Abhisit Ready To Answer Summons On Red-Shirt Crackdown

[whybother]

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

I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure there were some killed in the Rama IV area, which wasn't a live fire zone.

[phiphidon]

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?

A disorganised retreat and indiscriminate firing into the crowd was the response - I'm not sure what the official version was supposed to be. Apart from April 10th were there any other grenade attacks on soldiers (not on buildings or the the one that went through the roof of the BTS station) that we can learn the response from?

[phiphidon]

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

I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure there were some killed in the Rama IV area, which wasn't a live fire zone.

Allowing for 20 civilians killed on April 10th and lets say 5 in the Rama IV area, and taking away say 15 from the total of 90 odd for security forces deaths that still leaves approximately 50 civilians shot and killed outside of the Live Fire Zones. Even allowing for the rough approximations that's rather a lot don't you think?

[whybother]

A disorganised retreat and indiscriminate firing into the crowd was the response - I'm not sure what the official version was supposed to be. Apart from April 10th were there any other grenade attacks on soldiers (not on buildings or the the one that went through the roof of the BTS station) that we can learn the response from?

On May 19 a soldier and a reporter were injured by a grenade.

I wonder if riot shields protect from grenade blasts.

[phiphidon]

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.

Apart from into the sanctuary of the Wat that is.

[tlansford]

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?

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?

and your point is?

Crowd control techniques dealing with violent crowds begins well before a crowd becomes violent, assessing the risks of violence, planning for possible violence, and in this case, also planning for crowd dispersal.

If your comment on grenades is somehow meant to justify the governments botched handling of the riots and the government's decision to start killing people, then you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with you. And I feel it is also just a knee-jerk reaction which requires little effort and is also far too common on this forum.

[weka]

The protest was fine for at least 6 weeks.

Rememeber it started at government house and then moved across town. No Army or Government intervention then.

When the protest began adversely affecting the economy and residents rights and safety, then it had to be dispersed.

Employees at a friend's company in Central World could not go into work for a month - the business folded.

The objective of a civil protest is to bring attention to an issue and demonstrate a solution.

They did this at the start and good on them - fair play.

The objective of a civil protest is not to cripple an economy or put local businesses and residents at risk, (or try to blow up petrol tankers).

The whole thing started out as a peaceful protest, no problem.

By the time the Army came in it was no longer a peaceful protest.

There was a definite sequence of events that progressed from peaceful protest through to damaging, intimidatory unlawful occupation of a public area.

Protests occur everyday in Thailand. The right to protest is very much evident here.

The right to occupy and intimidate and destroy public property and the well being of businesses is not evident anywhere on the planet.

The government also have a responsibility to protect all citizens, not just demonstrators.

TL by your logic I can organise a barricade and fire grenades and molotov cocktails at government house, or a school and all the authorities can do is google "non violent dispersal techniques" and come out and sing "Kumbaya my lord" and it'll all end nice and peacefully.

You were bullied at school because your mum knitted your clothes and cut your hair, weren't you?

[phiphidon]

A disorganised retreat and indiscriminate firing into the crowd was the response - I'm not sure what the official version was supposed to be. Apart from April 10th were there any other grenade attacks on soldiers (not on buildings or the the one that went through the roof of the BTS station) that we can learn the response from?

On May 19 a soldier and a reporter were injured by a grenade.

I wonder if riot shields protect from grenade blasts.

So, 2 occasions, 2 too many I agree but not the repeated series of attacks we read about in the press and repeated on these forums and used as an excuse for the disproportionate response of the Security Forces.

[sparebox2]

The truth needs to come out 1st, before the payment.

Since the people are dead anyway, they can waiti a little longer. What's the hurry.

[whybother]

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

I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure there were some killed in the Rama IV area, which wasn't a live fire zone.

Allowing for 20 civilians killed on April 10th and lets say 5 in the Rama IV area, and taking away say 15 from the total of 90 odd for security forces deaths that still leaves approximately 50 civilians shot and killed outside of the Live Fire Zones. Even allowing for the rough approximations that's rather a lot don't you think?

Where do you get your numbers for those killed the live fire zone, or any other area for that matter?

36 were killed between May 13 and 17 (wiki). They would have been killed in two main areas - Rama IV (Silom / Sathorn) and Din Daeng (Pratunam area) where the live fire zone was. Both of these areas were outside the barricaded protest areas, so I don't know why the protesters were out there.

[whybother]

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.

Apart from into the sanctuary of the Wat that is.

Well, that's inside the barricades, isn't it.

