Jatuporn, Suthep Battle Over 2010 Crackdown: Thai Charter Amendment

[whybother]

"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.

Maybe you can explain how he goes from crouching behind the garbage bin to being on the ground shot in the back. To be shot by the army in front of him he would have had to stand up and turn around. I wonder why they didn't show him being shot in the video. Why would they have cut that out?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[phiphidon]

"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.

Maybe you can explain how he goes from crouching behind the garbage bin to being on the ground shot in the back. To be shot by the army in front of him he would have had to stand up and turn around. I wonder why they didn't show him being shot in the video. Why would they have cut that out?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

OK I'm intrigued what on earth makes you think he was shot in the back?

[whybother]

Double post

Edited February 25, 2012 by whybother

[rubl]

"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.

Just to be fair, get over the 'bad army, good red-shirts', look at some other evidence also"

2010-05-19:

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

2011-03-01:

"March 12, 2011 will mark the first anniversary of Thailand’s red-shirt protesters’ massive street campaign in Bangkok that ended in some of the worst political violence in modern Thai history. 91 people were killed and over 1,800 were injured in a military crackdown that resembled more of a civil war than a restoration of order. This was mainly due to the appearance of mysterious black-clad men on the side of the protesters who engaged the Thai army with automatic rifles and grenade launchers."

http://www.asiapacif...-one-year-later

Edited February 25, 2012 by rubl

[AleG]

...

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.

...

There's at least one video of a Black Shirt doing exactly that. Funny you haven't seen it.

Oh, here it is.

Edited February 25, 2012 by AleG

[rubl]

Just like with k. Jatuporn and k. Suthep in parliament the discussion on charter changes here got a bit derailed as well. most pro/anti stuff and even pictures and videos we've seen re-appear with a certain regularity. By the same posters as well. I guess some have nothing else to do on a nice Saterday afternoon. Well I've had it. Have fun you all, see you after the weekend

Edited February 25, 2012 by rubl

[pimay11]

As I have stated before on this forum I am not a supporter of any colored shirt group. These videos protray a larger picture than people getting shot and or killed. The sad thing about all this is that it didn’t have to happen. These poor people now known as the red shirts were subjected to daily hate speeches for months. They were told by Jatuporn and the other leaders that this was a cause worth dying for and if needed they would be with them until the end and also die for the cause. They were whipped into an emotional frenzy daily. They trusted the leaders and believed every lie and half truth they were told. They were given several chances to leave with transportation back home paid for by the government.

What we witnessed in the end was part of the game plan all along for Jatuporn and his boss in Dubai. The rest of the plan was to overthrow the government but it didn’t happen. When the army finally moved in the leaders were the first to run like rabbits and leave the poor sheep to their own destiny. In the end what did these people die for? They died for something in their mind that did not exist. They died because they were made to believe the propaganda they heard every day.

Now Jatuporn has the gall to point an accusing finger at everyone and anyone but himself and the people who were responsible for this tragedy. This is an evil man along with his counterparts that lead these poor people to their needless deaths. They have never claimed any responsibility and never will.

Agree or not, that’s the way I see it.

[whybother]

"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.

Maybe you can explain how he goes from crouching behind the garbage bin to being on the ground shot in the back. To be shot by the army in front of him he would have had to stand up and turn around. I wonder why they didn't show him being shot in the video. Why would they have cut that out?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

OK I'm intrigued what on earth makes you think he was shot in the back?

Oh, maybe the blood in the middle of his back. Unless you're suggesting a bullet went straight through him while he was crouched behind the bin.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[pedro01]

He is not shot dead by the authorities. & this is evidence of what?..some guy somewhere with a gun. This 'evidence' is about as useful as whybothers comments. I asked for someone to produce a photo with a guy in a red shirt that had been shot dead by the army WITH A GUN IN HIS HANDS.

When will you people just admit that such photos DON'T EXIST

Unlikely to exist - the protesters stopped wearing the red shirts a number of days before the government moved in to re-take the area they had occupied.

[pastitche]

"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.

Maybe you can explain how he goes from crouching behind the garbage bin to being on the ground shot in the back. To be shot by the army in front of him he would have had to stand up and turn around. I wonder why they didn't show him being shot in the video. Why would they have cut that out?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

OK I'm intrigued what on earth makes you think he was shot in the back?

