No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[Buchholz]

put a neutral head for a minute

If you mean that, then I have to say that really you are very partisan in your posts, which is totally OK, everyone is allowed to have party loyalties, but really its a bit much to support one side like you do and then claim neutrality.

It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow.

.

The usual suspects have a mantra that the political problems of the last few years are entirely about Thaksin - his corruption, his crimes , his lust for power.If the cancer of Thaksin was removed along with his dupes (who are only in it for pay) the difficulties would entirely disappear.There are no other major problems.The more subtle among them would say there are no major problems which have not been exploited by Thaksin and which could not be dealt with by considered political and social reform.

When it is pointed out that even if Thaksin was eliminated there would be still be deep social and political fissures they object strongly.It is not possible to talk about the cruelty, greed and violence of the unelected elites without being a stool pigeon for Thaksin.Sometimes the usual suspects with rage, sometimes with sarcasm, sometimes with a world weary smile.

To be fair the more intelligent Thai opponents of Thaksin do not take this view.One example would be the almost wholesale adoption of Thaksin's "populist" programme in the Democrats election manifesto.

The same tired exaggerations from the usual suspect.

No one has said the things this poster has assigned to them aka lying about other's posts.

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Buchholz

[chotthee]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Edited June 22, 2012 by chotthee

[carra]

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.

Only a Idiot would think they were ordered to fire live ammo on the protesters. If they had the death toll would have been in the thousands. The only one's shooting into the masses was the red shirts. The army was defending itself. This whole thing is nothing but a farce. Every one knows it was all staged at Thaksins bidding. What kind of a moron would think the red shirts could carry on what they did with out retribution. The saddest part was that they had a deal to end it all and backed out of it because Thaksin didn't like it.

ooooooooooooo get you and all your abuse hahaha.

Why would the death toll be in the thousands? nobody is suggesting they went on a shooting spree, but one thing that can not be denied is that unarmed people, posing no threat, were shot by the army. Somebody gave an order to use live ammunition, someone gave an order to either shoot to defend yourself only or to shoot whenever you feel like it. There is irrefutable proof that certain soldiers were shooting when not in immediate danger and this can be proven by the death of a soldier at the hands of his own men, when he was riding to help them on his motorcycle, full uniform, no threat, and shot by his own men. Are we to believe that this is the only time? We can watch footage on youtube of unarmed people people being shot at from army lines, this is in the public domain so why even try to deny it happened?

Now who gave the order for live ammunition, who gave the order to fire at unarmed people, who disobeyed orders? its simple, it is not rocket science, unarmed people were shot by soldiers, pure and simple, so who will take responsibility for giving the order to do this, or who is conspiring to cover up? some one is, or are we expected to believe the army shot nobody? The temple being a prime example.

now do us a favour, keep your abuse to yourself, use you words like a big boy can, if you can't discuss without the snide comments then don't bother discussing, you will get more respect when it is clear that you can respect others views also without resorting to pettiness haha.

[Moruya]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Read the report.

They were not ordered to fire on protesters. No surprise there or it would have been the proverbial fish in a barrel and thousands dead.

They were permitted to fire in self defence and to protect the public at large.

The number of dead is in accordance with those instructions

[jayboy]

The same tired exaggerations from the usual suspect.

No one has said the things this poster has assigned to them aka lying about other's posts.

Huh?

From the same poster just a few minutes ago:

"It's the same as the disingenuous "I'm no fan of Thaksin, but.." posters that preceded this latest newcomer by the dozens, all espousing neutrality that rang equally hollow."

Case proven and closed

[carra]

[chotthee]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Read the report.

They were not ordered to fire on protesters. No surprise there or it would have been the proverbial fish in a barrel and thousands dead.

They were permitted to fire in self defence and to protect the public at large.

The number of dead is in accordance with those instructions

The snipers are defending their own live; ON THE ROOF?

Now I get it.

[Nickymaster]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

[saltandpepper]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Ridiculous comment

When you are under fire, or when your life is threatened, you respond...Period!

[Moruya]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Read the report.

They were not ordered to fire on protesters. No surprise there or it would have been the proverbial fish in a barrel and thousands dead.

They were permitted to fire in self defence and to protect the public at large.

The number of dead is in accordance with those instructions

The snipers are defending their own live; ON THE ROOF?

Now I get it.

If I wanted to take out the armed people in the red camp I would deploy snipers. If I deployed snipers I would expect them to take up an elevated position to get a better view and to get a better shot thus minimising collateral damage

[GentlemanJim]

No where on that video does it show the army firing at the civilians. The man that is shot dead, the comment is, 'local protestors say he is shot by an army sniper' !!! How do they know he has been shot by an army sniper? You wouldn't see an army sniper! It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately. The rules of engagement for the army were perfectly clear, adequate and legal.

