I would also like to know if Thaksin's trip to Russia in March 2010, in which he sent a televised broadcast to his redshirt followers, if this trip had any connection with his friend the democratically-challenged Mister Putin, who Thaksin had weapons contracts with since 2003.

Why did Thaksin go to Russia in March 2010 when redmob were first marching in Bangkok. Did Thaksin go see his friend Mister Putin. Did that meeting or other meetings in Russia have any connection with the mysterious black-clad caucasian snipers who appeared amongst the redmob a month later. Thaksin made no official comment as to his business in Russia during the redmob occupation of Bangkok. Maybe he was just soaking up the atmosphere there.

I remember that situation very well. I was also wondering a that time why he was there and at the same time organizing a war in Thailand.

A bit OT I heave to admit.

So basically no links, no proof to back up your claims and that of the other poster apart from your common sense and thoughts?

Are there any links or proof to refute the poster's "common sense and thoughts"?

Paul, a British teacher who lives in Thailand, told the BBC he had been in a crowd of protesters across the road from the Khao San intersection -

"There were shots, but I thought they were rubber bullets until I saw what happened to the man. He was around 50 years old, and waving a flag from a pick-up truck. His head was 5ft above from the highest point of the truck."

"He looked normal and then fell to the ground," he added. "The army were firing live rounds on civilians. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself"

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8612783.stm

This was still when the army was still supposedly only shooting rubber bullets...

dam_n Paul the english teacher must have been an evil red shirt..

Paul, a British teacher who lives in Thailand, told the BBC he had been in a crowd of protesters across the road from the Khao San intersection -

"There were shots, but I thought they were rubber bullets until I saw what happened to the man. He was around 50 years old, and waving a flag from a pick-up truck. His head was 5ft above from the highest point of the truck."

"He looked normal and then fell to the ground," he added. "The army were firing live rounds on civilians. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself"

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8612783.stm

This was still when the army was still supposedly only shooting rubber bullets...

dam_n Paul the english teacher must have been an evil red shirt..

The BBC got this one wrong, later in the same report they state that both sides fired weapons and detonated explosives and that 4 soldiers died in the clashes . Clearly wrong as the reds were unarmed and the soldiers are alive an well (or so reds might claim)

The BBC got this one wrong, later in the same report they state that both sides fired weapons and detonated explosives and that 4 soldiers died in the clashes . Clearly wrong as the reds were unarmed and the soldiers are alive an well (or so reds might claim)

It's an eye witness account, it isn't right or wrong, just what he saw.

BTW if they were both armed why did that same night the government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn go on national TV and say: "There were no live bullets fired at protesters"?

BTW if they were both armed ...

I personally witnessed side arms within the red shirt camp - they were not trying to hide or disguise them... in fact one pointed it right at me and demanded i be searched...

Another eye witness account, this time the horse is telling you directly from his own mouth.

So basically no links, no proof to back up your claims and that of the other poster apart from your common sense and thoughts?

Are there any links or proof to refute the poster's "common sense and thoughts"?

BTW if they were both armed ...

I personally witnessed side arms within the red shirt camp - they were not trying to hide or disguise them... in fact one pointed it right at me and demanded i be searched...

Another eye witness account, this time the horse is telling you directly from his own mouth.

I believe you.

I have my own witness account, I was in Pattaya when the red shirts protested at the summit, while it was still a peaceful protest pick up trucks full of "blue shirts" stopped just next to us. We had a chat with them, turns out they were strait out of the barracks of sattahip and had been sent I quote "to fight".

Unlike most I don't wear color tainted blinkers, it just amazes me that with the level of corruption throughout politics, society and the military people here still think everything coming out of the Democrats and Military mouth is to be taken at face value, that is all.

BTW yellow shirts have their own armed guards the "Srivichai warriors" they took over government buidings, TV stations, nobody shot them in the head.

Paul, a British teacher who lives in Thailand, told the BBC he had been in a crowd of protesters across the road from the Khao San intersection -

"There were shots, but I thought they were rubber bullets until I saw what happened to the man. He was around 50 years old, and waving a flag from a pick-up truck. His head was 5ft above from the highest point of the truck."

"He looked normal and then fell to the ground," he added. "The army were firing live rounds on civilians. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself"

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8612783.stm

This was still when the army was still supposedly only shooting rubber bullets...

dam_n Paul the english teacher must have been an evil red shirt..

The BBC got this one wrong, later in the same report they state that both sides fired weapons and detonated explosives and that 4 soldiers died in the clashes . Clearly wrong as the reds were unarmed and the soldiers are alive an well (or so reds might claim)

the BBC reported what the witness told them, so how can the BBC have got it wrong? They might have got more information later but the witness said what he saw so his account has to be valid as an independent witness. The report later could have been when more information came in, the shooting from one side or the other may have come first or second, but that does not discount what this witness saw.

It seems that the event was a very nasty one. You all might consider this report:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.nl/search/label/Thailand

They even sacrificed one of their own to get a "nice" photo to deceive the public.

