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

[jayboy]

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.

I take your point entirely on why the comparison doesn't hold up.Probably best end this diversion I agree.

[hyperdimension]

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.

It would be good but highly unlikely, especially with the curernt government and its prime minister. We're more likely to get a big whitewash in the guise of "reconciliation" so that the big criminal who is ultimately responsible is cleared of all wrongdoing over the past 6 years and a massive amount of cash transferred from the public back into his private hands. The deaths were ultimately a result of one ultra-wealthy madman's fight to regain money and power. All other causes or reasons, such as the use of real bullets by soldiers, are just a follow-on or consequence. The focus and questions should be on the one who was ultimately responsible.

[whybother]

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.

I think that you could put together enough people to have an independent judicial enquiry. One side or the other wouldn't believe it though.

[aaacorp]

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.....................

Those kind of comment from neutral witnesses are just ignored by the ones thinking only the red were responsibles for the killings and the army did a perfect job....

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by aaacorp

[rixalex]

Those kind of comment from neutral witnesses are just ignored by the ones thinking only the red were responsibles for the killings and the army did a perfect job....

Who thinks the reds were the only ones responsible for killings and that the army did a perfect job?

[aaacorp]

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.....................

Pro Abhisit government and pro army here are well aware that HRW, and foreign journalists are also bought by Thaksin and the red shirts.....

[Buchholz]

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

case proven that the above has nothing whatsoever to do with your usual exaggerations that you assign to others, but that no one actually says...lying.

Jayboy's claim of what others post...that he left out

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.

Same old suspect doing the same old exaggerations aka lying.

No where can he quote what he says others have posted, certainly isn't in the above quote he cites.

.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Buchholz

[aaacorp]

Those kind of comment from neutral witnesses are just ignored by the ones thinking only the red were responsibles for the killings and the army did a perfect job....

Who thinks the reds were the only ones responsible for killings and that the army did a perfect job?

If you cannot read other comments than mines, i m very flattered but you should read more carefully some other ones

[phiphidon]

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.

Actually the dispersal notice was this

Notice to Immediately Vacate Demonstration Area (17/5/2010)

1. The Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) requests the cooperation of all demonstrators to immediately vacate the area, which is considered dangerous, by 17 May 2010 at 1500 hrs.

2. For those who volunteer to leave the area, authorities will facilitate their safe return to their domicile.

3.Those who remain in the demonstration area will be guilty of violation and face a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. It is also a dangerous area because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area.

http://media.thaigov.go.th/pageconfig/viewcontent/viewcontent1e.asp?pageid=472&directory=1944&contents=44735

Please note the the very last sentence "because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area". Not, it's dangerous, you hang around and we'll shoot you...........

[rixalex]

Those kind of comment from neutral witnesses are just ignored by the ones thinking only the red were responsibles for the killings and the army did a perfect job....

Who thinks the reds were the only ones responsible for killings and that the army did a perfect job?

If you cannot read other comments than mines, i m very flattered but you should read more carefully some other ones

Who then?

[Buchholz]

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

Can anyone at all answer this question?

I question why Arisaman and Issan Rambo are holding hands?

.

[weka]

Leave it Rix - the army waded in to a completely harmonious peaceful sit in that had no violent tendencies and was full of kittens, ducklings and flowers and was actually promoting business in the area for 3 months. The army then started shooting every Thai they could see and especially defenceless workers working voluntarily for the good of democracy with no intention of hurting anybody, simply to spread the word of peace and promote upcoming elections.

Army = bad

Red Shirts and PTP and Taksin = good

[aaacorp]

Those kind of comment from neutral witnesses are just ignored by the ones thinking only the red were responsibles for the killings and the army did a perfect job....

Who thinks the reds were the only ones responsible for killings and that the army did a perfect job?

If you cannot read other comments than mines, i m very flattered but you should read more carefully some other ones

Who then?

at the bottom of this page you will find a "prev" button, just click it with your left mouse button, but not too quickly, take time to read each comment on each page, and you will find your answers

Of course if you re a mac user do not try to look for the left button, just click the mouse

[aaacorp]

or read the comment from weka above, but take care it s an ironic one...i m sure you can handle it

Edited June 22, 2012 by aaacorp

[GentlemanJim]

Actually the dispersal notice was this

Notice to Immediately Vacate Demonstration Area (17/5/2010)

1. The Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) requests the cooperation of all demonstrators to immediately vacate the area, which is considered dangerous, by 17 May 2010 at 1500 hrs.

2. For those who volunteer to leave the area, authorities will facilitate their safe return to their domicile.

3.Those who remain in the demonstration area will be guilty of violation and face a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. It is also a dangerous area because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area.

http://media.thaigov...&contents=44735

Please note the the very last sentence "because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area". Not, it's dangerous, you hang around and we'll shoot you...........

Are you really trying to tell us that the last sentence is not explicit enough in that it is strongly stating that if you hang around there is a good chance you are going to get fatally injured. Even aside that, it clearly states that if you do hang around you are likely to face 2 years imprisonment. Conclusion....Those that did stay around were one of two types of people, earning money from being either a mercenary, militia or journalist, or a complete retard.

[rubl]

Time to recall this wikileaks cable from the then American Ambassador, dated 11/25/2019 (which for normal people should be read as 11/25/2009).

Various interesting items, here my pick, but follow the link for all of it:

"Following Thaksin,s call-in, the actual cancellation by UDD leaders November 25 was little more than a formality."

