Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[AleG]

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.

You forgot to mention the armed Red Shirts shooting at the soldiers...

[pastitche]

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.

Who told you that?

[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.

Who told you that?

that would be telling

[nicknostitz]

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.

You forgot to mention the armed Red Shirts shooting at the soldiers...

No i didn't.

What we have in this incident is footage from Al-jazeera of one Red Shirt dressed in black holding a handgun. I do not know if in this particular incident Red Shirts shot at soldiers. I heard no bullets passing, i have not seen a single injured soldier. At one point during the clash soldiers said that Red Shirt were shooting handguns, but again, i do not know if that was so, or just panic and rumor normal at such high stress situations.

There were definitely not any automatic rifles fired against soldiers by armed militants during this incident - the scene would have been quite different.

At the time, the government tried to connect the footage of Al-Jazeera somehow to the dead soldier which they claimed was killed by some mysterious gunman. This was though pure obfuscation, as the time line is very clear in this case: the man with the gun was filmed during the ongoing clash more than than hour before the death of the soldier. This soldier was killed by a bullet from an automatic rifle long after the clashes completely ceased in the heavy rainstorm, when no red shirt was any closer to the solders than several hundred meters, and only soldiers equipped with automatic rifles were in the vicinity. Soldiers panicked, it was a friendly fire incident. This is not unheard of. Simple as that.

The soldier died in front of me, it was horrible to watch and to photograph. Simple as that. Whenever i pass this location on my bike i have to think about this young man.

[Jawnie]

Wow. Two years since the red shirts laid down the new rules of engagement for their protests.

It's amazing the overall death toll has remained as relatively low as it currently stands, considering the extreme lengths they went to.

Kudos to the Thai military for managing to maintain their cool throughout.

You are obviously Thai because no one from a western democracy would say something like this. In situations, such as 2010, it falls to the government to be the reasonable party. In such a case, the highest duty of that reasonable party, especially the State, is to save lives. It was completely unreasonable for the Thai military to indiscriminately shoot into crowds of civilians protesters. Once the government starts something like that, that some in the crowd vandalized and destroyed property becomes secondary. The idea that the State exists for the protection of the Few is out of date and old fashioned in the 21st century.

[OzMick]

Wow. Two years since the red shirts laid down the new rules of engagement for their protests.

It's amazing the overall death toll has remained as relatively low as it currently stands, considering the extreme lengths they went to.

Kudos to the Thai military for managing to maintain their cool throughout.

You are obviously Thai because no one from a western democracy would say something like this. In situations, such as 2010, it falls to the government to be the reasonable party. In such a case, the highest duty of that reasonable party, especially the State, is to save lives. It was completely unreasonable for the Thai military to indiscriminately shoot into crowds of civilians protesters. Once the government starts something like that, that some in the crowd vandalized and destroyed property becomes secondary. The idea that the State exists for the protection of the Few is out of date and old fashioned in the 21st century.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it is reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Dalai Lama

Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town Johnny Cash

“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” Gandhi

Why were any of the protesters armed? To defeat a much larger force or provoke them into counter-attack?

Only one group in Bangkok had the legal right to carry weapons. Carrying and discharging illegal weapons will get members of your group killed in almost any city of the world - so why do it?

[nicknostitz]

Why were any of the protesters armed? To defeat a much larger force or provoke them into counter-attack?

Only one group in Bangkok had the legal right to carry weapons. Carrying and discharging illegal weapons will get members of your group killed in almost any city of the world - so why do it?

This question is more difficult to answer as you can imagine.

Lets begin with issues of many incidents of military brutality against protesters in the past here in Thailand. Just to mention October 14, 1973 (October 6, 1976, was more Border Police and military supported militias and paramilitary organizations), May 1992, and the more recent Tak Bai problem. Thai protesters are well aware of how brutal its military can be. Many of the Red Shirt protesters - both in the leadership and in ordinary protesters have been in some of the aforementioned incidents, and have a vast amount of experience of what can happen.

We have in Thailand a culture of violence on many levels of society.

Closer to the 2010 incident is the April 13, 2009, crackdown against Red Shirts, in which in the early morning attack at Samliem Dindaeng soldiers fired into the crowd of protesters, injuring several badly (and maybe even killing a few, but i have no other evidence than witness accounts as it was too dangerous to get close to the places were protesters told me that they had to leave behind dead). At that time no militant Red Shirts were present.

