Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Unfazed By Bail Review

[tlansford]

Perhaps he wants to blame security boss and former Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban? At least Suthep has admitted that leaked documents showing he ordered the use of live rounds against protesters are genuine. They seem to show that the order was given before any military or police were attacked by any “men in black.” Suthep may well become Abhisit’s scapegoat.

politicalprisonersofthailand.wordpress.com/ (At this site readers do not receive the full-feature Political Prisoners in Thailand. This blog is maintained because the main site is often blocked by state censors)

Another of PhiPhidons hearsay redshirt blog site that have unsubstantiated information, no wonder you sidestepped it Tom.

it sounds like you are trying very hard to deny the fact that suthep did not give the authorization to use lethal force, but that would be untrue...

[nurofiend]

Suthep ordered the army to use lethal force on the protesters?

You believe that?

it is documented.

Phiphidon has also posted the links, references, and information multiple times on TVF.

You might recall that Suthep denied issuing the other to use live rounds before the April 10th dispersal attempt and later, faced with the proof, needed to admit that he approved it 3 days before the dispersal.

But he also called them terrorists before they arrived in BKK, and the year before he organized the Blue Shirts. And if you go back, it was one of his corruption cases which helped to bring down the previous dem-led government in the 90s.

Like so many, Suthep is not a trustworthy person... not at least when you examine the public record.

PhiPhiDon therefore holds the key to the trials and should submit his evidence forthwith.

Why rely on PPD alone? Let tlansford/PPD bring it all to the table. For they are both honorable men.

why do ye two have to act like little kids?

[phiphidon]

very different indeed.

The former was actually accidental. The latter was, well, how to put this correctly? ... not accidental, and documented also that it was not in self-defense.

The former : It was a horrible mistake, but one cannot say that it was intentional. The evidence is clear that the police thought they were using their usual version of tear-gas, but of course they were not. BTW, the lady killed and the gentleman killed were unlikely to have been killed by the security forces. There is, however, no doubt about people losing limbs due to the tear-gas canisters.

BTW, the PAD protesters were not unarmed, either.

2 very different scenarios. But Abhisit was able to comment on the former and has yet to utter such noble phrases regarding the latter.

Issuing of weapons/munitions to persons not trained and certified in their use is not an "accident" or a "horrible mistake", it is a clear breach of procedure for which the supervising officers and those using munitions unfamiliar to them are liable and culpable. Firing unfamiliar ordinance into a packed crowd and causing death and grievous injury was gross negligence - but hey, that's alright, some of them had a pistol or two.

"Firing unfamiliar ordinance into a packed crowd and causing death and grievous injury was gross negligence - but hey, that's alright, some of them had a pistol or two."

I take it you are being sarcastic here? Just need a confirmation that's all.

[Thaddeus]

Just because you don't agree or like what they say does not detract from their veracity.

The veracity of information is governed by two things, the impartiality of the source and the impartiality of the repeater.

[phiphidon]

Just because you don't agree or like what they say does not detract from their veracity.

The veracity of information is governed by two things, the impartiality of the source and the impartiality of the repeater.

No it's not, what a strange thing to say. Information is generally in one of two states, true or false. True information can come from what may be viewed by you as a "non impartial source" and passed on to you by a "non impartial repeater" and it will still be true. As can falsehoods.

If you claim to be an impartial reader I'll eat my hat (and that's an untruth coming from an unimpeachible source)

In this case a previously denied truth was eventually accepted as documentary proof was provided - no more wriggle room for Suthep. Another unpalatable truth (to some) was the revelation that the democratic party had been lying to the thai public about thaksin being on an interpol red list. In both cases most people on this forum would probably agree that the provider of that information was a "non impartial" source but it was the truth nonetheless.

[Thaddeus]

If you claim to be an impartial reader I'll eat my hat (and that's an untruth coming from an unimpeachible source)

Does that make any sense...... anyone?

[Buchholz]

very different indeed.

The former was actually accidental. The latter was, well, how to put this correctly? ... not accidental, and documented also that it was not in self-defense.

