Red Shirts To Mark 2nd Anniversary Of Protests

[whybother]

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?

Can you name one instance where protesters used grenades in the west?

[waza]

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

Whats breathtaking is the vein throbbing display of moral outrage from a person that applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed, do not link to sites with objectionable content.

17) Not to post links to pages that contain objectionable material. This includes, warez, cracks, pornography, pyramid schemes, referral ID's, eBay listings and requests for donations. Discussion of file-sharing of pirated material is prohibited, however file sharing for legal purposes is allowed.

Enough public warnings have been issues about not posting about Uncle SMS due to this part of rule 2:

Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family.

If you think you must post about Uncle SMS, do so at your own risk of suspension.

[rixalex]

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.

OK so show us some examples of similar protests in the west in which protesters have been armed in the way that the red shirts were armed.

Imagine people with grenades, rocket launchers and AK47s, barrackading themselves into Trafalgar Square in Central London and firing upon authorities over a period of weeks. Or in New York. Or in Paris.

Your belief that such action would be dealt with less severely is dreamland. If the avatar bird had its head buried in the sand it would do a better job of portraying the person at the keyboard.

[nicknostitz]

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.

It means that the relevant military officer attending this meeting answered the question if any outsider could have entered this particular building without knowledge or permission of the military with a clear 'no'.

[waza]

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.

can you cite this clear evidence because I cant find it.

[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.

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.

It has always been a position of mine that rules should apply equally, and Queensbury rules disappear when someone tries to kick you in the nuts.

Yes I missed the evidence, and i would disregard it unless a muzzle flash was observed. The head is the most mobile part of the body and in conversation may move in 3 dimensions making it very difficult to come to any such conclusion.

Out of respect i declined to reply to your traumatic experience when the soldier was killed. But you should realise that your observations are ONE man's and may vary greatly from others. You speak of one red/black holding a pistol, but your statement indicates the troops saw more than one.

further, your comments about the cause of his death raise questions. I would be more likely to agree it was a home goal if the calibre of the bullet was determined as 5.56, but your statements lead to questions. Did you see him fall and hear the likely shots? You refer to automatic rifles, was the shot that him part of a burst? Do you totally discount that a rifle shot could have hit him from "several hundred meters" or a closer building ? Was there indication from the soldiers that they had caused this?

Answers are not really required, just understand that your statement, or anybody else's, shouldn't be accepted as gospel.

[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.

can you cite this clear evidence because I cant find it.

I went back to my notes:

TRCT public hearing of the Fact finding commission headed by Somchai Homlaor, on March 15, 2011, in the offices at the Government Complex in Chaengwattana. This meeting dealt with the death of Sae Daeng. The attending military officer has refused to answer most questions, reasoning that "this would not lead to reconciliation". Videos and pictures were shown during the meeting. Somchai Homlaor's closing remarks were scathing, mostly directed against non-cooperation of the security forces.

At the time the TRCT held a round of public meetings dealing with particular incidents that occurred during the 2010 violence, which were mostly very interesting. Unfortunately the media to the most part ignored those meetings.

[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.

It means that the relevant military officer attending this meeting answered the question if any outsider could have entered this particular building without knowledge or permission of the military with a clear 'no'.

More likely that a military officer might give assurances that no other person besides military personnel had passed through a particular entrance or an exit, but to give a complete assurance that nobody besides military personnel had entered via any means, with a building of that size and a building with that number of windows and doors, seems unlikely. Unless they were doing daily sweeps of all those hundreds of rooms, i would question anyone who could state without question exactly who may or may not have been in there.

[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.

It has always been a position of mine that rules should apply equally, and Queensbury rules disappear when someone tries to kick you in the nuts.

Yes I missed the evidence, and i would disregard it unless a muzzle flash was observed. The head is the most mobile part of the body and in conversation may move in 3 dimensions making it very difficult to come to any such conclusion.

Out of respect i declined to reply to your traumatic experience when the soldier was killed. But you should realise that your observations are ONE man's and may vary greatly from others. You speak of one red/black holding a pistol, but your statement indicates the troops saw more than one.

further, your comments about the cause of his death raise questions. I would be more likely to agree it was a home goal if the calibre of the bullet was determined as 5.56, but your statements lead to questions. Did you see him fall and hear the likely shots? You refer to automatic rifles, was the shot that him part of a burst? Do you totally discount that a rifle shot could have hit him from "several hundred meters" or a closer building ? Was there indication from the soldiers that they had caused this?

Answers are not really required, just understand that your statement, or anybody else's, shouldn't be accepted as gospel.

Yes, i saw him fall. And so did several of my colleagues. There were too many shots fired by soldiers within a few seconds at most to identify the particular shooter. The incident occurred after the clashes ceased, when soldiers mistook motorcycles driving towards them on the road for Red Shirts, and fired on these motorcycles. It turned out that the men riding the motorcycles were soldiers of a rapid deployment force who just passed the Red Shirt lines. The visibility was very bad, grey weather at the end of a rainstorm, under the tollway. The incident was filmed by a cameraman who was placed a pedestrian bridge on the side of the Red Shirts. I am not sure, but i believe it is somewhere on youtube as well.

