phiphidon Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets. I struggle to believe this because if soldiers are intentionally firing at something, it would be unlikely for them to do so without any reason... and for what reason, for what purpose, would they wish to harm or kill a non-legitimate target? How exactly does it further their cause? What is the benefit? I can't see any. I can only see the problems it brings and the extra pressure it puts them under. To be fair Rix mate when we have reports of paras executing wounded POWs in the Falkland War and incidents like the Haditha killings and Mayumidiyah killings and rape in Iraq by supposedly highly trained and disciplied 1st world soldiers then no matter a person's "political leanings" regarding LOS it would be a deliberate wearing of blinkers to think that a developing country's armed forces wouldn't be capable of such a thing. Of course anyone is capable of doing something terrible given the opportunity, be they a member of the armed forces or be they not, but the question in this situation is, if a soldier from his look-out has a crowd of people before him and within his firing range, is it really likely that he would decide just out of some sort of sick cruelty and malice, to start taking deliberate pot shots at people like journalists and medics and other non-legitimate targets, when he has the choice to target those who are breaking the law and putting his life in danger? Seems a strange thing to do that lacks any motive. There were people in that area that did have a motive to kill headline-grabbing, front-page-worthy targets, like journalists and medics. Those people weren't soldiers. And the medics in the Wat were shot by meanwhile members of the security forces are secure in the knowledge that the percentage chance of being held accountable for their actions (especially when acting under an emergency decree) are Edited May 17, 2012 by phiphidon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The other paper said as much when reporting on the recommendation for dropping Lese Majeste charges against Jatuporn (11th May). Which isn't what birdpooguava wrote and which I corrected earlier. It also doesn't apply to all the other Red Shirts on the list I posted earlier. Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn Pheu Thai MP and Deputy Agriculture Minister Nattawut Saikua Korkaew Pikulthong Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn Karun Hosakul Yoswaris Chuklom Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai Veera Musigapong Shinawat Haboonpat Wichian Kaokham Suporn Atthawong Kwanchai Praiphana Nisit Sinthuprai Prasit Chaisisa Worawut Wichaidit Laddawan Wongsriwong Somchai Paiboon Payap Panket Somyot Pruksakasemsuk amongst others... OK, why don't you provide the link that you got those 19 names from, I'm ignoring the throwaway line "amongst others"? Now would you accept that there is a bit of a coincidence that you come up with 19 names that were charged with lese majeste on that same day at that same rally as Jatuporn and the other paper reports that 19 UDD leaders were having their charges recommended to be dropped? Are you seriously arguing over birdpooquava missing out the word "recommended", is that it? No one is "arguing".... except you, maybe. I simply corrected his erroneous post. As for the 19 names, the specific number was not intentional to match any other list. It's simply where I cut off the cut n' paste as there's more... aka "amongst others" If you compare your referenced list of those "recommended" for dismissal, you'll find different names on the above Red Roster. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robby nz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 And the medics in the Wat were shot by..................... The army had no reason to shoot at anyone in the temple which had been declared a safe area after all at that point the red shirts were beaten and were dispersing. On the other hand the armed faction of the reds had just tasted defeat and could well have been very peed off and wanted to get in some final act. Now you, with no proof, are trying to use that act to discredit the army and Govt. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixalex Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Of course anyone is capable of doing something terrible given the opportunity, be they a member of the armed forces or be they not, but the question in this situation is, if a soldier from his look-out has a crowd of people before him and within his firing range, is it really likely that he would decide just out of some sort of sick cruelty and malice, to start taking deliberate pot shots at people like journalists and medics and other non-legitimate targets, when he has the choice to target those who are breaking the law and putting his life in danger? Seems a strange thing to do that lacks any motive. There were people in that area that did have a motive to kill headline-grabbing, front-page-worthy targets, like journalists and medics. Those people weren't soldiers. And the medics in the Wat were shot by..................... Until it goes to court and evidence is produced and people convicted, the answer is i don't know and nor do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) On the other hand the armed faction of the reds had just tasted defeat and could well have been very peed off and wanted to get in some final act. A possibility that I'd speculate is that as the riots and combat progressed, not enough people were dying (the more the better for PR purposes against the government and military), so the militants were then ordered to simply shoot any target in order to ramp up casualties. Maybe they had a quota or target, like during the 2003 war on drugs. Soldiers are more difficult to shoot at as they are trained in how to move optimally in a combat zone, so civilians, journalists, medical and firefighting crews ended up being shot at. Edited May 17, 2012 by hyperdimension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Which isn't what birdpooguava wrote and which I corrected earlier. It also doesn't apply to all the other Red Shirts on the list I posted earlier. Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn Pheu Thai MP and Deputy Agriculture Minister Nattawut Saikua Korkaew Pikulthong Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn Karun Hosakul Yoswaris Chuklom Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai Veera Musigapong Shinawat Haboonpat Wichian Kaokham Suporn Atthawong Kwanchai Praiphana Nisit Sinthuprai Prasit Chaisisa Worawut Wichaidit Laddawan Wongsriwong Somchai Paiboon Payap Panket Somyot Pruksakasemsuk amongst others... OK, why don't you provide the link that you got those 19 names from, I'm ignoring the throwaway line "amongst others"? Now would you accept that there is a bit of a coincidence that you come up with 19 names that were charged with lese majeste on that same day at that same rally as Jatuporn and the other paper reports that 19 UDD leaders were having their charges recommended to be dropped? Are you seriously arguing over birdpooquava missing out the word "recommended", is that it? No one is "arguing".... except you, maybe. I simply corrected his erroneous post. As for the 19 names, the specific number was not intentional to match any other list. It's simply where I cut off the cut n' paste as there's more... aka "amongst others" If you compare your referenced list of those "recommended" for dismissal, you'll find different names on the above Red Roster. Just to complete the list the "amongst others" of Reds facing LM include = Jakrapob Penkair Akechai Hongkangwarn Giles Ji Ungpakorn Robert Amsterdam Jitsanu Promsorn Natthakarn Sakuldarachat Somsak Jeamteerasakul Thaksin Shinawatra Ironically, the Red Shirt website the list came from is blocked by Chalerm's "LM War Room" preventing a link to be posted.... but easy enough with a bit of googling. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Which isn't what birdpooguava wrote and which I corrected earlier. It also doesn't apply to all the other Red Shirts on the list I posted earlier. Pheu Thai MP Weng Tojirakarn Pheu Thai MP and Deputy Agriculture Minister Nattawut Saikua Korkaew Pikulthong Thida Tawornsate Tojirakarn Karun Hosakul Yoswaris Chuklom Wiputhalaeng Pattanaphumthai Veera Musigapong Shinawat Haboonpat Wichian Kaokham Suporn Atthawong Kwanchai Praiphana Nisit Sinthuprai Prasit Chaisisa Worawut Wichaidit Laddawan Wongsriwong Somchai Paiboon Payap Panket Somyot Pruksakasemsuk amongst others... OK, why don't you provide the link that you got those 19 names from, I'm ignoring the throwaway line "amongst others"? Now would you accept that there is a bit of a coincidence that you come up with 19 names that were charged with lese majeste on that same day at that same rally as Jatuporn and the other paper reports that 19 UDD leaders were having their charges recommended to be dropped? Are you seriously arguing over birdpooquava missing out the word "recommended", is that it? No one is "arguing".... except you, maybe. I simply corrected his erroneous post. As for the 19 names, the specific number was not intentional to match any other list. It's simply where I cut off the cut n' paste as there's more... aka "amongst others" If you compare your referenced list of those "recommended" for dismissal, you'll find different names on the above Red Roster. . Well for the sake of the question we are only talking about the Lese Majeste cases pertinent to the specific April 10th 2011 Jaturporn case, all of which have been recommended to be dropped. Any mention of other LM cases can only designed to complicate and obfuscate, about par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So why didn't you chastise phiphidon for his selective quoting? well, his (ppd) selective quoting wasn't really hiding anything contradictory was it? well of course it was, it omitted the very first paragraph of the article talking of redshirts advancing with weapons and the lie of the red leaders who said their people were unarmed. If you had read my link and not automatically knee jerk posted you could save yourself a lot of embarassment. Don't bother to apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phiphidon Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here. By the way, wasn't there a rule here about altering posts of other members, or doesn't that apply to you? I abide by the same rules everyone else does. Snipping is not altering. None of the rule was impinged: font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording. The words quoted were your words. Have a nice day. See ya back in a couple of months. . How childish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) OK, why don't you provide the link that you got those 19 names from, I'm ignoring the throwaway line "amongst others"? Now would you accept that there is a bit of a coincidence that you come up with 19 names that were charged with lese majeste on that same day at that same rally as Jatuporn and the other paper reports that 19 UDD leaders were having their charges recommended to be dropped? Are you seriously arguing over birdpooquava missing out the word "recommended", is that it? No one is "arguing".... except you, maybe. I simply corrected his erroneous post. As for the 19 names, the specific number was not intentional to match any other list. It's simply where I cut off the cut n' paste as there's more... aka "amongst others" If you compare your referenced list of those "recommended" for dismissal, you'll find different names on the above Red Roster. Well for the sake of the question we are only talking about the Lese Majeste cases pertinent to the specific April 10th 2011 Jaturporn case, all of which have been recommended to be dropped. Any mention of other LM cases can only designed to complicate and obfuscate, about par for the course. Good grief, what are you on about? "well, for the sake of the question".. what question? There wasn't any question. Over the course of a half dozen posts, you've managed to completely morph birdpoo's original post that started your little tete`-a-tete´... I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped. into some long drawn out nonsense. It's in error, get over it. The error was corrected and it was dealt with and finished way back at Post # 265 . http://www.thaivisa....50#entry5306989 and then... you started in and started dragging it off What obfuscation on my part? The definitive statement by birdpoo said all Reds. That's exactly what I provided. There are a lot of Reds facing LM. That's been demonstrated. Sorry if that bothers you that you want to keep that out. . Edited May 17, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buchholz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) nevermind... had enough of feeding the troll Edited May 17, 2012 by