tlansford Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 - sniper - 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. OK. Thanks. The clarification is helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 ... 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? No, the video does NOT show "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". It DOES show a black clad guy running up to a group of civilians standing on a corner. The guy continues around the corner out of sight. We hear gunshots (presumably towards an unseen army?) The guy comes running back. Now compare that to the hypothetical situation I applied to the video I posted and tell me that it's the same. Not even the most rabid Red Shirt hater could suggest that the two scenarios are even similar let alone being "Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said." It may also be worth mentioning here that picking up a gun from a dead red shirt was the crux of my post so it not having happened in your video tends to weaken your argument by a large amount. Never mind eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. We can hardly refer to them as the 'government'. More like the recipients of a gift by an 'irresistible force' as referred to by Chumpol Silpaacha pre-election. We can though use government to refer to the elected, rightful administration that patiently dealt with over 3 months of yellow protests that involved shootings, use of ping pong bombs, rampant methamphetamine use, planting of car bombs, illegal printing of bank notes, seizure of government house, several international airports, railways, ..... If anyone deserved shooting it was those yellow creeps that have dragged the country into this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. We can hardly refer to them as the 'government'. More like the recipients of a gift by an 'irresistible force' as referred to by Chumpol Silpaacha pre-election. We can though use government to refer to the elected, rightful administration that patiently dealt with over 3 months of yellow protests that involved shootings, use of ping pong bombs, rampant methamphetamine use, planting of car bombs, illegal printing of bank notes, seizure of government house, several international airports, railways, ..... If anyone deserved shooting it was those yellow creeps that have dragged the country into this mess. "irresistible force" = money? They were the government. You might not approve of how they got there, but it doesn't change the facts. What dragged this country into this mess was Thaksin changing the law to sell his company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, the video does NOT show "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". It DOES show a black clad guy running up to a group of civilians standing on a corner. The guy continues around the corner out of sight. We hear gunshots (presumably towards an unseen army?) The guy comes running back. Now compare that to the hypothetical situation I applied to the video I posted and tell me that it's the same. Not even the most rabid Red Shirt hater could suggest that the two scenarios are even similar let alone being "Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said." It may also be worth mentioning here that picking up a gun from a dead red shirt was the crux of my post so it not having happened in your video tends to weaken your argument by a large amount. Never mind eh? I suppose asking you to answer honestly was a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdpooguava Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. We can hardly refer to them as the 'government'. More like the recipients of a gift by an 'irresistible force' as referred to by Chumpol Silpaacha pre-election. We can though use government to refer to the elected, rightful administration that patiently dealt with over 3 months of yellow protests that involved shootings, use of ping pong bombs, rampant methamphetamine use, planting of car bombs, illegal printing of bank notes, seizure of government house, several international airports, railways, ..... If anyone deserved shooting it was those yellow creeps that have dragged the country into this mess. "irresistible force" = money? They were the government. You might not approve of how they got there, but it doesn't change the facts. What dragged this country into this mess was Thaksin changing the law to sell his company. If you really think that "irresistible force" = money you have no right holding yourself up as a knowledgeable poster. And I certainly don't approve of having forces outside of parliament twisting people's arms to form a government of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. The thing that explodes in front of the group is the firework that the guy in the front has just shot off. There is a better video out there which I have seen that shows the whole sequence. If I remember correctly it was part of the footage shown when the BBC or Ch.4 did the several part video on last years violence but particularly about the attempt by Fabio Palenghis sisters attempt to get the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, the video does NOT show "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". It DOES show a black clad guy running up to a group of civilians standing on a corner. The guy continues around the corner out of sight. We hear gunshots (presumably towards an unseen army?) The guy comes running back. Now compare that to the hypothetical situation I applied to the video I posted and tell me that it's the same. Not even the most rabid Red Shirt hater could suggest that the two scenarios are even similar let alone being "Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said." It may also be worth mentioning here that picking up a gun from a dead red shirt