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

[Buchholz]

I question why Arisaman and Issan Rambo are holding hands?

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

That could explain it.

I always wondered what Thaksin thought about this pic of Arisaman with his married sister???

At least you know she's married now buchholz, remember when you were alluding that she was a lesbian ("Wonder why she never married") and that mingkwan was gay

I acknowledged she was married when it finally was published that she was married. At the time of my earlier post, it wasn't widely known and it was speculated why by others besides myself. In hindsight, it's interesting that she had concealed her marriage/son from the mainstream media. When the information was eventually released, I was one of the first posters to publicize it.

As for Mingkwan, it's widely considered that he is gay.

"not that there's anything wrong with that"

.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Buchlozz is a no hitter when it comes to human rights .

Can you explain that jumble?

.

[AleG]

At least you know she's married now buchholz, remember when you were alluding that she was a lesbian ("Wonder why she never married") and that mingkwan was gay and then you removed your post about Yingluck? Sometimes I think you should be

posting on a thai showbiz gossip forum than on a political one. You'd probably be more believable.

That's rich coming from you who chose an avatar of Abhisit with Suthep bending over his lap, what's up with the homoerotic fascination over Abhisit?

Not doing well in the believability department there.

[Buchholz]

At least you know she's married now buchholz, remember when you were alluding that she was a lesbian ("Wonder why she never married") and that mingkwan was gay and then you removed your post about Yingluck? Sometimes I think you should be

posting on a thai showbiz gossip forum than on a political one. You'd probably be more believable.

That's rich coming from you who chose an avatar of Abhisit with Suthep bending over his lap, what's up with the homoerotic fascination over Abhisit?

Not doing well in the believability department there.

He never was.

.

[jayboy]

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.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

[phiphidon]

At least you know she's married now buchholz, remember when you were alluding that she was a lesbian ("Wonder why she never married") and that mingkwan was gay and then you removed your post about Yingluck? Sometimes I think you should be

posting on a thai showbiz gossip forum than on a political one. You'd probably be more believable.

That's rich coming from you who chose an avatar of Abhisit with Suthep bending over his lap, what's up with the homoerotic fascination over Abhisit?

Not doing well in the believability department there.

He never was.

.

In your opinion and the rest of the cheerleaders I expect that is the case, I can live with that. I believe you've had a previous life on here but you deny it, doesn't mean to say it isn't true.

[rixalex]

At least you know she's married now buchholz, remember when you were alluding that she was a lesbian ("Wonder why she never married") and that mingkwan was gay and then you removed your post about Yingluck? Sometimes I think you should be

posting on a thai showbiz gossip forum than on a political one. You'd probably be more believable.

That's rich coming from you who chose an avatar of Abhisit with Suthep bending over his lap, what's up with the homoerotic fascination over Abhisit?

Not doing well in the believability department there.

He never was.

.

In your opinion and the rest of the cheerleaders I expect that is the case, I can live with that. I believe you've had a previous life on here but you deny it, doesn't mean to say it isn't true.

That's a road you of all people shouldn't be going down.

[Buchholz]

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.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

"skewered"

your cock-eyed assessments are always so laughable.

You wrote 2 paragraphs of exaggerations ( I reposted only one of the longer diatribe above).... than you quote my post which had absolutely nothing to do with what you posted while inferring it somehow did.

Now that your lie is exposed for what it is, you change the content and now say your point is something different about the feigned efforts of the Thaksin apologists. I quoted the typical feigned neutrality that everyone on the forum has noticed and frequently witnessed. It's happened so many times, the quoted is now a classic cliche.

.

[metisdead]

A post of a defamatory nature has been removed as well as a reply.

[gemini81]

Buchlozz is a no hitter when it comes to human rights .

Being corrected for burning down a city, killing.hurting soldiers, looting, rioting is on the side of human rights?

If you had been here over a year (or didn't have a red shirt bar girl friend) it is common knowledge Abhisit did not call live shots fired.

Remember who offered negotiation and who refused with violent threats?

