Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[hyperdimension]

Funny, it doesn't seem to be his favourite hat, the one adorned with hand grenade pins that he had thrown at people.

It looks like the same hat with grenade pins:

Here is The Telegraph UK's obituary of him: Major-General Khattiya Sawasdipol obituary

Here are some notable quotes:

"I'm one of the giant characters in this Thai epic," he noted, criticising his enemies' tactics. "The government's soldiers are wearing very tight clothing, and they will get very hot and suffer heat stroke. The army acts with homosexual emotions."

"I have a history of working with the CIA," Sawasdipol said, referring to assassinations of Thai communists in the 1970s. Talking of an engagement with them in 1976, he claimed to have "helped kill 20 people, 20 enemies, and I was wounded".

it was in 2008 that Sawasdipol really fell out with the army, criticising its most senior officer. He was quickly reassigned to lead aerobics classes at a local marketplace. "I have prepared one dance," he said at the time, "It's called the 'Throwing a Hand Grenade Dance'."

[hyperdimension]

ultimate responsibility of all deaths, injuries and destruction from the 2010 riots lies with Thaksin, as he is the one who planned it together with a group of generals that included major general Khattiya Sawasdipol. See the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown which predicted the mayhem months in advance.

[philw]

Yes, I suppose a guy having his guts ripped apart by an army bullet and later dying is fairly mundane stuff. Doctor.....

It must be highlighted that ultimate responsibility of all deaths, injuries and destruction from the 2010 riots lies with Thaksin, as he is the one who planned it together with a group of generals that included major general Khattiya Sawasdipol. See the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown which predicted the mayhem months in advance.

Completely wrong.

The responsibility lies with the PM at the time and those who authorised the shootings.

Chain of command and all that......................

[phiphidon]

A touching portrait banner highlighting the benevolence of the Red Shirt Hero during his memorial anniversary....

Funny, it doesn't seem to be his favourite hat, the one adorned with hand grenade pins that he had thrown at people.

He used to throw hand grenade pins at people? Thats just weird.

[Mosha]

Perhaps PAD could hold a rally at Swampy at the same time, to commemorate the even more peaceful protest there.

[phiphidon]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Both buchholz and animatic liked this but why? What does it mean, could you enlighten me gand, or perhaps buchholz or animatic could explain?

[metisdead]

A post containing a very graphic photo has been removed.

[philw]

A touching portrait banner highlighting the benevolence of the Red Shirt Hero during his memorial anniversary....

Daily News (article in Thai)

http://www.dailynews...politics/114321

Perhaps you meant to say a patriotic Thai who served his country and loved his king ???

[rubl]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Both buchholz and animatic liked this but why? What does it mean, could you enlighten me gand, or perhaps buchholz or animatic could explain?

Good question. There are some English proverbs about this though

- An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

- Prevention is better than cure

- What cannot be cured must be endured

More to the point may be this Dutch saying which translated to something like "soft/gentle healmasters make stinking wounds" (zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden). Mind you, I'm not advocating cutting out a sore of any colour

[phiphidon]

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Both buchholz and animatic liked this but why? What does it mean, could you enlighten me gand, or perhaps buchholz or animatic could explain?

Good question. There are some English proverbs about this though

- An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

- Prevention is better than cure

- What cannot be cured must be endured

More to the point may be this Dutch saying which translated to something like "soft/gentle healmasters make stinking wounds" (zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden). Mind you, I'm not advocating cutting out a sore of any colour

It's not really a romance language, Dutch, is it? I'm more inclined towards

"When you cease to strive to understand, then you will know without understanding."

Sun Tzu? Nah, Caine, Kung <deleted>.....................

Edited May 14, 2012 by phiphidon

[Buchholz]

A touching portrait banner highlighting the benevolence of the Red Shirt Hero during his memorial anniversary....

Daily News (article in Thai)

http://www.dailynews...politics/114321

Perhaps you meant to say a patriotic Thai who served his country and loved his king ???

Nope.

[OzMick]

Perhaps you meant to say a patriotic Thai who served his country and loved his king ???

Being a country boy, I have a wider understanding of the words 'service' and 'served'. So I do agree that leading a pack of mercenaries in attacks against fellow soldiers and the legitimate government of the day is 'serving' your country. I would rate his patriotism on a par with Quisling or JW Lindh.