[whybother]

A disorganised retreat and indiscriminate firing into the crowd was the response - I'm not sure what the official version was supposed to be. Apart from April 10th were there any other grenade attacks on soldiers (not on buildings or the the one that went through the roof of the BTS station) that we can learn the response from?

On May 19 a soldier and a reporter were injured by a grenade.

I wonder if riot shields protect from grenade blasts.

So, 2 occasions, 2 too many I agree but not the repeated series of attacks we read about in the press and repeated on these forums and used as an excuse for the disproportionate response of the Security Forces.

Two occasions that the military were injured / killed. There were several other cases where the red shirts used grenades.

The red shirts used grenades on April 10, BEFORE the army were using live ammunition.

What is the proportionate response when you are attacked by grenades? The red shirts had shown that they would use them. How should the army have responded?

[whybother]

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

and your point is?

Crowd control techniques dealing with violent crowds begins well before a crowd becomes violent, assessing the risks of violence, planning for possible violence, and in this case, also planning for crowd dispersal.

If your comment on grenades is somehow meant to justify the governments botched handling of the riots and the government's decision to start killing people, then you'll have to forgive me for disagreeing with you. And I feel it is also just a knee-jerk reaction which requires little effort and is also far too common on this forum.

I agree that the government botched dealing with the red shirts setting up at Ratchaprasong. They should not have let them set up there in the first place, and they should have done a much better job stopping them from coming and going once they had set up.

But on April 10, the army were standing around with riot shields and the crowds were dancing to music. Then all hell broke loose.

No one knows who started the shooting, but not long after it started, the military were hit by grenades.

How do you deal with violent crowds when their violence starts with guns and grenades?

Edited January 10, 2012 by whybother

[sparebox2]

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

I don't know the numbers, but I'm pretty sure there were some killed in the Rama IV area, which wasn't a live fire zone.

Allowing for 20 civilians killed on April 10th and lets say 5 in the Rama IV area, and taking away say 15 from the total of 90 odd for security forces deaths that still leaves approximately 50 civilians shot and killed outside of the Live Fire Zones. Even allowing for the rough approximations that's rather a lot don't you think?

Where do you get your numbers for those killed the live fire zone, or any other area for that matter?

36 were killed between May 13 and 17 (wiki). They would have been killed in two main areas - Rama IV (Silom / Sathorn) and Din Daeng (Pratunam area) where the live fire zone was. Both of these areas were outside the barricaded protest areas, so I don't know why the protesters were out there.

"so I don't know why the protesters were out there." - some people may need to get to/from work/home etc. The protest site is not a lock up zoo.

[phiphidon]

Where do you get your numbers for those killed the live fire zone, or any other area for that matter?

36 were killed between May 13 and 17 (wiki). They would have been killed in two main areas - Rama IV (Silom / Sathorn) and Din Daeng (Pratunam area) where the live fire zone was. Both of these areas were outside the barricaded protest areas, so I don't know why the protesters were out there.

"so I don't know why the protesters were out there." - some people may need to get to/from work/home etc. The protest site is not a lock up zoo.

These I can tell you where they died

(from the Death Register compiled by The World Today (Thai) Magazine, issue 274, date 28 August – 3 September 2010 page 4-5

Hosted by different sites sepending upon availability of sites;

Mr. Chatchai Chalao, 25, he died from wounds to his neck from the crackdown at Lumpini Park on 13 May

Mr. Phan Kamklong, 43, was shot in the left chest, died at the Moh Lheng area

Unknown man, was shot and died at Ratchaparop area

Unknown boy, 14, was shot in the stomach and arm; he died at Soi Moh Lheng

Ms. Santana Sappasri, 34, was shot in the stomach and arm at Moh Lheng area

Mr. Prachuab Prachuabsuk, 42, he died at the Charoenkrung Pracharak

Mr. Kittipong Somsuk, 20, burnt in the Central World blaze, body found on 21 May

A Bonkai community man, 71, died on 28 July from a blood infection after getting treatment from being shot in the stomach while he walked through the zone to pick up his granddaughter

[whybother]

These I can tell you where they died

(from the Death Register compiled by The World Today (Thai) Magazine, issue 274, date 28 August – 3 September 2010 page 4-5

Hosted by different sites sepending upon availability of sites;

Mr. Chatchai Chalao, 25, he died from wounds to his neck from the crackdown at Lumpini Park on 13 May

Mr. Phan Kamklong, 43, was shot in the left chest, died at the Moh Lheng area

Unknown man, was shot and died at Ratchaparop area

Unknown boy, 14, was shot in the stomach and arm; he died at Soi Moh Lheng

Ms. Santana Sappasri, 34, was shot in the stomach and arm at Moh Lheng area

Mr. Prachuab Prachuabsuk, 42, he died at the Charoenkrung Pracharak

Mr. Kittipong Somsuk, 20, burnt in the Central World blaze, body found on 21 May

A Bonkai community man, 71, died on 28 July from a blood infection after getting treatment from being shot in the stomach while he walked through the zone to pick up his granddaughter

So, that's 5 in the live fire zone area (Moh Lheng / Ratchaparop).

