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

[phiphidon]

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.

Freakingcat (who took the photograph of the red shirt father and his son at the barricade) had a blog running in May

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

He has some interesting photos and videos on that site. Amongst them is a photograph of Rama IV Road clearly showing the army barricade and hundreds of metres from them a large group of civilians on both sides of the road. This photograph was taken on May 14th. This date is important for two reasons:

1. It wasn't until 2 days later that this road, Rama IV Road, was delared a live fire zone

2. It was the day that Bunmee Rermsuk, 71 was shot in the stomach - he died from his injuries on July 28th.

I had my camera running and was filming from the overpass when suddenly, without warning, numerous gunshots were heard. Nobody knew if those had been warning shots in the air or if they were aimed at the crowd. I threw a friend of mine and myself to the ground, while everyone around us took cover in panic.

A few seconds later, while shots were continuously fired, we ran down the stairs and tried to take cover alongside some buildings. Suddenly an ambulance which had been parked near the entrance of Rama 4 City Court pulled out onto Rama 4. I witnessed an old man being carried into the ambulance, which was surrounded by a crowd of people. He had been shot in the stomach. His name was Bunmee Rermsuk, 71 years old. He was paying his bill in front of his favorite restaurant. He was an innocent bystander.

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

The reports, obtained by The Nation, stated that 71-year-old Boonmee Rermsuk was likely killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. The bullet hit Boonmee on May 14 in front of the Rabiang Thong restaurant on Rama IV Road near Lumpini Park. He became fatality No 92 when, on July 28, he succumbed to a blood infection from a bullet wound in his abdomen.

The alleged report said Boonme's recorded statement soon after he was shot revealed that he believed the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers' barricade on Rama IV Road. Boonmee was paying his bill at about 4pm in front of the restaurant and insisted he had nothing to do with the protest.

This coupled with the forensic report and four witness accounts led investigators to conclude the shooting was "likely to be that of a soldier" acting on duty, according to the report.

http://www.thaivisa....day-1-jan-2011/

There is a video of the event that clearly shows the bystanders scattering to get away from the heavy gunfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAUmbmb9M38&feature=player_embedded

That afternoon two more people, Inplang Thetsawong, 34 and Saneh Nillueng, 48, both taxi drivers, were killed by shots in the chest and many others were injured. Residents showed me bullets which they had collected. I witnessed several other people getting injured. Bullets were even fired at ambulances who tried to rescue injured people.

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

Now if that doesn't convince you that the army were shooting at civilians indiscriminately I don't know what will - remember this was no live fire zone and the soldiers were not under any threat being hundreds of metres away from the nearest civilians.

[GentlemanJim]

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

Abhisit has already acknowledged that the army were given clear rules of engagement (and that is evident), which they subsequently followed. The soldiers were not given orders to shoot unarmed civilians. It seems you just want to hang him either way

[Moruya]

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

How half-baked can you get?

[phiphidon]

Who signed such a command?

Suthep, on the 10th April.

I command thee to use live ammunition?

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that Khao Sod newspaper confronted Suthep with a leaked copy of his signed order authorising the use of live ammunition (which he said he had signed on the 13th May) as being signed on the 10th May. He eventually admitted that it was authentic.

[Nickymaster]

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?

Ok. that answers your own questions of who gave orders to shoot. NOBODY gave orders it was self defense. If officials are shot at, they HAVE the right to shoot back. EVERYWHERE in the world. No need to wait for orders.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

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

If you want to blame somebody for NOT doing their duty, blame the police. Where were they when the reds moved in? They vanished like rats. Too obvious. If they would have enforced law and order, the army didn't have to come in. But we all know that the Thai Police only works for people with deep pockets.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Nickymaster

[thaihome]

one sided out of context video

Nelson Rand, the France 24 reporter shot in the video claimed that only the Army was shooting and he didn’t see any armed protestors. Looking at the video it is very apparent that Rand had a very limited viewpoint of the clash that took place just outside Lumpini Park on May 14^th.

This was the start of the Army’s move to encircle the camp which was met with fierce resistance at both Rama IV and Ding Deang.