[nicknostitz]

More likely that a military officer might give assurances that no other person besides military personnel had passed through a particular entrance or an exit, but to give a complete assurance that nobody besides military personnel had entered via any means, with a building of that size and a building with that number of windows and doors, seems unlikely. Unless they were doing daily sweeps of all those hundreds of rooms, i would question anyone who could state without question exactly who may or may not have been in there.

I am sorry if i do not feel much inclination to continue this particular point, as this form of nitpicking is somewhat reminding me of people who argue that on April 10 Col. Romklao may have been killed by his own troops, and not by Red Shirt militants. That Sae Daeng was killed by his own side resulting from his conflict with Jatuporn is about as much an inane conspiracy theory as Col. Romklao being killed by his own troops.

[hyperdimension]

Protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time but don't end up like this did

It's no longer a "peaceful protest" when the so-called "peaceful protesters" (or a militant faction) use AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers. It is violent insurgency. So do you really think that "protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time"?

Won't anyone answer my questions that I asked yesterday?:

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 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[rixalex]

I am sorry if i do not feel much inclination to continue this particular point, as this form of nitpicking is somewhat reminding me of people who argue that on April 10 Col. Romklao may have been killed by his own troops, and not by Red Shirt militants. That Sae Daeng was killed by his own side resulting from his conflict with Jatuporn is about as much an inane conspiracy theory as Col. Romklao being killed by his own troops.

I don't think asking the question about whether it is wise to simply conclude without question that because a military officer has stated that a building was "under complete military control", that it would have been impossible for anyone besides military personnel to have taken a shot, is nitpicking, rather exposing a potentially massive hole in the reasoning of the argument you are putting forward. You are of course free to ignore it.

[nicknostitz]

Protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time but don't end up like this did

It's no longer a "peaceful protest" when the so-called "peaceful protesters" (or a militant faction) use AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers. It is violent insurgency. So do you really think that "protests of the type in Thailand in 2010 happen in the west from time to time"?

Won't anyone answer my questions?:

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?

Because your "the one who ordered it all" is slightly unspecific. Do you have any name, and evidence direct linking that mysterious "the one" to all these incidents?

[hyperdimension]

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 .

I think it's Thaksin "who thinks that real life carnage is just another 'shoot 'em up' video game", and he was determined to win the game at whatever cost.

[nicknostitz]

You are of course free to ignore it.

Thank you, that is very gracious of you.

[hyperdimension]

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

Whats breathtaking is the vein throbbing display of moral outrage from a person that applauds the actions of the convicted criminal that put the red shirts in harms way, encouraging them to bring their children, then says he doesnt know them.

From Thailand’s deposed Prime Minister relaxes and waits Published On Fri Jan 07 2011:

Thaksin, a former billionaire businessman, distanced himself Thursday from direct involvement in any political movement.

He insisted he is not advising members of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), the formal name for the Red Shirts, who enjoy wide support among Thailand’s rural poor and working class.

“I don’t know them,” he said.

Who actually believes him when he says he doesn't know the UDD? This is the guy who now holds great power over the country and is working to strengthen and consolidated it.

[metisdead]

A repetitious post has been removed. The post has been posted repeatedly in this topic, how many times does it need to be posted?

A repetitious post has been removed. The post has been posted repeatedly in this topic, how many times does it need to be posted?

[rixalex]

A repetitious post has been removed. The post has been posted repeatedly in this topic, how many times does it need to be posted?

A repetitious post has been removed. The post has been posted repeatedly in this topic, how many times does it need to be posted?

Could you repeat that?

[thaihome]

I have deleted your usual diversions and stuck to just the parts where you kept on the issues I raised.

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).

The snipers were there to attempt to take out the armed people that were shooting to avoid having the general troop open fire. The burning of the tires could be construed as an attempt by the protestors to give those armed people cover and likely contributed to others being shot at due to the low visibility.

The fact that the snipers took shots they should not have is indeed a violation of the ROE’s in place at that time, but you portrayal of the snipers actions as if they were intentionally shooting people they knew were not involved is the exact same sort of supposition you have accused me of.

But it still comes down to the fact that if the unarmed people at stayed at the stage setup back towards Rama III, not burned the tires, not harbored the armed people, not fired off homemade rockets, etc a lot of people would not have been killed or hurt.

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.

Nick, that is complete fabrication and you know it. They were not trying to get to Rajaprasong, they were trying to keep the Army from sealing of the protest area and quickly resorted to violent means to try and stop it.

If they had wanted to get to the main protest area they had some 2 months to do so. They were doing nothing else but provoking a confrontation which rapidly turned into urban warfare once the Army was fired upon. Maybe in the first few hours on the 13^th there was a legitimate effort to peacefully march to Rajaprasong, but once the Army was fired on, any pretense of such a legitimate gesture was gone.

The Army was on Rama IV protecting the flanks of the units at the Sathorn intersection. The attacks that took place on the sois connecting Rama IV and Sathorn show that protecting the flank was needed.