Thaksin thinks of himself more as an Emperor I'm told.

[GentlemanJim]

Perhaps PAD could hold a rally at Swampy at the same time, to commemorate the even more peaceful protest there.

sometimes i do wonder how the pad protests would have gone if the military hadn't been on their side...

But just like the red protests the Government at the time (not the Dems) were totally ineffectual in making a decision to end the protest. There is a whole load of difference between allowing people their democratic right to protest and political groups bringing the country to it's knees. Both protests lacked decisive timely government leadership that should have been swiftly implemented to bring them BOTH to an end before they all got out of hand. I am not sure that any other Government on the planet would have tolerated the actions of either group for more than a few days.

[nurofiend]

Perhaps PAD could hold a rally at Swampy at the same time, to commemorate the even more peaceful protest there.

sometimes i do wonder how the pad protests would have gone if the military hadn't been on their side...

But just like the red protests the Government at the time (not the Dems) were totally ineffectual in making a decision to end the protest. There is a whole load of difference between allowing people their democratic right to protest and political groups bringing the country to it's knees. Both protests lacked decisive timely government leadership that should have been swiftly implemented to bring them BOTH to an end before they all got out of hand. I am not sure that any other Government on the planet would have tolerated the actions of either group for more than a few days.

would you accept that there was a difference in military attitude towards the protestors?

i assume you do, unless you feel the red shirts would have got the same treatment marching on the airport.

so do you think this difference in attitude would have any affect on the overall outcome of events?

Edited May 14, 2012 by nurofiend

[OzMick]

Perhaps PAD could hold a rally at Swampy at the same time, to commemorate the even more peaceful protest there.

sometimes i do wonder how the pad protests would have gone if the military hadn't been on their side...

But just like the red protests the Government at the time (not the Dems) were totally ineffectual in making a decision to end the protest. There is a whole load of difference between allowing people their democratic right to protest and political groups bringing the country to it's knees. Both protests lacked decisive timely government leadership that should have been swiftly implemented to bring them BOTH to an end before they all got out of hand. I am not sure that any other Government on the planet would have tolerated the actions of either group for more than a few days.

would you accept that there was a difference in military attitude towards the protestors?

i assume you do, unless you feel the red shirts would have got the same treatment marching on the airport.

so do you think this difference in attitude would have any affect on the overall outcome of events?

Yes there was a different attitude. If the yellow shirts had launched a grenade attack which killed the military commander, the attitude would have changed radically, probably to about the same as that to the red shirts.

Try googling "protesters fire on police". 280 or so hits, mostly about Athens where a couple of shots were fired at a police bus, Guadaloupe where similar to a police car, the next a 1963 event in the USA. A relatively rare event because peaceful protesters don't show up with weapons. When they do, and security forces (let alone the commander of the security forces) start getting killed in premeditated attacks, then "peaceful protest" becomes a sham, and the odds that protesters are going to get killed escalates markedly. Anybody with more intelligence than a teapot should recognise that fact, and disassociate themselves from the event rapidly if they wish to remain safe.

However, when the protesters have been whipped into a frenzy with speeches extolling violence and falsely perceived injustices, they may be more reluctant to do so. Even the teapot expects hot water.

It is not a trait of police and soldiers to mindlessly kill people - in fact it is quite difficult to train them to do so, even when they are under fire.

However that trait is much more common in military mercenaries, also known as Sae Daeng's boy's. Just exactly what is the purpose of a small number of heavily armed men at a protest - to protect them from the much larger force facing them, or to trigger a bloodbath?

Edited May 15, 2012 by OzMick

[nicknostitz]

Yes there was a different attitude. If the yellow shirts had launched a grenade attack which killed the military commander, the attitude would have changed radically, probably to about the same as that to the red shirts.

Try googling "protesters fire on police". 280 or so hits, mostly about Athens where a couple of shots were fired at a police bus, Guadaloupe where similar to a police car, the next a 1963 event in the USA. A relatively rare event because peaceful protesters don't show up with weapons. When they do, and security forces (let alone the commander of the security forces) start getting killed in premeditated attacks, then "peaceful protest" becomes a sham, and the odds that protesters are going to get killed escalates markedly. Anybody with more intelligence than a teapot should recognise that fact, and disassociate themselves from the event rapidly if they wish to remain safe.