Oh, maybe the blood in the middle of his back. Unless you're suggesting a bullet went straight through him while he was crouched behind the bin.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Unless of course it was an exit wound which do tend to be larger

[Soi Sauce]

That's when Jatuporn spoke up, saying the people who died did not hold any weapons

Yet another lie from Jatuporn.

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 also thousands of photos of those killed in your hero's war on drugs without weapons. When do you reckon the investigation and prosecution for those cases should begin? For 2.500 murders you have to want the death penalty.

If you do not, please explain why.

Please comment.

[phiphidon]

"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.

Just to be fair, get over the 'bad army, good red-shirts', look at some other evidence also"

2010-05-19:

"Canadian freelance journalist Chandler Vandergrift has been seriously wounded in Bangkok, Thailand, by a grenade thrown at an anti-government protest site.

According to friend Ian Hinkle, Mr. Vandergrift, who was wearing a helmet, was injured by shrapnel from a grenade thrown by an anti-government protester. He is now in surgery. A Thai soldier was also seriously wounded in the explosion."

http://news.national...ded-in-bangkok/

2011-03-01:

"March 12, 2011 will mark the first anniversary of Thailand’s red-shirt protesters’ massive street campaign in Bangkok that ended in some of the worst political violence in modern Thai history. 91 people were killed and over 1,800 were injured in a military crackdown that resembled more of a civil war than a restoration of order. This was mainly due to the appearance of mysterious black-clad men on the side of the protesters who engaged the Thai army with automatic rifles and grenade launchers."

http://www.asiapacif...-one-year-later

I'm not disagreeing with you Rubi, what I find hard to believe is that

1) some posters still believe only armed red shirts were killed, 2) a shot in the head is an appropriate response to having a firework fired in your general direction or a stone fired by catapult. 3) that some posters have delusions about arms that have been spirited away from the bodies of dead red shirts.

[phiphidon]

"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.

Maybe you can explain how he goes from crouching behind the garbage bin to being on the ground shot in the back. To be shot by the army in front of him he would have had to stand up and turn around. I wonder why they didn't show him being shot in the video. Why would they have cut that out?

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

OK I'm intrigued what on earth makes you think he was shot in the back?

Oh, maybe the blood in the middle of his back. Unless you're suggesting a bullet went straight through him while he was crouched behind the bin.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

look closer at the video at his head wound, sherlock. 3 minutes 20 secs in shows you "better". At 3 minutes 24 secs you can clearly see the bullet entry wound in his right forehead.

[rixalex]

1) some posters still believe only armed red shirts were killed,

I don't think the general belief is that only armed red shirts were killed, rather that those who were killed, whether armed at the time of killing or not, were part of a group that had been violently laying siege on the city for weeks and who, despite repeatedly pleas to leave and to stop breaking the law, would not.

2) a shot in the head is an appropriate response to having a firework fired in your general direction or a stone fired by catapult.

If the firework firing or catapult firing was a one off isolated incident then of course a shot in the head would not be an appropriate response. But this wasn't a one off isolated incident, it was a prolonged period in which violence was escalating and in which all participating knew was highly dangerous. Despite this, they took the gamble of getting hurt, perhaps in the belief that the government would crumble and they would be richly rewarded for their efforts by the red leaders. The gamble didn't pay off. Or perhaps it did? Either way, they knew the dangers but rather than go home, they stayed.

3) that some posters have delusions about arms that have been spirited away from the bodies of dead red shirts.

I don't think anyone categorically stated that this happened, but some speculate it as being possible. If you think it is impossible for arms to have been taken from those killed, i would say it is you who is deluding himself. Of course it is possible.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

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?

A large part of which came from the military themselves after retreating.

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem. 91 people died and no one denies that the govt killed most of those people.

[rixalex]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

[pimay11]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I agree. There was a time that people were responsible for their own actions. That is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And certainly not a trait in this country.

[phiphidon]

...

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.

...

There's at least one video of a Black Shirt doing exactly that. Funny you haven't seen it.

Oh, here it is.

That's funny, that shows absolutely nothing like I described. It does show a black clad "civilian" firing a couple of shots and then running away. It does not show a "black shirt" taking guns from a dead red shirt. Never mind, please try harder next time.

[phiphidon]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

The Red Shirts were told "if you do not leave now you will be liable to imprisonment of up to 2 years". They were not told if you don't leave you have a chance of being shot dead. The government did arrange for "life" firing zones to be set up. These have never been used by any government that I am aware of and the Human Rights people are not sure of their "legality".