[phiphidon]

To be pedantic he was a Brazilian National but be that as it may it was police incompetence that led to that result not a government sanctioned command

Are you saying that there was a government command to shoot people?

Why else would you sign a command to use live ammunition?

Who signed such a command?

Suthep, on the 10th April.

[chotthee]

No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

So these solders in the clip act on their own, and should be punished for disobey PM order?

Especially the event on 1:02 min and 0:15 in the youtube.

Youtube: pWLghLXoQUY and wiVc9oqqh88

Read the report.

They were not ordered to fire on protesters. No surprise there or it would have been the proverbial fish in a barrel and thousands dead.

They were permitted to fire in self defence and to protect the public at large.

The number of dead is in accordance with those instructions

The snipers are defending their own live; ON THE ROOF?

Now I get it.

If I wanted to take out the armed people in the red camp I would deploy snipers. If I deployed snipers I would expect them to take up an elevated position to get a better view and to get a better shot thus minimising collateral damage

Sure. Use your Army snipers to take out this guy (youtube) wiVc9oqqh88 armed with a Thai FLAG (that could be a deadly weapon).

[chotthee]

No where on that video does it show the army firing at the civilians. The man that is shot dead, the comment is, 'local protestors say he is shot by an army sniper' !!! How do they know he has been shot by an army sniper? You wouldn't see an army sniper! It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately. The rules of engagement for the army were perfectly clear, adequate and legal.

You want proof of army firing at the civilian?

Youtube pWLghLXoQUY

[Moruya]

Who signed such a command?

Suthep, on the 10th April.

I command thee to use live ammunition?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[GentlemanJim]

I can only assume that some of the comments on here are either purposefully baiting or purposefully moronic. When you have a large crowd of people that has been the subject of brainwashing techniques for several weeks, being told to kill soldiers and burn Bangkok to the ground, who then go on the rampage and are accompanied by red militia and blackshirt mercenaries, all of whom are heavily armed with modern weapons, who start throwing grenades, using RPG's, firing at soldiers and their own people, just what do you expect the army to do? Respond by throwing marshmallows at the gunmen perhaps?

You are displaying yourself as being a sandwich short of a picnic if you expect us to truly believe that you think it is OK and acceptable for a rioting, armed crowd who have been holding a city hostage, burning tyre barricades and invading hospitals, killing indiscriminately to get a reaction, reneging on negotiated deals that were accepted in full. I mean come on guys, how the hell in Gods name can you seriously condone what the red shirt leadership and militia did during those weeks? How can you criticize an army whose job it is to protect the nation/people/Government and Monarchy from doing just that when their own lives were being put in serious danger. If the army had not moved in the redshirts would still have been in Bangkok now. Frankly the army did a poor job because they should have moved in about 5 weeks earlier, and that is my main criticism.

Regardless of the colour you feel loyal towards, what the reds did was criminal, nothing less and the actions of the red leadership and their armed thugs were the same as any terrorist organization. I despair to think that any rational educated westerner can consider for one moment that the army and the Government were in the wrong. It is a mind boggling!

[Nickymaster]

Suthep, on the 10th April.

Phiphidon,

Since you know about this command, please share more info.

What did the command say?

1. You can shoot at whoever you want

2. You can shoot back if you are shot at and feel your life is in danger

3...

Edited June 22, 2012 by Nickymaster

[GentlemanJim]

No where on that video does it show the army firing at the civilians. The man that is shot dead, the comment is, 'local protestors say he is shot by an army sniper' !!! How do they know he has been shot by an army sniper? You wouldn't see an army sniper! It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately. The rules of engagement for the army were perfectly clear, adequate and legal.

You want proof of army firing at the civilian?

Youtube pWLghLXoQUY

Will you stop doing this (and learn how to put a link into a post). The video you provide a link to does not show an army sniper killing a red shirt and it does not show the army shooting at civilians. It shows the army returning fire from positions that were under attack. The red shirt militia and the black shirt mercenaries were out with M16's, AK47's and grenades for a fight. They were killing their own in a bid to get the photo op's and media support they needed. At no point do you see who the army are shooting at, but one thing is for sure, they are Thai and they are Buddhist and many come from the North. They would not have been firing on unarmed Thai red shirts, simple! However, cambodian and Burmese mercenaries would have had absolutely no qualms about shooting anybody, unarmed civilian, journo, official, granny, child. Just stop and think for a moment about the garbage you are spouting. It DOESN'T make sense does it?