Abhisit has the cleanest record of all PM's. How a westerner with more than a 3rd grade education would hold your views makes me think only that your girl works at places mentioned above and has got you believing this "Abhisit is a murderer" crap shows no depth of reasoning and a pure lack of understanding of powers and laws here.

Clearly you were far from Bangkok whe this all occured.

Educate yourself by even merely watching some compelling youtube videos on it.

Edited June 23, 2012 by gemini81

[jayboy]

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.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

"skewered"

your cock-eyed assessments are always so laughable.

You wrote 2 paragraphs of exaggerations ( I reposted only one of the longer diatribe above).... than you quote my post which had absolutely nothing to do with what you posted while inferring it somehow did.

Now that your lie is exposed for what it is, you change the content and now say your point is something different about the feigned efforts of the Thaksin apologists. I quoted the typical feigned neutrality that everyone on the forum has noticed and frequently witnessed. It's happened so many times, the quoted is now a classic cliche.

.

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.You seem, along with your hysterical and and absurd accusations about " lies",to be suggesting that you should be able to determine what point I was making.

Take it from me nobody has the slightest interest in all this, and the case closes here and now.

[nurofiend]

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.

It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately.

that comment is the equivalent of a child putting their fingers and their ears and singing "la la la la la la la"

people like yourself use the argument of what would the soldiers have to gain... well the answer is dispersal...fear.

if people are being shot at indiscriminately and some killed then it stands to reason that others would see this and be afraid to stay....and the army's objective was dispersal.

but that doesn't mean that i think the soldiers were all ruthless and just out to kill anyone, i think lots of the deaths were mistakes caused by panic.

do i think there were some soldiers who took the live fire zone declarations as a license to do whatever they want? definitely.

the next logical question would be how much would the army have to lose if caught?

well have a look at the history of convictions of army personnel for shooting dead protesters and get back to me on that one.

when you apply that question to the men in black.. what would they have to gain? the death of innocent protesters would give sympathy to the movement and make the government look terrible.

but why bother shoot at the army at all then?

would it not have been better for that cause if no soldiers were killed and it was only dead protesters?

how much would the red movement lose if the men in black were caught killing innocents?

everything, the whole protest would have been a lost cause as the government would be seen as completely in the right in their crackdown.

something that always strikes me as strange is that the army's excuse of using fire was only when they were under fire, yet not one black shirt was killed, not one.

in all the exchanges, the army didn't manage to kill one?

now i do fully believe there were instances of black shirts engaging the army, and it wasn't always just the army shooting without being provoked.

what i don't swallow is that the black shirts were shooting protesters as well, as i've said, if this was their false flag style objective then shooting at the army would completely defeat the purpose of that objective.

so imo, you can either believe the black shirts were shooting at the army or shooting at civilians.

but logic and reason should mean that you can't believe both, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited June 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

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.

Slightly surprised you have come back, albeit rather incoherently, when so comprehensively skewered.

The point I made was a very simple one, namely that it is illogical to suggest that one cannot be antipathetic to Thaksin and yet be sympathetic to the forces trying to change the social order, particularly the entrenched unelected Elite.

I quoted a comment you made illustrating a typical sneer.I don't have any objection to sneers if backed by some logic.Yours didn't.

"skewered"

your cock-eyed assessments are always so laughable.

You wrote 2 paragraphs of exaggerations ( I reposted only one of the longer diatribe above).... than you quote my post which had absolutely nothing to do with what you posted while inferring it somehow did.

Now that your lie is exposed for what it is, you change the content and now say your point is something different about the feigned efforts of the Thaksin apologists. I quoted the typical feigned neutrality that everyone on the forum has noticed and frequently witnessed. It's happened so many times, the quoted is now a classic cliche.

.

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.You seem, along with your hysterical and and absurd accusations about " lies",to be suggesting that you should be able to determine what point I was making.

Take it from me nobody has the slightest interest in all this, and the case closes here and now.

We were talking about your gross exaggerations of what you purport I was posting with what I actually posted and how my post had nothing to do with what you wrote:

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.