HRW, again the most objective report of the violence to date, says this:

Beginning on May 14, Thai security forces faced demonstrators who were better organized and resorted more quickly to violent tactics. Groups of mainly young men now openly attacked the army at the barricades, especially in Bon Kai and Din Daeng, using flaming tires, petrol bombs, slingshot-fired metal balls, and powerful homemade explosives and other weapons. Most of the young men who joined the fight at the barricades seemed to have little in common with the UDD protesters at the camp. On numerous occasions, Black Shirt militants appeared at the barricades to join the fight, firing assault weapons and M79 grenade launchers at soldiers.

Descent into Chaos (page 81) Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch

What Rand witnessed was such a clash. From his perspective he would have no idea what was going on behind him. That the Army was taking fire from armed protestors located inside the park (on the other side of the wall Rand was hiding behind) is a fact. he, and the others were caught in a cross fire and becasue of his known sympathies he refuses to aknowledge that.

Note that there is not secret about the Rules of Engagement the Army was operating under at any time. They were broadcast on TV every day. These questions “Who ordered them to shoot?” or “who ordered them to carry live ammunition?” are nothing more than demagoguery. Everyone knows exactly who ordered, when they ordered it, and what rules the Army was suppose to follow.

That rules were not strictly followed under the combat conditions the Army found itself in from May 13^th to the 19^th is not disputed (though the Army’s continual denial to this day does them no service) .

I challenge anyone here to say they could strictly follow such rules of engagement under the conditions of being under fire or tasked with protecting your comrades from known armed people. Anyone with any famialrity of combat knows that any such rules go out the window with the first time you think somebody is shooting at tyou.

Every single person that was shot at Bon Kai and Din Daeng, with a few exceptions of people that obliviously walked into the area, was well aware of what was going and the fact that there were armed people shooting and launching grenades at the Army positions. They made the choice to be there and cheer those armed people and their actions. If they were indeed peaceful protestors, they should have been inside the protest area (or have gone home), not outside confronting the Army and condoning the violence by their own actions.

TH

[whybother]

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

There is absolutely no proof that he was shot by the army.

[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.

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.

The second paragraph only really reiterated what was said in the first. How you can agree with one, but not the other, i don't know.

Anyway, it's good to know you agree with: Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame. So why not stop bleating and sympathising then with red shirts who you say were unarmed (and i agree it is possible they may have been) but who were there entirely of their own free will and there also in the knowledge that there were those in their midst who certainly were armed and were likely to be targeted, thus putting everyone in great danger?

It's like listening to someone bleating and sympathising with the drunk driver who kills himself, and blaming it all on the evil brewery that made the beer. Brewery makes the beer but nobody forces you to drink it and get in your car. Soldiers shoot guns when in battle but nobody forces you to stand on the battle field amongst those fighting against the soldiers. How much common sense is required to understand this sort of stuff? Unbelievable.

[GentlemanJim]

Freakingcat (who took the photograph of the red shirt father and his son at the barricade) had a blog running in May

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

He has some interesting photos and videos on that site. Amongst them is a photograph of Rama IV Road clearly showing the army barricade and hundreds of metres from them a large group of civilians on both sides of the road. This photograph was taken on May 14th. This date is important for two reasons:

1. It wasn't until 2 days later that this road, Rama IV Road, was delared a live fire zone

2. It was the day that Bunmee Rermsuk, 71 was shot in the stomach - he died from his injuries on July 28th.

I had my camera running and was filming from the overpass when suddenly, without warning, numerous gunshots were heard. Nobody knew if those had been warning shots in the air or if they were aimed at the crowd. I threw a friend of mine and myself to the ground, while everyone around us took cover in panic.

A few seconds later, while shots were continuously fired, we ran down the stairs and tried to take cover alongside some buildings. Suddenly an ambulance which had been parked near the entrance of Rama 4 City Court pulled out onto Rama 4. I witnessed an old man being carried into the ambulance, which was surrounded by a crowd of people. He had been shot in the stomach. His name was Bunmee Rermsuk, 71 years old. He was paying his bill in front of his favorite restaurant. He was an innocent bystander.