However, when the protesters have been whipped into a frenzy with speeches extolling violence and falsely perceived injustices, they may be more reluctant to do so. Even the teapot expects hot water.

It is not a trait of police and soldiers to mindlessly kill people - in fact it is quite difficult to train them to do so, even when they are under fire.

However that trait is much more common in military mercenaries, also known as Sae Daeng's boy's. Just exactly what is the purpose of a small number of heavily armed men at a protest - to protect them from the much larger force facing them, or to trigger a bloodbath?

During the October 7, 2008, attempted bockade of parliament, PAD protesters indeed fired guns at police officers, and injured several officers - a detail that is often lost in the discussion, but not forgotten by police. During the period of the 2008 government house occupation regularly police officers of Nang Loern and Phaya Thai police station were beaten up by PAD guards. Officers trying to investigate crime scenes in the protest area (such as when PAD guards shot at a car of youths that made a wrong turn, injuring one man in the shoulder) were prevented from entering the scene of the crime. At times soldiers supported the PAD guards in preventing the police officers from investigating the crime scene. There were also many active and retired soldiers working as PAD guards (both volontarily and ordered their by their commanders).

These events were the main reason for the overwhelming support of police for the Red Shirts we could see from late 2008 onwards until today.

Lets also not forget that the first armed militant groups under protesters appeared in the PAD with the event of the government house occupation. During the first night of the government house occupation the PAD stole a dozen UZI's and M16's from a Special Branch police station in government house, which the surprised officers had to leave behind, and distributed them under their Nacop Srivichai (only one of the rifles was returned when in late 2008 during a sting operation a Naclop Srivichai was arrested with one of the stolen UZI's).

The first time when guns were used in this political conflict was on September 2, 2008, when UDD protesters from Sanam Luang attacked the nearby PAD camp and PAD guards fired handguns at the UDD (armed with sticks, iron bars and slingshots - the infamous image of UDD protesters with swords was a semi set up image as these yokels walked up and posed with their swords hours after the clashes were already over) - initially to repell the attackers on Rajadamnern Rd, and the second time, when the clashes already ceased, and PAD guards ambushed UDD protesters from a small soi behind the Rajadamnern Boxing Stadium. At the time the UDD still was a rather disorganized group, which though changed quickly after the desastrous September 2 clash.

As a reaction Sae Daeng formed the 'Naclop Prachao Taksin', out of which the first active militant wings under the Red Shirts developed. The first of their attacks was, two days after a group of Red Shirts were pulled out of their car and paraded on the PAD stage on October 28, 2008, to throw a handgranade at PAD guards at Makhawan on October 30, 2008. This was followed by many M79 grenades launched at the PAD.

During this whole period the PAD received strong support by the military and the Democrat Party.

The timeline and detals that initiated the escalation process are of eminent importance.

As to your statement of lethal violence by security forces - i think you are wearing rose colored glasses, especially regarding Thailand. In Thai history there are more than a few incidents where both police and military have indeed used lethal violence far beyond anything that can be called appropriate force. Education in human rights issues in the security forces is almost non-existant, and especially in the military the absolute obediance to the chain of command under complete disregard of the legality of orders is prevelant, as anybody who has ever spent time with Thai soldiers in combat zones can attest to.

Without going into too much into detail of the 2010 protests, there were more than a few incidents during the crackdown in which soldiers have used force way beyond what can be called appropriate. There were incidents though in which lethals force by soldiers was appropriate to counter armed miltants under the Red Shirts. Unfortunately though lack of training and discipline under the soldiers in many of those situations mostly cost the lives of unarmed protesters instead of what were legitimate targets - armed militants under the Red Shirts.

Before beginning yet one another fruitless argument over this issue, i would suggest to wait and see what the upcoming trials on these cases bring to light.

[waza]

seems the reds are getting less and less to their rallies

[thaihome]

.... There were incidents though in which lethals force by soldiers was appropriate to counter armed miltants under the Red Shirts. Unfortunately though lack of training and discipline under the soldiers in many of those situations mostly cost the lives of unarmed protesters instead of what were legitimate targets - armed militants under the Red Shirts.

I guess, the fact that in some of those case, "unarmed protesters" were shot because of their close proximity the people using lethal force against the army had nothing to do with it. It was all due to poor training and a lack of discipline. How convenient.

i would suggest to wait and see what the upcoming trials on these cases bring to light.