Two died from wounds, but no idea where they were in relation to the protest site when they got shot, but would assume on the Rama IV side.

And the guy that died in the blaze is irrelevant from the point of view of this discussion.

Out of 36, it doesn't tell us much.

[whybother]

"so I don't know why the protesters were out there." - some people may need to get to/from work/home etc. The protest site is not a lock up zoo.

People didn't need to walk through the combat zones to get in and out of the protest area.

[OzMick]

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.

The alternate proposal is that 2 separate units decided to fire at random, or deliberately at unarmed protesters,for no apparent reason. Compare that to one unit coming under attack, calling for support, and support fire going in the wrong direction.

"Who gains" is a basic investigative tool for determining motive. You have yet to propose a better one than a mass onset of homocidal mania in trained soldiers. I believe my proposed motive is much more believable.

The whole event was supposed to attain early elections (offered and refused), and escalated in violence until it met a violent response. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderous bastards, a political ploy that worked quite well. There is sufficient number of accounts of money changing hands for this to have been an expensive operation, and to justify that investment, protesters had to die at the hands of the military. You don't believe that. I and others believe that a sociopath like Thaksin would accept that proposition in a moment if he stood to personally gain.

[sparebox2]

"so I don't know why the protesters were out there." - some people may need to get to/from work/home etc. The protest site is not a lock up zoo.

People didn't need to walk through the combat zones to get in and out of the protest area.

Yes they do, as the protest site is fully (100%) surrounded by combat zones; some offical, some not.

[whybother]

"so I don't know why the protesters were out there." - some people may need to get to/from work/home etc. The protest site is not a lock up zoo.

People didn't need to walk through the combat zones to get in and out of the protest area.

Yes they do, as the protest site is fully (100%) surrounded by combat zones; some offical, some not.

How many people were shot at Nana or MBK? There was no "combat zones" (official or not) in those areas.

[phiphidon]

These I can tell you where they died

(from the Death Register compiled by The World Today (Thai) Magazine, issue 274, date 28 August – 3 September 2010 page 4-5

Hosted by different sites sepending upon availability of sites;

Mr. Chatchai Chalao, 25, he died from wounds to his neck from the crackdown at Lumpini Park on 13 May

Mr. Phan Kamklong, 43, was shot in the left chest, died at the Moh Lheng area

Unknown man, was shot and died at Ratchaparop area

Unknown boy, 14, was shot in the stomach and arm; he died at Soi Moh Lheng

Ms. Santana Sappasri, 34, was shot in the stomach and arm at Moh Lheng area

Mr. Prachuab Prachuabsuk, 42, he died at the Charoenkrung Pracharak

Mr. Kittipong Somsuk, 20, burnt in the Central World blaze, body found on 21 May

A Bonkai community man, 71, died on 28 July from a blood infection after getting treatment from being shot in the stomach while he walked through the zone to pick up his granddaughter

So, that's 5 in the live fire zone area (Moh Lheng / Ratchaparop).

Two died from wounds, but no idea where they were in relation to the protest site when they got shot, but would assume on the Rama IV side.

And the guy that died in the blaze is irrelevant from the point of view of this discussion.

Out of 36, it doesn't tell us much.

Well if you have any more information, tell us. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant where they died - A live fire zone doesn't make a death any less tragic, let alone their questionable (for a supposedly democratically governed country) legitimacy. If you're going to deploy snipers against your own countrymen why bother going through the sham of having live fire zones?

[phiphidon]

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.

The alternate proposal is that 2 separate units decided to fire at random, or deliberately at unarmed protesters,for no apparent reason. Compare that to one unit coming under attack, calling for support, and support fire going in the wrong direction.

"Who gains" is a basic investigative tool for determining motive. You have yet to propose a better one than a mass onset of homocidal mania in trained soldiers. I believe my proposed motive is much more believable.

