Pheu Thai MP Kokaew Unfazed By Bail Review

[rubl]

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.

Before someone else jumps in, let me just say that the quote was describing being armed on April 10th already before MiB were really visable. Still even that (i.e. saying 'already armed') would be an attempt to distract as grenades had already been fired for a month or so.

To conclude, of course the army is armed. No commanding officer would sent the men he's responsable for into 'combat' without them being equipped and trained as good as possible. Now if only the police with their special crowd control forces had been doing the job they were trained for ... ...

EDIT: ADD: I didn't mention UDD leader speeches on purpose because as we all can know they don't threaten, they only speculate like the person of this topic speculated on what people might be tempted to do when CC judges would give the wrong judgement

Edited July 18, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

Show me.......

the government ordered armored vechiles and snipers to surround the protest site in may, did you not know this?

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

[Thaddeus]

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

And the problem with the part I have put in bold is what?

The other snipers had what instructions, pray tell?

[waza]

Show me.......

the government ordered armored vechiles and snipers to surround the protest site in may, did you not know this?

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

[nurofiend]

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

And the problem with the part I have put in bold is what?

The other snipers had what instructions, pray tell?

what are you talking about?

you asked for proof of army snipers, now you have it.

you're welcome.

[nurofiend]

Show me.......

the government ordered armored vechiles and snipers to surround the protest site in may, did you not know this?

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

and what is that supposed to prove?

[Thaddeus]

it's easy to find, i don't feel obliged to provide you with links because i don't care whether you accept it or not tbh... but here's a quote that might interest you.

An army spokesman said security forces would surround the anti-government protest site in the heart of Bangkok with armoured vehicles from 6pm local time (11am GMT) to prevent more demonstrators entering the area. "No one would be allowed in," the spokesman, Col Sunsern Kaewkumnerd, told AFP. "Snipers will be deployed in the operation." He said troops would be authorised to use live ammunition for warning shots, self-defence and against "armed terrorists".

And the problem with the part I have put in bold is what?

The other snipers had what instructions, pray tell?

what are you talking about?

you asked for proof of army snipers, now you have it.

I didn't ask for proof of army snipers, all armies have them, wouldn't be much of an army if they didn't, would it.

See two posts above.

[nurofiend]

I didn't ask for proof of army snipers, all armies have them, wouldn't be much of an army if they didn't, would it.

See two posts above.

i stated that there is factual evidence that army snipers were deployed, you said show me.

i showed you.

how that isn't asking for proof of it, only you know.

[Thaddeus]

I didn't ask for proof of army snipers, all armies have them, wouldn't be much of an army if they didn't, would it.

See two posts above.

i stated that there is factual evidence that army snipers were deployed, you said show me.

i showed you.

how that isn't asking for proof of it, only you know.

That answer would be fine, if I had only asked one question, I asked two.

[nurofiend]

I didn't ask for proof of army snipers, all armies have them, wouldn't be much of an army if they didn't, would it.

See two posts above.

i stated that there is factual evidence that army snipers were deployed, you said show me.

i showed you.

how that isn't asking for proof of it, only you know.

That answer would be fine, if I had only asked one question, I asked two.

you asked me one question, well more of a demand... and that was 'show me'

and i did.

you then say "And the problem with the part I have put in bold is what?"

how about you tell me instead of asking me, i thought you might have some knowledge about the answer to this question yourself y'know.

"The other snipers had what instructions, pray tell?"

how about you pray tell and give your opinion, and then i'll pray tell mine.

[Thaddeus]

I didn't ask for proof of army snipers, all armies have them, wouldn't be much of an army if they didn't, would it.

See two posts above.

i stated that there is factual evidence that army snipers were deployed, you said show me.

i showed you.

how that isn't asking for proof of it, only you know.

That answer would be fine, if I had only asked one question, I asked two.

you asked me one question, well more of a demand... and that was 'show me'

and i did.

you then say "And the problem with the part I have put in bold is what?"

how about you tell me instead of asking me, i thought you might have some knowledge about the answer to this question yourself y'know.

"The other snipers had what instructions, pray tell?"

how about you pray tell and give your opinion, and then i'll pray tell mine.

You managed to spot the second question then eventually, well done, omitted the question mark, but well done anyway, still failed to answer it though.

My opinion is irrelevant if you fail to answer all the questions.

[nurofiend]

You managed to spot the second question then eventually, well done, omitted the question mark, but well done anyway, still failed to answer it though.

My opinion is irrelevant if you fail to answer all the questions.

right, i see this is getting into petty territory and i'm hitting a brickwall.

i'm out of this one.

[cdnvic]

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

No more warnings. Comments on moderation have been removed.