Which trials are those, Nick?

Are they going to start with the DAAD riot in front of Prem's house in 2007?

Are they going to start with PAD trials for taking over the government house and the airport in 2008?

Or are they going to skip right to the 13 or so cases the DSI is now saying the security authorities shot and killed people in 2010?

TH

Edited May 15, 2012 by thaihome

[OzMick]

Yes there was a different attitude. If the yellow shirts had launched a grenade attack which killed the military commander, the attitude would have changed radically, probably to about the same as that to the red shirts.

Try googling "protesters fire on police". 280 or so hits, mostly about Athens where a couple of shots were fired at a police bus, Guadaloupe where similar to a police car, the next a 1963 event in the USA. A relatively rare event because peaceful protesters don't show up with weapons. When they do, and security forces (let alone the commander of the security forces) start getting killed in premeditated attacks, then "peaceful protest" becomes a sham, and the odds that protesters are going to get killed escalates markedly. Anybody with more intelligence than a teapot should recognise that fact, and disassociate themselves from the event rapidly if they wish to remain safe.

However, when the protesters have been whipped into a frenzy with speeches extolling violence and falsely perceived injustices, they may be more reluctant to do so. Even the teapot expects hot water.

It is not a trait of police and soldiers to mindlessly kill people - in fact it is quite difficult to train them to do so, even when they are under fire.

However that trait is much more common in military mercenaries, also known as Sae Daeng's boy's. Just exactly what is the purpose of a small number of heavily armed men at a protest - to protect them from the much larger force facing them, or to trigger a bloodbath?

During the October 7, 2008, attempted bockade of parliament, PAD protesters indeed fired guns at police officers, and injured several officers - a detail that is often lost in the discussion, but not forgotten by police. During the period of the 2008 government house occupation regularly police officers of Nang Loern and Phaya Thai police station were beaten up by PAD guards. Officers trying to investigate crime scenes in the protest area (such as when PAD guards shot at a car of youths that made a wrong turn, injuring one man in the shoulder) were prevented from entering the scene of the crime. At times soldiers supported the PAD guards in preventing the police officers from investigating the crime scene. There were also many active and retired soldiers working as PAD guards (both volontarily and ordered their by their commanders).

These events were the main reason for the overwhelming support of police for the Red Shirts we could see from late 2008 onwards until today.

Lets also not forget that the first armed militant groups under protesters appeared in the PAD with the event of the government house occupation. During the first night of the government house occupation the PAD stole a dozen UZI's and M16's from a Special Branch police station in government house, which the surprised officers had to leave behind, and distributed them under their Nacop Srivichai (only one of the rifles was returned when in late 2008 during a sting operation a Naclop Srivichai was arrested with one of the stolen UZI's).

The first time when guns were used in this political conflict was on September 2, 2008, when UDD protesters from Sanam Luang attacked the nearby PAD camp and PAD guards fired handguns at the UDD (armed with sticks, iron bars and slingshots - the infamous image of UDD protesters with swords was a semi set up image as these yokels walked up and posed with their swords hours after the clashes were already over) - initially to repell the attackers on Rajadamnern Rd, and the second time, when the clashes already ceased, and PAD guards ambushed UDD protesters from a small soi behind the Rajadamnern Boxing Stadium. At the time the UDD still was a rather disorganized group, which though changed quickly after the desastrous September 2 clash.

As a reaction Sae Daeng formed the 'Naclop Prachao Taksin', out of which the first active militant wings under the Red Shirts developed. The first of their attacks was, two days after a group of Red Shirts were pulled out of their car and paraded on the PAD stage on October 28, 2008, to throw a handgranade at PAD guards at Makhawan on October 30, 2008. This was followed by many M79 grenades launched at the PAD.

During this whole period the PAD received strong support by the military and the Democrat Party.

The timeline and detals that initiated the escalation process are of eminent importance.

As to your statement of lethal violence by security forces - i think you are wearing rose colored glasses, especially regarding Thailand. In Thai history there are more than a few incidents where both police and military have indeed used lethal violence far beyond anything that can be called appropriate force. Education in human rights issues in the security forces is almost non-existant, and especially in the military the absolute obediance to the chain of command under complete disregard of the legality of orders is prevelant, as anybody who has ever spent time with Thai soldiers in combat zones can attest to.