[tlansford]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

[tlansford]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I agree. There was a time that people were responsible for their own actions. That is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And certainly not a trait in this country.

so they deserved to die? I hope you do not mean that.

[rixalex]

The Red Shirts were told "if you do not leave now you will be liable to imprisonment of up to 2 years". They were not told if you don't leave you have a chance of being shot dead.

I distinctly recall them being told that in addition to possibly facing imprisonment, they were placing themselves in harms way and that their safety could not be guaranteed if they decided to continue defying the law.

[AleG]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

So when the soldiers were fragged at Democracy Monument they should have used harsh language to defend themselves?

Some people seem to forget that the first victims of 2010 were not Red Shirts.

[AleG]

...

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.

...

There's at least one video of a Black Shirt doing exactly that. Funny you haven't seen it.

Oh, here it is.

That's funny, that shows absolutely nothing like I described. It does show a black clad "civilian" firing a couple of shots and then running away. It does not show a "black shirt" taking guns from a dead red shirt. Never mind, please try harder next time.

Shows absolutely nothing like you described? Really?

Let's see, "...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."

The video shows a blackshirt running up to a group of unarmed civilians behind a barricade and shooting at the army which I thinks would be rather provocative and then runs away with his gun. I don't think the guy has been found.

Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said.

Now let's suppose this gunner gets killed, do you honestly believe his gun would have stayed with the body until the troops moved past that barricade a few hours or days later?

[rixalex]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

The government in my view had no choice but to use force, and when you use force against a large group, some of which is lethally armed, then people are obviously going to get hurt, because authorities have to be equally armed. Unless the government concedes defeat to the mob, the outcome is inevitable: injury and death. The sad reality.

Edited February 25, 2012 by rixalex

[pimay11]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I agree. There was a time that people were responsible for their own actions. That is quickly becoming a thing of the past. And certainly not a trait in this country.

so they deserved to die? I hope you do not mean that.

No I do not mean they deserved to die at all. As I posted earlier they were victims of the master plan. The masters did not care if they died for sure. But surely they knew they were breaking the laws by commandering the business section of Bangkok and also knew there would be consequences which they chose to ignore. I do not blame them near as much as Jutaporn and company for encouraging them to stay and fight.

[whybother]

look closer at the video at his head wound, sherlock. 3 minutes 20 secs in shows you "better". At 3 minutes 24 secs you can clearly see the bullet entry wound in his right forehead.

You can clearly see a wound in his right forehead, yes.

Have a look at 2:07 - 2:14. Something explodes just ahead of the group, and everyone looks back. You can see a wound at the back of his head (opposite to the front one you pointed out). Both appeared to be similar size . It appears, from the way he seems to be slumped, that he was already shot / injured at about 2:08 before they show him on the ground. Unfortunately, some key vision is missing from the video, particularly the bit after the explosion around 2:07 when everyone looks back.

[tlansford]

The protests were violent. No question. The govt chose to use lethal force. I see this as the biggest problem.

If you are standing in an area breaking the law in one way or another, be it minor or be it major, and authorities give you repeated warning that if you don't leave, you are at risk of being injured or worse, but despite this warning, you stay where you are and continue breaking the law, i would say that the biggest problem you have is yourself.

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

The government in my view had no choice but to use force, and when you use force against a large group, some of which is lethally armed, then people are obviously going to get hurt, because authorities have to be equally armed. Unless the government concedes defeat to the mob, the outcome is inevitable: injury and death. The sad reality.

there is lethal force, and non-lethal force. Above you just say force, but I guess you mean lethal force, right?

If so, then yes, we disagree.

And even if the govt had not used lethal force, there may have been casualties. But it is very unlikely that there would have been 91.

[whybother]

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

The government were using non-lethal force, until the colonel got blown up by a grenade.

[pimay11]

I understand your position and am well aware of it. We do not agree.

The govt had the choice to use lethal force or not use lethal force. They chose to do so. 91 are dead. Again, no one denies that the govt kill most of those people.

I believe, firmly, that if the govt had used non-lethal force, determination (re: patience & commitment), and had not botched their own attempts at dispersal, there would have been many, many few deaths and injuries.

The government were using non-lethal force, until the colonel got blown up by a grenade.

Thanks I was trying to find that on Google. You beat me to the post.