Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[nurofiend]

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.

two different articles mate.

[nicknostitz]

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.

While it is has been sufficiently established that there were Red Shirt militants, and that those armed protesters were legitimate targets - a point we all can agree upon here, i believe, yet your side of the debate seems to consistantly refuse to accept that the military has broken ROE, and shot at, injured and killed non-legitimate targets. Ambulances were shot at on many occasions by soldiers, as this article proves as well.

Indiscriminate shooting, as stated in the article provided, shows the lack of skill, discipline and training of the Thai armed forces. I have been that day and in the exact same situation the article describes at the army lines, just on the other side, and yes, i have seen soldiers firing indiscriminately the shots the authors of the article were on the receiving end. A bit later i have been at the receiving end of M79 grenades fired by armed Red Shirt militants against the soldiers, in which one soldier was killed, two badly wounded, and also my friend and college Chandler was injured.

What is presented by you people here is not a fair assessment of what occurred in 2010 - this whole period was far more complex than you try to convince here (from the distance).

[whybother]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

How fluent is your Thai ??

Do you need to understand Thai to hear loud speeches at 4 o'clock in the morning?

[whybother]

or the Dems misuse of funds charge.....or Abhisit's murder charge

Making things up again? What murder charge?

[Insight]

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.

While it is has been sufficiently established that there were Red Shirt militants, and that those armed protesters were legitimate targets - a point we all can agree upon here, i believe, yet your side of the debate seems to consistantly refuse to accept that the military has broken ROE, and shot at, injured and killed non-legitimate targets. Ambulances were shot at on many occasions by soldiers, as this article proves as well.

Indiscriminate shooting, as stated in the article provided, shows the lack of skill, discipline and training of the Thai armed forces. I have been that day and in the exact same situation the article describes at the army lines, just on the other side, and yes, i have seen soldiers firing indiscriminately the shots the authors of the article were on the receiving end. A bit later i have been at the receiving end of M79 grenades fired by armed Red Shirt militants against the soldiers, in which one soldier was killed, two badly wounded, and also my friend and college Chandler was injured.

What is presented by you people here is not a fair assessment of what occurred in 2010 - this whole period was far more complex than you try to convince here (from the distance).

From April 10th and before, other than the clearly heinous act of the army remaining stationed in dealing with the protestors after sundown, and the rubber bullets peppering the a civilian vehicle, what other actions are the red militants using as justification for what was clearly a well planned and executed M79 attack which murdered Colonel Romklao while he was sleeping in his tent?

Also, if you have any solid proof that it was military personnel firing those rounds into ambulances am sure many people would love to see it. Meanwhile there are plenty of eyewitness accounts which detail how the red shirts prevented other public service personnel from reaching the fires started by the red shirts at CTW, the Central Big C opposite, and several fires in the Siam area.

[nurofiend]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

How fluent is your Thai ??

Do you need to understand Thai to hear loud speeches at 4 o'clock in the morning?

aw, did those pesky people in a time of national crisis disturb your sleep time?

[nurofiend]

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.

While it is has been sufficiently established that there were Red Shirt militants, and that those armed protesters were legitimate targets - a point we all can agree upon here, i believe, yet your side of the debate seems to consistantly refuse to accept that the military has broken ROE, and shot at, injured and killed non-legitimate targets. Ambulances were shot at on many occasions by soldiers, as this article proves as well.

Indiscriminate shooting, as stated in the article provided, shows the lack of skill, discipline and training of the Thai armed forces. I have been that day and in the exact same situation the article describes at the army lines, just on the other side, and yes, i have seen soldiers firing indiscriminately the shots the authors of the article were on the receiving end. A bit later i have been at the receiving end of M79 grenades fired by armed Red Shirt militants against the soldiers, in which one soldier was killed, two badly wounded, and also my friend and college Chandler was injured.

What is presented by you people here is not a fair assessment of what occurred in 2010 - this whole period was far more complex than you try to convince here (from the distance).

From April 10th and before, other than the clearly heinous act of the army remaining stationed in dealing with the protestors after sundown, and the rubber bullets peppering the a civilian vehicle, what other actions are the red militants using as justification for what was clearly a well planned and executed M79 attack which murdered Colonel Romklao while he was sleeping in his tent?