"in recent days we had actively sought out Thaksin,s family members (sister Yingluck and ex-wife Pojamon) and core red-shirt leaders to urge them to denounce the extreme rhetoric that had recently emerged, and to disavow the use of violence going forward."

"Faced with mounting evidence that the Abhisit government was not on the verge of imminent collapse, as well as the fact that the funds required to bring protesters to Bangkok could be better used elsewhere, Thaksin apparently came to the conclusion that he would be better off scrapping the demonstration entirely."

http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09BANGKOK3009

[weka]

or read the comment from weka above, but take care it s an ironic one...i m sure you can handle it

Sarcasm actually Ngor boy

[mca]

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

Can anyone at all answer this question?

I question why Arisaman and Issan Rambo are holding hands?

.

It's so they don't nick each others watches.

[aaacorp]

Actually the dispersal notice was this

Notice to Immediately Vacate Demonstration Area (17/5/2010)

1. The Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) requests the cooperation of all demonstrators to immediately vacate the area, which is considered dangerous, by 17 May 2010 at 1500 hrs.

2. For those who volunteer to leave the area, authorities will facilitate their safe return to their domicile.

3.Those who remain in the demonstration area will be guilty of violation and face a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. It is also a dangerous area because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area.

http://media.thaigov...&contents=44735

Please note the the very last sentence "because terrorists are trying to cause injuries and deaths in the area". Not, it's dangerous, you hang around and we'll shoot you...........

Are you really trying to tell us that the last sentence is not explicit enough in that it is strongly stating that if you hang around there is a good chance you are going to get fatally injured. Even aside that, it clearly states that if you do hang around you are likely to face 2 years imprisonment. Conclusion....Those that did stay around were one of two types of people, earning money from being either a mercenary, militia or journalist, or a complete retard.

Yes you will find this is a one more pro thaksin but nevermind>

So you think NONE of the protesters there believe they fought for their rights and were all greedy or dumbs...

i know some of you do not like comparisons but i m sure the officials form Barhein, Syria, Libya, Russia, Quebec, would love to have only people like you in their country

[aaacorp]

or read the comment from weka above, but take care it s an ironic one...i m sure you can handle it

Sarcasm actually Ngor boy

Before trying to lesson people you should know your definitions....Ngor boy

i·ro·ny

¹    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA

noun, plural i·ro·nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the oppositeof its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when Isaid I had to work all weekend.

sar·casm

   [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2.

a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a reviewfull of sarcasms.

Edited June 22, 2012 by aaacorp

[weka]

or read the comment from weka above, but take care it s an ironic one...i m sure you can handle it

Sarcasm actually Ngor boy

Before trying to lesson people you should know your definitions....Ngor boy

i·ro·ny

¹    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA

noun, plural i·ro·nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the oppositeof its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when Isaid I had to work all weekend.

sar·casm

   [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2.

a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a reviewfull of sarcasms.

I think you're "lessened" enough

No further questions your honour....

Edited June 22, 2012 by weka

[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.

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.

what on earth are you talking about? you drink driver analogy bares no resemblance to anything that occurred or can be linked with anything that occurred

the fact is that unarmed people were targeted and killed by the army, this is not crossfire issue, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were simply murdered.

as for your analogy, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a better argument than that

[rixalex]

Who thinks the reds were the only ones responsible for killings and that the army did a perfect job?

If you cannot read other comments than mines, i m very flattered but you should read more carefully some other ones

Who then?

at the bottom of this page you will find a "prev" button, just click it with your left mouse button, but not too quickly, take time to read each comment on each page, and you will find your answers

Of course if you re a mac user do not try to look for the left button, just click the mouse

I've read the entire thread and can find nobody with the view you allege. Please tell me their name.

[aaacorp]

or read the comment from weka above, but take care it s an ironic one...i m sure you can handle it

Sarcasm actually Ngor boy

Before trying to lesson people you should know your definitions....Ngor boy

i·ro·ny

¹    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA

noun, plural i·ro·nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the oppositeof its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when Isaid I had to work all weekend.

sar·casm

   [sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.

harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2.

a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a reviewfull of sarcasms.

I think you're "lessened" enough

No further questions your honour....

You know what i love, people trying to prove themselves in front of a foreigner using a foreign language, know the definitions of your native language, then criticize

And by the way "to lesson" is a bit archaic but is quite acceptable

Edited June 22, 2012 by aaacorp

[carra]

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

Please do not edit my posts, leave them in full so people can see the full context of what is written.

[GentlemanJim]

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.

what on earth are you talking about? you drink driver analogy bares no resemblance to anything that occurred or can be linked with anything that occurred

the fact is that unarmed people were targeted and killed by the army, this is not crossfire issue, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were simply murdered.

as for your analogy, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a better argument than that

Ah, so now it wasn't even cross-fire, theThai Army deliberately targeted unarmed, Thai civilians and murdered them

[hyperdimension]

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

Can anyone at all answer this question?

I question why Arisaman and Issan Rambo are holding hands?

Could it be because scoundrels can only find love within their own kind?

[whybother]

Please do not edit my posts, leave them in full so people can see the full context of what is written.

There was nothing written. All you had was a "one sided out of context video".

[carra]

Please do not edit my posts, leave them in full so people can see the full context of what is written.

There was nothing written. All you had was a "one sided out of context video".

fairy muff, can't be arsed traipsing back through the thread

[carra]

Ah, so now it wasn't even cross-fire, theThai Army deliberately targeted unarmed, Thai civilians and murdered them

Well. yes, that is the discussion regarding snipers, they tend to not kill people in crossfire