Without going into too much into detail of the 2010 protests, there were more than a few incidents during the crackdown in which soldiers have used force way beyond what can be called appropriate. There were incidents though in which lethals force by soldiers was appropriate to counter armed miltants under the Red Shirts. Unfortunately though lack of training and discipline under the soldiers in many of those situations mostly cost the lives of unarmed protesters instead of what were legitimate targets - armed militants under the Red Shirts.

Before beginning yet one another fruitless argument over this issue, i would suggest to wait and see what the upcoming trials on these cases bring to light.

Interesting point in your timeline. it progresses in rapid order from PAD guards using handguns to defend themselves from attack, to Sae Daeng's boys using hand and M-79 grenades, again to attack others. I see 2 things in this, a large increase in the lethality of weapons used, no doubt due to sae Daeng's influence; and a recurring theme of red shirt attacks.

Do you have any military or police experience to base your opinion of levels of training, discipline, ROE and basically what is and what is not possible in a combat situation? Some of the red-leaning posters on this forum seem to have a basic anti-military bias, others expect miracles from mere mortals in a difficult situation, and at least one expects soldiers to resolve what had turned into a combat situation without hurting anyone (except perhaps themselves, but they deserve no consideration because they are being paid.)

[hyperdimension]

Yes, I suppose a guy having his guts ripped apart by an army bullet and later dying is fairly mundane stuff. Doctor.....

It must be highlighted that ultimate responsibility of all deaths, injuries and destruction from the 2010 riots lies with Thaksin, as he is the one who planned it together with a group of generals that included major general Khattiya Sawasdipol. See the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown which predicted the mayhem months in advance.

Completely wrong.

The responsibility lies with the PM at the time and those who authorised the shootings.

Chain of command and all that......................

So do you think it was OK for the protesters to have and use military weapons such as M79 grenades against armed soldiers? What should soldiers do if they are under attack by military weapons? Throw some tear gas canisters in return? Did you actually read the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown? Do you deny that the mayhem was planned months in advance with the expectation of deaths? The responsibility lies with the ones who decided to hold protests / riots and ordered military weapons to be used by the militants amongst the protesters. Edited May 15, 2012 by hyperdimension

[Siam Simon]

Yes there was a different attitude. If the yellow shirts had launched a grenade attack which killed the military commander, the attitude would have changed radically, probably to about the same as that to the red shirts.

Try googling "protesters fire on police". 280 or so hits, mostly about Athens where a couple of shots were fired at a police bus, Guadaloupe where similar to a police car, the next a 1963 event in the USA. A relatively rare event because peaceful protesters don't show up with weapons. When they do, and security forces (let alone the commander of the security forces) start getting killed in premeditated attacks, then "peaceful protest" becomes a sham, and the odds that protesters are going to get killed escalates markedly. Anybody with more intelligence than a teapot should recognise that fact, and disassociate themselves from the event rapidly if they wish to remain safe.

However, when the protesters have been whipped into a frenzy with speeches extolling violence and falsely perceived injustices, they may be more reluctant to do so. Even the teapot expects hot water.

It is not a trait of police and soldiers to mindlessly kill people - in fact it is quite difficult to train them to do so, even when they are under fire.

However that trait is much more common in military mercenaries, also known as Sae Daeng's boy's. Just exactly what is the purpose of a small number of heavily armed men at a protest - to protect them from the much larger force facing them, or to trigger a bloodbath?

During the October 7, 2008, attempted bockade of parliament, PAD protesters indeed fired guns at police officers, and injured several officers - a detail that is often lost in the discussion, but not forgotten by police. During the period of the 2008 government house occupation regularly police officers of Nang Loern and Phaya Thai police station were beaten up by PAD guards. Officers trying to investigate crime scenes in the protest area (such as when PAD guards shot at a car of youths that made a wrong turn, injuring one man in the shoulder) were prevented from entering the scene of the crime. At times soldiers supported the PAD guards in preventing the police officers from investigating the crime scene. There were also many active and retired soldiers working as PAD guards (both volontarily and ordered their by their commanders).

These events were the main reason for the overwhelming support of police for the Red Shirts we could see from late 2008 onwards until today.