This incident was never investigated by the Abhisit government, and neither were the Blue Shirts of Pattaya - a militia organized by Suthep and Newin with members of the military, some of Nevin's gunmen, and a few PAD guards from Chonburi who were duped into joining.

Given these incidents and the almost complete lack of accountability (possibly even ongoing now, looking at the "amnesty" debate), it is quite easy to understand why some parts of the Red Shirts saw it fit to take measures into their own hands. As to the question of "provoking" an incident - such tactics are not unheard of, have been used on occasion by all (!) the different sides of the conflict here.

But given the urban guerilla tactics employed on April 10 - the first time Red Shirt militants openly engaged the army, i believe the aim was to surprise and defeat the military on the ground in case of a violent dispersal attempt. Which they did very successfully, on that night.

I am not in a position to say, and cannot judge, if this was a legitimate tactic of the Red Shirt militants. We are far away from being able to do that. It is more a matter of trying to collect as much evidence as we can, without interference of political opinions, and go from there.

[Jawnie]

Wow. Two years since the red shirts laid down the new rules of engagement for their protests.

It's amazing the overall death toll has remained as relatively low as it currently stands, considering the extreme lengths they went to.

Kudos to the Thai military for managing to maintain their cool throughout.

You are obviously Thai because no one from a western democracy would say something like this. In situations, such as 2010, it falls to the government to be the reasonable party. In such a case, the highest duty of that reasonable party, especially the State, is to save lives. It was completely unreasonable for the Thai military to indiscriminately shoot into crowds of civilians protesters. Once the government starts something like that, that some in the crowd vandalized and destroyed property becomes secondary. The idea that the State exists for the protection of the Few is out of date and old fashioned in the 21st century.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it is reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Dalai Lama

Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town Johnny Cash

“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” Gandhi

Why were any of the protesters armed? To defeat a much larger force or provoke them into counter-attack?

Only one group in Bangkok had the legal right to carry weapons. Carrying and discharging illegal weapons will get members of your group killed in almost any city of the world - so why do it?

It is the duty of the State to be the reasonable actor even if none of the other parties are acting reasonably - the reasonable actor of "last resort." The anti-Reds, anti-Thaksin folks continue with the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens. This is completely wrong and, again, anyone who promotes this idea certainly is not from a western democracy.

In 2010, the citizens were not the enemy and they did not threaten the sovereignty of the State. It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. The events in 2010 were not that extreme and state sovereign wasn't being threatened. It was an unresolved political dispute, period.

It should be glaringly obvious that the course taken by the government then did not resolve anything. In fact, it made the political situation worse by many magnitudes...it settled nothing. It only heaped more problems, destruction, and controversy on an already difficult situation. Anyone who believes that the government did the right thing is simply blind to the actual outcomes and results - the same political conflicts continue, but now with 90 people shot dead in the street with all the bitterness, divisiveness, and heartbreak that alone entails. That is hardly good, insightful, or forward-thinking governance. The State does not, and should not, exist solely to protect the Few.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jawnie

[rubl]

It is the duty of the State to be the reasonable actor even if none of the other parties are acting reasonably - the reasonable actor of "last resort." The anti-Reds, anti-Thaksin folks continue with the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens. This is completely wrong and, again, anyone who promotes this idea certainly is not from a western democracy.

In 2010, the citizens were not the enemy and they did not threaten the sovereignty of the State. It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. The events in 2010 were not that extreme and state sovereign wasn't being threatened. It was an unresolved political dispute, period.

It should be glaringly obvious that the course taken by the government then did not resolve anything. In fact, it made the political situation worse by many magnitudes...it settled nothing. It only heaped more problems, destruction, and controversy on an already difficult situation. Anyone who believes that the government did the right thing is simply blind to the actual outcomes and results - the same political conflicts continue, but now with 90 people shot dead in the street with all the bitterness, divisiveness, and heartbreak that alone entails. That is hardly good, insightful, or forward-thinking governance. The State does not, and should not, exist solely to protect the Few.

Still wondering what this all has to do with the 2nd anniversary of the May 19th cleanup and bonfire at Ratchaprasong. So far I've not seen anything which wasn't discussed at least a dozen times before, plus lots of totally non-related "yes, but's".

In hindsight, the current problems would have been solved if only we'd have found anyone brave enough to drop an atomic bomb on Bangkok and by now I might even be fairly good at playing harp

Glaringly obvious and therefor in need of pointing out, is that so far nothing seems to have resolved and even the current government can only come up with 'amnesty' without solving anything. Mind you, amnesty for all deserving only, of course and obviously and so on

PS 92 people died, but at least seven because of grenades lobbed on them rather than simply being shot. Even a Canadian reporter suffered severe shrapnel wounds running around with the Army on the 19th.