The former : It was a horrible mistake, but one cannot say that it was intentional. The evidence is clear that the police thought they were using their usual version of tear-gas, but of course they were not. BTW, the lady killed and the gentleman killed were unlikely to have been killed by the security forces. There is, however, no doubt about people losing limbs due to the tear-gas canisters.

BTW, the PAD protesters were not unarmed, either.

2 very different scenarios. But Abhisit was able to comment on the former and has yet to utter such noble phrases regarding the latter.

Issuing of weapons/munitions to persons not trained and certified in their use is not an "accident" or a "horrible mistake", it is a clear breach of procedure for which the supervising officers and those using munitions unfamiliar to them are liable and culpable. Firing unfamiliar ordinance into a packed crowd and causing death and grievous injury was gross negligence - but hey, that's alright, some of them had a pistol or two.

It was certainly no accident when the police were aware of the lethality of their exploding canisters in the mornning and returned later in the afternoon to fire more of the same.

It's one of the reasons that Thaksin's brother-in-law was charged:

Former Prime Minister Somchai Charged With Criminal Misconduct

As for displacing the blame on the dead lady that was killed by the police on the deceased

Edited July 16, 2012 by Buchholz

[webfact]

related topic:

Criminal court summons red shirt leaders over bail violation

THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- The Criminal Court has said it will summons red-shirt leader and Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Pikulthong on August 9 to review whether his behaviour last week - comments viewed by some as intimidation of the Constitution Court - violated bail conditions related to a terrorism case.

Full story:

[tlansford]

Just because you don't agree or like what they say does not detract from their veracity.

The veracity of information is governed by two things, the impartiality of the source and the impartiality of the repeater.

since when are those conditions for facts to actually be facts?

Ah, Never mind.... I keep forgetting about the TVF universe...

[Thaddeus]

Just because you don't agree or like what they say does not detract from their veracity.

The veracity of information is governed by two things, the impartiality of the source and the impartiality of the repeater.

since when are those conditions for facts to actually be facts?

Ah, Never mind.... I keep forgetting about the TVF universe...

No Tom, you don't keep forgetting about the TVF universe, you would rather the TVF universe didn't exist, all those people who don't agree with you, nasty things aren't they, you would prefer a universe where you set the table, you decide what is on the menu and you decide what is good for everyone else.

Guess what, the world doesn't work like that, get used to it.

[maidu]

If any top authority agreed to live ammo during the latter part of the messy Red protest, when they commandeered downtown Bkk for 9 weeks in spring of 2010, then it's a fair call.

Abhisit was top banana at that time, and it's his responsibility to try and protect the biggest city in his jurisdiction. There was ample proof that embedded among the Reds were military trained 'black shirts'. Much of the Red menace was and is bankrolled directly or indirectly by T.

Kokaew seems to be carrying the Red Flag onward. He's playing a dangerous game. Him getting tossed in jail is the lesser part of it. The bigger danger is him inciting the easily-incitable rabble from Issan - which would bring more troubles for Thailand.

[AleG]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

[tlansford]

Just because you don't agree or like what they say does not detract from their veracity.

The veracity of information is governed by two things, the impartiality of the source and the impartiality of the repeater.

since when are those conditions for facts to actually be facts?

Ah, Never mind.... I keep forgetting about the TVF universe...

No Tom, you don't keep forgetting about the TVF universe, you would rather the TVF universe didn't exist, all those people who don't agree with you, nasty things aren't they, you would prefer a universe where you set the table, you decide what is on the menu and you decide what is good for everyone else.

Guess what, the world doesn't work like that, get used to it.

so are you saying that you believe the posted information from Phiphidon is not true? It certainly sounds like that, but maybe I am misunderstanding your post.

As for the rest of your post, that is a nice fantasy you've created ...

[tlansford]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

In France you'll see the military with their automatic weapons in the airport and the train stations... But their not routinely shooting passengers.

"even an idiot" can see that your analogy doesn't make sense...

[OzMick]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

In France you'll see the military with their automatic weapons in the airport and the train stations... But their not routinely shooting passengers.

"even an idiot" can see that your analogy doesn't make sense...

Are the passengers routinely shooting them?