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

The reports, obtained by The Nation, stated that 71-year-old Boonmee Rermsuk was likely killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. The bullet hit Boonmee on May 14 in front of the Rabiang Thong restaurant on Rama IV Road near Lumpini Park. He became fatality No 92 when, on July 28, he succumbed to a blood infection from a bullet wound in his abdomen.

The alleged report said Boonme's recorded statement soon after he was shot revealed that he believed the bullet came from the direction of the soldiers' barricade on Rama IV Road. Boonmee was paying his bill at about 4pm in front of the restaurant and insisted he had nothing to do with the protest.

This coupled with the forensic report and four witness accounts led investigators to conclude the shooting was "likely to be that of a soldier" acting on duty, according to the report.

http://www.thaivisa....day-1-jan-2011/

There is a video of the event that clearly shows the bystanders scattering to get away from the heavy gunfire.

That afternoon two more people, Inplang Thetsawong, 34 and Saneh Nillueng, 48, both taxi drivers, were killed by shots in the chest and many others were injured. Residents showed me bullets which they had collected. I witnessed several other people getting injured. Bullets were even fired at ambulances who tried to rescue injured people.

http://lossofgravity...ailroad-tracks/

Now if that doesn't convince you that the army were shooting at civilians indiscriminately I don't know what will - remember this was no live fire zone and the soldiers were not under any threat being hundreds of metres away from the nearest civilians.

Please give us a break PhiPhiDon.

No nothing you have said convinces me of anything other than you are putting substance to completely unsubstantiated claims,

You are linking us to a redshirt blogger, whose site incidentally shows redshirts sharpening bamboo sticks to create a barrier, which Freakingcat' then proudly exclaims became a tourist attraction....Miracle Thailand. The report from the Nation says that the old man was 'likely' killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. 'Likely', and you are saying that is proof? The problem when you have the terrorist blackshirts armed with M16's and AK 47's is that the ammunition and spent cases you find are the same as those in use by the army. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Thai soldiers, in Thailand would not only fire on old men stood in a queue for food, but also fire on their own nations ambulances as well?

There is absolutely nothing more to say with you guys. No matter what is really shown or importantly not shown on these video clips, you have your mind made up that the army lads did this to their own people. Stick with it, but be sure to let us know your thoughts when it is finally admitted that the murders were caused by Thaksin's paid for gun slingers in an attempt to return him to power, because it will all come out in the wash.

[Nickymaster]

one sided out of context video

Nelson Rand, the France 24 reporter shot in the video claimed that only the Army was shooting and he didn’t see any armed protestors. Looking at the video it is very apparent that Rand had a very limited viewpoint of the clash that took place just outside Lumpini Park on May 14^th.

This was the start of the Army’s move to encircle the camp which was met with fierce resistance at both Rama IV and Ding Deang.

HRW, again the most objective report of the violence to date, says this:

Beginning on May 14, Thai security forces faced demonstrators who were better organized and resorted more quickly to violent tactics. Groups of mainly young men now openly attacked the army at the barricades, especially in Bon Kai and Din Daeng, using flaming tires, petrol bombs, slingshot-fired metal balls, and powerful homemade explosives and other weapons. Most of the young men who joined the fight at the barricades seemed to have little in common with the UDD protesters at the camp. On numerous occasions, Black Shirt militants appeared at the barricades to join the fight, firing assault weapons and M79 grenade launchers at soldiers.

Descent into Chaos (page 81) Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch

What Rand witnessed was such a clash. From his perspective he would have no idea what was going on behind him. That the Army was taking fire from armed protestors located inside the park (on the other side of the wall Rand was hiding behind) is a fact. he, and the others were caught in a cross fire and becasue of his known sympathies he refuses to aknowledge that.

Note that there is not secret about the Rules of Engagement the Army was operating under at any time. They were broadcast on TV every day. These questions “Who ordered them to shoot?” or “who ordered them to carry live ammunition?” are nothing more than demagoguery. Everyone knows exactly who ordered, when they ordered it, and what rules the Army was suppose to follow.

That rules were not strictly followed under the combat conditions the Army found itself in from May 13^th to the 19^th is not disputed (though the Army’s continual denial to this day does them no service) .

I challenge anyone here to say they could strictly follow such rules of engagement under the conditions of being under fire or tasked with protecting your comrades from known armed people. Anyone with any famialrity of combat knows that any such rules go out the window with the first time you think somebody is shooting at tyou.