Let me repeat this statement you made:

“They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate”

Indeed.

TH

[hyperdimension]

Because your "the one who ordered it all" is slightly unspecific. Do you have any name, and evidence direct linking that mysterious "the one" to all these incidents?

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

Edited May 16, 2012 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate.

"legitimate" eh? Even when armed with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers?

[nicknostitz]

They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate.

"legitimate" eh? Even when armed with AK-47 and HK-33 assault rifles and M79 grenade launchers?

I said that they felt that their demands for new elections were legitimate, and not passed any judgement on the strategy of some groups to arm themselves. There is a difference.

[nicknostitz]

Because your "the one who ordered it all" is slightly unspecific. Do you have any name, and evidence direct linking that mysterious "the one" to all these incidents?

Didn't you read the article by Sopon Onkgara whose link I have alerady posted to earlier in this thread? He provided details of Thaksin's plan for 2010 months in advance. The mayhem was planned by him and his generals. Do you think Sopon simply made it all up? What an amazing fortune teller he is, if he did.

April and May 2010 was definitely no "grass roots" protest.

I do not give much credit to this particular writer, as his bias is well known for years, if you research his articles.

[GentlemanJim]

I would suggest before issuing such baseless, personally insulting and libelous accusations that you find out more about the person you accuse.

Nothing I said was libelous, nor was it baseless. If you consider it personally insulting then you are not quite as war hardened as you imagine. Your diatribe is always one-sided and never neutral.....fact!

[nicknostitz]

I have deleted your usual diversions and stuck to just the parts where you kept on the issues I raised.

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).

The snipers were there to attempt to take out the armed people that were shooting to avoid having the general troop open fire. The burning of the tires could be construed as an attempt by the protestors to give those armed people cover and likely contributed to others being shot at due to the low visibility.

The fact that the snipers took shots they should not have is indeed a violation of the ROE’s in place at that time, but you portrayal of the snipers actions as if they were intentionally shooting people they knew were not involved is the exact same sort of supposition you have accused me of.

But it still comes down to the fact that if the unarmed people at stayed at the stage setup back towards Rama III, not burned the tires, not harbored the armed people, not fired off homemade rockets, etc a lot of people would not have been killed or hurt.

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.

Nick, that is complete fabrication and you know it. They were not trying to get to Rajaprasong, they were trying to keep the Army from sealing of the protest area and quickly resorted to violent means to try and stop it.

If they had wanted to get to the main protest area they had some 2 months to do so. They were doing nothing else but provoking a confrontation which rapidly turned into urban warfare once the Army was fired upon. Maybe in the first few hours on the 13^th there was a legitimate effort to peacefully march to Rajaprasong, but once the Army was fired on, any pretense of such a legitimate gesture was gone.

The Army was on Rama IV protecting the flanks of the units at the Sathorn intersection. The attacks that took place on the sois connecting Rama IV and Sathorn show that protecting the flank was needed.

Let me repeat this statement you made:

“They did not go home because they felt they were right, and that their demands for new elections were legitimate”

Indeed.

TH

There were many incidents where journalists, for example, were clearly targeted and injured, for example on May 15, at Rajaparop, Chaiwat, a nation photographer was shot in his leg. He was clearly through his armband identifiable as a journalist, and was shot from 80 meters distance. So, yes, there were occasions were soldiers did intentionally fire at clearly identifiable non-legitimate targets.

Answering any more here is pointless. Sorry.

[rixalex]

I said that they felt that their demands for new elections were legitimate,

And what exactly does that prove? What group has ever made demands that they feel are not legitimate? Of course the red shirts thought they were right. What else would you expect them to say? Doesn't mean they were. Doesn't justify their actions.

[nicknostitz]

I would suggest before issuing such baseless, personally insulting and libelous accusations that you find out more about the person you accuse.

Nothing I said was libelous, nor was it baseless. If you consider it personally insulting then you are not quite as war hardened as you imagine. Your diatribe is always one-sided and never neutral.....fact!

Again, i am not "war hardened", and i have no intention whatsoever to become such. I really think you bark up the wrong tree. Just leave it, please.

[GentlemanJim]

I said that they felt that their demands for new elections were legitimate,

And what exactly does that prove? What group has ever made demands that they feel are not legitimate? Of course the red shirts thought they were right. What else would you expect them to say? Doesn't mean they were. Doesn't justify their actions.

But the Government agreed to new and early elections, the Government gave in to all of the protestors demands, but they still wouldn't go home and still tried to burn down Bangkok! Was that their legitimate right Nick?

[nicknostitz]

I said that they felt that their demands for new elections were legitimate,

And what exactly does that prove? What group has ever made demands that they feel are not legitimate? Of course the red shirts thought they were right. What else would you expect them to say? Doesn't mean they were. Doesn't justify their actions.

I have never said that all actions of the Red Shirt were justifiable. Some clearly were not.

Nevertheless, that also does not justify all actions of the then government and the military. I have not seen yet from you here anything else than vilifying Red Shirts, and based on this view justifying then everything the military and the Abhisit government did.