Also, if you have any solid proof that it was military personnel firing those rounds into ambulances am sure many people would love to see it. Meanwhile there are plenty of eyewitness accounts which detail how the red shirts prevented other public service personnel from reaching the fires started by the red shirts at CTW, the Central Big C opposite, and several fires in the Siam area.

"...if you have any solid proof that it was military personnel firing those rounds into ambulances am sure many people would love to see it. Meanwhile there are plenty of eyewitness accounts which detail how the red shirts......"

LOL

the ironing is delicious.

[whybother]

aw, did those pesky people in a time of national crisis disturb your sleep time?

Go back and read what phil was quoting.

[rixalex]

And again you skirted around the issues of more than 90 dead, and about 2000 injured, the vast majority being unarmed protesters and therefore not legitimate targets according to any ROE.

With regards unarmed protesters, my feeling is that if you are part of a protest group that includes some who are armed, and you are aware that these people exist, you have to accept and take responsibility for your own life that you are choosing to put in danger.

Yes, this is also AV, Suthep & the Dem's opinion, which is why they are widely hated & got thrashed at the polls. You & your ilk, like them, are out of touch with the majority of Thai people.

On the one hand we have the red shirt / Thaksin supporters telling us that the war on drugs that killed thousands of innocents was widely supported by the Thai electorate (with the implication that that somehow makes it ok), and on the other hand they are telling us that the recent election results shows this same electorate were outraged at the deaths of about 80 red shirt supporters, some who were heavily armed, some who were not, all who were part of the chaos and destruction in Bangkok, and voted accordingly.

Is it really possible for a group of people to be nonplussed about a couple of thousand deaths, but outraged at eighty or so? Only i would suggest if that group are fervent red supporters.

[nicknostitz]

From April 10th and before, other than the clearly heinous act of the army remaining stationed in dealing with the protestors after sundown, and the rubber bullets peppering the a civilian vehicle, what other actions are the red militants using as justification for what was clearly a well planned and executed M79 attack which murdered Colonel Romklao while he was sleeping in his tent?

Also, if you have any solid proof that it was military personnel firing those rounds into ambulances am sure many people would love to see it. Meanwhile there are plenty of eyewitness accounts which detail how the red shirts prevented other public service personnel from reaching the fires started by the red shirts at CTW, the Central Big C opposite, and several fires in the Siam area.

I am sorry, but i am stunned by this post.

Was it just irony, or you did you just manage to get almost every fact wrong?

Romklao sleeping in his tent?!

Oh my god..., i don't even know where to start...

I guess it is pointless here to say that in another such incident i was only a few meters away from an ambulance that was fired at by soldiers as this will just draw the usual accusation of being biased, etc.

Consistent denial and obfuscation by your side of the argument makes posting here an extremely tedious exercise.

This becomes now so silly again that it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

Which i am sure you will be very glad to read...

[Buchholz]

it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

[rixalex]

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.

[nicknostitz]

it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

Thank you for proving my point regarding silliness.

By the way, wasn't there a rule here about altering posts of other members, or doesn't that apply to you?

[nicknostitz]

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.

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.

[thaihome]

I ask what possible motivation a soldier in this instance might have for injuring or killing a non-legitimate target and your answer is atrocities have been committed before by soldiers. So what you are saying is there was no motivation you can think of. Perhaps they were just shooting for the fun of it.

An eye witness report from Australian Ch.9 News reporter, Brett McLeod after just seeing a civilian shot in the head 10 metres from him on 19th May 2010

The military appeared to be "strolling down the street in a very casual way," McLeod said.

"And they just seem to be firing shots randomly down the road, not at anyone in particular," he said.

"We saw a bullet hit the ground in front of us just a short while ago and they've been whizzing over our heads as well.

"This sort of assault isn't about arresting anyone. It's simply about hurting people."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1v1skoN12

You missed this part of his report.

McLeod said government troops had smashed down the barriers of the Red Shirts rally site in the heart of the Thai capital and exchanged gunfire with some hardcore protesters.