Every single person that was shot at Bon Kai and Din Daeng, with a few exceptions of people that obliviously walked into the area, was well aware of what was going and the fact that there were armed people shooting and launching grenades at the Army positions. They made the choice to be there and cheer those armed people and their actions. If they were indeed peaceful protestors, they should have been inside the protest area (or have gone home), not outside confronting the Army and condoning the violence by their own actions.

TH

+1 well balanced.

[Moruya]

Who signed such a command?

Suthep, on the 10th April.

I command thee to use live ammunition?

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that Khao Sod newspaper confronted Suthep with a leaked copy of his signed order authorising the use of live ammunition (which he said he had signed on the 13th May) as being signed on the 10th May. He eventually admitted that it was authentic.

So "authorising the use of live ammunition" = "I command you to fire live ammunition"?

What a strange world we live in

[whybother]

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). <snip>

Most likely being a reincarnated poster, he is aware that linking directly to some of those videos may lead to a suspension (because of their graphic nature).

[jayboy]

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.

The second paragraph only really reiterated what was said in the first. How you can agree with one, but not the other, i don't know.

Anyway, it's good to know you agree with: Those who suffered but who were there entirely of their own free will, have themselves only to blame. So why not stop bleating and sympathising then with red shirts who you say were unarmed (and i agree it is possible they may have been) but who were there entirely of their own free will and there also in the knowledge that there were those in their midst who certainly were armed and were likely to be targeted, thus putting everyone in great danger?

It's like listening to someone bleating and sympathising with the drunk driver who kills himself, and blaming it all on the evil brewery that made the beer. Brewery makes the beer but nobody forces you to drink it and get in your car. Soldiers shoot guns when in battle but nobody forces you to stand on the battle field amongst those fighting against the soldiers. How much common sense is required to understand this sort of stuff? Unbelievable.

I thought your earlier post was quite sensible but you have lost that sure touch here.All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday at the hands of the Paras (there is some very convincing evidence IRA snipers were present).It took decades for the responsibility to be worked through ending with an apology from David Cameron in the House of Commons.Lord knows how long it will take in Thailand.

I have a different take.If one looks at the comments on this and other threads it's striking that perceptions of what happened on the ground are generally determined by the posters' political view.Thus the swivel eyed redshirt supporters argue it was entirely the fault of the army.The usual suspects (the more reasonable majority of them anyway) argue the army was simply doing its job and despite "fog of war" mistakes the redshirts should not have tolerated the presence of MIB.(I am ignoring the tiny psychotic band that argues the army was blameless, has never been guilty of any crime or brutality, and on this occasion the redshirt dead "walked in to" bullets)

I would have thought the first step would be to establish exactly what happened - free of value judgements and political axe grinding.Not easy but not impossible.One thing's for sure - it won't happen on this forum!

[phiphidon]

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.

Acknowledged by whom and where is this fact documented? Admiral Bannawit Kengrien thought he knew who the men in black were and they were out to assassinate Abhisit:

Meanwhile, former deputy permanent secretary for Defence, Admiral Bannawit Kengrien said he too had heard about the so called assassination plot and that a large number of Cambodian warriors of Vietnamese descent, who had undergone military training and were great snipers, had been brought in to do the job.

Helpfully adding

"Although I often criticise this government, I must warn the premier about the reports of an assassination plot against him. If he were harmed, the country's image would be ruined," he said.

I don't suppose Abhisit would be best pleased either........................

http://www.nationmul...p-30138132.html

[thaihome]

Now if that doesn't convince you that the army were shooting at civilians indiscriminately I don't know what will - remember this was no live fire zone and the soldiers were not under any threat being hundreds of metres away from the nearest civilians.

How would that video convince me the “shooting at civilians indiscriminately” except if I was convinced of that already?

All it shows is a crowd of people scattering when shots are being fired. It does not show what started the shooting. It does not show what directions that shots were coming from. How do you know that somebody was not shooting at the Army from somewhere in the vicinity of the crowd?

If you were intending to provoke the Army into shooting, would the best thing to do would be find a nice secure hidden position near that crowd, fire off a couple of shots at the Army and then slink away?