Lets also not forget that the first armed militant groups under protesters appeared in the PAD with the event of the government house occupation. During the first night of the government house occupation the PAD stole a dozen UZI's and M16's from a Special Branch police station in government house, which the surprised officers had to leave behind, and distributed them under their Nacop Srivichai (only one of the rifles was returned when in late 2008 during a sting operation a Naclop Srivichai was arrested with one of the stolen UZI's).

The first time when guns were used in this political conflict was on September 2, 2008, when UDD protesters from Sanam Luang attacked the nearby PAD camp and PAD guards fired handguns at the UDD (armed with sticks, iron bars and slingshots - the infamous image of UDD protesters with swords was a semi set up image as these yokels walked up and posed with their swords hours after the clashes were already over) - initially to repell the attackers on Rajadamnern Rd, and the second time, when the clashes already ceased, and PAD guards ambushed UDD protesters from a small soi behind the Rajadamnern Boxing Stadium. At the time the UDD still was a rather disorganized group, which though changed quickly after the desastrous September 2 clash.

As a reaction Sae Daeng formed the 'Naclop Prachao Taksin', out of which the first active militant wings under the Red Shirts developed. The first of their attacks was, two days after a group of Red Shirts were pulled out of their car and paraded on the PAD stage on October 28, 2008, to throw a handgranade at PAD guards at Makhawan on October 30, 2008. This was followed by many M79 grenades launched at the PAD.

During this whole period the PAD received strong support by the military and the Democrat Party.

The timeline and detals that initiated the escalation process are of eminent importance.

As to your statement of lethal violence by security forces - i think you are wearing rose colored glasses, especially regarding Thailand. In Thai history there are more than a few incidents where both police and military have indeed used lethal violence far beyond anything that can be called appropriate force. Education in human rights issues in the security forces is almost non-existant, and especially in the military the absolute obediance to the chain of command under complete disregard of the legality of orders is prevelant, as anybody who has ever spent time with Thai soldiers in combat zones can attest to.

Without going into too much into detail of the 2010 protests, there were more than a few incidents during the crackdown in which soldiers have used force way beyond what can be called appropriate. There were incidents though in which lethals force by soldiers was appropriate to counter armed miltants under the Red Shirts. Unfortunately though lack of training and discipline under the soldiers in many of those situations mostly cost the lives of unarmed protesters instead of what were legitimate targets - armed militants under the Red Shirts.

Before beginning yet one another fruitless argument over this issue, i would suggest to wait and see what the upcoming trials on these cases bring to light.

Interesting point in your timeline. it progresses in rapid order from PAD guards using handguns to defend themselves from attack, to Sae Daeng's boys using hand and M-79 grenades, again to attack others. I see 2 things in this, a large increase in the lethality of weapons used, no doubt due to sae Daeng's influence; and a recurring theme of red shirt attacks.

Do you have any military or police experience to base your opinion of levels of training, discipline, ROE and basically what is and what is not possible in a combat situation? Some of the red-leaning posters on this forum seem to have a basic anti-military bias, others expect miracles from mere mortals in a difficult situation, and at least one expects soldiers to resolve what had turned into a combat situation without hurting anyone (except perhaps themselves, but they deserve no consideration because they are being paid.)

I have neither an anti-army nor an anti-police bias. If security forces are well-trained and managed in an ethical manner (as they are in many countries), I have the highest respect for them. Unfortunately, security forces in Thailand have long histories of unethical and sometimes appalling behaviour, both the miltary and police. These abuses have been well-documented, and anyone on here trying to create scenarios of hard-done-by security services doing their best in difficult conditions is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, I suppose a guy having his guts ripped apart by an army bullet and later dying is fairly mundane stuff. Doctor.....

It must be highlighted that ultimate responsibility of all deaths, injuries and destruction from the 2010 riots lies with Thaksin, as he is the one who planned it together with a group of generals that included major general Khattiya Sawasdipol. See the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown which predicted the mayhem months in advance.

Completely wrong.

The responsibility lies with the PM at the time and those who authorised the shootings.

Chain of command and all that......................

So do you think it was OK for the protesters to have and use military weapons such as M79 grenades against armed soldiers? What should soldiers do if they are under attack by military weapons? Throw some tear gas canisters in return? Did you actually read the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown? Do you deny that the mayhem was planned months in advance with the expectation of deaths? The responsibility lies with the ones who decided to hold protests / riots and ordered military weapons to be used by the militants amongst the protesters.