Edited May 15, 2012 by rubl

[GentlemanJim]

The soldier died in front of me, it was horrible to watch and to photograph. Simple as that. Whenever i pass this location on my bike i have to think about this young man.

Well maybe if there is a next time you will consider timely administration of first aid or assistance to others around you rather than taking happy snaps.

It is the duty of the State to be the reasonable actor even if none of the other parties are acting reasonably - the reasonable actor of "last resort." The anti-Reds, anti-Thaksin folks continue with the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens. This is completely wrong and, again, anyone who promotes this idea certainly is not from a western democracy.

In 2010, the citizens were not the enemy and they did not threaten the sovereignty of the State. It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. The events in 2010 were not that extreme and state sovereign wasn't being threatened. It was an unresolved political dispute, period.

It should be glaringly obvious that the course taken by the government then did not resolve anything. In fact, it made the political situation worse by many magnitudes...it settled nothing. It only heaped more problems, destruction, and controversy on an already difficult situation. Anyone who believes that the government did the right thing is simply blind to the actual outcomes and results - the same political conflicts continue, but now with 90 people shot dead in the street with all the bitterness, divisiveness, and heartbreak that alone entails. That is hardly good, insightful, or forward-thinking governance. The State does not, and should not, exist solely to protect the Few.

[waza]

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.

If you mean at the Democracy monument then I disagree. I agree that the soldiers were disorganised and undisciplined but thats because the leadership was taken out at the first assult. They were armed with batons and shields so it was a disorganised retreat, leaving comrades stranded in armored vehicles.

[Buchholz]

the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

So far I've not seen anything which wasn't discussed at least a dozen times before, plus lots of totally non-related "yes, but's".

I tend to agree, but it also seems not so unusual for original gems like the above to enter the new re-hashings.

Still, this thread in some ways doesn't seem to change much when the notion that the non-Red Shirt populace needs to "adjust" their lives to accommodate the Red Shirt's desires.

The UDD chairperson urged retailers and shop owners in the Ratchaprasong area to adjust their work and sales hours in anticipation of a mass gathering of Red Shirt supporters and ease its impact on their trade.

.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Buchholz

[GentlemanJim]

the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

.

Perhaps Jawnie would propose that when Soldiers have their commander and colleagues killed by hand grenade in front of them and are being fired upon by hand weapons and automatic weapons, with a crowd that has, over two weeks been incited in to murdering soldiers and burning down Bangkok, they should defend themselves by throwing jasmine petals and freshly made origami leaping frogs and swans.

Edited May 15, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[mca]

I've seen one site on the web where you have to do an IQ test before you can join.

I take it you didn't bother then.

( Joke )!

[GentlemanJim]

Now I deleted that to avoid a claim of flaming . Your little fingers were just to quick

[mca]

Now I deleted that to avoid a claim of flaming . Your little fingers were just to quick

Yeah I've been caught out like that before.

[OzMick]

Wow. Two years since the red shirts laid down the new rules of engagement for their protests.

It's amazing the overall death toll has remained as relatively low as it currently stands, considering the extreme lengths they went to.

Kudos to the Thai military for managing to maintain their cool throughout.

You are obviously Thai because no one from a western democracy would say something like this. In situations, such as 2010, it falls to the government to be the reasonable party. In such a case, the highest duty of that reasonable party, especially the State, is to save lives. It was completely unreasonable for the Thai military to indiscriminately shoot into crowds of civilians protesters. Once the government starts something like that, that some in the crowd vandalized and destroyed property becomes secondary. The idea that the State exists for the protection of the Few is out of date and old fashioned in the 21st century.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it is reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Dalai Lama

Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town Johnny Cash

“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.” Gandhi

Why were any of the protesters armed? To defeat a much larger force or provoke them into counter-attack?

Only one group in Bangkok had the legal right to carry weapons. Carrying and discharging illegal weapons will get members of your group killed in almost any city of the world - so why do it?

It is the duty of the State to be the reasonable actor even if none of the other parties are acting reasonably - the reasonable actor of "last resort." The anti-Reds, anti-Thaksin folks continue with the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens. This is completely wrong and, again, anyone who promotes this idea certainly is not from a western democracy.

In 2010, the citizens were not the enemy and they did not threaten the sovereignty of the State. It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. The events in 2010 were not that extreme and state sovereign wasn't being threatened. It was an unresolved political dispute, period.

