OzMick Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. Not shot dead yet in this photo correct but he was a red shirt protester during the burn Bangkok campaign. Below is the caption of the origional photo taken by the AFP. This sure "shoots holes" in all you red shirt apologists that the reds were not armed. A demonstrator shoots a pistol during clashes with security forces in Bangkok on May 15, 2010. (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images) So as I originally asked. Why did the authorities only slay those without weapons? If you look at photos of any armed battle with casualties there will be plenty of photos of combatants shot dead with their weapons. Why if so many of the reds were armed as you yellow, coup apologists suggest are there NO NONE ZERO ZIP ZILCH photos of reds shot dead with weapons???? "Shoots holes" in your 'the army used reasonable force' argument. Have you ever read of a battle where weapons were in short supply - the Russians at Stalingrad is a good example where rifles were issued one to every 2 men, the second to pick up the rifle after the first died. The red shirt barricades is an even better example of a shortage of weapons and a difficult logistics situation. But you expect that the combatants were so stupid as to leave rare weaponry in the hands of the dead, otherwise they were never armed at all. Of course there is the alternative argument, that there were red shirts armed, but that the RTA decided to only shoot their unarmed companions. Both arguments are equally inane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 So as I originally asked. Why did the authorities only slay those without weapons? I think it is highly unlikely that the authorities only slayed those without weapons, and it seems your only evidence for this is that you haven't seen any pictures of slain people with weapons still in their mits. Well for a start, you haven't seen pictures of every slain person - or have you?, and for another thing, people slain in a violent manner in the midst of mayhem may not be found when photographed in exactly the same state as when they fell at time of death. A number of hours may well have passed between death and camera man arriving. Anyway, this whole debate for me is somewhat academic. If a group of bank robbers take a bank hostage with a couple of the group being armed, and the police decide after much waiting and many warnings given, that they will storm the bank, all those bank robbers should be ready to face the consequences together as a group, and the ones who aren't armed should not expect that fact to guarantee them not getting hurt or worse. It is the risk they choose to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. Not shot dead yet in this photo correct but he was a red shirt protester during the burn Bangkok campaign. Below is the caption of the origional photo taken by the AFP. This sure "shoots holes" in all you red shirt apologists that the reds were not armed. A demonstrator shoots a pistol during clashes with security forces in Bangkok on May 15, 2010. (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images) So as I originally asked. Why did the authorities only slay those without weapons? If you look at photos of any armed battle with casualties there will be plenty of photos of combatants shot dead with their weapons. Why if so many of the reds were armed as you yellow, coup apologists suggest are there NO NONE ZERO ZIP ZILCH photos of reds shot dead with weapons???? "Shoots holes" in your 'the army used reasonable force' argument. Have you ever read of a battle where weapons were in short supply - the Russians at Stalingrad is a good example where rifles were issued one to every 2 men, the second to pick up the rifle after the first died. The red shirt barricades is an even better example of a shortage of weapons and a difficult logistics situation. But you expect that the combatants were so stupid as to leave rare weaponry in the hands of the dead, otherwise they were never armed at all. Of course there is the alternative argument, that there were red shirts armed, but that the RTA decided to only shoot their unarmed companions. Both arguments are equally inane. Rare weaponry....huh, didn't you see the massive weapons caches 'found' by the authorities when they overtook the site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Your personal beliefs carry as much weight as a toenail. The facts are that the authorities shot and killed unarmed civilians. And the facts also are that there were armed protesters shooting at the army. So where is the evidence of authorities shooting those armed protesters? Although they would dearly love to have such evidence they simply don't. Calgary, I see you changed to a new profile? Search the collection of youtube videos, There's no denying armed red shirts firing and ones getting hit who got only what they asked for. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MikeOboe57 Posted February 25, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted February 25, 2012 He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. Not shot dead yet in this photo correct but he was a red shirt protester during the burn Bangkok campaign. Below is the caption of the origional photo taken by the AFP. This sure "shoots holes" in all you red shirt apologists that the reds were not armed. A demonstrator shoots a pistol during clashes with security forces in Bangkok on May 15, 2010. (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images) So as I originally asked. Why did the authorities only slay those without weapons? If you look at photos of any armed battle with casualties there will be plenty of photos of combatants shot dead with their weapons. Why if so many of the reds were armed as you yellow, coup apologists suggest are there NO NONE ZERO ZIP ZILCH photos of reds shot dead with weapons???? "Shoots holes" in your 'the army used reasonable force' argument. Just use some sense. The Red Shirt leaders claimed that their protest was unarmed. Yet there are tons of pictures and videos of armed men in civilian outfit or black combat gear hovering around the place. To keep up the image of "peaceful protesters" any fighter being wounded or killed would quickly be stripped of his gear and presented as an "innocent victim" of the army's "indiscriminate killing of civilians". Why? Because people like you would take it hook, line and sinker. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Rare weaponry....huh, didn't you see the massive weapons caches 'found' by the authorities when they overtook the site? Have you ever heard of a self-defeating argument? If the weapons were indeed "found" by the authorities, then weapons were indeed rare. If the caches were there and not "found" then the red shirts were an armed insurrection and a legitimate target. The best argument I can put forward is the relatively small number of casualties in an area with hundreds of troops. One soldier armed with an M-16 and a standard issue of ammunition could have killed 90 odd persons. That they didn't kill many more and the almost total lack of women in the death toll indicates to me restraint and targetting of armed combatants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. Not shot dead yet in this photo correct but he was a red shirt protester during the burn Bangkok campaign. Below is the caption of the origional photo taken by the AFP. This sure "shoots holes" in all you red shirt apologists that the reds were not armed. A demonstrator shoots a pistol during clashes with security forces in Bangkok on May 15, 2010. (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images) So as I originally asked. Why did the authorities only slay those without weapons? If you look at photos of any armed battle with casualties there will be plenty of photos of combatants shot dead with their weapons. Why if so many of the reds were armed as you yellow, coup apologists suggest are there NO NONE ZERO ZIP ZILCH photos of reds shot dead with weapons???? "Shoots holes" in your 'the army used reasonable force' argument. Just use some sense. The Red Shirt leaders claimed that their protest was unarmed. Yet there are tons of pictures and videos of armed men in civilian outfit or black combat gear hovering around the place. To keep up the image of "peaceful protesters" any fighter being wounded or killed would quickly be stripped of his gear and presented as an "innocent victim" of the army's "indiscriminate killing of civilians". Why? Because people like you would take it hook, line and sinker. What a crock of excrement. If the soldiers were able to shoot them, why wouldn't they have been able to take a photo? A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. It just doesn't add up guys, apparently according to Suthep, the DSI and the army there were 'over 500 heavily armed terrorists' there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit, who is a deputy prime minister, did not take part in the debate Is she EVER there? It's better to not show up for work and appear to be an incompetent than to go to work and remove all doubts. So if she wasn't there, how is it that she managed to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit, who is a deputy prime minister, did not take part in the debate Is she EVER there? Since you stopped the quote just before the bit that says "but they voted in support of the three bills" suggests that they were. OK, I'll rephrase. Does she EVER say anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. Not shot dead yet in this photo correct but he was a red shirt protester during the burn Bangkok campaign. Below is the caption of the origional photo taken by the AFP. This sure "shoots holes" in all you red shirt apologists that the reds were not armed. A demonstrator shoots a pistol during clashes with security forces in Bangkok on May 15, 2010. (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images) OK how about army troops fire on medics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WSu78EPrpM&feature=related Not convinced - see any armed guys here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 For the sake of balance here's some footage of Red Shirt Supporters armed with a sling shot, a stone and a firework - See the guy in the Red and White shirt fiming the scene from behind a barricade (about 1m.44s in) - Do you think that was an appropriate response? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFkMH1cuSA&feature=related And heres one for you Col.Sankern fans showing 3/4 dead bodies "walk away" from the scene of shooting - but does he explain the lack of a weapon on the one that didn't walk away? Shame he was using a green laser to point out the "bodies"...........some may remember the use of green lasers on April 10th.