Buchholz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicknostitz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Lack of training and discipline, relentless indoctrination and frustration stemming from a high stress situation makes it quite likely that soldiers do this. This happens regularly in other conflict situations, even in the most disciplined and best trained armies from countries such as the US and the UK. Ok, Nick, what created this high stress situation the soldiers found themselves in? Could it be that they were subject to random shots and grenade attacks from within the otherwise mostly non-lethal threatening groups behind the burning tire barricades? Who created that atmosphere? The Army? TH To a large part - yes, instead of finding a political solution for a conflict that began with their support for the PAD and the 2006 coup, the military and the political leadership of the Democrat Party led coalition government sent these soldiers into an almost impossible situation, knowing well of the shortcomings in training level, equipment and discipline of these soldiers in order to properly deal with a protest in which small groups of armed urban guerrilla fighters operated besides a mass of peaceful protesters. As much as you may disagree - the events of 2010 and the still ongoing conflict are a fall out from the disastrous 2006 coup and what happened thereafter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinair Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How much I can get this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicknostitz Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 On the other hand the armed faction of the reds had just tasted defeat and could well have been very peed off and wanted to get in some final act. A possibility that I'd speculate is that as the riots and combat progressed, not enough people were dying (the more the better for PR purposes against the government and military), so the militants were then ordered to simply shoot any target in order to ramp up casualties. Maybe they had a quota or target, like during the 2003 war on drugs. Soldiers are more difficult to shoot at as they are trained in how to move optimally in a combat zone, so civilians, journalists, medical and firefighting crews ended up being shot at. You are grasping for straws. We journalists, etc, in most situations knew very well where the bullets that were fired at us were coming from - namely from the lines of the soldiers. When we were with the military lines, we knew that we exposed ourselves to fire from the Red Shirt militants firing at the soldiers, such as when Chandler Vandergrift became collateral damage when he stayed with a group of soldiers under fire instead of getting out of the way like most of us there. Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me. Sorry, but i fear that i may lack hero qualities - in those situations my life is more dear to me than my rights as a journalist. Other than what we saw with our own eyes, there is more than enough evidence available, such as video footage, bullet holes with clear trajectories, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Lack of training and discipline, relentless indoctrination and frustration stemming from a high stress situation makes it quite likely that soldiers do this. This happens regularly in other conflict situations, even in the most disciplined and best trained armies from countries such as the US and the UK. Ok, Nick, what created this high stress situation the soldiers found themselves in? Could it be that they were subject to random shots and grenade attacks from within the otherwise mostly non-lethal threatening groups behind the burning tire barricades? Who created that atmosphere? The Army? TH To a large part - yes, instead of finding a political solution for a conflict that began with their support for the PAD and the 2006 coup, the military and the political leadership of the Democrat Party led coalition government sent these soldiers into an almost impossible situation, knowing well of the shortcomings in training level, equipment and discipline of these soldiers in order to properly deal with a protest in which small groups of armed urban guerrilla fighters operated besides a mass of peaceful protesters. As much as you may disagree - the events of 2010 and the still ongoing conflict are a fall out from the disastrous 2006 coup and what happened thereafter. Do you mean like finding a political solution such as agreeing to the demands of the protestors concerning dissolving the house and early elections? Demands that changed when the Government agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 It would seem that posters will reject all other replies to their questions based on the fact that it is not exactly the same in one respect or another depending on how they can best deny the facts. - wasn't military weapons, - wasn't the same violence - wasn't in bangkok, - wasn't 2010, ... and so on, and so on... I mean, go back in history and stay on the west side of the Atlantic - you realize that the American revolution protesters used military grade weapons and were financed by a "billionaire" of the time living is a foreign country and that he, too, even fancied himself as a king, ... actually, he was in fact a king, and his home was in Versailles... So let's not excuse the violence and tactics used by the MIB, but let's not white-wash the actions of the Thai government either. The gov't made their own choices. They were not "forced" into using lethal violence against their own citizens. As for me, I am very curious how it happened that the government seemed to have such poor intelligence on what they could encounter when they attempted the first dispersal on April 10th. Not only was the time of day a poor choice, the army seemed to be caught by surprise. After 4 weeks of protests, it seems like the government would have had ample time to collect good information on the constitution of the protesters and to have been better prepared or to have taken a different strategy. You have promoted this theory before Tom. OK lets assume the RTA is aware that they are facing a relatively small but heavily armed force being sheltered, protected and assisted by a much larger group who are lightly armed or unarmed. The larger group refuses to disperse, and the smaller is firing at security forces and the general populace. I await your brilliant strategy as to how to deal with this situation, ruling out lethal force which you find abhorrent. Earth to Major Tom, we're still waiting, is something wrong? Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 the events of 2010 and the still ongoing conflict are a fall out from the disastrous 2006 coup and what happened thereafter. Do you choose to ignore Thaksin's key part in funding, creating and inflaming dissent and chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubl Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 To a large part - yes, instead of finding a political solution for a conflict that began with their support for the PAD and the 2006 coup, the military and the political leadership of the Democrat Party led coalition government sent these soldiers into an almost impossible situation, knowing well of the shortcomings in training level, equipment and discipline of these soldiers in order to properly deal with a protest in which small groups of armed urban guerrilla fighters operated besides a mass of peaceful protesters. As much as you may disagree - the events of 2010 and the still ongoing conflict are a fall out from the disastrous 2006 coup and what happened thereafter. The coup in a way was the culmination of a conflict with k. Thaksin and some might say it was succesfull. Didn't solve any fundamental problems and none of the parties involved seems willing to really address issues. Amnesty for all (deserving) doesn't solve problems, a political pressure group like the UDD hiding in a political party doesn't help. Second anniversary of protests, 100,000 expected to join, red villages for democracy, coup prevention and on top of that costs of living rising. Poor Thai people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waza Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 And the line you just edited in is equally breathtaking! Comparing security forces charged with maintaining law and order with a taxi association??? Whats breathtaking is the vein throbbing display of moral outrage from a person that applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them. Please point out to me any specific post where I "applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them." or admit that you lied and apologise. Your continual defense of Thaksins and the Redshirts actions gives the impression that you openly support them. I didnt realise you had come to your senses and now agree that Thaksins action are unconscionable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rixalex Posted May 17, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2012 To a large part - yes, instead of finding a political solution for a conflict that began with their support for the PAD and the 2006 coup, the military and the political leadership of the Democrat Party led coalition government sent these soldiers into an almost impossible situation, knowing well of the shortcomings in training level, equipment and discipline of these soldiers in order to properly deal with a protest in which small groups of armed urban guerrilla fighters operated besides a mass of peaceful protesters. We all witnessed with our own eyes on live TV, the lengths that Abhisit was prepared to go to in order to find a peaceful solution. He bent over backwards, the reds seemed to be on the brink of accepting, then suddenly after a scramble of phone calls, the offer is not deemed good enough. Yes i appreciate the reds wanted the offer to be for immediate elections and without any conditions, but Abhisit had compromised massively and this was a negotiation, or at least that is what it should have been. Perhaps that's not the way the red leadership saw it. Perhaps they felt that with central Bangkok at their disposal and under their control, the situation was more akin to them having a gun to the government's head so to speak. "Do exactly as we say or the capital city gets it". Anyway, when Abhisit's reasonable offer was refused, it became clear that the reds had no intention of allowing the situation to end peacefully. My belief is they wanted both the military and the government to be completely discredited, in the way that only a blood bath in which "peaceful oppressed freedom fighters" are killed in front of the world's media. This sort of a disaster is precisely what Thaksin required in order to vindicate himself and show to everyone how evil those who had a hand in kicking him out were. As much as you may disagree - the events of 2010 and the still ongoing conflict are a fall out from the disastrous 2006 coup and what happened thereafter. How convenient that all the troubles in your eyes start right after Thaksin's departure. You need to go back to 2001. This is when it all began. This is the start point for the downward spiral. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdimension Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 100,000 expected to join 200,000 according to Jatuporn red villages for democracy, coup prevention They're now also fighting drugs. and on top of that costs of living rising It's imaginary. Poor Thai people. But they'll be rich in 6 months. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insight Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 WANTED: Photo Journalist who actually takes photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 -- deleted due to quotation limit -- By the way, wasn't there a rule here about altering posts of other members, or doesn't that apply to you? I abide by the same rules everyone else does. Snipping is not altering. None of the rule was impinged: font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording. The words quoted were your words. Have a nice day. See ya back in a couple of months. . How childish "30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply..." "Do not modify" : pretty easy to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 "30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply..." "Do not modify" : pretty easy to understand. Even easier, don't bother to reply. Still working on that strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlansford Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) edit : nevermind Edited May 17, 2012 by tlansford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webfact Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 please continue: Red shirts to commemorate Bangkok's 2010 crackdown Full story: http://www.thaivisa....2010-crackdown/ //CLOSED// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts