Suthep Denies Troops Fired During The Day Of April 10, 2010

[rixalex]

I believe that you are the one struggling with the idea of "evidence".

re: Thaksin, I made my statement regarding what I think and I'm not inclined to get repetitive. Your comment "until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay" is just another attempt to put words in my mouth which I never said.

But now you have turned to the usual "you-me" perspective which I have no desire to continue.

Blue shirts were a creation of the government and that is documented.

The UDD had reason to expect violence from the government in 2010 and that is documented.

It was the government's choice to use lethal force against the protesters and that is documented.

That said, there are plenty of things that are not publicly known yet.

You question my understanding of what constitutes evidence, and then go on to talk about all the things you know to have been documented. To repeat, something being documented in a book, on wikipedia, etc does not make it evidence. It supports your view, it doesn't prove it. And if you had the view that Thaksin was deeply involved in the protests, in the same way you have the view that the blue shirts were a creation of the government, you would find plenty out there to support that view too. Give it a go.

[phiphidon]

I believe that you are the one struggling with the idea of "evidence".

re: Thaksin, I made my statement regarding what I think and I'm not inclined to get repetitive. Your comment "until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay" is just another attempt to put words in my mouth which I never said.

But now you have turned to the usual "you-me" perspective which I have no desire to continue.

Blue shirts were a creation of the government and that is documented.

The UDD had reason to expect violence from the government in 2010 and that is documented.

It was the government's choice to use lethal force against the protesters and that is documented.

That said, there are plenty of things that are not publicly known yet.

You question my understanding of what constitutes evidence, and then go on to talk about all the things you know to have been documented. To repeat, something being documented in a book, on wikipedia, etc does not make it evidence. It supports your view, it doesn't prove it. And if you had the view that Thaksin was deeply involved in the protests, in the same way you have the view that the blue shirts were a creation of the government, you would find plenty out there to support that view too. Give it a go.

But do you have any thoughts on Sutheps statement that the army did not fire on the red shirts during the day and only retaliated after the grenade incidents when it appears that there were many eyewitness and video accounts to the contrary.

That is the subject of the OP and a very important thread it is too - if Suthep is caught out in yet another lie, anything he has stated on behalf of his and Abhisits actions during the April / May 2010 incidents can be thrown on the scrapheap.

[rixalex]

But do you have any thoughts on Sutheps statement that the army did not fire on the red shirts during the day and only retaliated after the grenade incidents when it appears that there were many eyewitness and video accounts to the contrary.

That is the subject of the OP and a very important thread it is too - if Suthep is caught out in yet another lie, anything he has stated on behalf of his and Abhisits actions during the April / May 2010 incidents can be thrown on the scrapheap.

I wouldn't take Suthep on his word on anything.

[Nickymaster]

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Nickymaster

[tlansford]

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

" am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it"."

be sick of it if you want, it is all in your head, because that is not what people here claim.

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

[rixalex]

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

If you have read people saying they attribute everything to Thaksin, i think it is you who needs to brush up on reading comprehension.

I attribute a lot of what has happened to Thaksin, especially with regards the riots of 2010, and i believe he was heavily involved, both in leading those riots, and in helping fund those riots. I also believe that if not for him, the Dems offer of early elections would have been accepted and the reds would have gone home and 90 odd lives would have been saved.

I don't have evidence for that, just an opinion based on things i have read, things i saw. You can demand evidence all you like, but all the time you are yourself happily expressing beliefs for things that also can only be backed up by things you have read, things you have seen, it remains a daft demand that exposes a selective criteria in what you deem to be information and what you deem to be more of the same old same old.

[KireB]

But do you have any thoughts on Sutheps statement that the army did not fire on the red shirts during the day and only retaliated after the grenade incidents when it appears that there were many eyewitness and video accounts to the contrary.

That is the subject of the OP and a very important thread it is too - if Suthep is caught out in yet another lie, anything he has stated on behalf of his and Abhisits actions during the April / May 2010 incidents can be thrown on the scrapheap.

Are you referring to the rubber bullets fired during the day? That was clearly documented on television? Also the attack of the reds on an army base that set things in motion. Or the attack on a helicopter, all on the same day. Until the red terrorist cell killed a couple of soldiers that nigh, no one died!

[Nickymaster]

Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof.

As for your comment "The whole i demand concrete evidence thing is disingenuous nonsense used selectively", well, ... this is TVF, so allow me the liberty to say

Then there is this gem "You have no evidence that the government gave birth to the Blue Shirts"

But of course I do. It is well documented from various sources, but the most available as he has posted explicitly on this topic is Nick Nostitz. And Suthep has been directly linked to the birth and implementation of the Blue Shirts. Then there is the fact that the Blue Shirts were identified as Military Personnel and PAD guards.

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

" am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it"."

be sick of it if you want, it is all in your head, because that is not what people here claim.

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

"You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension..." this is a BS statement!

I read this: "Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof".

With the focus on: "Somehow involved" and "Common knowledge without a stitch of proof".

Thaksin has CREATED the Red shirts. How much more proof do you need?

You could find some common ground twisting stories with your twist buddy PPD.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Nickymaster

[tlansford]

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

If you have read people saying they attribute everything to Thaksin, i think it is you who needs to brush up on reading comprehension.