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Have you ever heard of a self-defeating argument? If the weapons were indeed "found" by the authorities, then weapons were indeed rare. If the caches were there and not "found" then the red shirts were an armed insurrection and a legitimate target. The best argument I can put forward is the relatively small number of casualties in an area with hundreds of troops. One soldier armed with an M-16 and a standard issue of ammunition could have killed 90 odd persons. That they didn't kill many more and the almost total lack of women in the death toll indicates to me restraint and targetting of armed combatants. Given that "80% of the red shirts are women", it's quite a surprise that there weren't a lot more women killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What a crock of excrement. If the soldiers were able to shoot them, why wouldn't they have been able to take a photo? A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. It just doesn't add up guys, apparently according to Suthep, the DSI and the army there were 'over 500 heavily armed terrorists' there. The army were a hundred metres away. They didn't shoot and then run forward to take a photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Every time I see a photo of Jatuporn in a suit, I'm surprised that he's not holding a tin cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. I doubt that. People like you would just say the administration put the weapons in the victims hands after they shot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What a crock of excrement. If the soldiers were able to shoot them, why wouldn't they have been able to take a photo? A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. It just doesn't add up guys, apparently according to Suthep, the DSI and the army there were 'over 500 heavily armed terrorists' there. The army were a hundred metres away. They didn't shoot and then run forward to take a photo. Even for you that is a dumb comment. What sort of camera do you use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What a crock of excrement. If the soldiers were able to shoot them, why wouldn't they have been able to take a photo? A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. It just doesn't add up guys, apparently according to Suthep, the DSI and the army there were 'over 500 heavily armed terrorists' there. The army were a hundred metres away. They didn't shoot and then run forward to take a photo. Even for you that is a dumb comment. What sort of camera do you use? Not one that can see through walls and barricades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What a crock of excrement. If the soldiers were able to shoot them, why wouldn't they have been able to take a photo? A photo like that would be worth its weight in gold for the administration. It just doesn't add up guys, apparently according to Suthep, the DSI and the army there were 'over 500 heavily armed terrorists' there. The army were a hundred metres away. They didn't shoot and then run forward to take a photo. Even for you that is a dumb comment. What sort of camera do you use? Not one that can see through walls and barricades. I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh That might be the case if the person / body stayed in exactly the same position when they were shot. But the reality is when someone is shot while they are standing up, they fall to the ground, and at that stage you can't see them from a distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Yes it's done all the time on attack helicopters and the like. AFAIK not a standard attachment for an M-16. Arm chair heroes and Monday quarterbacks - expecting heroics and impossibilities from normal people using 20/20 hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Please give me the model number of a camera that can take picture of a collapsed body laying on the ground behind a wall or barricade from several hundred meters away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Please give me the model number of a camera that can take picture of a collapsed body laying on the ground behind a wall or barricade from several hundred meters away. From an elevated snipers position e.g the Skytrain tracks or a condo or hospital I would have thought any reputable make with a decent lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pastitche Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit, who is a deputy prime minister, did not take part in the debate Is she EVER there? Since you stopped the quote just before the bit that says "but they voted in support of the three bills" suggests that they were. OK, I'll rephrase. Does she EVER say anything? ISince you criticise everything that she does say, I tink you know the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Please give me the model number of a camera that can take picture of a collapsed body laying on the ground behind a wall or barricade from several hundred meters away. From an elevated snipers position e.g the Skytrain tracks or a condo or hospital I would have thought any reputable make with a decent lens If a barricade of is 80cm high and the body is located, counted from body center, 40cm from the barricade, how high up would a person have to be to take a picture of the full body and the area around him [to see a dropped weapon], discounting being the person or any weapon being obscured by others huddling in the same area? You are allowed to use a calculator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If that is so; I challenge you to post a photo of a red shirt who has been shot dead with a weapon in their hands. There are hundreds of photos of red shirts shot dead unarmed. There are hundreds of photos of a few red shirts that were shot dead. They weren't armed when the photos were taken. Coincidence is a funny thing isn't it. There were photos of maybe a 5 - 10 red shirts that were shot. Some of the photos of these red shirts were taken after everyone else had cleared out. There were also photos of red shirts that were armed. It not beyond the realms of possibility that any guns that these people had were taken before the photos were taken. My personal belief