Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[Siam Simon]

The Red Shirt Leaders weren't holding anybody to ransom to stay and up until that day nobody had been killed inside the encampment so it was a safe place to stay - or should have been if the Government hadn't let the army loose.

Remember on the 16th May the Red Shirt Leaders had said they'd have talks about ending the dispute with government if the troops pulled back, and then the Government refused Senators demands for a cease fire. The government were determined to go in guns blazing.

Some protesters decided to stay of their own free will, others didn't trust the government and some stayed in the sanctuary of Wat Phathum.

And we all know what happened at the so called sanctuary.

Do YOU know what happened at the "so called sanctuary" ? Have you read the DSI report as linked earlier?

Black shirts attacked troops at ground level outside the wat, who responded and called for assistance from those on the BTS tracks. Witness 41 (a red -shirt?) said that the MIB shot and killed his companions as he approached the wat. One soldier reported fire coming from inside the wat.

Finally motive for what was claimed to be random senseless killing. Ask yourself the basic question "who gained?"

It's not as if the armed forces have no track record in brutally swatting popular protest, is it, Mick? Your attempts to create scenarios of a military motivated by altruism have zero basis in reality in Thailand.

[tlansford]

And while I'm being despicable, I'll say it again, people got shot because they ignored repeated advice and chose to take on the army OR they were led into a lethal situation by their pocket lining leaders

Actions and consequences

Real world sunshine...

ah ha, so, they were not shot because someone shot them... bingo, that makes it all clear... ;-)

The gov't ordered / sanctioned using lethal force for crowd control and dispersal. Abhisit is providing (hopefully) more information regarding it. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, new is revealed.

[metisdead]

A insulting flame post has been removed as well as replies.

[OzMick]

And while I'm being despicable, I'll say it again, people got shot because they ignored repeated advice and chose to take on the army OR they were led into a lethal situation by their pocket lining leaders

Actions and consequences

Real world sunshine...

ah ha, so, they were not shot because someone shot them... bingo, that makes it all clear... ;-)

The gov't ordered / sanctioned using lethal force for crowd control and dispersal. Abhisit is providing (hopefully) more information regarding it. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, new is revealed.

"Crowd" - in most definitions there is no mention of personsbuilding barricades, or with semi-auto rifles, RPGs, grenade launchers, Molotov cocktails or any of the other weapons present in your "crowd". Perhaps your selective use of the inaccurate term is intentional.

[wxyz]

The police and military are tasked with enforcing the law, even with the use of deadly force.

The criminal 'red shirt' crimes and the 'red shirt' partners criminal 'black shirt' aka 'men in black' aka 'black angels' crimes.

The police and military was too patient and tolerant if anything, allowing these groups to commit crime after crime against innocent citizens. The govt even accepted their demand for an election and then these criminals wanted more. They came to burn Bangkok, and nothing was going to stop them, no matter what the govt agreed to. The reds and blacks and mr T should be held accountable for all the deaths, not the govt, police nor military.

Edited January 9, 2012 by wxyz

[animatic]

If he authorized the use of legal necessary force,

then it is up to those opposing the clear out,

to force, or not, a specific level of neccesary force

to do the legal clear out of the occupation.

The clear out of the square was legal.

The police didn't act when ordered to.

The army showed restraint for weeks and weeks.

Which clearly frustrated many Red leaders, as shown by their speeches.

Once the protestors resisted being cleared out,

then there was a force to force equivalency expected.

And legally allowable.

The clearing force had reasonable reasons to presume that

deadly force was available to be used against them,

as proved by the April 16th rioting and sniper deaths,

and photos of armed men in black within red ranks.

And would have been foolish NOT to be prepared for that same to happen again.

What remains in question is WHO the shooters were above the WAT.

Being 'in uniforms' does not mean it was 'current army personal',

to say that is the case is supposition not supported specifically by facts.

Which unit, commanded by whom, at what time,

at what specific location,armed how, and how long were they there.

Were other units nearby, or unIDENTIFIED units nearby?

Were they any individuals above or behind them?