[AleG]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

In France you'll see the military with their automatic weapons in the airport and the train stations... But their not routinely shooting passengers.

"even an idiot" can see that your analogy doesn't make sense...

Are the passengers routinely shooting them?

It's hopeless, isn't it?

[Thaddeus]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

In France you'll see the military with their automatic weapons in the airport and the train stations... But their not routinely shooting passengers.

"even an idiot" can see that your analogy doesn't make sense...

Are the passengers routinely shooting them?

It's hopeless, isn't it?

Yes.

[maidu]

If protesters are armed, then security forces need to be as well (or better) armed to counter them. Otherwise, it's mob rule, which is essentially what there was, in parts of Bkk for 2 months during Spring 2010. Even a nearby hospital wasn't safe.

To bring it up to the present: Kun Kokaew is threatening mob rule again, with many of the same players. He's found he can get a lot of notice doing that, and he likes the attention. Authorities are right to shut him up in a locked room, if that's what they wind up doing. P.S. take away his phone and megaphone, when they lock him up.

[kimamey]

you point is well taken.

The politics is highly charged on all sides and has been for a long time. It clearly did not begin with the coup, nor will it necessarily end when the thaksin question is settled - should it be in the (relatively) near future.

Corruption is a hard problem to tackle. A really hard problem.

For me, one of the irritating things in all this is the willful distortion on the part of the media. Though that is not unique to Thailand.

edit : btw, re: Abhisit, he was born, raised, and educated in England - it seems to me that he should understand - of all of the current Thai politicians - the values and the integrity needed to lead in a democracy. I am really hard on him because it is clear that he should be able to do this but on several occasions he has failed to rise to the situation.

I've forgotten how to remove selected post when you reach the limit so this may end up going horribly wrong and I'll have to try something else.

Well I'm going to have to agree again.

I've often thought that Abhisit's early years in England made him stand out as it gave him a somewhat broader outlook than someone whose upbringing was solely Thai. HM the king also seems to have a much broader understanding that may be due to his exposure to a non Thai environment.

It frustrates me sometimes that Abhisit doesn't seem to do what I'm sure he is capable of. I suppose being a politician he has to make strong statements against the government as that is what his party expects of him but I do feel if he could just break free for a while and do what he thinks best he could make a difference but of course reasoned argument doesn't always attract enough attention. This seems to be a particular problem in Thailand (and Thai Visa) which is why we end up having to comment on people like Kokaew, Jutaporn ect.

One thing I missed out on my original post was that if only the moderate reds could join with Abhisit and some of the more reasonable politicians from the Dems and other parties there might be a possibility of the country moving forward at last. To be honest it seems that the only thing that really causes problems above the normal political bickering is the issue of Thaksin and trying to get him off his criminal conviction. I assume that the PM's statement after the election that she was going to look at the case to see if it was it was ok came to nothing?

Corruption, self interest and unseemly behaviour seem to be the order of the day and it will be difficult to stop it but I feel the start needs to be made at the top as those below will tend to follow as it's seen to be the way things are done which is why the original post is so important.

[Noistar]

you point is well taken.

The politics is highly charged on all sides and has been for a long time. It clearly did not begin with the coup, nor will it necessarily end when the thaksin question is settled - should it be in the (relatively) near future.

Corruption is a hard problem to tackle. A really hard problem.

For me, one of the irritating things in all this is the willful distortion on the part of the media. Though that is not unique to Thailand.

edit : btw, re: Abhisit, he was born, raised, and educated in England - it seems to me that he should understand - of all of the current Thai politicians - the values and the integrity needed to lead in a democracy. I am really hard on him because it is clear that he should be able to do this but on several occasions he has failed to rise to the situation.

I've forgotten how to remove selected post when you reach the limit so this may end up going horribly wrong and I'll have to try something else.

Well I'm going to have to agree again.

I've often thought that Abhisit's early years in England made him stand out as it gave him a somewhat broader outlook than someone whose upbringing was solely Thai. HM the king also seems to have a much broader understanding that may be due to his exposure to a non Thai environment.