It should be glaringly obvious that the course taken by the government then did not resolve anything. In fact, it made the political situation worse by many magnitudes...it settled nothing. It only heaped more problems, destruction, and controversy on an already difficult situation. Anyone who believes that the government did the right thing is simply blind to the actual outcomes and results - the same political conflicts continue, but now with 90 people shot dead in the street with all the bitterness, divisiveness, and heartbreak that alone entails. That is hardly good, insightful, or forward-thinking governance. The State does not, and should not, exist solely to protect the Few.

Take a long look at the definition of criminality. And then the Gandhian concept of peaceful protest.

You can't say that the guy 3 over in the crowd is an armed militant and I am a peaceful protester. You can't say to the police or army guys being shot at, don't shoot at me, he's the criminal, because you both are.

"all the bitterness, divisiveness, and heartbreak" was the intended result. It got Thaksin back in control, and the end justifies the means, if you happen to be a sociopath.

BTW the majority of citizens of Bangkok and Thailand wanted the farce ended and the criminals disrupting their lives and businesses dispersed. They are not FEW. When relative peaceful means were met with a violent attack, others are used.

[thaihome]

...But given the urban guerilla tactics employed on April 10 - the first time Red Shirt militants openly engaged the army, i believe the aim was to surprise and defeat the military on the ground in case of a violent dispersal attempt. Which they did very successfully, on that night.

I am not in a position to say, and cannot judge, if this was a legitimate tactic of the Red Shirt militants. We are far away from being able to do that. It is more a matter of trying to collect as much evidence as we can, without interference of political opinions, and go from there.

Nick, that is an amazing statement.

How can we not judge such tactics as illegitimate when used during a protest that claimed (and continues to do so today) as “peaceful”? What did that banner behind the main stage say?

On the subject of the “black shirts” operating in close proximity to the protestors, here is what the HRW report says”

...The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat...

56 Human Rights Watch interview with Olivier Sarbil, Bangkok, June 14, 2010.

...From what I saw, the Black Shirt militants and the Red Shirt protesters were fighting alongside each other in the areas around Bon Kai junction.

…

They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers. They were also very cautious when they moved around, using smoke as their cover. They appeared to benefit from the havoc created by the Red Shirts, which distracted soldiers as well. The Black Shirts did not stay in one spot for too long. They moved around, took their positions, opened fire, and then retreated....

57 Human Rights Watch interview with Thai journalist [name withheld], Bangkok, September 10, 2010

I do agree that in many cases the ROE were not followed. I believe this was due to both lack of training in this type of situation compounded by the position the solders found themselves in. To them it was combat and they reacted as they were trained to do in combat.

All it takes is for a group of soldiers to take fire from a position and thereafter that position becomes hostile, even though it may have only been a single person shooting at them and that person has left. Any movement or action from that position is going to be considered a threat. The “black shirts” knew that, and took full advantage of it to create the situation.

As I have told you before, my first hand experience was in the Rama IV area during May 12^th to the 19^th. What people like you have never explained is why the people behind those burning tire barricades did not just go home or join the main protest area at Rajprasong? They even could have moved to the stage setup by the Rama III overpass and they would have been safe. Instead, they made the choice to go into an area that due to the actions of just a few (and it was not the Army) was an urban combat zone.

Why?

I just don’t understand how anyone can consider what happened on Rama IV during that week any sort of legitimate protest action. The fact that you insist on withholding judgment while at the same time minimizing the actions of the instigators speaks volumes.

TH

[Jawnie]

the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

So far I've not seen anything which wasn't discussed at least a dozen times before, plus lots of totally non-related "yes, but's".

I tend to agree, but it also seems not so unusual for original gems like the above to enter the new re-hashings.

Still, this thread in some ways doesn't seem to change much when the notion that the non-Red Shirt populace needs to "adjust" their lives to accommodate the Red Shirt's desires.

The UDD chairperson urged retailers and shop owners in the Ratchaprasong area to adjust their work and sales hours in anticipation of a mass gathering of Red Shirt supporters and ease its impact on their trade.

.

"mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens."

"It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. "

Please cite the entire statement, and in its intended context, thank you.

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Jawnie

[nicknostitz]

...But given the urban guerilla tactics employed on April 10 - the first time Red Shirt militants openly engaged the army, i believe the aim was to surprise and defeat the military on the ground in case of a violent dispersal attempt. Which they did very successfully, on that night.