It is a excessive supposition to state that Abhisit or Suthep ordered ANY specific units onto the tracks. The likelihood of finding a direct order from CRES or above to kill protestors is NIL.

If this is an exercize in legality then there can be little proved,

if this is a Propaganda / PR exercise to besmirch the Dems,

then they will find traction with those that want to believe it and not with others.

Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo,

but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show

Edited January 9, 2012 by animatic

[LindsayBKK]

And have the Red Shirt Mafia paid for Damages to Central World, Center One and Big C?

Has Mr. Watermelon been summoned? He was in charge of the military not Khun Abhisit.

As always Thailand has got it back to front.

A bit off topis but:

Who kept election promises, Khun Abhisit, Pheu Thai would not have been so generous that we know.

And who is is NOT creating stable Government, the other lot.

Care to enlighten me, which election promises the jesus-like Mr. Abisith kept?

Having Elections!

[phiphidon]

If he authorized the use of legal necessary force,

then it is up to those opposing the clear out,

to force, or not, a specific level of neccesary force

to do the legal clear out of the occupation.

The clear out of the square was legal.

The police didn't act when ordered to.

The army showed restraint for weeks and weeks.

Which clearly frustrated many Red leaders, as shown by their speeches.

Once the protestors resisted being cleared out,

then there was a force to force equivalency expected.

And legally allowable.

The clearing force had reasonable reasons to presume that

deadly force was available to be used against them,

as proved by the April 16th rioting and sniper deaths,

and photos of armed men in black within red ranks.

And would have been foolish NOT to be prepared for that same to happen again.

What remains in question is WHO the shooters were above the WAT.

Being 'in uniforms' does not mean it was 'current army personal',

to say that is the case is supposition not supported specifically by facts.

Which unit, commanded by whom, at what time,

at what specific location,armed how, and how long were they there.

Were other units nearby, or unIDENTIFIED units nearby?

Were they any individuals above or behind them?

It is a excessive supposition to state that Abhisit or Suthep ordered ANY specific units onto the tracks. The likelihood of finding a direct order from CRES or above to kill protestors is NIL.

If this is an exercize in legality then there can be little proved,

if this is a Propaganda / PR exercise to besmirch the Dems,

then they will find traction with those that want to believe it and not with others.

Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo,

but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show

Are you still seriously insisting the army was not on the tracks above the wat firing at the protesters? With your alternative view of "if there were soldiers on the tracks there could have been somebody above and behind them firing over them"? What were they on, Skyhooks?

[OzMick]

If he authorized the use of legal necessary force,

then it is up to those opposing the clear out,

to force, or not, a specific level of neccesary force

to do the legal clear out of the occupation.

The clear out of the square was legal.

The police didn't act when ordered to.

The army showed restraint for weeks and weeks.

Which clearly frustrated many Red leaders, as shown by their speeches.

Once the protestors resisted being cleared out,

then there was a force to force equivalency expected.

And legally allowable.

The clearing force had reasonable reasons to presume that

deadly force was available to be used against them,

as proved by the April 16th rioting and sniper deaths,

and photos of armed men in black within red ranks.

And would have been foolish NOT to be prepared for that same to happen again.

What remains in question is WHO the shooters were above the WAT.

Being 'in uniforms' does not mean it was 'current army personal',

to say that is the case is supposition not supported specifically by facts.

Which unit, commanded by whom, at what time,

at what specific location,armed how, and how long were they there.

Were other units nearby, or unIDENTIFIED units nearby?

Were they any individuals above or behind them?

It is a excessive supposition to state that Abhisit or Suthep ordered ANY specific units onto the tracks. The likelihood of finding a direct order from CRES or above to kill protestors is NIL.

If this is an exercize in legality then there can be little proved,

if this is a Propaganda / PR exercise to besmirch the Dems,

then they will find traction with those that want to believe it and not with others.

Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo,

but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show

Are you still seriously insisting the army was not on the tracks above the wat firing at the protesters? With your alternative view of "if there were soldiers on the tracks there could have been somebody above and behind them firing over them"? What were they on, Skyhooks?