It frustrates me sometimes that Abhisit doesn't seem to do what I'm sure he is capable of. I suppose being a politician he has to make strong statements against the government as that is what his party expects of him but I do feel if he could just break free for a while and do what he thinks best he could make a difference but of course reasoned argument doesn't always attract enough attention. This seems to be a particular problem in Thailand (and Thai Visa) which is why we end up having to comment on people like Kokaew, Jutaporn ect.

One thing I missed out on my original post was that if only the moderate reds could join with Abhisit and some of the more reasonable politicians from the Dems and other parties there might be a possibility of the country moving forward at last. To be honest it seems that the only thing that really causes problems above the normal political bickering is the issue of Thaksin and trying to get him off his criminal conviction. I assume that the PM's statement after the election that she was going to look at the case to see if it was it was ok came to nothing?

Corruption, self interest and unseemly behaviour seem to be the order of the day and it will be difficult to stop it but I feel the start needs to be made at the top as those below will tend to follow as it's seen to be the way things are done which is why the original post is so important.

A moderate, considered post which IMO reflects the problems on TVF.

Is one "yellow" or a "Democrat" by seeing good in the Opposition? Likewise, support for the Government doesn't necessarily make one "red" or "PTP". The balanced post above is proof of this -IMO

If posts could be less-confrontational perhaps a reasoned argument could ensue.

Thailand has many problems - the current political situation isn't helping, neither is playground bullying on TVF.

[tlansford]

Issuing live ammunition to security forces =/= "go shoot me some protesters"

For those outraged at the notion, do police forces carry water pistols wherever they hail from?

Even an idiot can understand the difference, but then again biases are a very stupefying force.

In France you'll see the military with their automatic weapons in the airport and the train stations... But their not routinely shooting passengers.

"even an idiot" can see that your analogy doesn't make sense...

Are the passengers routinely shooting them?

It's hopeless, isn't it?

So then why did they kill innocent people.

Yes, this forum is hopeless.

[tlansford]

If protesters are armed, then security forces need to be as well (or better) armed to counter them. Otherwise, it's mob rule, which is essentially what there was, in parts of Bkk for 2 months during Spring 2010. Even a nearby hospital wasn't safe.

To bring it up to the present: Kun Kokaew is threatening mob rule again, with many of the same players. He's found he can get a lot of notice doing that, and he likes the attention. Authorities are right to shut him up in a locked room, if that's what they wind up doing. P.S. take away his phone and megaphone, when they lock him up.

First - the protesters were not "armed" in the sense that you probably mean and refer to the men in black. Is that a correct assumption?

Second, the army somehow managed to arm themselves before they knew that there were MIB among the demonstrators. Are you just implying that they were particularly well prepared in that case??

As for the recent comments from Kokaew, the one thing that is clear is that the English language news didn't provide the same context at the Thai news for his comments. If you are referring to his comments before the CC ruling, then the context of the other reports indicate that he was replying to the hypothetical questions of "what if" the CC ruled in a particular way. In that context, the comments were not threats but speculation ...

[metisdead]

A number of posts using bold and over sized fonts have been removed. In using bold and over sized fonts is the same as shouting and is bad netiquette.

[tlansford]

you point is well taken.

The politics is highly charged on all sides and has been for a long time. It clearly did not begin with the coup, nor will it necessarily end when the thaksin question is settled - should it be in the (relatively) near future.

Corruption is a hard problem to tackle. A really hard problem.

For me, one of the irritating things in all this is the willful distortion on the part of the media. Though that is not unique to Thailand.

edit : btw, re: Abhisit, he was born, raised, and educated in England - it seems to me that he should understand - of all of the current Thai politicians - the values and the integrity needed to lead in a democracy. I am really hard on him because it is clear that he should be able to do this but on several occasions he has failed to rise to the situation.

I've forgotten how to remove selected post when you reach the limit so this may end up going horribly wrong and I'll have to try something else.

Well I'm going to have to agree again.

I've often thought that Abhisit's early years in England made him stand out as it gave him a somewhat broader outlook than someone whose upbringing was solely Thai. HM the king also seems to have a much broader understanding that may be due to his exposure to a non Thai environment.

It frustrates me sometimes that Abhisit doesn't seem to do what I'm sure he is capable of. I suppose being a politician he has to make strong statements against the government as that is what his party expects of him but I do feel if he could just break free for a while and do what he thinks best he could make a difference but of course reasoned argument doesn't always attract enough attention. This seems to be a particular problem in Thailand (and Thai Visa) which is why we end up having to comment on people like Kokaew, Jutaporn ect.

One thing I missed out on my original post was that if only the moderate reds could join with Abhisit and some of the more reasonable politicians from the Dems and other parties there might be a possibility of the country moving forward at last. To be honest it seems that the only thing that really causes problems above the normal political bickering is the issue of Thaksin and trying to get him off his criminal conviction. I assume that the PM's statement after the election that she was going to look at the case to see if it was it was ok came to nothing?

Corruption, self interest and unseemly behaviour seem to be the order of the day and it will be difficult to stop it but I feel the start needs to be made at the top as those below will tend to follow as it's seen to be the way things are done which is why the original post is so important.

Thanks for the post.

Regarding change and addressing the trends of corruption and self-interest, it often takes a small jest to start something ... Often times the significance of the jest or the action is not appreciated at the debut. Many times it takes no small amount of courage, and other times it takes a tragedy to shock people. Regarding Thailand, maybe it will be more students and parents protesting against tea money which will change the debate about corruption and self-interest.

As for politicians working together, I don't see anything inherent in the political system which requires cooperation and compromise, so I am not so hopeful in that direction. It would be a good step in the right direction IMO, and it might even help the Democrats at the polls, if they were to find a way, through outreach to other groups and finding common ground, to be productive as politicians for the benefit of the country while still in opposition. I just don't see that happening at the moment. All the energy of the opposition is in opposing (and I don't think it matters who is in the opposition...).

[Reasonableman]

If protesters are armed, then security forces need to be as well (or better) armed to counter them. Otherwise, it's mob rule, which is essentially what there was, in parts of Bkk for 2 months during Spring 2010. Even a nearby hospital wasn't safe.

To bring it up to the present: Kun Kokaew is threatening mob rule again, with many of the same players. He's found he can get a lot of notice doing that, and he likes the attention. Authorities are right to shut him up in a locked room, if that's what they wind up doing. P.S. take away his phone and megaphone, when they lock him up.

First - the protesters were not "armed" in the sense that you probably mean and refer to the men in black. Is that a correct assumption?

Second, the army somehow managed to arm themselves before they knew that there were MIB among the demonstrators. Are you just implying that they were particularly well prepared in that case??

As for the recent comments from Kokaew, the one thing that is clear is that the English language news didn't provide the same context at the Thai news for his comments. If you are referring to his comments before the CC ruling, then the context of the other reports indicate that he was replying to the hypothetical questions of "what if" the CC ruled in a particular way. In that context, the comments were not threats but speculation ...

Sounding a bit desperate again. Why so defensive, old boy? ;-) Let it go, you're not changing anyone's mind who matters. In fact you're probably not changing anyone's mind at all. The evidence is a matter of record, in both Thai and English. Let the real defense team do its job, and let the real law courts decide.

[Moruya]

you point is well taken.

The politics is highly charged on all sides and has been for a long time. It clearly did not begin with the coup, nor will it necessarily end when the thaksin question is settled - should it be in the (relatively) near future.

Corruption is a hard problem to tackle. A really hard problem.

For me, one of the irritating things in all this is the willful distortion on the part of the media. Though that is not unique to Thailand.

edit : btw, re: Abhisit, he was born, raised, and educated in England - it seems to me that he should understand - of all of the current Thai politicians - the values and the integrity needed to lead in a democracy. I am really hard on him because it is clear that he should be able to do this but on several occasions he has failed to rise to the situation.

I've forgotten how to remove selected post when you reach the limit so this may end up going horribly wrong and I'll have to try something else.

Well I'm going to have to agree again.

I've often thought that Abhisit's early years in England made him stand out as it gave him a somewhat broader outlook than someone whose upbringing was solely Thai. HM the king also seems to have a much broader understanding that may be due to his exposure to a non Thai environment.