I am not in a position to say, and cannot judge, if this was a legitimate tactic of the Red Shirt militants. We are far away from being able to do that. It is more a matter of trying to collect as much evidence as we can, without interference of political opinions, and go from there.

Nick, that is an amazing statement.

How can we not judge such tactics as illegitimate when used during a protest that claimed (and continues to do so today) as “peaceful”? What did that banner behind the main stage say?

On the subject of the “black shirts” operating in close proximity to the protestors, here is what the HRW report says”

...The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat...

56 Human Rights Watch interview with Olivier Sarbil, Bangkok, June 14, 2010.

...From what I saw, the Black Shirt militants and the Red Shirt protesters were fighting alongside each other in the areas around Bon Kai junction.

…

They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers. They were also very cautious when they moved around, using smoke as their cover. They appeared to benefit from the havoc created by the Red Shirts, which distracted soldiers as well. The Black Shirts did not stay in one spot for too long. They moved around, took their positions, opened fire, and then retreated....

57 Human Rights Watch interview with Thai journalist [name withheld], Bangkok, September 10, 2010

I do agree that in many cases the ROE were not followed. I believe this was due to both lack of training in this type of situation compounded by the position the solders found themselves in. To them it was combat and they reacted as they were trained to do in combat.

All it takes is for a group of soldiers to take fire from a position and thereafter that position becomes hostile, even though it may have only been a single person shooting at them and that person has left. Any movement or action from that position is going to be considered a threat. The “black shirts” knew that, and took full advantage of it to create the situation.

As I have told you before, my first hand experience was in the Rama IV area during May 12^th to the 19^th. What people like you have never explained is why the people behind those burning tire barricades did not just go home or join the main protest area at Rajprasong? They even could have moved to the stage setup by the Rama III overpass and they would have been safe. Instead, they made the choice to go into an area that due to the actions of just a few (and it was not the Army) was an urban combat zone.

Why?

I just don’t understand how anyone can consider what happened on Rama IV during that week any sort of legitimate protest action. The fact that you insist on withholding judgment while at the same time minimizing the actions of the instigators speaks volumes.

TH

First of all, the reason of burning the tires and creating a wall of smoke was a tactic by Red Shirts trying to prevent the military snipers placed on bridges and highrises from taking out protesters (and journalists, and locals that were just getting in the way).

As to the Human Rights Watch report - it has some merit, but it also has some fundamental mistakes (into which at this point i don't want to go into now here on a public forum).

The last week of the protest everything has disintegrated into chaos, and i can't apply anything as legitimate anymore, neither the continued protests, nor the strategies and tactics of the government to disperse the protesters. Leading up to the mess both sides made tremendous mistakes. But the initiation of the dispersal - first the assassination of Sae Daeng, and a few hours later followed by the killing of an unarmed protester on Rama IV Rd broke every ROE, and neither can i see any legality in this. The following days were complete madness. One of the first victims, for example, when the military advanced to Bon Gai at the 14th, was an elderly man who was just going out to shop at the nearby Tesco Lotus. His injuries left him paralyzed, and recently died from complications of the injuries received. In the following days i have seen on numerous occasions soldiers firing into crowds of unarmed protesters where no Red Shirt militant was in the vicinity. Again, Red Shirt militants were existing, and have fired into soldiers (mostly at night), and these militants were legitimate targets.

Answering your question why people not joined the main protest area? Because they could not anymore, as the military sealed off the area. People at Bon Gai and Samliem tried to open the access to Rajaprasong. They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate. Peaceful leaders of the Red Shirts built these stages behind the combat zones at Bon Gai (Kru Prateep) and Samliem Dindaeng (Sombat), trying to pull the protesters out of the combat zones. By the time the whole thing has collapsed, and they had no control over their protesters anymore.

There were many other clear Human Rights violations. I know, for example, of a case of a woman who left the Red Shirt protest area at the 15th or 16th, who was stopped by soldiers at a checkpoint, and badly raped.

Until today, the military as an institution has shown no cooperation whatsoever with investigations into the incidents of 2010, withholding and destroying evidence. A few single commanders and soldiers have came out and and have cooperated to some extend with bodies such as the TRCT, but that's it. This, for example was a point that Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch has also raised at yesterday's Press Conference.

[rixalex]

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

It is also the State's duty, in situations in which law enforcement is required, to consider first the lives of the people it asks to enforce the law. The lives of those doing the law breaking are a consideration, but not the main one. If law breakers find that unsatisfactory, perhaps they might consider not breaking the law.

[Buchholz]

the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

"mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens."