I agree no one is interested in reading your gross distortions of what others have written.

[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.

It's all BS the whole thing. This was a red manufactured slaughter, and it was the red militia that were firing indiscriminately.

that comment is the equivalent of a child putting their fingers and their ears and singing "la la la la la la la"

people like yourself use the argument of what would the soldiers have to gain... well the answer is dispersal...fear.

if people are being shot at indiscriminately and some killed then it stands to reason that others would see this and be afraid to stay....and the army's objective was dispersal.

but that doesn't mean that i think the soldiers were all ruthless and just out to kill anyone, i think lots of the deaths were mistakes caused by panic.

do i think there were some soldiers who took the live fire zone declarations as a license to do whatever they want? definitely.

the next logical question would be how much would the army have to lose if caught?

well have a look at the history of convictions of army personnel for shooting dead protesters and get back to me on that one.

when you apply that question to the men in black.. what would they have to gain? the death of innocent protesters would give sympathy to the movement and make the government look terrible.

but why bother shoot at the army at all then?

would it not have been better for that cause if no soldiers were killed and it was only dead protesters?

how much would the red movement lose if the men in black were caught killing innocents?

everything, the whole protest would have been a lost cause as the government would be seen as completely in the right in their crackdown.

something that always strikes me as strange is that the army's excuse of using fire was only when they were under fire, yet not one black shirt was killed, not one.

in all the exchanges, the army didn't manage to kill one?

now i do fully believe there were instances of black shirts engaging the army, and it wasn't always just the army shooting without being provoked.

what i don't swallow is that the black shirts were shooting protesters as well, as i've said, if this was their false flag style objective then shooting at the army would completely defeat the purpose of that objective.

so imo, you can either believe the black shirts were shooting at the army or shooting at civilians.

but logic and reason should mean that you can't believe both, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, well why didn't you say earlier? Why not pop along to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Job done, Nurofiend has it sorted. Now, get onto flooding, constitutions and tablets next.

[nurofiend]

Oh, well why didn't you say earlier? Why not pop along to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Job done, Nurofiend has it sorted. Now, get onto flooding, constitutions and tablets next.

way to tackle the post and not the poster, jim.

[GentlemanJim]

Oh, well why didn't you say earlier? Why not pop along to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Job done, Nurofiend has it sorted. Now, get onto flooding, constitutions and tablets next.

way to tackle the post and not the poster, jim.

I think you need to re-read your post if that's a concern.

[MAJIC]

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.

tell us exactly who was controlling the country at that point as it seems you were not.

I think it would be more appropiate to ask Thaksin that question,rather than Abhisit!

[nurofiend]

Oh, well why didn't you say earlier? Why not pop along to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Job done, Nurofiend has it sorted. Now, get onto flooding, constitutions and tablets next.

way to tackle the post and not the poster, jim.

I think you need to re-read your post if that's a concern.

well if you're referring to my analogy of what your comment sounded like, i believe that is tackling the content of your post.

if you think your comment was an equation of that, then i disagree.

[473geo]

250+ posts of bickering, when the answer is clear

Of course Abhisit did not give an order to fire on crowds

He would have found it very difficult, if not impossible.......where was his 'safe house' again?

[whybother]

when you apply that question to the men in black.. what would they have to gain? the death of innocent protesters would give sympathy to the movement and make the government look terrible.

but why bother shoot at the army at all then?

would it not have been better for that cause if no soldiers were killed and it was only dead protesters?

If the black shirts had not shot at the soldiers, the soldiers may not have fired back. If they didn't fire back, then it couldn't have been soldiers that killed the protesters. The black shirts needed the soldiers to be shooting.

Also, the grenades and the shooting at the soldiers caused confusion. If the black shirts hadn't been caught on camera shooting at the army, a lot of it could have been blamed on friendly fire.

how much would the red movement lose if the men in black were caught killing innocents?

everything, the whole protest would have been a lost cause as the government would be seen as completely in the right in their crackdown.

something that always strikes me as strange is that the army's excuse of using fire was only when they were under fire, yet not one black shirt was killed, not one.

in all the exchanges, the army didn't manage to kill one?