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

Edited January 9, 2012 by OzMick

[tlansford]

If he authorized the use of legal necessary force,

then it is up to those opposing the clear out,

to force, or not, a specific level of neccesary force

to do the legal clear out of the occupation.

The clear out of the square was legal.

The police didn't act when ordered to.

The army showed restraint for weeks and weeks.

Which clearly frustrated many Red leaders, as shown by their speeches.

Once the protestors resisted being cleared out,

then there was a force to force equivalency expected.

And legally allowable.

The clearing force had reasonable reasons to presume that

deadly force was available to be used against them,

as proved by the April 16th rioting and sniper deaths,

and photos of armed men in black within red ranks.

And would have been foolish NOT to be prepared for that same to happen again.

What remains in question is WHO the shooters were above the WAT.

Being 'in uniforms' does not mean it was 'current army personal',

to say that is the case is supposition not supported specifically by facts.

Which unit, commanded by whom, at what time,

at what specific location,armed how, and how long were they there.

Were other units nearby, or unIDENTIFIED units nearby?

Were they any individuals above or behind them?

It is a excessive supposition to state that Abhisit or Suthep ordered ANY specific units onto the tracks. The likelihood of finding a direct order from CRES or above to kill protestors is NIL.

If this is an exercize in legality then there can be little proved,

if this is a Propaganda / PR exercise to besmirch the Dems,

then they will find traction with those that want to believe it and not with others.

Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo,

but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show

Are you still seriously insisting the army was not on the tracks above the wat firing at the protesters? With your alternative view of "if there were soldiers on the tracks there could have been somebody above and behind them firing over them"? What were they on, Skyhooks?

off topic, but it is a beautiful Wat, and the renovation work was just finished in October. Everyone should take some time to visit it.

[phiphidon]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

[phiphidon]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

Seems to have gone awfully quiet.

[nurofiend]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

of course he believes it, it's his saving grace of the witness accounts,

so that he can ignore the rest of them.

[lungmi]

If he authorized the use of legal necessary force,

then it is up to those opposing the clear out,

to force, or not, a specific level of neccesary force

to do the legal clear out of the occupation.

The clear out of the square was legal.

The police didn't act when ordered to.

The army showed restraint for weeks and weeks.

Which clearly frustrated many Red leaders, as shown by their speeches.

Once the protestors resisted being cleared out,

then there was a force to force equivalency expected.

And legally allowable.

The clearing force had reasonable reasons to presume that

deadly force was available to be used against them,

as proved by the April 16th rioting and sniper deaths,

and photos of armed men in black within red ranks.

And would have been foolish NOT to be prepared for that same to happen again.

What remains in question is WHO the shooters were above the WAT.

Being 'in uniforms' does not mean it was 'current army personal',

to say that is the case is supposition not supported specifically by facts.

Which unit, commanded by whom, at what time,

at what specific location,armed how, and how long were they there.

Were other units nearby, or unIDENTIFIED units nearby?

Were they any individuals above or behind them?

It is a excessive supposition to state that Abhisit or Suthep ordered ANY specific units onto the tracks. The likelihood of finding a direct order from CRES or above to kill protestors is NIL.

If this is an exercize in legality then there can be little proved,

if this is a Propaganda / PR exercise to besmirch the Dems,

then they will find traction with those that want to believe it and not with others.

Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo,

but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show

This is my analysis too, based on International Press research (4 languages) during 3 years.

[OzMick]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

Seems to have gone awfully quiet.

As explained to Neuro, 1/ I have a life and 2/ I am currently in oz +3hrs

Have you considered the relative positions? Troops on the BTS are elevated and highly visible but with a visibility advantage. RTA at ground level were also firing unobserved, because the wat has walls, which explains why those inside did not see MIB.

Were there armed people in the wat? Probably not, but there may have been one or more preceived to be armed. Firing into a mass of people like there was present at the wat, I consider criminally irresponsible. That there was a firefight initiated there even more so.

Having answered your questions, could you lower yourself to answer mine - who stood to gain?