"It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. "

Please cite the entire statement, and in its intended context, thank you.

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

Even given the context ... it is patently absurd to suggest that the State has no right to defend itself in any situation against citizens, or non-citizens for that matter.

Act reasonably, yes?

But that's not what you wrote, even citing your full text.

Now it's been watered down to "act reasonably"

.

[TheCure]

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.

If you mean at the Democracy monument then I disagree. I agree that the soldiers were disorganised and undisciplined but thats because the leadership was taken out at the first assult. They were armed with batons and shields so it was a disorganised retreat, leaving comrades stranded in armored vehicles.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[waza]

...But given the urban guerilla tactics employed on April 10 - the first time Red Shirt militants openly engaged the army, i believe the aim was to surprise and defeat the military on the ground in case of a violent dispersal attempt. Which they did very successfully, on that night.

I am not in a position to say, and cannot judge, if this was a legitimate tactic of the Red Shirt militants. We are far away from being able to do that. It is more a matter of trying to collect as much evidence as we can, without interference of political opinions, and go from there.

Nick, that is an amazing statement.

How can we not judge such tactics as illegitimate when used during a protest that claimed (and continues to do so today) as “peaceful”? What did that banner behind the main stage say?

On the subject of the “black shirts” operating in close proximity to the protestors, here is what the HRW report says”

...The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat...

56 Human Rights Watch interview with Olivier Sarbil, Bangkok, June 14, 2010.

...From what I saw, the Black Shirt militants and the Red Shirt protesters were fighting alongside each other in the areas around Bon Kai junction.

…

They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers. They were also very cautious when they moved around, using smoke as their cover. They appeared to benefit from the havoc created by the Red Shirts, which distracted soldiers as well. The Black Shirts did not stay in one spot for too long. They moved around, took their positions, opened fire, and then retreated....

57 Human Rights Watch interview with Thai journalist [name withheld], Bangkok, September 10, 2010

I do agree that in many cases the ROE were not followed. I believe this was due to both lack of training in this type of situation compounded by the position the solders found themselves in. To them it was combat and they reacted as they were trained to do in combat.

All it takes is for a group of soldiers to take fire from a position and thereafter that position becomes hostile, even though it may have only been a single person shooting at them and that person has left. Any movement or action from that position is going to be considered a threat. The “black shirts” knew that, and took full advantage of it to create the situation.

As I have told you before, my first hand experience was in the Rama IV area during May 12^th to the 19^th. What people like you have never explained is why the people behind those burning tire barricades did not just go home or join the main protest area at Rajprasong? They even could have moved to the stage setup by the Rama III overpass and they would have been safe. Instead, they made the choice to go into an area that due to the actions of just a few (and it was not the Army) was an urban combat zone.

Why?

I just don’t understand how anyone can consider what happened on Rama IV during that week any sort of legitimate protest action. The fact that you insist on withholding judgment while at the same time minimizing the actions of the instigators speaks volumes.

TH

First of all, the reason of burning the tires and creating a wall of smoke was a tactic by Red Shirts trying to prevent the military snipers placed on bridges and highrises from taking out protesters (and journalists, and locals that were just getting in the way).

As to the Human Rights Watch report - it has some merit, but it also has some fundamental mistakes (into which at this point i don't want to go into now here on a public forum).

The last week of the protest everything has disintegrated into chaos, and i can't apply anything as legitimate anymore, neither the continued protests, nor the strategies and tactics of the government to disperse the protesters. Leading up to the mess both sides made tremendous mistakes. But the initiation of the dispersal - first the assassination of Sae Daeng, and a few hours later followed by the killing of an unarmed protester on Rama IV Rd broke every ROE, and neither can i see any legality in this. The following days were complete madness. One of the first victims, for example, when the military advanced to Bon Gai at the 14th, was an elderly man who was just going out to shop at the nearby Tesco Lotus. His injuries left him paralyzed, and recently died from complications of the injuries received. In the following days i have seen on numerous occasions soldiers firing into crowds of unarmed protesters where no Red Shirt militant was in the vicinity. Again, Red Shirt militants were existing, and have fired into soldiers (mostly at night), and these militants were legitimate targets.

Answering your question why people not joined the main protest area? Because they could not anymore, as the military sealed off the area. People at Bon Gai and Samliem tried to open the access to Rajaprasong. They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate. Peaceful leaders of the Red Shirts built these stages behind the combat zones at Bon Gai (Kru Prateep) and Samliem Dindaeng (Sombat), trying to pull the protesters out of the combat zones. By the time the whole thing has collapsed, and they had no control over their protesters anymore.