How do you know that? If one was shot, did the army have the chance to go an collect him? If he was taken to hospital or the morgue, do you think they would have taken him there with guns still strapped to him?

now i do fully believe there were instances of black shirts engaging the army, and it wasn't always just the army shooting without being provoked.

what i don't swallow is that the black shirts were shooting protesters as well, as i've said, if this was their false flag style objective then shooting at the army would completely defeat the purpose of that objective.

so imo, you can either believe the black shirts were shooting at the army or shooting at civilians.

but logic and reason should mean that you can't believe both, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

As suggested above, the black shirts needed the army to be shooting. The way to do that was to shoot at them. Maybe the army wasn't killing enough protesters (or enough innocent looking ones) to make the appropriate impact.

So the black shirts shoot at the army. The army shoot back. The black shirts shoot a couple more protesters. And viola! "The army was shooting and killing protesters indiscriminately".

[GentlemanJim]

Well, if as an officer or senior NCO, I ordered the average British squaddie in London to 'take aim on unarmed innocent men, women and children...in your own time....fire!', he would turn around in no uncertain terms and tell me to '<Snip!> off...sir!' I doubt very much that the young Thai soldiers from poor backgrounds, many from the North would have been picking unarmed civilians off.

Edited June 24, 2012 by metisdead

[jayboy]

when you apply that question to the men in black.. what would they have to gain? the death of innocent protesters would give sympathy to the movement and make the government look terrible.

but why bother shoot at the army at all then?

would it not have been better for that cause if no soldiers were killed and it was only dead protesters?

If the black shirts had not shot at the soldiers, the soldiers may not have fired back. If they didn't fire back, then it couldn't have been soldiers that killed the protesters. The black shirts needed the soldiers to be shooting.

Also, the grenades and the shooting at the soldiers caused confusion. If the black shirts hadn't been caught on camera shooting at the army, a lot of it could have been blamed on friendly fire.

how much would the red movement lose if the men in black were caught killing innocents?

everything, the whole protest would have been a lost cause as the government would be seen as completely in the right in their crackdown.

something that always strikes me as strange is that the army's excuse of using fire was only when they were under fire, yet not one black shirt was killed, not one.

in all the exchanges, the army didn't manage to kill one?

How do you know that? If one was shot, did the army have the chance to go an collect him? If he was taken to hospital or the morgue, do you think they would have taken him there with guns still strapped to him?

now i do fully believe there were instances of black shirts engaging the army, and it wasn't always just the army shooting without being provoked.

what i don't swallow is that the black shirts were shooting protesters as well, as i've said, if this was their false flag style objective then shooting at the army would completely defeat the purpose of that objective.

so imo, you can either believe the black shirts were shooting at the army or shooting at civilians.

but logic and reason should mean that you can't believe both, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

As suggested above, the black shirts needed the army to be shooting. The way to do that was to shoot at them. Maybe the army wasn't killing enough protesters (or enough innocent looking ones) to make the appropriate impact.

So the black shirts shoot at the army. The army shoot back. The black shirts shoot a couple more protesters. And viola! "The army was shooting and killing protesters indiscriminately".

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

[whybother]

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

[jayboy]

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

The propaganda line spun by the Elite

and their lackeys has been that the MIB were ruthless professionals , indeed the excuse for the army's murder of unarmed civilians.Is that in fact untrue and the MIB were in truth just incompetent buffaloes like the rest of the redshirts! Hmm

[whybother]

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

The propaganda line spun by the Elite

and their lackeys has been that the MIB were ruthless professionals , indeed the excuse for the army's murder of unarmed civilians.Is that in fact untrue and the MIB were in truth just incompetent buffaloes like the rest of the redshirts! Hmm

Or just somewhere in between?