[patjem]

An ARMED citizen defying a legitimate government order to put down weapons and disperse is a fair target during an armed insurgency. The fact his weapon was pretty crap is beside the point, it was capable of causing injury or death. (FYI; that is why they tell you not to bring a knife to a gunfight)

As you have presented no evidence that he was killed, how does this "smack of a shoot to kill policy"?

I think the idea was to use proportionate force - carrying a sling shot or home made rocket (were they, looked like ordinary ones to me?) or even using it does not warrant a sniper shot to the head - but that's just me being reasonable.The Human Rights Commission had that viewpoint also. I don't know what leeway of interpretation of orders the snipers were given but there must have been either a disproportionate degree of autonomy given to the snipers or they disobeyed orders.

The very decision to deploy snipers against civilians is abhorrent to me and whoever did so should be judged very severely.

Do you really think police, and in this case soldiers, are interested in giving criminals a fair shot at them? They have lives and families they want to return to after the working day finishes. When they initially tried crowd dispersal they were fired upon, and killed, by military weapons and M-79 grenades, and that changes the ball game, Sunshine. Clear warning was given that the gloves were off, and that lethal response would now be used.

A "civilian" that takes up weapons against the legitimate government is an insurgent not a "peaceful protester" and the ROE chages accordingly.

OK "sunshine", Can you tell me why civilians clearly unarmed were shot and killed at the temple. Can you tell me why a 15 year old kid was shot and killed in a delivery van.Can you tell me why a civilian was shot and killed crouched with a bunch of others against a wall. Can you tell me why civilians trying to evacuate injured people were continually fired on by soldiers. The ROE were exceded on a number of occasions. They were NOT legitimate targets.

Can you prove that all of these shootings were carried out by military snipers? Likewise.

[Siam Simon]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

Seems to have gone awfully quiet.

As explained to Neuro, 1/ I have a life and 2/ I am currently in oz +3hrs

Have you considered the relative positions? Troops on the BTS are elevated and highly visible but with a visibility advantage. RTA at ground level were also firing unobserved, because the wat has walls, which explains why those inside did not see MIB.

Were there armed people in the wat? Probably not, but there may have been one or more preceived to be armed. Firing into a mass of people like there was present at the wat, I consider criminally irresponsible. That there was a firefight initiated there even more so.

Having answered your questions, could you lower yourself to answer mine - who stood to gain?

Mick, could you please provide links to your posts criticising Dem and army corruption? I keep asking you about this but you keep blanking me. I want you to show me and the forum that you have a balanced view about politics in Thailand..

Edited January 9, 2012 by Siam Simon

[OzMick]

Mick, could you please provide links to your posts criticising Dem and army corruption? I keep asking you about this but you keep blanking me. I want you to show me and the forum that you have a balanced view about politics in Thailand..

Until today I have not blanked you, but the button will now be pushed. As I posted yesterday, do your homework (with suggested topics supplied). Should I be less subtle? GFY

BTW I have never claimed impartiality, I leave that to hypocrites.

[ThaiOats]

Here are several scenarios for you all who thinks using snipers and lethal force are inhumane against armed protestors.

1) An unarmed person ntentionally stands in front of an armed person who happens to be shooting and throwing grenades at his adversaries. How do you propose to stop that armed person without causing injury to the unarmed person? Negotiation is not an option as it has been tried and failed miserably.

2) How do you propose to put down an armed person who mingles in with the crowd using the crowd as human shield even without consent of the unarmed people?

3) Could you please explain to me how you or anyone you knew would've decided to stay in a live firing zone after it was announced, then blame anyone else but yourselves if you got injured? In this scenario you had choices unlike the war zones where people's neighborhoods were battlefields.

Notice I didn't mention red shirt, so I'm taking the politics out of this one. Also please do not mention that "..the government shouldn't have used lethal force against citizens" because like I said, no politics. Just in these situations what are your options.

[nurofiend]

Here are several scenarios for you all who thinks using snipers and lethal force are inhumane against armed protestors.