was the crux of my post so it not having happened in your video tends to weaken your argument by a large amount. Never mind eh? What that video does show is why "unarmed" red shirts were being shot by the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The thing that explodes in front of the group is the firework that the guy in the front has just shot off. There is a better video out there which I have seen that shows the whole sequence. If I remember correctly it was part of the footage shown when the BBC or Ch.4 did the several part video on last years violence but particularly about the attempt by Fabio Palenghis sisters attempt to get the truth. It would be good to see that video to see what happened in those missing seconds. For the guy to have been shot by the army, he was either shot where he crouched and the bullet went through the thing (what we were calling a garbage bin but isn't) in front of him and then through his head but missed the guy crouching directly behind him, or he stood up and was shot while his head was facing the window and not facing forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. It would be good if you could clarify that. The information I have read shows the govt used lethal force and killed protesters before the first casualty from a grenade. The govt still had the choice to use lethal or non-lethal force. The level of violence from the protesters, regardless of when it happened, and how, does not justify lethal force by the govt. Smarter tactics, yes, but not lethal force. The first govt attempt at dispersal on April 10th not only used lethal force, but was poorly planned and executed. The govt clearly had the number or security forces needed to contain the protest and to do so without killing protesters, but did not do that. Finally, I have never seen where the persons responsible for the use of RPGs at the protest sites have been identified. Do you have that information? (there was the man convicted of attacking the army building, but that was not at the protest site itself which is the information I have never seen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. We can hardly refer to them as the 'government'. More like the recipients of a gift by an 'irresistible force' as referred to by Chumpol Silpaacha pre-election. We can though use government to refer to the elected, rightful administration that patiently dealt with over 3 months of yellow protests that involved shootings, use of ping pong bombs, rampant methamphetamine use, planting of car bombs, illegal printing of bank notes, seizure of government house, several international airports, railways, ..... If anyone deserved shooting it was those yellow creeps that have dragged the country into this mess. The Truth for Reconciliation Commision seems to have a different opinion than you as to who dragged the country into this mess. Who do we believe? You or them? The Nation December 9, 2011 5.9 The TRCT sees the root cause of conflicts that took place from the time of promulgation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2540 (1997) to the rampage in 2010 was the use of procedures that were against the rule of law and democratic procedure. In addition, law enforcement procedures were weak and inefficient leading to the use of power outside the system to solve problems. Such solutions resulted in even more problems. The root cause of violent events in Thailand, in fact, was an Constitutional Court judgment in 2004 in a case in which Thaksin Shinawatra was accused of acting against the Thai Constitution BE 2540 Section 259, famously known as "the hidden assets" case. The Constitutional Court did not follow the law which stated that in deciding a case in any court, the judge has to first see whether the case in front of the court is under its jurisdiction or not. This is referred to as a "Prerequisite for Prosecution". If the court sees that the case is under its jurisdiction, the court can then decide whether the accused is guilty of not according to the facts presented. In this "hidden assets" case, the Constitutional Court duly decided the matter of "prerequisite" by a vote of 11 to 4 that the case was under its jurisdiction. However, in court proceedings regarding the facts of the case, seven judges found that Thaksin was guilty while six judges found that he was innocent. Surprisingly, two judges that had previously decided that the case was not under the Constitutional Court jurisdiction did not rule on the facts of the case. The court subsequently counted the two votes of these judges as "not guilty" which when combined with the existing not-guilty votes totaled eight not-guilty votes. This meant that the decision of the court was that Thaksin was innocent of the charges. Such a decision is hard for normal people to understand and gives rise to suspicion. Moreover, the political atmosphere of the time was tense and expectations were so high that the Constitutional Court was shaken. The fact that two judges did not decide on the facts of the case and the fact that the court itself included their two votes as not guilty was a failure to comply with the law. There were actually two failures; the first was that the two judges did not decide on the case which is their duty to do so; and the second failure was the inclusion of the two novotes into the number of not-guilty votes. These make the judgment suspicious. The Thai Constitution B.E.2540, section 303, states that a cause for discharging a person from their position is 'deliberate use of power against the rule of the Constitution or the law.' The afore-said malpractice of the two judges and the court itself was a distortion of law25, which led to serious ambiguity regarding the rule of law in Thailand. Since the time the law was distorted in the case involving hidden assets of Thaksin