The BBC got this one wrong, later in the same report they state that both sides fired weapons and detonated explosives and that 4 soldiers died in the clashes . Clearly wrong as the reds were unarmed and the soldiers are alive an well (or so reds might claim)

It's an eye witness account, it isn't right or wrong, just what he saw.

BTW if they were both armed why did that same night the government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn go on national TV and say: "There were no live bullets fired at protesters"?

Apologies for my unclear explanation regarding the BBC and the reporting of witness statements.

Not saying he (the witness) is wrong, but the quoted piece of the BBC report you presented suggests through its singular context that the army were the only ones using live ammunition, which wasn't the case as the complete report states.

Just pointing that out. As for Panitan and his comments- I'm no mind reader but he was probably just reading from the script which was put in front of him as most puppets do. And we all know how many script writers there are in Thailand (and abroad).

Personally I couldn't give a flying fig who died or who did it. As I've said in previous post both sides uses the other sides previous illegal actions to continue to justify their current or future illegal actions. This whole saga is just one of many illegal actions which continues to support and vindicate the prolonged political problems Thailand experiences. Will it end - will it <deleted>*k.

I have my own witness account, I was in Pattaya when the red shirts protested at the summit, while it was still a peaceful protest pick up trucks full of "blue shirts" stopped just next to us. We had a chat with them, turns out they were strait out of the barracks of sattahip and had been sent I quote "to fight".

By we had a chat with them, you mean you spoke to them yourself, or you mean someone else spoke to them and gave you a translated version? Who is the "we"?

As I've said in previous post both sides uses the other sides previous illegal actions to continue to justify their current or future illegal actions. This whole saga is just one of many illegal actions which continues to support and vindicate the prolonged political problems Thailand experiences. Will it end - will it <deleted>*k.

A much more balanced point of view, one that I can only agree with.

By we had a chat with them, you mean you spoke to them yourself, or you mean someone else spoke to them and gave you a translated version? Who is the "we"?

We as in there was two of us. I lived here first time when I was 6 years old and have lived here most of my adult life. there was no need for translation.

But I can see you want to take this to a darker place with personal attacks, i have no interest in doing so. carry on.

I remember that situation very well. I was also wondering a that time why he was there and at the same time organizing a war in Thailand.

Sean Boonpracong, UDD's official spokesman said they had ex-rangers who disagreed with the army and were fighting for the red shirts. He also said that an escalation of violence would only serve their cause in getting Abhisit out.

Infact a previous rally by the redmob had met armed blockade, and had passed off peacefully without injuries, but on this occasion there seems to have been an effort by the redmob leadership to actually have martyrs and for that to ignite the whole situation.

There were other snipers who were clearly not Thai rangers. At the time it happened I suspected foreign mercenaries, for the simple reason that they would have no loyalty-issues with killing redmob and army personnel alike.

Having seen those photos at the time which were extremely pale, slavic-featured men, my hypothesis at the time was that they were procured during Thaksin's trip to Russia in March, sent to Bangkok to ignite the situation. Of course that is speculation. I have said from the start that the redshirts were not the problem, it was the redmob leaders and Thaksin, and the people in his employ, who were trying to escalate the situation, not the normal redshirt demonstrators.

Its sort of hard to stay purely ontopic in this thread because we don't know if Abhisit gave the order or not, so I am speculating that in the week before the army started shooting, there were foreign mercenary specialists, trying to trigger an all-out battle, for forced martyrdom of protestors and then revolution.

The guilty people did not die that day and the guiltiest person of all was not even in the country. And as always it is the pawns, the innocent peaceful demonstrators, the innocent low-paid army soldiers, innocent Bangkok residents and passers-by, or the innocent Japanese camerman, who always lose in this sick game of megalomaniac chess.

"The TRCT report will not seek to apportion the blame or single out culprits"

What a crock of Sh_it then. What is the point of trying to find accountability when you will not risk upsetting (and criminalising) your mates and relatives. Someone said fire. Someone approved that order. Therefore someone is accountable. Who ever that is needs to be identified and locked up. Can't happen though as that person is no doubt a supposed defender of the law (police) or country (Army).

I say Thaksin's armed militia fired first. Thaksin gave the orders. And therefore the army had the right to shoot back.

A link to qualify your thoughts would be appropriate, or do you have access to information that is not available to others?

Just proof me wrong.

I believe the onus of proof rests on your shoulders seeing as you're the one bringing up the scenario.

By we had a chat with them, you mean you spoke to them yourself, or you mean someone else spoke to them and gave you a translated version? Who is the "we"?

We as in there was two of us. I lived here first time when I was 6 years old and have lived here most of my adult life. there was no need for translation.

But I can see you want to take this to a darker place with personal attacks, i have no interest in doing so. carry on.

Not trying to take this to a darker place. You are obviously trying to take this to a melodramatic place though. You were giving your eye witness account. I was just trying to establish all the details.