1) An unarmed person ntentionally stands in front of an armed person who happens to be shooting and throwing grenades at his adversaries. How do you propose to stop that armed person without causing injury to the unarmed person? Negotiation is not an option as it has been tried and failed miserably.

2) How do you propose to put down an armed person who mingles in with the crowd using the crowd as human shield even without consent of the unarmed people?

3) Could you please explain to me how you or anyone you knew would've decided to stay in a live firing zone after it was announced, then blame anyone else but yourselves if you got injured? In this scenario you had choices unlike the war zones where people's neighborhoods were battlefields.

Notice I didn't mention red shirt, so I'm taking the politics out of this one. Also please do not mention that "..the government shouldn't have used lethal force against citizens" because like I said, no politics. Just in these situations what are your options.

nvm, i read the question wrong lol

i read it as what were the snipers meant to do in those situations...

<deleted>

actually i can still put the 3rd answer in

if nobody stayed during a protest after live fire had been either declared or had begun, then many society changing events throughout the world would never have happened.

this argument that it's protestors own fault if they die after live firing zones have been declared is quite cold to me, to say the least.

if this was the status quo of protests throughout the world, then all any government would have to do is say stop protesting or we'll declare a live firing zone and that would be that, total domination.

thankfully this isn't the case in most places because if people hear their government saying to them 'we will shoot you unless you move' they feel this isn't right and try and stand up to it.

but it is like that in some countries - they know if they protest they will be killed.

and that's a pretty bleak existence.

if you lived in a country where you know if you protest, government forces would shoot at you, would you say - 'well they only have themselves to blame' if people tried to stand up to that and were killed?

Edited January 10, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

nvm, i read the question wrong lol

i read it as what were the snipers meant to do in those situations...

<deleted>

actually i can still put the 3rd answer in

if nobody stayed during a protest after live fire had been either declared or had begun, then many society changing events throughout the world would never have happened.

this argument that it's protestors own fault if they die after live firing zones have been declared is quite cold to me, to say the least.

if this was the status quo of protests throughout the world, then all any government would have to do is say stop protesting or we'll declare a live firing zone and that would be that, total domination.

thankfully this isn't the case in most places because if people hear their government saying to them 'we will shoot you unless you move' they feel this isn't right and try and stand up to it.

but it is like that in some countries - they know if they protest they will be killed.

and that's a pretty bleak existence.

if you lived in a country where you know if you protest, government forces would shoot at you, would you say - 'well they only have themselves to blame' if people tried to stand up to that and were killed?

It wasn't the whole protest area that was declared a "live fire zone". Only a small area to the north of the main protest area was declared. This was because the army were coming under attack from black shirt snipers in that area, and because it wasn't as open an area as the Rama IV side. Don't forget that this was outside the barricaded protest area that the army was being attacked.

[nurofiend]

nvm, i read the question wrong lol

i read it as what were the snipers meant to do in those situations...

<deleted>

actually i can still put the 3rd answer in

if nobody stayed during a protest after live fire had been either declared or had begun, then many society changing events throughout the world would never have happened.

this argument that it's protestors own fault if they die after live firing zones have been declared is quite cold to me, to say the least.

if this was the status quo of protests throughout the world, then all any government would have to do is say stop protesting or we'll declare a live firing zone and that would be that, total domination.

thankfully this isn't the case in most places because if people hear their government saying to them 'we will shoot you unless you move' they feel this isn't right and try and stand up to it.

but it is like that in some countries - they know if they protest they will be killed.

and that's a pretty bleak existence.

if you lived in a country where you know if you protest, government forces would shoot at you, would you say - 'well they only have themselves to blame' if people tried to stand up to that and were killed?

It wasn't the whole protest area that was declared a "live fire zone". Only a small area to the north of the main protest area was declared. This was because the army were coming under attack from black shirt snipers in that area, and because it wasn't as open an area as the Rama IV side. Don't forget that this was outside the barricaded protest area that the army was being attacked.

i thought we weren't talking about thailand

i know that and civilians were killed outside of the live firing zone too, which further debunks the 'it's their own fault' point to me.