Again, once shots are fired at combat troops it becomes a combat situation and will be dealt with as such.

His remarks about “strolling down the street” are his perception of the situation that, though just having had a firefight, had grenades landing among them (killing one and seriously wounding a journalist), the soldiers are still suppose to attempt to “arrest” people. Yeah, sure.

TH

[phiphidon]

An eye witness report from Australian Ch.9 News reporter, Brett McLeod after just seeing a civilian shot in the head 10 metres from him on 19th May 2010

The military appeared to be "strolling down the street in a very casual way," McLeod said.

"And they just seem to be firing shots randomly down the road, not at anyone in particular," he said.

"We saw a bullet hit the ground in front of us just a short while ago and they've been whizzing over our heads as well.

"This sort of assault isn't about arresting anyone. It's simply about hurting people."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1v1skoN12

As soldiers drew closer, and the battle grew more and more fierce, the Herald saw several Red Shirts carrying handguns and assault rifles, putting the lie to the claims from protest leaders that their people were unarmed. Some tried to maintain the ruse, running with rifles wrapped in mats, but they were soon revealed as fighting intensified and the weapons were put into use.

Sydney morning Herald

http://asiancorrespo...-the-aftermath/

Shame you didn't post the rest of that "piece". I know you provided a link but some things are best laid out in the open

The Herald saw a man shot as he crouched behind a phone box. He rolled in the gutter, unable to stand, and cried out for help. Fellow protesters ran out, under a hail of bullets, to drag him to safety.

But help was unable to reach other victims. Another man shot in Ratchadamri Road lay stricken, alone and unmoving.

An ambulance that drove to him was fired upon and, ultimately, forced to abandon him.

…

The soldiers, in charge now, fired indiscriminately.

The last sentence of the asian correspondent article:

"Wonder how many stories about indiscriminate shooting by the military will make it into Thai publications…

[Buchholz]

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.

.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

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.

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.

I can see how lack of training and discipline could lead to unintentional targets being hit, and i can see how relentless indoctrination and frustration could lead to unnecessary cruelty and a trigger happy attitude towards the red shirt "enemy"; i can't see how lack of training and discipline, or relentless indoctrination and frustration, could lead to a soldier deliberately going after innocent journalists and medics. I mean, it is possible, i just feel it unlikely, especially when we know that there was another armed group in the same area that did stand to gain from these types of deaths.

[philw]

it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

How sadly and pathetically predictable...............

[phiphidon]

There was no need - everybody in the area could hear the speeches from the red stage. And it was a lot more than 4 hours per day.

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

.

The other paper said as much when reporting on the recommendation for dropping Lese Majeste charges against Jatuporn (11th May).

[Siam Simon]

it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

Yes, facts and first-hand evidence are a dam_n nuisance to 'perception management', aren't they?

[Emptyset]

it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

Yep, most people don't like being challenged by the facts. They just prefer to believe their own ignorant version of whatever it is they want to believe. And then they generally hypocritically accuse others of doing exactly the same thing...

[thaihome]

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

[Buchholz]

awwwww.... gee guys.... afterall

It was a joke <deleted>, lighten up a little.

[Buchholz]

I think you'll find the lese majeste charges against all of the Red Shirt leaders have been dropped.

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

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 him 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...

Edited May 17, 2012 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

So why didn't you chastise phiphidon for his selective quoting?

Probably because there is nothing else in the article that adds or subtracts from my "selective quoting" post in reply to a statement. If you don't believe me here is the post in its entirety

A Channel Nine news crew was standing just metres away from a journalist who was shot in the head during an escalation of violence in the Red Shirt protest site in Bangkok today.

Reporter Brett McLeod was describing the mayhem around him during a live radio cross to 774 ABC Melbourne when gunshots rang out and screams could be heard in the background.

"I just found out that a man who is about 10 metres away from me has just been shot in the head," McLeod told ABC host Richard Stubbs.

"I can see him now, I think he might be a journalist. Um, I'm not sure if he's a local or not but he's lying on the ground bleeding heavily. Not much movement there. People shouting for medical help."

He said ambulances were being fired on indiscriminately and any medical staff who came to the man's aid were putting themselves at extreme risk.