Are you denying that such people existed?

TH

[rixalex]

I thought your earlier post was quite sensible but you have lost that sure touch here.All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday at the hands of the Paras (there is some very convincing evidence IRA snipers were present).It took decades for the responsibility to be worked through ending with an apology from David Cameron in the House of Commons.Lord knows how long it will take in Thailand.

Earlier in this thread we had someone wanting to make direct comparisons with what is happening in Syria now, as with what happened in Bangkok in 2010. Each situation is highly complex and different in its own way. Same goes for the events in N Ireland 40 years ago. I'm happy to discuss the rights and wrongs of what is happening in Syria, or the rights and wrongs of what happened in N Ireland, but not here.

[phiphidon]

snip

Every single person that was shot at Bon Kai and Din Daeng, with a few exceptions of people that obliviously walked into the area, was well aware of what was going and the fact that there were armed people shooting and launching grenades at the Army positions. They made the choice to be there and cheer those armed people and their actions. If they were indeed peaceful protestors, they should have been inside the protest area (or have gone home), not outside confronting the Army and condoning the violence by their own actions.

TH

See post #151 Three people shot and killed, one 71 years old paying a bill at his favourite "restaurant", the two others being taxi drivers, numerous injured on Rama IV Road two days before live fire zone declared. There is also a shaky video of a boy who had been shot in the hand being helped by his mother to an ambulance. At 5pm the next day, still before a live fire zone had been declared, a 21 year old volunteer medic is shot in the head and killed.

Were they "condoning the violence by their own actions"?

[hyperdimension]

What needs to answered is who funded and organized the armed faction of the UDD?

Can anyone at all answer this question?

[phiphidon]

Please give us a break PhiPhiDon.

No nothing you have said convinces me of anything other than you are putting substance to completely unsubstantiated claims,

You are linking us to a redshirt blogger, whose site incidentally shows redshirts sharpening bamboo sticks to create a barrier, which Freakingcat' then proudly exclaims became a tourist attraction....Miracle Thailand. The report from the Nation says that the old man was 'likely' killed by a bullet from a line of soldiers. 'Likely', and you are saying that is proof? The problem when you have the terrorist blackshirts armed with M16's and AK 47's is that the ammunition and spent cases you find are the same as those in use by the army. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Thai soldiers, in Thailand would not only fire on old men stood in a queue for food, but also fire on their own nations ambulances as well?

There is absolutely nothing more to say with you guys. No matter what is really shown or importantly not shown on these video clips, you have your mind made up that the army lads did this to their own people. Stick with it, but be sure to let us know your thoughts when it is finally admitted that the murders were caused by Thaksin's paid for gun slingers in an attempt to return him to power, because it will all come out in the wash.

Why should I give you a break - do you and your peers have the exclusive right to the truth? I certainly will let you know my thoughts when the truth comes out "in the wash".

[rixalex]

I have a different take.If one looks at the comments on this and other threads it's striking that perceptions of what happened on the ground are generally determined by the posters' political view.

With respect i don't think your take really is that much different.

And as far as your belief that some people's perceptions of what happened on the ground are determined by their own political views, it could equally be argued that your belief about them is the product of your own political view. It is after all no great secret that you do, like the rest of us mortals, possess a political view.

Perhaps though you consider yourself one of the unique few able to rise above politics and see things with total neutrality...

I will say though, I do agree with your closing sentiments, about establishing what happened first, albeit it somewhat stating of the obvious. Sometimes stating the obvious is indeed required...

[jayboy]

Earlier in this thread we had someone wanting to make direct comparisons with what is happening in Syria now, as with what happened in Bangkok in 2010. Each situation is highly complex and different in its own way. Same goes for the events in N Ireland 40 years ago. I'm happy to discuss the rights and wrongs of what is happening in Syria, or the rights and wrongs of what happened in N Ireland, but not here.

You miss my point completely.I'm not talking of rights and wrongs of what's happening in Thailand or elsewhere.I'm referring to a need for a precise comprehension of exactly what happened on the street - it's not a political issue.

[warfie]

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.

A valid theory, to which I personally subscribe, but without a single shred of evidence.