[tlansford]

Here are several scenarios for you all who thinks using snipers and lethal force are inhumane against armed protestors.

1) An unarmed person ntentionally stands in front of an armed person who happens to be shooting and throwing grenades at his adversaries. How do you propose to stop that armed person without causing injury to the unarmed person? Negotiation is not an option as it has been tried and failed miserably.

2) How do you propose to put down an armed person who mingles in with the crowd using the crowd as human shield even without consent of the unarmed people?

3) Could you please explain to me how you or anyone you knew would've decided to stay in a live firing zone after it was announced, then blame anyone else but yourselves if you got injured? In this scenario you had choices unlike the war zones where people's neighborhoods were battlefields.

Notice I didn't mention red shirt, so I'm taking the politics out of this one. Also please do not mention that "..the government shouldn't have used lethal force against citizens" because like I said, no politics. Just in these situations what are your options.

Stating that governments (not only the Thai) should not use lethal force against its citizens is not political.

Asking what the protesters should have done, or blaming them for not leaving is the wrong end of the problem. The government & authorities are the responsible party for managing crowd control. The gov't is the entity with a myriad of options and choices (non-lethal) for crowd control and dispersal. The gov't is the only entity which can make rational, predictable choices to avoid an escalation of violence. The gov't is the entity which can (and IMO should) chose a non-lethal response to crowd control even when a crowd becomes violent. This is exactly the responsibility of the government - both in the general case and in the Red AND Yellow conflicts in the last 6 years.

As for the protesters - yellow or red - after the protests, those who may have committed crimes should have their cases heard and prosecuted, found guilty or innocent.

To say that innocent protesters who are told to leave, and then do not and are killed, are responsible for being killed is absurd because it completely ignores the responsibility of the the only entity in a position to make rational choices to kill or to not kill people. That is the government / authorities.

There exists a lot of information on crowd control techniques for both non-violent and violent crowds. Every government and authority responsible for law enforcement and civil order has access to it. There are basic techniques and proven guidelines. The process of crowd control in many senses is no different from any business problem many of you face, planning, preparation, proper resources, execution, adaptation...

In the case of 2010, there are examples where the government / army clearly botched the operation - like beginning a crowd dispersal action shortly before nightfall and not in the morning. The government did make a choice to use lethal force as well. Clearly, the authorities did not handle the situation well and 91 people are dead. That Abhisit is being asked to provide information is clearly appropriate.

As for prosecutions related to the 2010 protests, I haven't seen recent numbers, but not too long ago, only cases against the protesters had been sent to prosecutors and none of the cases against the government had been sent to prosecution. Given the responsibility that the government carries, the level of violence and the number of dead, I find it amazing that the cases regarding the government actions have not been handled and it will soon be 2 years after the events.

Regarding a government's responsibility, it is the same if the protesters are yellow or red, if it is Thailand or the US.

[whybother]

i thought we weren't talking about thailand

i know that and civilians were killed outside of the live firing zone too, which further debunks the 'it's their own fault' point to me.

The live fire zone was just one part of the issue.

I wonder how many protesters were killed inside the barricaded areas prior to May 19 (and after April 10). Most were killed in areas where red shirts were attacking the army outside the barricades. Except for innocent bystanders (ie not red shirt protesters), I would think that would put a lot of them into the "it's their own fault" category.

[nurofiend]

i thought we weren't talking about thailand

i know that and civilians were killed outside of the live firing zone too, which further debunks the 'it's their own fault' point to me.

The live fire zone was just one part of the issue.

I wonder how many protesters were killed inside the barricaded areas prior to May 19 (and after April 10). Most were killed in areas where red shirts were attacking the army outside the barricades. Except for innocent bystanders (ie not red shirt protesters), I would think that would put a lot of them into the "it's their own fault" category.

"Most were killed in areas where red shirts were attacking the army outside the barricades."

and by that do you mean where there were lots of red shirts around?

Edited January 10, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

Stating that governments (not only the Thai) should not use lethal force against its citizens is not political.