"There's one man is laying on the ground that looks, he's not moving at all, he has got a severe head wound," he said.

"There's another man holding his throat, it's possible the bullet may have grazed past him. This is all now I guess about 20 feet (seven metres) away from where I'm standing."

It was unclear whether the man was one of two foreign journalists who were shot dead in today's bloody battles.

McLeod said government troops had smashed down the barriers of the Red Shirts rally site in the heart of the Thai capital and exchanged gunfire with some hardcore protesters.

The clashes came after last-minute talks between the government and the Red Shirts - formally known as the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship - broke down.

The military appeared to be "strolling down the street in a very casual way," McLeod said.

"And they just seem to be firing shots randomly down the road, not at anyone in particular," he said.

"We saw a bullet hit the ground in front of us just a short while ago and they've been whizzing over our heads as well.

"This sort of assault isn't about arresting anyone. It's simply about hurting people."

While the protesters had be defiant earlier, McLeod said the mood was changing around him.

"I think people are starting to get scared and are going to start moving now, and I've got to go Richard because I think we're in trouble."

http://www.smh.com.au/world/bangkok-bloodbath-nine-crew-see-journalist-shot-in-head-20100519-vemt.html#ixzz1v1skoN12

If I go to the trouble of providing links you could at least read them first before asking asinine questions.............

[Insight]

From April 10th and before, other than the clearly heinous act of the army remaining stationed in dealing with the protestors after sundown, and the rubber bullets peppering the a civilian vehicle, what other actions are the red militants using as justification for what was clearly a well planned and executed M79 attack which murdered Colonel Romklao while he was sleeping in his tent?

Also, if you have any solid proof that it was military personnel firing those rounds into ambulances am sure many people would love to see it. Meanwhile there are plenty of eyewitness accounts which detail how the red shirts prevented other public service personnel from reaching the fires started by the red shirts at CTW, the Central Big C opposite, and several fires in the Siam area.

I am sorry, but i am stunned by this post.

Was it just irony, or you did you just manage to get almost every fact wrong?

Romklao sleeping in his tent?!

Oh my god..., i don't even know where to start...

I guess it is pointless here to say that in another such incident i was only a few meters away from an ambulance that was fired at by soldiers as this will just draw the usual accusation of being biased, etc.

Consistent denial and obfuscation by your side of the argument makes posting here an extremely tedious exercise.

This becomes now so silly again that it won't take much longer and i will take another long break from arguing here.

Which i am sure you will be very glad to read...

So you're not even going to bother correcting what I got oh so wrong?

Maybe he was playing on his PS3.... Enlighten us.

Anything else wrong?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Insight

[Robby nz]

As I have said before there is only one man responsible for all the death and destruction cased by the red shirt riots and that is the one who organised and financed the whole the whole thing, none other than Thaksin.

Had the red shirts not started firing grenades at the army while their leader ate on Mc Donalds there would have been no reason for the army to fire anything on that day.

If you attack an army with weapons of war you must expect them to retaliate.

And to try to blame the Govt of the day and the MP is also silly as it is the job of any Govt while respecting free speech to maintain law and order.

And law and order was not on the red shirt agenda.

As an aside; I wonder why the red shirt and Thaksin supporters on this forum give the support they do.

Seems to me there are only 3 reasons any intelligent person would give such support.

They are

1. they are long time supporters of the great man who will never see any wrong in him even if he personaly came and cut the throats of their children.

2. they are in too deep and would be on the list of those implicated when he is brought to justice.

3. they are being paid to give their support

[hyperdimension]

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?

Thaksin and his generals did. But it seems that some people don't want to talk about Thaksin even though he is one of the top few key players in the whole conflict that has been going on for years. Do they think it's a lese majeste offence to talk about him? Or is it that they don't want to accept that the supposed "noble cause" for true democracy that they have been supporting and spending so much time on (such as writing books) was not actually a genuine fight for democracy, but instead was for the interests of one selfish ultra-wealthy maniac and his clan?

Edited May 17, 2012 by hyperdimension

[phiphidon]

No, they haven't.

But I look forward to the quote/link that they have that you seem to think exists.

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?