All the available evidence is that there was a handful of armed (as in carrying military- grade weapons) amonst thousands upon thousands of protesters. Now, whilst that is a handful too many armed, it doesn't even come close to justifying some of the miltary attacks such as the one reported by Al Jazeera where commuters in cars trying to stay ahead of a group of marching Red Shirts were boxed in by advancing soldiers and had to either lie across their footwells or take the risk of diving for cover in nearby doorways.

[philw]

Yes, I suppose a guy having his guts ripped apart by an army bullet and later dying is fairly mundane stuff. Doctor.....

It must be highlighted that ultimate responsibility of all deaths, injuries and destruction from the 2010 riots lies with Thaksin, as he is the one who planned it together with a group of generals that included major general Khattiya Sawasdipol. See the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown which predicted the mayhem months in advance.

Completely wrong.

The responsibility lies with the PM at the time and those who authorised the shootings.

Chain of command and all that......................

So do you think it was OK for the protesters to have and use military weapons such as M79 grenades against armed soldiers? What should soldiers do if they are under attack by military weapons? Throw some tear gas canisters in return? Did you actually read the article Rogue generals on Thaksin's payroll cry for final showdown? Do you deny that the mayhem was planned months in advance with the expectation of deaths? The responsibility lies with the ones who decided to hold protests / riots and ordered military weapons to be used by the militants amongst the protesters.

You are skewing the picture.

The responsibility simply and squarely lies with those persons who authorised sniper head shots to seemingly unarmed demonstrators.

This is not the act of a civilised government and is repugnant.

A very salient point is the paucity of weapons displayed by the RTA once they had secured the areas.

The RTA, under government orders shot unarmed civilians in the head.

Quite a few.

It is indisputable.

Up to you if you cannot see this.

And please don't call me a red shirt or Thaksin fan, I am neither.

[GentlemanJim]

Can we have two special forums created that are private and can only be accessed by the respective forum members. One forum can be for people who hate the red shirts and the other can be for those who love the redshirts. That way non of us will waste anymore of our lives trying to communicate with people that will not listen and will never change. It really is futile.

[hyperdimension]

miltary attacks such as the one reported by Al Jazeera where commuters in cars trying to stay ahead of a group of marching Red Shirts were boxed in by advancing soldiers and had to either lie across their footwells or take the risk of diving for cover in nearby doorways.

Where and when was this and were there casualties?

[hyperdimension]

The responsibility simply and squarely lies with those persons who authorised sniper head shots to seemingly unarmed demonstrators.

I don't deny that some soldiers may have committed human rights abuses. But the soldiers wouldn't have needed to use live rounds if they weren't faced with so much incoming firepower.

Who ordered the riots and who ordered the military weapons for use against the authorities? Do you think he hoped that there would be no casualties at all? Do you think he had the utmost care for the lives of the people that he mobilized?

How much responsibility should the one who ordered it all bear? None at all?

Edited May 15, 2012 by hyperdimension

[nicknostitz]

Interesting point in your timeline. it progresses in rapid order from PAD guards using handguns to defend themselves from attack, to Sae Daeng's boys using hand and M-79 grenades, again to attack others. I see 2 things in this, a large increase in the lethality of weapons used, no doubt due to sae Daeng's influence; and a recurring theme of red shirt attacks.

Do you have any military or police experience to base your opinion of levels of training, discipline, ROE and basically what is and what is not possible in a combat situation? Some of the red-leaning posters on this forum seem to have a basic anti-military bias, others expect miracles from mere mortals in a difficult situation, and at least one expects soldiers to resolve what had turned into a combat situation without hurting anyone (except perhaps themselves, but they deserve no consideration because they are being paid.)

Actually - the issue of armed militants progressed in rapid order from PAD taking possession of automatic rifles belonging to the Special Branch, distributing them under their Naclop Srivichai, and then using handguns against UDD attackers. The shooting police officers during the October 7 riots, etc.

Violence, i am afraid, is a recurring theme of all sides in this conflict, not just of the Red Shirts, as implied by you here. If you read the BP now, you can see, for example, that a building in a newly oped Red Shirt village in Songkla province was burned down by opponents. Yes, all sides have used violence, and are still ready and prepared to continue to. All sides have also people that abhor violence, and try to keep their respective struggle within peaceful means, which obviously has not been successful.