in 2004, the government has not carried out any investigation of the case to determine the underlying reasons for such a suspicious occurrence. Therefore, the TRCT propose that the government along with relevant social agencies examine this case according to the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If you really think that "irresistible force" = money you have no right holding yourself up as a knowledgeable poster. And I certainly don't approve of having forces outside of parliament twisting people's arms to form a government of convenience. The only other "irresistible force" that would give him no choice is a threat on his life. Is that what you are suggesting? So you don't like that Thaksin twists people's arms to form his proxy governments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The government were using non-lethal force, until the colonel got blown up by a grenade. It would be good if you could clarify that. The information I have read shows the govt used lethal force and killed protesters before the first casualty from a grenade. The govt still had the choice to use lethal or non-lethal force. The level of violence from the protesters, regardless of when it happened, and how, does not justify lethal force by the govt. Smarter tactics, yes, but not lethal force. The first govt attempt at dispersal on April 10th not only used lethal force, but was poorly planned and executed. The govt clearly had the number or security forces needed to contain the protest and to do so without killing protesters, but did not do that. Finally, I have never seen where the persons responsible for the use of RPGs at the protest sites have been identified. Do you have that information? (there was the man convicted of attacking the army building, but that was not at the protest site itself which is the information I have never seen) The videos I have seen and other accounts that I have read indicate that the army were there in riot gear and the protesters were dancing, and then all hell broke loose. No one knows who fired the first shots, but it went downhill from there with the grenade blasts closely following the early shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, the video does NOT show "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". It DOES show a black clad guy running up to a group of civilians standing on a corner. The guy continues around the corner out of sight. We hear gunshots (presumably towards an unseen army?) The guy comes running back. Now compare that to the hypothetical situation I applied to the video I posted and tell me that it's the same. Not even the most rabid Red Shirt hater could suggest that the two scenarios are even similar let alone being "Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said." It may also be worth mentioning here that picking up a gun from a dead red shirt was the crux of my post so it not having happened in your video tends to weaken your argument by a large amount. Never mind eh? I suppose asking you to answer honestly was a waste of time. How can I be more honest - how does your exact "apart from picking up a gun from a dead red shirt" video compare in any way to mine. My Video - unarmed civilians cowering under a tire barricade getting shot at by the army ( I then add on the hypothetical case of the blackshirt running up to the barricade firing at the army and taking a gun off a dead "armed" red shirt) Your Video - Unarmed civilians chatting/sheltering beside a corner. "Black shirt" runs round the corner. Gunfire. "Black Shirt" runs back. Wheres the similarity? Why is my answer dishonest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. For almost all photo's and clips it's possible to find a few 'well-founded' explanations which just happen to contradict each other. With my post I just wanted to put a bit of balance in 'bad army, good red-shirts' versus 'good army, bad red-shirts'. Both are partially true, partially wrong. Still waiting for the info from Dept. PM pol. captain Chalerm which was promised a few months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 No, the video does NOT show "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". It DOES show a black clad guy running up to a group of civilians standing on a corner. The guy continues around the corner out of sight. We hear gunshots (presumably towards an unseen army?) The guy comes running back. Now compare that to the hypothetical situation I applied to the video I posted and tell me that it's the same. Not even the most rabid Red Shirt hater could suggest that the two scenarios are even similar let alone being "Besides the single point of not picking up a gun from a fallen Red Shirt, it's exactly what you said." It may also be worth mentioning here that picking up a gun from a dead red shirt was the crux of my post so it not having happened in your video tends to weaken your argument by a large amount. Never mind eh? What that video does show is why "unarmed" red shirts were being shot by the army. No, it doesn't! It shows a black shirt carrying a gun and presumably firing it at the army. In which case he is probably lucky he was able to run back. My video shows unarmed red shirts being shot at by the army - there is no excuse for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) 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. Agree with you 100% It almost seems like the RTA wanted the excuse to shoot, in order to "give a lesson". The Gov't had many options for dispersal but CHOSE seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That is a crime. Edited February 25, 2012 by philw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anterian 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. How about a couple of hundred injured soldiers? When both sides in a debate start