There were many other clear Human Rights violations. I know, for example, of a case of a woman who left the Red Shirt protest area at the 15th or 16th, who was stopped by soldiers at a checkpoint, and badly raped.

Until today, the military as an institution has shown no cooperation whatsoever with investigations into the incidents of 2010, withholding and destroying evidence. A few single commanders and soldiers have came out and and have cooperated to some extend with bodies such as the TRCT, but that's it. This, for example was a point that Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch has also raised at yesterday's Press Conference.

Offences by both sides are always commited in times of war and unrest. Although individually these incidents are abhorrent, the few overall number indicates the military showed great restraint, after all very few redshirts were killed.

Edited May 16, 2012 by waza

[Siam Simon]

...But given the urban guerilla tactics employed on April 10 - the first time Red Shirt militants openly engaged the army, i believe the aim was to surprise and defeat the military on the ground in case of a violent dispersal attempt. Which they did very successfully, on that night.

I am not in a position to say, and cannot judge, if this was a legitimate tactic of the Red Shirt militants. We are far away from being able to do that. It is more a matter of trying to collect as much evidence as we can, without interference of political opinions, and go from there.

Nick, that is an amazing statement.

How can we not judge such tactics as illegitimate when used during a protest that claimed (and continues to do so today) as “peaceful”? What did that banner behind the main stage say?

On the subject of the “black shirts” operating in close proximity to the protestors, here is what the HRW report says”

...The Black Shirts didn’t come to try and take territory—they shoot and then they leave, they hit [the soldiers] and retreat...

56 Human Rights Watch interview with Olivier Sarbil, Bangkok, June 14, 2010.

...From what I saw, the Black Shirt militants and the Red Shirt protesters were fighting alongside each other in the areas around Bon Kai junction.

…

They attacked soldiers with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers. They were also very cautious when they moved around, using smoke as their cover. They appeared to benefit from the havoc created by the Red Shirts, which distracted soldiers as well. The Black Shirts did not stay in one spot for too long. They moved around, took their positions, opened fire, and then retreated....

57 Human Rights Watch interview with Thai journalist [name withheld], Bangkok, September 10, 2010

I do agree that in many cases the ROE were not followed. I believe this was due to both lack of training in this type of situation compounded by the position the solders found themselves in. To them it was combat and they reacted as they were trained to do in combat.

All it takes is for a group of soldiers to take fire from a position and thereafter that position becomes hostile, even though it may have only been a single person shooting at them and that person has left. Any movement or action from that position is going to be considered a threat. The “black shirts” knew that, and took full advantage of it to create the situation.

As I have told you before, my first hand experience was in the Rama IV area during May 12^th to the 19^th. What people like you have never explained is why the people behind those burning tire barricades did not just go home or join the main protest area at Rajprasong? They even could have moved to the stage setup by the Rama III overpass and they would have been safe. Instead, they made the choice to go into an area that due to the actions of just a few (and it was not the Army) was an urban combat zone.

Why?

I just don’t understand how anyone can consider what happened on Rama IV during that week any sort of legitimate protest action. The fact that you insist on withholding judgment while at the same time minimizing the actions of the instigators speaks volumes.

TH

First of all, the reason of burning the tires and creating a wall of smoke was a tactic by Red Shirts trying to prevent the military snipers placed on bridges and highrises from taking out protesters (and journalists, and locals that were just getting in the way).

As to the Human Rights Watch report - it has some merit, but it also has some fundamental mistakes (into which at this point i don't want to go into now here on a public forum).

The last week of the protest everything has disintegrated into chaos, and i can't apply anything as legitimate anymore, neither the continued protests, nor the strategies and tactics of the government to disperse the protesters. Leading up to the mess both sides made tremendous mistakes. But the initiation of the dispersal - first the assassination of Sae Daeng, and a few hours later followed by the killing of an unarmed protester on Rama IV Rd broke every ROE, and neither can i see any legality in this. The following days were complete madness. One of the first victims, for example, when the military advanced to Bon Gai at the 14th, was an elderly man who was just going out to shop at the nearby Tesco Lotus. His injuries left him paralyzed, and recently died from complications of the injuries received. In the following days i have seen on numerous occasions soldiers firing into crowds of unarmed protesters where no Red Shirt militant was in the vicinity. Again, Red Shirt militants were existing, and have fired into soldiers (mostly at night), and these militants were legitimate targets.