As a journalist i have a bit of experience observing different military and police actions. I have many friends in both Thai military and police as well as foreign military observers (who worked during the 2010 events on the ground) with whom i discuss and the issues you mentioned regarding ROE, training, discipline, SOP, etc. constantly. I don't just pull my views out of my arse - i cannot possibly know everything, and have to resort to experts in areas I have no particular expertise in.

Furthermore, most violent incidents of the past years related to the Yellow/Red conflict i have been in the middle off - and reported/photographed them from all sides - at times from the protest groups, at times from the security forces, and at times even switching during the fights.

Personally, i am as appalled when i have to photograph dead soldiers as when i have to photograph dead protesters - in my eyes they are all humans.

So, yes, i do believe that I can assess the situation well enough.

Edited May 15, 2012 by nicknostitz

[nicknostitz]

miltary attacks such as the one reported by Al Jazeera where commuters in cars trying to stay ahead of a group of marching Red Shirts were boxed in by advancing soldiers and had to either lie across their footwells or take the risk of diving for cover in nearby doorways.

Where and when was this and were there casualties?

That was during the April 28, 2010, fight at the National Memorial on Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd. I have taken photos of soldiers firing shotguns through the lines of cars stuck there. I saw several broken windshields of commuters' cars where most likely rubber bullets struck.

Several Red Shirts were injured in this fight, and one soldier was, after the hostilities already ceased, shot dead by panicking comrades in a friendly fire incident in front of me.

[nicknostitz]

.... There were incidents though in which lethals force by soldiers was appropriate to counter armed miltants under the Red Shirts. Unfortunately though lack of training and discipline under the soldiers in many of those situations mostly cost the lives of unarmed protesters instead of what were legitimate targets - armed militants under the Red Shirts.

I guess, the fact that in some of those case, "unarmed protesters" were shot because of their close proximity the people using lethal force against the army had nothing to do with it. It was all due to poor training and a lack of discipline. How convenient.

i would suggest to wait and see what the upcoming trials on these cases bring to light.

Which trials are those, Nick?

Are they going to start with the DAAD riot in front of Prem's house in 2007?

Are they going to start with PAD trials for taking over the government house and the airport in 2008?

Or are they going to skip right to the 13 or so cases the DSI is now saying the security authorities shot and killed people in 2010?

TH

These trials are about the 16 cases in which police investigators and prosecution found strong evidence of military culpability. Again - wait and see.

As to your supposition about close proximity of Red Shirt militants and protesters that were killed - it is a supposition, nothing else. There were in fact very few occasions in which Red Shirt militants operated close to normal protesters, such as on April 10, 2010. And even there - if you look at the time line - the first confirmed dead Red Shirt was killed about 30 minutes before Red Shirt militants appeared and fired at the soldiers.

That does not say though that on April 10 protesters were killed an injured as a result of the escalation process, and because soldiers had to give covering fire to retreating comrades (i strongly believe that the Japanese journalist Hiro was killed during such). April 10 was an incredible mess.

But what has to be looked at there is also if the security forces kept proper SOP and ROE - which i believe they did not on both accounts on April 10: Normally such a dispersal has to be begin in the early morning hours so that enough time of retreat under sunlight is there if their aim cannot be achieved. As to ROE - if you just look for example at the ROE with so called "less that lethal" weapons such as rubber bullets, they are only so when aimed at legs, and definitely not at heads. There was though on April 10 more than a few incidents of injured protesters who were shot in the head with rubber bullets, one protester even losing his eye (Human Rights Watch has today at their press conference pointed this fact as well).

Furthermore the declaration of the Emergency Decree has to be looked into, which is only supposed to be declared when any given situation is already out of control and not as a prevention.

There are many more such important details that have led to the mess of 2010 which are to be investigated.

[sbk]

Guess my public notice to drop the flaming was ignored or not seen so I will make it clear again. You are welcome to disagree but DROP THE FLAMING.

Yes, I am indeed very bored with this and think Gentleman Jim has it spot on. The relentless rehashing over and over and over again is really quite monotonous at this point. Especially since it seems to bring out the same people flinging the same poo.

The topic of this thread is: RED SHIRTS TO MARK 2ND ANNIVERSARY.

lets do bear that in mind