Asking what the protesters should have done, or blaming them for not leaving is the wrong end of the problem. The government & authorities are the responsible party for managing crowd control. The gov't is the entity with a myriad of options and choices (non-lethal) for crowd control and dispersal. The gov't is the only entity which can make rational, predictable choices to avoid an escalation of violence. The gov't is the entity which can (and IMO should) chose a non-lethal response to crowd control even when a crowd becomes violent. This is exactly the responsibility of the government - both in the general case and in the Red AND Yellow conflicts in the last 6 years.

As for the protesters - yellow or red - after the protests, those who may have committed crimes should have their cases heard and prosecuted, found guilty or innocent.

To say that innocent protesters who are told to leave, and then do not and are killed, are responsible for being killed is absurd because it completely ignores the responsibility of the the only entity in a position to make rational choices to kill or to not kill people. That is the government / authorities.

There exists a lot of information on crowd control techniques for both non-violent and violent crowds. Every government and authority responsible for law enforcement and civil order has access to it. There are basic techniques and proven guidelines. The process of crowd control in many senses is no different from any business problem many of you face, planning, preparation, proper resources, execution, adaptation...

In the case of 2010, there are examples where the government / army clearly botched the operation - like beginning a crowd dispersal action shortly before nightfall and not in the morning. The government did make a choice to use lethal force as well. Clearly, the authorities did not handle the situation well and 91 people are dead. That Abhisit is being asked to provide information is clearly appropriate.

As for prosecutions related to the 2010 protests, I haven't seen recent numbers, but not too long ago, only cases against the protesters had been sent to prosecutors and none of the cases against the government had been sent to prosecution. Given the responsibility that the government carries, the level of violence and the number of dead, I find it amazing that the cases regarding the government actions have not been handled and it will soon be 2 years after the events.

Regarding a government's responsibility, it is the same if the protesters are yellow or red, if it is Thailand or the US.

What crowd control techniques deal with being blown up by grenades?

[phiphidon]

AGAIN refer you to the link to the DSI report. Soldiers on the tracks were firing in support of others at ground level being attacked by men in black. Witness 41 reported 5-6 MIB who killed his companion. Use your common sense - who stood to gain from a firefight close to the wat?

BTW Skyhooks are defunct

I am well aware of the link, I posted it along with another poster who did the same. Yes I read it - did you.

Army Witness 30 fired at men in black near a flyover pillar and later at 1810hrs fired at a man he thought had a weapon near the monks residence.

Army Witness 34 fired at men in black beneath a pedestrian bridge (possibly at or near the place as described above) providing cover for ground troops as requested

Army witnesses 35 and 36 providing cover for ground troops fired at people hiding behind cars

Army witnesses 31 and 33 didn't fire at anyone

Army Witness 32 for some reason fired into the wall of the Wat

Army witnesses 37,38, 39 and 40 weren't even there.

So according to the above no army personnel based on the BTS tracks fired at people in the wat, apart from Army Witness 32.

On the morning of the 20th May Witness 12 assessed that there were 3-4000 protesters and others, including journalists in the temple grounds so we can be assured there were plenty of witnesses to the previous days events.

Despite only one soldier apparently firing into the Wat wall, 12 witnesses heard explosions and gunfire outside of the temple, some from the direction of Siam Paragon.

A Police Sargeant, Witness 27 heard gunfire come from the BTS track and took photos of soldiers on the tracks.

A Master Sargeant 3rd Class, Witness 28 gave almost identical evidence to Witness 27 with the addition of video footage. He states that a group of Journalists and officers were also witnessing the events on the BTS tracks.

Witness 7, a protester and medic witnesses 8 and 9 either were shot at by the soldiers on the BTS tracks or witnessed people being shot by the soldiers.

Witness 21, a Journalist saw people running in a frenzy towards the Wat and one man shot near the flyover. He did not witness any protesters in the temple shooting back (at Authorities) and stated that the protesters had no weapons whatsoever.

I think I have more faith in the Temple witnesses than the Army ones and therefore am not inclined to believe your version of events.

