based on 94 interviews with eyewitnesses, journalists, human rights defenders, parliamentarians, lawyers, government officials, security personnel, and participants in the events, Descent into Chaos provides a detailed account of the violence and human rights abuses committed by all sides.

The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers. Deliberate attacks on the security forces by the so-called “Black Shirts,” armed elements connected with the UDD, also caused deaths and injuries. UDD leaders made inflammatory speeches to demonstrators, encouraging their supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and looting.

The Thai government adopted various measures that seriously infringed on fundamental rights.

These have continued since the protests were broken up. The government has arbitrarily arrested and detained UDD members and held suspects without charge in unofficial places of detention. Detainees have been abused by members of the security forces. A far-reaching government crackdown on freedom of expression and media resulted in the banning of publications, closure of scores of community radio stations, and blocking of thousands of ostensibly pro-UDD websites.

While UDD members and supporters are in custody awaiting prosecution, government forces implicated in abuses enjoy impunity. The government needs to undertake impartial and transparent investigations and prosecute those responsible for criminal offenses, including those who ordered unlawful use of force or incited violence."

I think on this forum there needs to be a little less selective indignation.If one protests loudly (rightly) at the destruction of property and arson, I would there expect there to be equal criticism of the murderous activities of the Thai army clearly detailed in the HRW Report including military snipers attacks on unarmed civilians.

[hammered]

will always leave an area of doubt

That is a major problem indeed, and is a dirty trail throughout modern Thai history, and the countless incidents of bloodshed - October 14, 1973, October 6, 1976, May 1992, the drug war killings, and now, April and May 2010, just to name the major incidents.

Major contributing factors here are lack of transparency, lack of independent and competent investigations, lack of power and authority of investigating commissions (in the rare occasions that there actually have been investigations), a tradition of impunity of state security forces, state control over important media - direct or implied, and a tendency of self censorship in the media, fear under potential witnesses (often not unjustified either), and/or refusal to testify, etc.

As a result you have people often deciding more on perception than reason, also because fact is so difficult to come by because of the aforementioned factors.

There is also an overriding and simplistic notion of good and bad that gets parachuted in to everything and is decided on by who? And you can probably also throw in the idea of what it is to be "Thai". These are two very interesting areas to spend time talking to Thai people about in my opinion, and of course opinions on what it is to be Thai and good or bad differ a lot, which of course shows very obvious contradictions with the official versions of the notions.

[thaihome]

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?

You complain about double standards but yet you are holding the military to a standard you refuse to use for the UDD rioters and militants. Instead you have brought out the tired argument (actually a tired straw man) about the PAD . What allows anyone to fire slingshots or throw Molotov cocktails at an Army setting up legally ordered blockades?

What you won’t explain is what that those people on Rama IV under the expressway overpass were doing there. They were not peacefully protesting demanding an early election. There was a stage setup by Sunday morning between the expressway overpass and the Rama III overpass, which is where the peaceful protestors were. To my knowledge, not a single person was injured in front of that stage.

The “urban warfare” that many of us witnessed firsthand was not started or continued by the Army. If the people under the expressway overpass and on up Rama IV that were attacking the Army or just standing around watching other people do so, had moved to the stage area, what would the casualties have been in the Rama IV area?

For the almost the week that this went on, the Army made no move to break up the gathering between the overpasses. That is because their mission at that point was to simply block Rama IV far enough down to prevent rioters and armed militants from using the Sois and subsois behind Rama IV to Sathorn to get behind the Army positions in front of the park (something that happened several times on the 13th and 14th).

This was all part of a legal order given by the legitimate government made up of elected representatives in the Parliament to block access to the main protest site. An order that was being violently opposed by people that were organized and directed by certain elements of the UDD leadership

What you perceive as random shots at innocent people” just going to the Lotus” was the Army using suppressing fire to keep the rioters away from their positions. Recent experience had shown them that if they allowed the rioters to get close, their lives became endangered. Unfortunately, because of the environment caused by the rioters and the armed militants supporting them, it was extremely dangerous for anyone to wander into the area.

The crux of the matter comes down to if you believe the rioters and armed militants that were attacking the Army had a justifiable reason to be there and therefore it was the fault of the Army if they or anyone else that got caught up in the action and was shot by the Army.

Let me say this though, I would like to see a case by case investigation that showed the circumstances and time of each causality and what the situation was at that time. Your earlier example of the people walking up Rama IV at 10:30PM and being shot at is a case in point. To walk up behind Army personnel late at night that had been engaged in a sporadic firefight for the past several hours, and to do so, throwing firecrackers and shooting off homemade rockets is an open invitation to get shot at.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the people that organized and directed that little walkabout had exactly that in mind?

[nicknostitz]

There is also an overriding and simplistic notion of good and bad that gets parachuted in to everything and is decided on by who? And you can probably also throw in the idea of what it is to be "Thai". These are two very interesting areas to spend time talking to Thai people about in my opinion, and of course opinions on what it is to be Thai and good or bad differ a lot, which of course shows very obvious contradictions with the official versions of the notions.