The whole event was supposed to attain early elections (offered and refused), and escalated in violence until it met a violent response. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderous bastards, a political ploy that worked quite well. There is sufficient number of accounts of money changing hands for this to have been an expensive operation, and to justify that investment, protesters had to die at the hands of the military. You don't believe that. I and others believe that a sociopath like Thaksin would accept that proposition in a moment if he stood to personally gain.

To use street vernacular the Royal Thai Army has "previous". Certain factions of it have a lot to lose sometime sooner or later.

[whybother]

Well if you have any more information, tell us. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant where they died - A live fire zone doesn't make a death any less tragic, let alone their questionable (for a supposedly democratically governed country) legitimacy. If you're going to deploy snipers against your own countrymen why bother going through the sham of having live fire zones?

Because in the more congested areas where there were black shirt snipers, there was more risk to by-standers, as shown by the guy being shot picking up his grand daughter.

You don't think most other countries have snipers in place when criminals are running around with guns?

[phiphidon]

Well if you have any more information, tell us. As far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant where they died - A live fire zone doesn't make a death any less tragic, let alone their questionable (for a supposedly democratically governed country) legitimacy. If you're going to deploy snipers against your own countrymen why bother going through the sham of having live fire zones?

Because in the more congested areas where there were black shirt snipers, there was more risk to by-standers, as shown by the guy being shot picking up his grand daughter.

You don't think most other countries have snipers in place when criminals are running around with guns?

How do you know there were "black shirt snipers" apart from the government telling you there were? If they do/did exist how do you know they were near the grandfather or even what relevance they are to the death of the grandfather

Most other countries don't use snipers to shoot unarmed citizens.

[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

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?

Maybe there should be more practice at those Reading Is Fundamental or ESL classes before commenting on my posts, because it is clear they are not properly being read before commenting.

And maybe look at a map of Bangkok too.

Edited January 10, 2012 by animatic

[whybother]

How do you know there were "black shirt snipers" apart from the government telling you there were? If they do/did exist how do you know they were near the grandfather or even what relevance they are to the death of the grandfather

Most other countries don't use snipers to shoot unarmed citizens.

Because there were non-government reports of gunmen firing at the army in this area, including some photos of bullet holes in a member's apartment wall from the direction of the protests.

The grandfather was walking through the live fire zone. It was a live fire zone because of the threat to the army and the fact that there were too many places for gunmen to hide in the many sois and buildings.

Most countries don't use snipers to shoot unarmed citizens, but that doesn't stop it from happening. Not many countries have to deal with armed protests either.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[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?

Maybe there should be more practice at those Reading Is Fundamental or ESL classes before commenting on my posts, because it is clear they are not properly being read before commenting.

And maybe look at a map of Bangkok too.

I'm English, I'll think you'll find my reading skills are fine and I do not speak or write some bastardisation of it either - If you applied what skills you have too you would read the leaked report and discover that there were army soldiers on the tracks, and then maybe a bit more investigative work and you would find out what speciality they were, even what unit, but I'm not going to do that for you seeing as you believe that were fake soldiers up there even this long after the event with all the additional evidence uncovered.

As for reading your posts, when you get around to constructing proper paragraphs and avoid writing as if you are composing some hitherto undiscovered version of Haiku, I may be intrigued enough to get past the first few lines.

As for your last few lines

"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"

do you really speak like that to other people? Must be a laugh a minute.........................

[OzMick]

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.

The alternate proposal is that 2 separate units decided to fire at random, or deliberately at unarmed protesters,for no apparent reason. Compare that to one unit coming under attack, calling for support, and support fire going in the wrong direction.

"Who gains" is a basic investigative tool for determining motive. You have yet to propose a better one than a mass onset of homocidal mania in trained soldiers. I believe my proposed motive is much more believable.

The whole event was supposed to attain early elections (offered and refused), and escalated in violence until it met a violent response. This enabled the Democrats and RTA to be labelled as murderous bastards, a political ploy that worked quite well. There is sufficient number of accounts of money changing hands for this to have been an expensive operation, and to justify that investment, protesters had to die at the hands of the military. You don't believe that. I and others believe that a sociopath like Thaksin would accept that proposition in a moment if he stood to personally gain.

To use street vernacular the Royal Thai Army has "previous". Certain factions of it have a lot to lose sometime sooner or later.

the fact that you don't realise that this "explanation" is more applicable to the red-shirts and Thaksin is both indicative and a little scary.

[Skywalker69]

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?

Yes, if you care to enlighten us witch election promises the Maria-like Mrs.Yingluck kept!

Edited January 11, 2012 by Skywalker69