to make exaggerated claims, the debate become intellectually meaningless. Or does a sprained trigger finger count as an injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) 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. They were VERY patient..Abhisit arranging to settle with them time and again. They didn't want to talk and compromise, they wanted their full-on totalitarian regime to march in under their terms only. This went on for months...businesses shut down, people out of jobs. A little spot of tea and negotiations were NOT what the red shirt leaders sought, you do recall? I don't know any gov't as tolerant as the democrats were while their city is pillaged, looted, burned, picketed. Can you name another place that would tolerate that crap? The fire zone was set up, and they were warned. The young men got what they asked for...and I am sure you do recall they were hoping for deaths, so they could make a scene out of it to point the finger at the gov't as "murderers" though the gov't can't be blamed for suppressing rogues and their tyrants from turning the place into the next cambodia. Edited February 25, 2012 by gemini81 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gemini81 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. Agree with you 100% It almost seems like the RTA wanted the excuse to shoot, in order to "give a lesson". The Gov't had many options for dispersal but CHOSE seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That is a crime. They used all other lesser means prior to, and did it make any difference? Just more soldiers hurt and killed. There were too many money hungry blind protesters there to just bring in horses and hoses...why the reds were well armed, then they stole the army's guns as well. Why are people in such denial or so daft? Are you forgetting the red violence which led up to the need for firing? Remember the bombs and guns constantly? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Agree with you 100% It almost seems like the RTA wanted the excuse to shoot, in order to "give a lesson". The Gov't had many options for dispersal but CHOSE seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That is a crime. removed quotes in cluding the one philw agress 100% with, just check the original. "The government chose seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That's a crime". Since the seemingly comes as your opinion, dear phil, you'd have to prove it to have it stand up in a court of law. Just like Robert A.'s remark in the report to the ICC with 'thousands of rounds fired into a densely packed mass of peaceful protesters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker69 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. Spot on and here is one of them. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is another pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimay11 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. Spot on and here is one of them. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is another pic. I suppose the red apologists have conveniently forgotten the red shirts were caught bringing arms and weaponry into Ratchaprasong when former actor Maethee was caught with a car load of weapsons, and with armed guards attacking police and army. 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. Spot on and here is one of them. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is another pic. The bottom pic says it all. What wild explanations will the three red shirt commie posters have about this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Agree with you 100% It almost seems like the RTA wanted the excuse to shoot, in order to "give a lesson". The Gov't had many options for dispersal but CHOSE seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That is a crime. removed quotes in cluding the one philw agress 100% with, just check the original. "The government chose seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That's a crime". Since the seemingly comes as your opinion, dear phil, you'd have to prove it to have it stand up in a court of law. Just like Robert A.'s remark in the report to the ICC with 'thousands of rounds fired into a densely packed mass of peaceful protesters". Quite right, Rubl. Of course it's my opinion, it was me who said it. Hopefully it will go to court and hopefully there will be impartial and judicially correct determinations. For all parties. I'm not holding my breath, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What that video does show is why "unarmed" red shirts were being shot by the army. No, it doesn't! It shows a black shirt carrying a gun and presumably firing it at the army. In which case he is probably lucky he was able to run back. My video shows unarmed red shirts being shot at by the army - there is no excuse for that. Yes it does. A "black shirt" runs around the corner and shoots at the army. The army shoots back at the red shirts. Red shirts get shot. Your video shows unarmed red shirts being shot at by the army. There is an excuse if the army have just been shot at by people in the group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 - sniper - 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. Agree with you 100% It almost seems like the RTA wanted the excuse to shoot, in order to "give a lesson". The Gov't had many options for dispersal but CHOSE seemingly indiscriminate lethal force. That is a crime. They used all other lesser means prior to, and did it make any difference? Just more soldiers hurt and killed. There were too many money hungry blind protesters there to just bring in horses and hoses...why the reds were well armed, then they stole the army's guns as well. Why are people in such denial or so daft? Are you forgetting the red violence which led up to