The link for those interested is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWLghLXoQUY

Edited June 22, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Nickymaster]

No where on that video does it show the army firing at the civilians. The man that is shot dead, the comment is, 'local protestors say he is shot by an army sniper' !!! How do they know he has been shot by an army sniper? You wouldn't see an army sniper! It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately. The rules of engagement for the army were perfectly clear, adequate and legal.

You want proof of army firing at the civilian?

Youtube pWLghLXoQUY

That is NOT proof. Try again.

[carra]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

I am pretty sure they were killed by armed red shirts, so what is your point?

Have you actually read my posts and understood them, or have you not understood them, or have you not read them, 3 simple questions I am sure you can answer.

The fact remains that UNARMED people were shot by the army, some killed and some survived, these people were posing no threat, how hard is this for people to understand?

So who gave an order to shoot people when you are in no immediate danger, these are not the rules of engagement as set down by the dems (well in public anyway, who knows what orders they gave in private), or was no order given to shoot people, if so who decided to disobey these orders and shoot unarmed people?

[rixalex]

I despair to think that any rational educated westerner can consider for one moment that the army and the Government were in the wrong. It is a mind boggling!

I agree with all of your post but just to pick you up on your last sentence, i agree that the army and the government weren't in the wrong, but that's not to say that the army and the government didn't make mistakes. They did. It was at times an extremely chaotic situation in which soldiers, who i think it is fair to say have perhaps not had the best training in the world, were reacting under the unique stress levels that only being in serious fear of your life bring. The consequences of these mistakes, however unintentional they may have been, should be atoned for and those who suffered should be given answers and compensation. I'm referring to those who had no choice in being in that dangerous environment. Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame.

Returning however to the matter of mistakes made by the army and the government, these should not be used, as indeed they have been repeatedly since 2010 on here by all the red flag wavers, as evidence of the army and the government being wrong in the actions they took. Soldiers are humans and whenever they are engaged in battle, no matter how well trained they are, mistakes will be made. It's an unavoidable cost. Good advice would be, stay out of the way of any soldier who is engaged in battle. Advice that was of course given hundreds of times over all those weeks to protesters. Those who ignored that advice, have to take personal responsibility.. instead what happens is they get rewarded with 7 odd million baht. Or at least that seems to be the plan.

[weka]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

I am pretty sure they were killed by armed red shirts, so what is your point?

Have you actually read my posts and understood them, or have you not understood them, or have you not read them, 3 simple questions I am sure you can answer.

The fact remains that UNARMED people were shot by the army, some killed and some survived, these people were posing no threat, how hard is this for people to understand?

So who gave an order to shoot people when you are in no immediate danger, these are not the rules of engagement as set down by the dems (well in public anyway, who knows what orders they gave in private), or was no order given to shoot people, if so who decided to disobey these orders and shoot unarmed people?

Were the UNARMED people standing next to or in the immediate vicinity of ARMED people?

It's a very pertinent question

Edited June 22, 2012 by weka

[carra]

No where on that video does it show the army firing at the civilians. The man that is shot dead, the comment is, 'local protestors say he is shot by an army sniper' !!! How do they know he has been shot by an army sniper? You wouldn't see an army sniper! It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately. The rules of engagement for the army were perfectly clear, adequate and legal.

You want proof of army firing at the civilian?

Youtube pWLghLXoQUY

Will you stop doing this (and learn how to put a link into a post). The video you provide a link to does not show an army sniper killing a red shirt and it does not show the army shooting at civilians. It shows the army returning fire from positions that were under attack. The red shirt militia and the black shirt mercenaries were out with M16's, AK47's and grenades for a fight. They were killing their own in a bid to get the photo op's and media support they needed. At no point do you see who the army are shooting at, but one thing is for sure, they are Thai and they are Buddhist and many come from the North. They would not have been firing on unarmed Thai red shirts, simple! However, cambodian and Burmese mercenaries would have had absolutely no qualms about shooting anybody, unarmed civilian, journo, official, granny, child. Just stop and think for a moment about the garbage you are spouting. It DOESN'T make sense does it?

The link for those interested is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWLghLXoQUY

Ah so now it was those pesky Burmese and Cambodians and you accuse the other poster of spouting garbage

[carra]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

I am pretty sure they were killed by armed red shirts, so what is your point?

Have you actually read my posts and understood them, or have you not understood them, or have you not read them, 3 simple questions I am sure you can answer.

The fact remains that UNARMED people were shot by the army, some killed and some survived, these people were posing no threat, how hard is this for people to understand?