[jayboy]

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

The propaganda line spun by the Elite

and their lackeys has been that the MIB were ruthless professionals , indeed the excuse for the army's murder of unarmed civilians.Is that in fact untrue and the MIB were in truth just incompetent buffaloes like the rest of the redshirts! Hmm

Or just somewhere in between?

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.The trouble is that when a narrative is built on lies (and that applies to both sides) even the slightest scrutiny throws up anomalies.

In response to Gentleman Jim I'm afraid the lesson of history is that ordinary soldiers will take orders instructing them to fire on their own people.Nev ertheless I agree it is an issue that keeps the Elite awake at night sometimes given the preponderance of Isaan people in the military.In the short term the problem can be avoided:thus in the murderous events of 2010 units of the RTA were moved in on the basis they were "reliable" - ie did not shrink at murdering their fellow citizens, and other units were sidelined because they were not so perceived.In a limited confrontation this kind of juggling works:on a larger scale it doesn't.

[whybother]

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.The trouble is that when a narrative is built on lies (and that applies to both sides) even the slightest scrutiny throws up anomalies.

<snip>

Why would "somewhere in between" lead to higher army casualties? It all depends on what their aim was. Was their aim to kill as many soldiers as possible, or was their aim to provoke the army to shoot back?

[jayboy]

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.The trouble is that when a narrative is built on lies (and that applies to both sides) even the slightest scrutiny throws up anomalies.

<snip>

Why would "somewhere in between" lead to higher army casualties? It all depends on what their aim was. Was their aim to kill as many soldiers as possible, or was their aim to provoke the army to shoot back?

I have no idea, nor with respect do you.

If ,hypothetically, the MIB intention was to provoke the army rather than wound or kill soldiers does it not follow that the underlying motive would be to do as much murderous damage to the redshirts as possible (to trigger a wider confrontation and in doing so serve Thaksin's interests).No way for knowing for sure without capturing MIB, finding out who they were and who - if anybody - paid for their services.Frankly it defies credibility that this interrogation has never taken place, and that we still have only haziest understanding of who the MIB were.If one continued with this hypothetical game one could play the "who benefits" card, and that would surely be the Elite which through the presence of MIB has muddied the redshirt cause.Actually I no more believe this than I do your provocation theory.To date the only credible account is the HRW report though it still leaves many unanswered questions - including the one referred to above (who exactly were the MIB, what was thir intention, and who paid for them?)

On the positive side there now seems clear consensus (the army apart of course, not surprising given its recored of criminality and lying) that the army was responsible for many civilian deaths, a change from the position of a year or so ago where some of the usual suspects were still arguing the redshirts murdered themselves or walked into bullets.

[rixalex]

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.

As someone who claims to avoid making specific judgements on the events of 2010 in terms of what happened at the "street level", this statement above surprises me. Quite how you can state with any certainty what army casualties should or would have been, i don't quite know.

In response to Gentleman Jim I'm afraid the lesson of history is that ordinary soldiers will take orders instructing them to fire on their own people.

One thing firing on your own people, another thing intentionally firing upon your own people who happen to also be women, children, medics, journalists and innocent passerbyers. I don't think doing so can be described as usual or common military practice, although if you search hard enough in the history books, no doubt you can find an example for every possible freak event.

[jayboy]

As someone who claims to avoid making specific judgements on the events of 2010 in terms of what happened at the "street level", this statement above surprises me. Quite how you can state with any certainty what army casualties should or would have been, i don't quite know.

One thing firing on your own people, another thing intentionally firing upon your own people who happen to also be women, children, medics, journalists and innocent passerbyers. I don't think doing so can be described as usual or common military practice, although if you search hard enough in the history books, no doubt you can find an example for every possible freak event.

You're right.I have been drawn into commenting more on specifics than I had intended.Nevetheless it's a very curious anomaly that scarcely any soldiers were killed or wounded given the circumstances.

As to historic practice there are plenty of examples.And remember we are talking about the Thai army which has a record of murdering its own people and then lying about it.Indeed the generals presiding over these incidents have often been honoured and rewarded