As for Witness 41.............. do you really believe that the men in black came into the temple compound (when just before the army had been shooting at them supposedly under the pedestrian bridge) take time to shoot a certain Mr Le and his 4 contracted rocket maker mates, drag the bodies to a bunker in front of the temple and set fire to the bodies, in front of a huge number of onlookers including journalists in the middle of the afternoon without anybody recording the moment for posterity or at least the funeral pyre the next day, whilst a certain Witness 41 escapes on a stolen motorcycle and drives to the police with his story.

That is as believable as Khun Sutheps version of events that day.

Seems to have gone awfully quiet.

As explained to Neuro, 1/ I have a life and 2/ I am currently in oz +3hrs

Have you considered the relative positions? Troops on the BTS are elevated and highly visible but with a visibility advantage. RTA at ground level were also firing unobserved, because the wat has walls, which explains why those inside did not see MIB.

Were there armed people in the wat? Probably not, but there may have been one or more preceived to be armed. Firing into a mass of people like there was present at the wat, I consider criminally irresponsible. That there was a firefight initiated there even more so.

Having answered your questions, could you lower yourself to answer mine - who stood to gain?

I do not think the red shirts had anything to gain by starting a fire fight at a temple agreed for use as a sanctuary. Then again that viewpoint is irrelevant because there was not a firefight at the Wat. It was one way firing and more than irresponsible. The "fire fight" 12 witnesses mention was outside the temple, some say in the direction of Siam Paragon. At least one witness reports people fleeing in the direction of the Wat away from the fire fight.

The "men in black" were allegedly seen by the Army witnesses under a pedestrian bridge or next to a flyover pillar. The Army are linked by radios so this information must have been passed on to the men on the ground.

You seem to think that the murders at the temple can be pinned down to "who is to gain". Have you ever considered the possibility that the "The reds provoked the Army into shooting Red Shirts for propaganda purposes" agenda proposed by the hard of thinking on this forum is complete and utter BS? And using the Witness 41 statement as a backup to that thinking is hardly likely to help your case.

[phiphidon]

Can you prove that all of these shootings were carried out by military snipers? Likewise.

Read the report.

[whybother]

i thought we weren't talking about thailand

i know that and civilians were killed outside of the live firing zone too, which further debunks the 'it's their own fault' point to me.

The live fire zone was just one part of the issue.

I wonder how many protesters were killed inside the barricaded areas prior to May 19 (and after April 10). Most were killed in areas where red shirts were attacking the army outside the barricades. Except for innocent bystanders (ie not red shirt protesters), I would think that would put a lot of them into the "it's their own fault" category.

"Most were killed in areas where red shirts were attacking the army outside the barricades."

and by that do you mean where there were lots of red shirts around?

In comparison to the total protester numbers, no. Mostly, from what I have seen, numbers were in the tens. The army weren't shooting at crowds of protesters.

[phiphidon]

nvm, i read the question wrong lol

i read it as what were the snipers meant to do in those situations...

<deleted>

actually i can still put the 3rd answer in

if nobody stayed during a protest after live fire had been either declared or had begun, then many society changing events throughout the world would never have happened.

this argument that it's protestors own fault if they die after live firing zones have been declared is quite cold to me, to say the least.

if this was the status quo of protests throughout the world, then all any government would have to do is say stop protesting or we'll declare a live firing zone and that would be that, total domination.

thankfully this isn't the case in most places because if people hear their government saying to them 'we will shoot you unless you move' they feel this isn't right and try and stand up to it.

but it is like that in some countries - they know if they protest they will be killed.

and that's a pretty bleak existence.

if you lived in a country where you know if you protest, government forces would shoot at you, would you say - 'well they only have themselves to blame' if people tried to stand up to that and were killed?

It wasn't the whole protest area that was declared a "live fire zone". Only a small area to the north of the main protest area was declared. This was because the army were coming under attack from black shirt snipers in that area, and because it wasn't as open an area as the Rama IV side. Don't forget that this was outside the barricaded protest area that the army was being attacked.

How many people were shot and killed outside of the Live Firing Zone? Just a thought