From memory, I think the first act of real violence was when the reds "bravely" dropped a grenade on the tent of a sleeping army Colonel...

[rixalex]

You miss my point completely.I'm not talking of rights and wrongs of what's happening in Thailand or elsewhere.I'm referring to a need for a precise comprehension of exactly what happened on the street - it's not a political issue.

Didn't miss your point at all. You said:

All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday

I said you can't make direct comparisons about situations in different places, in different times, in different circumstances. Not unless you are being very simplistic.

[thaihome]

snip

Every single person that was shot at Bon Kai and Din Daeng, with a few exceptions of people that obliviously walked into the area, was well aware of what was going and the fact that there were armed people shooting and launching grenades at the Army positions. They made the choice to be there and cheer those armed people and their actions. If they were indeed peaceful protestors, they should have been inside the protest area (or have gone home), not outside confronting the Army and condoning the violence by their own actions.

TH

See post #151 Three people shot and killed, one 71 years old paying a bill at his favourite "restaurant", the two others being taxi drivers, numerous injured on Rama IV Road two days before live fire zone declared. There is also a shaky video of a boy who had been shot in the hand being helped by his mother to an ambulance. At 5pm the next day, still before a live fire zone had been declared, a 21 year old volunteer medic is shot in the head and killed.

Were they "condoning the violence by their own actions"?

The "live fire zones" werer declared on May 15th, the next day, not two days later. Does it occur to why they were declared? They were declared just becuase of incidents like these the day before in attempt to try and get people to stay away from that area.

Rama IV on May 14th was full on urban warfare, I know, I live about 2 blocks over from where your video was taken. Anyone with any sense was inside, not standing out in street.

Again, the HRW report:

Beginning on

May 14

, Thai security forces faced demonstrators who were better organized and resorted more quickly to violent tactics. Groups of mainly young men now openly attacked the army at the barricades, especially in

Bon Kai

and Din Daeng, using flaming tires, petrol bombs, slingshot-fired metal balls, and powerful homemade explosives and other weapons. Most of the young men who joined the fight at the barricades seemed to have little in common with the UDD protesters at the camp.

On numerous occasions, Black Shirt militants appeared at the barricades to join the fight, firing assault weapons and M79 grenade launchers at soldiers

TH

Edited June 22, 2012 by thaihome

[hyperdimension]

If you want to blame somebody for NOT doing their duty, blame the police. Where were they when the reds moved in?

They stood by and let it all play out.

Source: http://www.baohoabinh.com.vn/18/43426/Thu_linh_ao_do_du_day_tron_khoi_khach_san_.htm

[jayboy]

I have a different take.If one looks at the comments on this and other threads it's striking that perceptions of what happened on the ground are generally determined by the posters' political view.

With respect i don't think your take really is that much different.

And as far as your belief that some people's perceptions of what happened on the ground are determined by their own political views, it could equally be argued that your belief about them is the product of your own political view. It is after all no great secret that you do, like the rest of us mortals, possess a political view.

Perhaps though you consider yourself one of the unique few able to rise above politics and see things with total neutrality...

I will say though, I do agree with your closing sentiments, about establishing what happened first, albeit it somewhat stating of the obvious. Sometimes stating the obvious is indeed required...

Actually I have made an effort not to become involved in discussing the details of what happened on the streets.It's pointless on this forum.

I do try to be fair minded, and admit mistakes - both mine and those with whom I sympathise politically.

Yes I was perhaps just saying the obvious, the point being however that understanding what happened on the streets in those terrible days in 2010 is not a primarily political matter.I am thinking that what's needed is some version of an independent judicial enquiry.Though whether that is possible Thailand is certainly a concern.

[jayboy]

You miss my point completely.I'm not talking of rights and wrongs of what's happening in Thailand or elsewhere.I'm referring to a need for a precise comprehension of exactly what happened on the street - it's not a political issue.

Didn't miss your point at all. You said:

All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday

I said you can't make direct comparisons about situations in different places, in different times, in different circumstances. Not unless you are being very simplistic.

Of course all situations are different, and - yet again - I stress I'm only talking about street level activity..You made some comments earlier about redshirts being aware of armed figures in their midst, and thus were to blame for their fate - death in many cases.I pointed out that on Bloody Sunday there was a similar armed element behind the protesting crowd.It's directly relevant.