the need for firing? Remember the bombs and guns constantly? AFAIK, they did not. On April 10th, the first dispersal effort (and botched, at that) the military used live fire, and if I remember, there were 25 deaths that day. Again, even if a protest is violent, I do not believe that a govt should use lethal force against its own citizens. This is a personal belief. I also believe, and even people who don't agree with me about lethal force can at least see this much, that the government - with a very very large number of security forces - had many other options and tactics at its disposal. Those other options were not used, and in the case of the time-line of events, April 10th was the start of the killing which can be attributed to a poorly planned dispersal (begun shortly before nightfall, for example) and the use of live fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 AFAIK, they did not. On April 10th, the first dispersal effort (and botched, at that) the military used live fire, and if I remember, there were 25 deaths that day. Again, even if a protest is violent, I do not believe that a govt should use lethal force against its own citizens. This is a personal belief. I also believe, and even people who don't agree with me about lethal force can at least see this much, that the government - with a very very large number of security forces - had many other options and tactics at its disposal. Those other options were not used, and in the case of the time-line of events, April 10th was the start of the killing which can be attributed to a poorly planned dispersal (begun shortly before nightfall, for example) and the use of live fire. Those 25 include the Army colonel and staff (five persons) who got one or two grenades lobbed on them. Plus total chaos when some friendly MiB opened fire to help their peaceful red-shirt protesters. If the police with their special units trained in crowd control had done their job, the army wouldn't have been involved. Just like in 'normal' countries. Incidentaly some posters defended the Minister of Defence setting up a War Room recently, seeing nothing wrong with using Army experience BTW if I have nothing else to do and get bored, I'll check this forum to see how many times this discussion can be found. At least a dozen times, would be my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 - 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. As components were found before the protest, the RTA specifically did NOT issue M-79 grenade launchers. RPGs are also not issued to control crowds, or to peaceful protesters. Launching RPGs at a fuel tank farm which could have killed thousands in the ensuing fire is an act of terrorism. Launching an RPG at a revered temple is an act of terrorism, as are multiple acts of arson. Those involved in armed insurrection, terrorism and arson face a very high chance of being shot, and arouse little sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 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. They were VERY patient..Abhisit arranging to settle with them time and again. They didn't want to talk and compromise, they wanted their full-on totalitarian regime to march in under their terms only. This went on for months...businesses shut down, people out of jobs. A little spot of tea and negotiations were NOT what the red shirt leaders sought, you do recall? I don't know any gov't as tolerant as the democrats were while their city is pillaged, looted, burned, picketed. Can you name another place that would tolerate that crap? The fire zone was set up, and they were warned. The young men got what they asked for...and I am sure you do recall they were hoping for deaths, so they could make a scene out of it to point the finger at the gov't as "murderers" though the gov't can't be blamed for suppressing rogues and their tyrants from turning the place into the next cambodia. I don't know where you grew up and what land you're from and complaining about businesses closing down. Around the world civilian populations protest. Look at Greece, Syria etc. In Europe they don't use lethal force like this anytime. Rogues and their tyrants. I mean, come on. Is this why you're in Thailand? They're not strict enough for you back in the old country? The next Cambodia? What? I know they are poor and a million died. They are trying to rebuild their country and they are getting a lot of support. Wow. The city was NOT pillaged, looted, burned, picketed. There was a Legal demonstration. I repeat a LEGAL DEMONSTRATION begun in March. In April Abhisit declared a STATE OF EMERGENCY he ordered troops onto the street. He retreated into a military barracks. He ordered through Suthep the troops to attack the redshirts gathered around the DEMOCRACY MONUMENT on April 10th. They tried to push them out but failed and then they resorted to force. The attacks began after dark. The commanding officer and his staff were blown up by a grenade and left to die on the ground by their soldiers who panicked and ran. YES they ran like the cowards they are. Where someone now says that hundreds of soldiers were injured that is the first time I have heard that. However the soldiers panicked and shot randomly and on that night April 10th 2010 more thatn a thousand civilians were injured and 19 died. 2 redshirts had their brains blown out. Want to see the pictures? The army gunner on the first APC fired wildly into the democracy mopnument. Unverified he refused an order from his commanding officer to fire his heavy machine gun into the crowd. Maybe he deserves a medal or something. The troops used were the only ones they could rely on to shoot civilians down. The Queens Gurad primarily. One day there will be justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
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