Answering your question why people not joined the main protest area? Because they could not anymore, as the military sealed off the area. People at Bon Gai and Samliem tried to open the access to Rajaprasong. They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate. Peaceful leaders of the Red Shirts built these stages behind the combat zones at Bon Gai (Kru Prateep) and Samliem Dindaeng (Sombat), trying to pull the protesters out of the combat zones. By the time the whole thing has collapsed, and they had no control over their protesters anymore.

There were many other clear Human Rights violations. I know, for example, of a case of a woman who left the Red Shirt protest area at the 15th or 16th, who was stopped by soldiers at a checkpoint, and badly raped.

Until today, the military as an institution has shown no cooperation whatsoever with investigations into the incidents of 2010, withholding and destroying evidence. A few single commanders and soldiers have came out and and have cooperated to some extend with bodies such as the TRCT, but that's it. This, for example was a point that Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch has also raised at yesterday's Press Conference.

Offences by both sides are always commited in times of war and unrest. Although individually these incidents are abhorrent, the few overall number indicates the military showed great restraint, after all very few redshirts were killed.

Breathtaking! Simply breathtaking! Scores of dead people is "very few"? Oviously another poster who thinks that real life carnage is just another 'shoot 'em up' video game .

[Siam Simon]

And the line you just edited in is equally breathtaking! Comparing security forces charged with maintaining law and order with a taxi association???

[OzMick]

I have not seen any real evidence presented as to who killed Sae Daeng, and the "loose cannon" theory is a reasonable motive (for a conspiracy theory) for it to have been an internal cleansing.

However, if it was an RTA initiative, taking out the self-proclaimed leader of a group of armed militants is a very good tactic, and one copied from their opponents. Whining when it gets done to you won't win any sympathy from me.

Some people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them. And sometimes it's not.

[nicknostitz]

I have not seen any real evidence presented as to who killed Sae Daeng, and the "loose cannon" theory is a reasonable motive (for a conspiracy theory) for it to have been an internal cleansing.

However, if it was an RTA initiative, taking out the self-proclaimed leader of a group of armed militants is a very good tactic, and one copied from their opponents. Whining when it gets done to you won't win any sympathy from me.

Some people are only alive because it's illegal to kill them. And sometimes it's not.

You may have missed the occasions where evidence was presented to the public, such as in the TRCT public hearing concerned with this incident. What we have been presented is clear evidence that the trajectory of the bullet points to an upper floor of a building that was at the time under complete control of the military. And that is just besides the slight inconsistency of your position, in which on the one hand you complain (or "whine" - sticking with your vernacular) about protests groups illegally using weapons, while on the other hand you seem to excuse illegal actions by security forces of the state.

[Jawnie]

the mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself

really?.... that's a "mistaken" notion?

Amazing Thaivisa.... that someone proposes such a notion is "mistaken".

However, In the context of the 2nd anniversary of Red Shirts in which they haven chosen to memorialize and extend tribulations to a deranged self-confessed killer like Sae Daeng, I suppose it's not so amazing that someone proposes it.

"mistaken notion that the State somehow had the right to defend itself with force against its own citizens."

"It is only reasonable for the State to use violence if its sovereignty is threatened. "

Please cite the entire statement, and in its intended context, thank you.

Again: It is the duty of the State to act reasonably even when all others do not.

Even given the context ... it is patently absurd to suggest that the State has no right to defend itself in any situation against citizens, or non-citizens for that matter.

Act reasonably, yes?

But that's not what you wrote, even citing your full text.

Now it's been watered down to "act reasonably"

.

Again, you are certainly not a citizen of a western democracy, or have no intimate knowledge of how they operate, or both. Protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time but don't end up like this did - soldiers shooting and killing nearly 100 people. For all the ways you try to explain the public safety aspect, the end result of nearly 100 deaths indicates the State acted unreasonably. The further evidence of this is that the initiating situation for the protests was not resolved. In fact, the actions of the State and military made the situation much, much worse as of today.

When the State acts unreasonably, what recourse do citizens have at the point?

[rixalex]

What we have been presented is clear evidence that the trajectory of the bullet points to an upper floor of a building that was at the time under complete control of the military.

Evidence pointing to something is different from evidence proving something. Still a lot of unanswered questions in all this.

And as far as a building being under "complete control of the military" is concerned, what exactly does "complete control" mean in this instance, and are we really to assume without question that if the shot did come from this building, it can not of been from anyone except a soldier? I agree it seems likely but perhaps we need something more than pure likelihood before we start convicting people.