[phiphidon]

The "live fire zones" werer declared on May 15th, the next day, not two days later. Does it occur to why they were declared? They were declared just becuase of incidents like these the day before in attempt to try and get people to stay away from that area.

Rama IV on May 14th was full on urban warfare, I know, I live about 2 blocks over from where your video was taken. Anyone with any sense was inside, not standing out in street.

Again, the HRW report:

Beginning on

May 14

, Thai security forces faced demonstrators who were better organized and resorted more quickly to violent tactics. Groups of mainly young men now openly attacked the army at the barricades, especially in

Bon Kai

and Din Daeng, using flaming tires, petrol bombs, slingshot-fired metal balls, and powerful homemade explosives and other weapons. Most of the young men who joined the fight at the barricades seemed to have little in common with the UDD protesters at the camp.

On numerous occasions, Black Shirt militants appeared at the barricades to join the fight, firing assault weapons and M79 grenade launchers at soldiers

TH

You accidentally missed these paragraphs that follow, I guess:

During the clashes that occurred between May 14 and May 18, the new rules of engagement either facilitated more shootings of demonstrators or were simply ignored. Between the shooting of Khattiya and the final dispersal of the protest camp on May 19, at least 34 protesters and 2 soldiers were killed in the clashes, and another 256 wounded.

Human Rights Watch’s investigations found that army snipers in buildings overlooking the protest sites, as well as soldiers on the defensive barricades on the ground, frequently fired on protesters who were either unarmed or posed no imminent threat of death or serious injury to the soldiers or others.Many of those whom soldiers targeted apparently included anyone who tried to enter the “no-go” zone between the UDD barricades and army lines, or who threw rocks, petrol bombs, or burning tires towards the soldiers—from distances too great to be a serious threat to the soldiers’ lines.

While Thai authorities have not released comprehensive forensic details of the wounds sustained by those killed between May 14 and May 18, the incidents that Human Rights Watch reviewed show unarmed protesters appeared to have been killed with single shots to the head, indicating possible use of snipers and high-powered scopes.

For example, on the morning of May 14, photographer Roger Arnold was filming a wounded protester being treated in Lumphini Park when he found himself under heavy gunfire. A man running just behind him, part of the group treating the wounded man, was killed instantly by a shot to the head. Arnold, who covered the clashes between May 14 and May 18 on a daily basis, said:

“I didn’t see any armed people getting shot. What you had were snipers with scopes taking people out with headshots, people who at most had a slingshot.”

Video footage and eyewitness accounts show the army frequently fired into crowds of unarmed protesters, often wounding and killing several.....................

[rixalex]

Didn't miss your point at all. You said:

All the comments you make could have been applied to the deaths of street protestors in N.Ireland on Bloody Sunday

I said you can't make direct comparisons about situations in different places, in different times, in different circumstances. Not unless you are being very simplistic.

Of course all situations are different, and - yet again - I stress I'm only talking about street level activity..You made some comments earlier about redshirts being aware of armed figures in their midst, and thus were to blame for their fate - death in many cases.I pointed out that on Bloody Sunday there was a similar armed element behind the protesting crowd.It's directly relevant.

Yes there are similarities but there are also glaring differences. In the case of the red shirt protests, the situation had escalated and was ongoing over weeks and weeks, and the facts were quickly established early on and known to all that there was a violent militant element amongst the protesters that was engaging with an army that was quickly running out of patience. It reached the point where the army actually stated: we have ran out of patience, we are going to forcibly disperse, it won't be pretty, go home if you care for your safety, here are buses to take you there - or words to that effect.

It was after this declaration that most of the red shirt deaths occurred. All that leads me to believe that these people had the oppurtunity to preserve their safety but chose not to. I wasn't in Ireland in 1972, and nor have i studied in great detail the events of Bloody Sunday, but my suspicion is that the way those 26 people were killed, it might be fair to imagine they had little clue or warning as to exactly how much danger they were putting themselves in.

To take this discussion any further however, no matter how relevant you think it to be, is waste of everyone's time. It will simply be deleted.