Different and entirely opposing ideas of what it means to be Thai is a very strong driving force of this conflict here indeed, and especially how this discourse has reached the common population now. There is a huge discrepancy between the vehemence this subject matter is discussed in informal channels, and the almost complete exclusion of this subject in the public space.

Fascinating.

[DP25]

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.

Not the first time you have mentioned your belief that the coup was in part what fuelled red protesters' violent acts in 2009 and 2010. My question to you is, if these people really felt so personally and so emotionally outraged at the staging of the coup to the point of it driving them to shooting, throwing bombs and setting light to things, how did they manage to hold these feelings in at the actual time the coup took place? Surely this would have been the natural time to express their feelings, no?

It is all just an amazing coincidence that the "democracy" protest went in to high gear right after the court seized 46 billion Baht ($1.5 billion) from Thaksin.

[rixalex]

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.

Not the first time you have mentioned your belief that the coup was in part what fuelled red protesters' violent acts in 2009 and 2010. My question to you is, if these people really felt so personally and so emotionally outraged at the staging of the coup to the point of it driving them to shooting, throwing bombs and setting light to things, how did they manage to hold these feelings in at the actual time the coup took place? Surely this would have been the natural time to express their feelings, no?

It is all just an amazing coincidence that the "democracy" protest went in to high gear right after the court seized 46 billion Baht ($1.5 billion) from Thaksin.

Yep. Completely unrelated those two back-to-back happenings.

[ballpoint]

It is all just an amazing coincidence that the "democracy" protest went in to high gear right after the court seized 46 billion Baht ($1.5 billion) from Thaksin.

Just as the 2009 "Black Songkran" events came from a spontaneous reaction of the people to a coup held 3 years earlier, and had nothing to do with Thaksin calling for revolution and to "bring your family along" while ensuring his own were safely out of the country.

[jayboy]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

Edited July 28, 2011 by jayboy

[hammered]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

Anyone who cant see that there were excesses by all involved is probably delusional. The HRW report is probably as close as we are going to get to an independent one.

[jdinasia]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

Anyone who cant see that there were excesses by all involved is probably delusional. The HRW report is probably as close as we are going to get to an independent one.

Agreed.

The failure of the HRW report to mention things like the use of molotov cocktails at ThaiCom and the regimental headquarters is glaring and to many people show some bias against "the establishment" (or for the redshirt insurgency), but it is the closest thing to independent that we are likely to see. I am unaware of people claiming there were not excesses on all sides. Some people seem to think that the excesses on the redshirt side should be overlooked in light of what they perceive as excesses in response by the military and vice versa. I think most posters would still stick with "some were killed by the military, some killed by the reds, and some killed by the blackshirts operating with impunity from within the redshirt lines."

[jayboy]

The failure of the HRW report to mention things like the use of molotov cocktails at ThaiCom and the regimental headquarters is glaring and to many people show some bias against "the establishment" (or for the redshirt insurgency), but it is the closest thing to independent that we are likely to see. I am unaware of people claiming there were not excesses on all sides. Some people seem to think that the excesses on the redshirt side should be overlooked in light of what they perceive as excesses in response by the military and vice versa. I think most posters would still stick with "some were killed by the military, some killed by the reds, and some killed by the blackshirts operating with impunity from within the redshirt lines."

You couldn't make it up.He picks and chooses from the HRW Report what fits his agenda, ignoring the critical conclusion:

"The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

We know there was redshirt violence, but the suggestion this caused the same number of deaths and casualties as the army is false.

He speaks only for himself and not for "most posters".Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

[philw]

The failure of the HRW report to mention things like the use of molotov cocktails at ThaiCom and the regimental headquarters is glaring and to many people show some bias against "the establishment" (or for the redshirt insurgency), but it is the closest thing to independent that we are likely to see. I am unaware of people claiming there were not excesses on all sides. Some people seem to think that the excesses on the redshirt side should be overlooked in light of what they perceive as excesses in response by the military and vice versa. I think most posters would still stick with "some were killed by the military, some killed by the reds, and some killed by the blackshirts operating with impunity from within the redshirt lines."

You couldn't make it up.He picks and chooses from the HRW Report what fits his agenda, ignoring the critical conclusion:

"The high death toll and injuries resulted largely from excessive use of lethal force by government security forces, including firing of live ammunition at protesters, sometimes by snipers."

We know there was redshirt violence, but the suggestion this caused the same number of deaths and casualties as the army is false.

He speaks only for himself and not for "most posters".Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

JB please try and avoid constructs such as your last sentence.

You had me laughing out loud !!

Nice one.

As you say, progress of sorts..............

[rixalex]

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

[ballpoint]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

I can sit and listen to the evidence presented in a court and make my own conclusions on the case. Maybe those conclusions don't tally with that of the judges (the Thaksin asset concealment one would be a pertinent example). Does that mean I cannot use the evidence presented in that court to support my own views? No it doesn't. The HRW report is useful for the statements made by independent eye witnesses (employees of various places attacked or threatened by the red shirts). It also contains statements made by less independent eye witnesses, ie/ the reds themselves, and accounts by journalists, who, it would seem, can't help adding their own analysis to events. This very thread shows just that. The conclusions in the HRW report are a human being's findings based on evidence they have gathered. They present the evidence. I make my own conclusions based on that evidence, along with other evidence I have seen, the history of red protests and members of that organisation, and personal communication with people directly affected.