is that in a group there were 1 or 2 that had guns and were firing at the army. Often it was the unarmed people in that group that were shot. I mean, why would a group of people move up on an army location if they weren't armed with something to attack the army with? A good example of that here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsFkMH1cuSA&feature=related. Mind you I'm not of the mind to agree that being shot dead is the correct proportionate response to filming someone else firing a rocket towards the army. Many on here do which makes me question their humanity. See also videos in posts 40 & 41. No comments on the videos made so far, possibly because of some uncormfortable truths being aired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKvampire Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Oh yes the red shirt PTP terrorist supporters are out on Thai Visa. be thankful you can show such affection on a website, The time may come when showing any support for such actioned events or future ones will be a criminal offence , But maybe not with the current mob in government in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 There were photos of maybe a 5 - 10 red shirts that were shot. Some of the photos of these red shirts were taken after everyone else had cleared out. There were also photos of red shirts that were armed. It not beyond the realms of possibility that any guns that these people had were taken before the photos were taken. My personal belief is that in a group there were 1 or 2 that had guns and were firing at the army. Often it was the unarmed people in that group that were shot. I mean, why would a group of people move up on an army location if they weren't armed with something to attack the army with? A good example of that here - <snipped video> Mind you I'm not of the mind to agree that being shot dead is the correct proportionate response to filming someone else firing a rocket towards the army. Many on here do which makes me question their humanity. See also videos in posts 40 & 41. No comments on the videos made so far, possibly because of some uncormfortable truths being aired. The guy was crouched behind a garbage bin and then he's on the ground looking like he's been shot in the back. Who shot him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'm not a photography expert, but I think I'm right to say that if you can shoot a bullet at a target you can also take a photo of it. Duh Please give me the model number of a camera that can take picture of a collapsed body laying on the ground behind a wall or barricade from several hundred meters away. From an elevated snipers position e.g the Skytrain tracks or a condo or hospital I would have thought any reputable make with a decent lens If a barricade of is 80cm high and the body is located, counted from body center, 40cm from the barricade, how high up would a person have to be to take a picture of the full body and the area around him [to see a dropped weapon], discounting being the person or any weapon being obscured by others huddling in the same area? You are allowed to use a calculator. I don't know, or particularly care. Have a look at this video. Although having the advantage of being this side of the barricade it can be clearly seen that no one there is armed. They are not poking their heads above a barricade and shooting BUT they are being pinned down by shooting from the army and one is shot in the arm. Now what do you think provoked that. Dont tell me, a bunch of blackshirts ran up to the group of "unarmed" civilians behind the barricade, started shooting to provoke the army before secreting any arms the civilians had on them before running away never to be found. I'll think you'll find that this is the incident the british news reporter was at where the man shot in the stomach (seen in the alleyway at the end) eventually died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 There were photos of maybe a 5 - 10 red shirts that were shot. Some of the photos of these red shirts were taken after everyone else had cleared out. There were also photos of red shirts that were armed. It not beyond the realms of possibility that any guns that these people had were taken before the photos were taken. My personal belief is that in a group there were 1 or 2 that had guns and were firing at the army. Often it was the unarmed people in that group that were shot. I mean, why would a group of people move up on an army location if they weren't armed with something to attack the army with? A good example of that here - <snipped video> Mind you I'm not of the mind to agree that being shot dead is the correct proportionate response to filming someone else firing a rocket towards the army. Many on here do which makes me question their humanity. See also videos in posts 40 & 41. No comments on the videos made so far, possibly because of some uncormfortable truths being aired. The guy was crouched behind a garbage bin and then he's on the ground looking like he's been shot in the back. Who shot him? "The guy was crouched behind a garbage bin and then he's on the ground looking like he's been shot in the back. Who shot him?" <deleted>, it was the Red Shirt behind him! Oh come on please, for once get over this army good red shirt bad thing and look at the evidence in front of your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
473geo Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Panel of 10 senators and 35 MP to prepare for the next reading.......... Thailand is moving forward........while most of you guys continue spinning in your circular blame game discussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now