It seems that the event was a very nasty one. You all might consider this report:

http://landdestroyer.../label/Thailand

They even sacrificed one of their own to get a "nice" photo to deceive the public.

wow that's pretty damning footage in the video. The fact that others stand so close to firing zone when the guy falls suggests the shot didn't come from the enemy. Also the direction he fell and the rapid (rabid) response of the photographers.

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

I don't disagree with your post, but there is one more thing I would like to be told, who were the black shirts that opened fire on the army? After more than a year of PTP blaming the army, Chalerm claimed it wasn't the army, it was the police.

I don't know who it was but in defence of the army, if I was armed and someone shot at me, I would return fire.

No order to open fire on the crowds in 2010: Abhisit

In fact, Abhist also specifically order troops not to carry any life bullets (especially in the LIFE FIRING ZONE). Only rubber bullets were allowed.

velly simple :- if your behind the barricades, the red guards have guns, and some guys are launching grenades from Lumphini area into Silom, even a basic Gnatt could figure out its not a good place to stay if you value longevity.

Seh Daeng was killed during an interview...but maybe he killed himself from a distant building.

Supporting red movement or not, no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

More interesting is WHY the army asked to run the investigations on some death cases?

no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances.

no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances.

Strangely, i think the violences erupted AFTER saeh daeng was shot dead by a snipper, not before..so who ignite this fire?

In france the suburbs was on fire in 2007 and was managed without real bullets

What is naive is to think the Army and Abhisit did not order to shoot people, and to put some warzone with real bullets firing, meaning wanted to shoot with real bullet.

As well, as far as i know the japanese journalist was not armed and still was shoot by high velocity bullet, commonly used by the snipers

no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances.

So if i follow your idea you support the Assad government intervention too right?

no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances.

Strangely, i think the violences erupted AFTER saeh daeng was shot dead by a snipper, not before..so who ignite this fire?

In france the suburbs was on fire in 2007 and was managed without real bullets

What is naive is to think the Army and Abhisit did not order to shoot people, and to put some warzone with real bullets firing, meaning wanted to shoot with real bullet.

As well, as far as i know the japanese journalist was not armed and still was shoot by high velocity bullet, commonly used by the snipers

Violence had already started before Sah Daeng was shot, besides which, we still don't know for certain which side shot him.

Setting fires is different from firing missiles of one sort or another at police or at soldiers. If you do this in any country, you will likely get response of a similar level.

So tell us who did give the order then, or tell us if you ordered them to not fire and tell us who ignored that order, tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not. Or tell us who did not understand that the term 'live fire zone' was not actually meant to be a live fire zone but rather a deterrent only.

Some one gave the order, or the soldiers were firing without any control, and that backs up my theory about random indiscriminate shootings in which unarmed people were killed by the army whilst posing to immediate threat, either the soldiers were ordered to fire, or they took it upon themselves to fire at unarmed civilians. which is it ex PM Abhisit?

If there is any evidence that people were killed by their own side then lets see it, if all the deaths were in self defence then let us see the evidence, there are nearly 100 people dead here on both side and just saying you did not give the order does not absolve you, you were running the country at the time, or where you?

I am 100% sure that some of the red shirt deaths were self defence, just as i am 100% sure that some of the red shirts that died were not armed and were no threat, and before posters pipe up with the nonsense that they deserved to die because they were there then just remember we are talking also about medics and journalists here.

How much is Thaksin paying you to regurgitate this crap? Jeeze, get a life guy.

How about the army returned fire when fired upon.

Does that make any sense to you? Ok, probably not. Your red sunglasses prohibit such a possibility. Right?

Violence had already started before Sah Daeng was shot, besides which, we still don't know for certain which side shot him.

Sure we do. Sah Daeng was ordered silenced by Thaksin. Sah Daeng had been mouthing off about about how Thaksin said this or ordered that, thereby directly linking him (Thaksin) with what was going on. Thaksin didn't like that so ordered Sah Daeng silenced.

Which he was.

no democratic country will shot real bullets on its own people. bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gaz are really good to disperse any crowd...

But not in Thailand apparently

In any country, if you attack the army or the police with the weapons that sections of the red shirts were using, you are likely to get a response back of a potentially deadly nature. Extreme naivety to expect otherwise. Extreme stupidity to hang around in those sorts of circumstances.

So if i follow your idea you support the Assad government intervention too right?

This is a discussion about the situation in Thailand. If you want a discussion about the situation in Syria, start another thread.

Violence had already started before Sah Daeng was shot, besides which, we still don't know for certain which side shot him.

Sure we do. Sah Daeng was ordered silenced by Thaksin. Sah Daeng had been mouthing off about about how Thaksin said this or ordered that, thereby directly linking him (Thaksin) with what was going on. Thaksin didn't like that so ordered Sah Daeng silenced.

Which he was.

Thaksin had a motive sure, but that's not sufficient basis to apportion blame with certainty. Sah Daeng had all sorts of enemies.