In short, unlike, it would appear, some here, I do not need to be spoon fed conclusions someone else makes based on evidence I have seen for myself. It's called free thinking, something a number of red supporters clearly find unnerving based on their posts over the past few weeks. Go figure.

[jayboy]

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Who knows what he really meant? His posts are a matter of record (a point he seems to overlook) and you can draw your own conclusions.

[nicknostitz]

The "urban warfare" that many of us witnessed firsthand was not started or continued by the Army.

Good, then i would suggest the many of you that indeed have witnessed something that i haven't considered yet firsthand (other than the noise of explosions and gunfire you heard from your apartments) would finally supply me with these first hand accounts please, which disagree so much with what i have seen on the ground and posted here.

But accounts of having heard explosions and gunfire from your apartments is not exactly what i need, as we have already quite clearly established that there indeed were explosions and gunfire.

You can always send me a private message, and we can work out a modus operandi how we can get into contact, and naturally i will assure absolute confidentiality.

Otherwise, i have reached now the limits of my patience with these discussions that are leading nowhere.

[jayboy]

Talking of selective indignation it's interesting in the last few posts how a number of members, who would endorse the HRW report's conclusions on arson and property destruction, find themselves unable to take on board the report's conclusions on the Thai army's brutality.Go figure.

I can sit and listen to the evidence presented in a court and make my own conclusions on the case. Maybe those conclusions don't tally with that of the judges (the Thaksin asset concealment one would be a pertinent example). Does that mean I cannot use the evidence presented in that court to support my own views? No it doesn't. The HRW report is useful for the statements made by independent eye witnesses (employees of various places attacked or threatened by the red shirts). It also contains statements made by less independent eye witnesses, ie/ the reds themselves, and accounts by journalists, who, it would seem, can't help adding their own analysis to events. This very thread shows just that. The conclusions in the HRW report are a human being's findings based on evidence they have gathered. They present the evidence. I make my own conclusions based on that evidence, along with other evidence I have seen, the history of red protests and members of that organisation, and personal communication with people directly affected.

In short, unlike, it would appear, some here, I do not need to be spoon fed conclusions someone else makes based on evidence I have seen for myself. It's called free thinking, something a number of red supporters clearly find unnerving based on their posts over the past few weeks. Go figure.

So you don't accept the HRW Report as a whole because you don't like its conclusions.You do however feel free to pick out bits of it that support your position and ignore those that don't.You can do this because you "were there" and thus have a superior overall view to one of the most respected international human rights groups that received evidence from all parties.

Forgive me if I treat your position with a degree of bemusement.

[rixalex]

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Who knows what he really meant?

If you didn't know what he really meant, perhaps you should have asked for him to explain; and if you weren't inclined or couldn't be bothered to do that, perhaps you should have desisted from mocking his position when you now accept you don't know exactly what it is.

[rixalex]

Otherwise, i have reached now the limits of my patience with these discussions that are leading nowhere.

Where should these discussions be leading? To an acceptance and agreeance of your opinion?

Discussions don't have to lead anywhere. They can simply be an exchange of views. Sometimes views will be agreed upon. Other times not.

Perhaps you confuse discussion for negotiation, whereby success or failure thereof is dependant upon some sort, any sort, of agreement being reached.

[jayboy]

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Who knows what he really meant?

If you didn't know what he really meant, perhaps you should have asked for him to explain; and if you weren't inclined or couldn't be bothered to do that, perhaps you should have desisted from mocking his position when you now accept you don't know exactly what it is.

Sorry I won't rise to the bait for a pointless argument.

[jdinasia]

Not so long ago he was suggesting the Redshirts murdered themselves and the military was guiltless - so progress of sorts.

Was he saying that all red shirts murdered were at their own hands, or just some? If it was the latter, can you explain why you think this impossible, as you imply?

Again when you can't argue with the opinions and facts ... attack the man. I do not believe I have ever said the military was guiltless. In fact, I believe I have always stated that if it can be proven that individuals or commanders violated the RoE that they should be brought up on charges. I do believe that the blackshirts operating with impunity from inside the redshirt camp are responsible for a number of the redshirt and 'innocent' lives lost. The strawman here is claiming I ever said that the military never killed anyone. but hey ... when the evidence suggests something that hurts the red cause ... attack the poster

Edited July 28, 2011 by jdinasia

[rixalex]

If you didn't know what he really meant, perhaps you should have asked for him to explain; and if you weren't inclined or couldn't be bothered to do that, perhaps you should have desisted from mocking his position when you now accept you don't know exactly what it is.

Sorry I won't rise to the bait for a pointless argument.

Pray tell, what was the bait?

As for pointless argument, you have made a joke of his position and now accept that you don't know exactly what it is, so as far as i can see, there is no argument here whatsoever (pointless or otherwise), just your trolling.