It frustrates me sometimes that Abhisit doesn't seem to do what I'm sure he is capable of. I suppose being a politician he has to make strong statements against the government as that is what his party expects of him but I do feel if he could just break free for a while and do what he thinks best he could make a difference but of course reasoned argument doesn't always attract enough attention. This seems to be a particular problem in Thailand (and Thai Visa) which is why we end up having to comment on people like Kokaew, Jutaporn ect.

One thing I missed out on my original post was that if only the moderate reds could join with Abhisit and some of the more reasonable politicians from the Dems and other parties there might be a possibility of the country moving forward at last. To be honest it seems that the only thing that really causes problems above the normal political bickering is the issue of Thaksin and trying to get him off his criminal conviction. I assume that the PM's statement after the election that she was going to look at the case to see if it was it was ok came to nothing?

Corruption, self interest and unseemly behaviour seem to be the order of the day and it will be difficult to stop it but I feel the start needs to be made at the top as those below will tend to follow as it's seen to be the way things are done which is why the original post is so important.

I'm afraid that even the "moderate" reds are too polarized. The completely undemocratic concept of red shirt villages has seen to that.

If the working Thai people took the time out to understand the real world it could be better for them. But they don't bother to read widely. They just go with the head sheep.

Baaaah!

[saltandpepper]

If protesters are armed, then security forces need to be as well (or better) armed to counter them. Otherwise, it's mob rule, which is essentially what there was, in parts of Bkk for 2 months during Spring 2010. Even a nearby hospital wasn't safe.

To bring it up to the present: Kun Kokaew is threatening mob rule again, with many of the same players. He's found he can get a lot of notice doing that, and he likes the attention. Authorities are right to shut him up in a locked room, if that's what they wind up doing. P.S. take away his phone and megaphone, when they lock him up.

First - the protesters were not "armed" in the sense that you probably mean and refer to the men in black. Is that a correct assumption?

Second, the army somehow managed to arm themselves before they knew that there were MIB among the demonstrators. Are you just implying that they were particularly well prepared in that case??

As for the recent comments from Kokaew, the one thing that is clear is that the English language news didn't provide the same context at the Thai news for his comments. If you are referring to his comments before the CC ruling, then the context of the other reports indicate that he was replying to the hypothetical questions of "what if" the CC ruled in a particular way. In that context, the comments were not threats but speculation ...

So army should be unarmed?

What would it be called then? Bobbies?

Ridiculous....

[Reasonableman]

I think you call them clay pigeons

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been deleted. Please stick to the current topic. A rehash of previous situations is not germane to this thread.

[ratcatcher]

If protesters are armed, then security forces need to be as well (or better) armed to counter them. Otherwise, it's mob rule, which is essentially what there was, in parts of Bkk for 2 months during Spring 2010. Even a nearby hospital wasn't safe.

To bring it up to the present: Kun Kokaew is threatening mob rule again, with many of the same players. He's found he can get a lot of notice doing that, and he likes the attention. Authorities are right to shut him up in a locked room, if that's what they wind up doing. P.S. take away his phone and megaphone, when they lock him up.

First - the protesters were not "armed" in the sense that you probably mean and refer to the men in black. Is that a correct assumption?

Second, the army somehow managed to arm themselves before they knew that there were MIB among the demonstrators. Are you just implying that they were particularly well prepared in that case??

As for the recent comments from Kokaew, the one thing that is clear is that the English language news didn't provide the same context at the Thai news for his comments. If you are referring to his comments before the CC ruling, then the context of the other reports indicate that he was replying to the hypothetical questions of "what if" the CC ruled in a particular way. In that context, the comments were not threats but speculation ...

So army should be unarmed?

What would it be called then? Bobbies?

Ridiculous....

QUOTE:".............the army somehow managed to arm themselves before they knew that there were MIB among the demonstrators."

An interesting thought, a soldier called in to action without his weapon?

I saw a movie once and heard these words

"This is my rifle. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me."

FMJacket.

I believe the enemy in this case was the militant Red Shirts and MIB determined to cause death & destruction. Warnings about "Live Fire Zone were quite clear. Stay here at your peril. Many did, many died.