So who gave an order to shoot people when you are in no immediate danger, these are not the rules of engagement as set down by the dems (well in public anyway, who knows what orders they gave in private), or was no order given to shoot people, if so who decided to disobey these orders and shoot unarmed people?

Were the UNARMED people standing next to or in the immediate vicinity of ARMED people?

It's a very pertinent question

I think a simple search on youtube will answer that for you, as will the deaths in the Wat. It is clear some unarmed people were shot when nobody else is near them.

Nice try though and a valid point that people can be killed in crossfire, however in a lot of these instances that just won't wash, sorry.

[carra]

I despair to think that any rational educated westerner can consider for one moment that the army and the Government were in the wrong. It is a mind boggling!

I agree with all of your post but just to pick you up on your last sentence, i agree that the army and the government weren't in the wrong, but that's not to say that the army and the government didn't make mistakes. They did. It was at times an extremely chaotic situation in which soldiers, who i think it is fair to say have perhaps not had the best training in the world, were reacting under the unique stress levels that only being in serious fear of your life bring. The consequences of these mistakes, however unintentional they may have been, should be atoned for and those who suffered should be given answers and compensation. I'm referring to those who had no choice in being in that dangerous environment. Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame.

Returning however to the matter of mistakes made by the army and the government, these should not be used, as indeed they have been repeatedly since 2010 on here by all the red flag wavers, as evidence of the army and the government being wrong in the actions they took. Soldiers are humans and whenever they are engaged in battle, no matter how well trained they are, mistakes will be made. It's an unavoidable cost. Good advice would be, stay out of the way of any soldier who is engaged in battle. Advice that was of course given hundreds of times over all those weeks to protesters. Those who ignored that advice, have to take personal responsibility.. instead what happens is they get rewarded with 7 odd million baht. Or at least that seems to be the plan.

Great first paragraph, sadly let down by the second paragraph. If you had only stopped writing half way through you would have hit the nail on the head.

[GentlemanJim]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

I am pretty sure they were killed by armed red shirts, so what is your point?

Have you actually read my posts and understood them, or have you not understood them, or have you not read them, 3 simple questions I am sure you can answer.

The fact remains that UNARMED people were shot by the army, some killed and some survived, these people were posing no threat, how hard is this for people to understand?

So who gave an order to shoot people when you are in no immediate danger, these are not the rules of engagement as set down by the dems (well in public anyway, who knows what orders they gave in private), or was no order given to shoot people, if so who decided to disobey these orders and shoot unarmed people?

Very similar maybe to the 100's of thousands of civilians that were 'accidentally' killed during Iraq, or the dozens of civilians killed almost everyday in Afghanistan and Pakistan. People, generally in the wrong place at the wrong time. The soldiers in Thailand were NOT out to shoot, fellow Thais who were unarmed, they were shooting at armed militia and mercenaries, embedded with normal, albeit brainwashed protestors.

[aaacorp]

Anyway to come back to the article :

1-Abhisit ordered the army to fire and he has to explain himself

or

2- Abhisit didn t order anything and then the government is then a lame government which failed to its duty to give precise orders to its army

[GentlemanJim]

Ah so now it was those pesky Burmese and Cambodians and you accuse the other poster of spouting garbage

It is a fact, acknowledged at the time that the blackshirts were not Thai, they were Burmese and Cambodian.

[saltandpepper]

Who gave orders to kill the 15-20 officials?

Who killed them?

2 simple questions which you surely can answer. Tell me.

I am pretty sure they were killed by armed red shirts, so what is your point?

Have you actually read my posts and understood them, or have you not understood them, or have you not read them, 3 simple questions I am sure you can answer.

The fact remains that UNARMED people were shot by the army, some killed and some survived, these people were posing no threat, how hard is this for people to understand?

So who gave an order to shoot people when you are in no immediate danger, these are not the rules of engagement as set down by the dems (well in public anyway, who knows what orders they gave in private), or was no order given to shoot people, if so who decided to disobey these orders and shoot unarmed people?

Why do you seem so desperate to have an answer to that question?

Why do not you ask THE question(s) that would be, in my opinion, of importance? something like why were those protesters here, and who "invited" them here? Who had interest in a bloodshed, and who could have "organised it?

Once you answer those, you start to be closer to the facts...

[GentlemanJim]

Were the UNARMED people standing next to or in the immediate vicinity of ARMED people?

It's a very pertinent question

I think a simple search on youtube will answer that for you, as will the deaths in the Wat. It is clear some unarmed people were shot when nobody else is near them.

Nice try though and a valid point that people can be killed in crossfire, however in a lot of these instances that just won't wash, sorry.

Go on then, do the simple search on youtube and let us know what you find that supports your statement. Also, which instances won't wash?