I attribute a lot of what has happened to Thaksin, especially with regards the riots of 2010, and i believe he was heavily involved, both in leading those riots, and in helping fund those riots. I also believe that if not for him, the Dems offer of early elections would have been accepted and the reds would have gone home and 90 odd lives would have been saved.

I don't have evidence for that, just an opinion based on things i have read, things i saw. You can demand evidence all you like, but all the time you are yourself happily expressing beliefs for things that also can only be backed up by things you have read, things you have seen, it remains a daft demand that exposes a selective criteria in what you deem to be information and what you deem to be more of the same old same old.

Rixalex, when you state "expressing beliefs for things that also can only be backed up by things you have read", then I know that it is useless to discuss further.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

You seem to struggle with the concept of what evidence is. Evidence is not what you read on wikipedia, or what you read in some bloke's book. Lawyers don't turn up in court and say, "i present to the court evidence exhibit A: this book i read last night", well not unless the book was used as a murder weapon and is covered in fingerprints of the accused.

The truth is that nobody here offers anything more than opinions. Not you, not me. We might on occasion be able to offer links to articles, books, publishings and such that help corroborate our opinion, but that's not evidence.

So for you to take the position that until i present to you evidence of how deeply Thaksin was involved in the red shirt protests, you will dismiss it as hearsay, whilst at the same time making some quite controversial claims concerning the blue shirts, based on what you have read in a book, and what you think constitutes evidence, is frankly ridiculous and absurd. Worthy indeed of a long line of laughing smilies, if one is inclined to that level of debate.

Isn't Thaksin the Red Shirt's main leader? Aren't Jatuporn, Weng etc sub-leaders? Most of the time Thaksin wears Red and has addressed (brainwashed) his followers at least 50 (yes 50) times the last 4 years. So if the Reds terrorize the country isn't Thaksin responsible?

I am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it". Do we need more proof??!! Pfff. Guys who claim that Thaksin is not the real main Red Leader should look in the mirror if they want to be confronted with a real liar.

Sorry for being of topic but I had to say something concerning this nonsense.

" am really getting sick of people claiming the Thaksin is "not really that much involved with the Reds" or "proof it"."

be sick of it if you want, it is all in your head, because that is not what people here claim.

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

"You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension..." this is a BS statement!

I read this: "Thaksin - I am not so stupid as to think that Thaksin was not somehow involved - but you have absolutely no more proof of that than I do - so that one gets chalked up to "common knowledge" without a stitch of proof".

With the focus on: "Somehow involved" and "Common knowledge without a stitch of proof".

Thaksin has CREATED the Red shirts. How much more proof do you need?

You could find some common ground twisting stories with your twist buddy PPD.

Well there you go again.

Thaksin did not create the red shirts. First point wrong. Figure out the history and come back.

[rixalex]

What has been acknowledge by me at least, is that people attribute everything to Thaksin without a thread of evidence. And in that context, it is just fine to ask if they have any informaiton or if it is just more of the same old same old.

You guys really need to bruch up on your reading comprehension...

If you have read people saying they attribute everything to Thaksin, i think it is you who needs to brush up on reading comprehension.

I attribute a lot of what has happened to Thaksin, especially with regards the riots of 2010, and i believe he was heavily involved, both in leading those riots, and in helping fund those riots. I also believe that if not for him, the Dems offer of early elections would have been accepted and the reds would have gone home and 90 odd lives would have been saved.

I don't have evidence for that, just an opinion based on things i have read, things i saw. You can demand evidence all you like, but all the time you are yourself happily expressing beliefs for things that also can only be backed up by things you have read, things you have seen, it remains a daft demand that exposes a selective criteria in what you deem to be information and what you deem to be more of the same old same old.

Rixalex, when you state "expressing beliefs for things that also can only be backed up by things you have read", then I know that it is useless to discuss further.

Pray tell then, what is the evidence you are backing up your beliefs with, if not things you have read? Because all i've heard from you is "such and such is documented". Sounds to me awfully like something you have indeed read.

[birdpooguava]

Pray tell then, what is the evidence you are backing up your beliefs with, if not things you have read? Because all i've heard from you is "such and such is documented". Sounds to me awfully like something you have indeed read.

Regarding the 2010 red rally deaths;

Evidence against ST = DSI and forensic reports showing unarmed protesters & bystanders shot dead by the army. Those being their conclusions, not mine.

Evidence against TS = ???? TV posters ranting about him being responsible....

[Moruya]

Pray tell then, what is the evidence you are backing up your beliefs with, if not things you have read? Because all i've heard from you is "such and such is documented". Sounds to me awfully like something you have indeed read.

Regarding the 2010 red rally deaths;

Evidence against ST = DSI and forensic reports showing unarmed protesters & bystanders shot dead by the army. Those being their conclusions, not mine.

Evidence against TS = ???? TV posters ranting about him being responsible....

Really? US Ambassador communiques aside?

[birdpooguava]

Really? US Ambassador communiques aside?

Please do share

[rixalex]

Regarding the 2010 red rally deaths;

Evidence against ST = DSI and forensic reports showing unarmed protesters & bystanders shot dead by the army. Those being their conclusions, not mine.

Forensic reports that show whether the people shot were armed or not?! Forensic reports that show who fired the weapon?! You are making this up as you go along.

[birdpooguava]

Regarding the 2010 red rally deaths;

Evidence against ST = DSI and forensic reports showing unarmed protesters & bystanders shot dead by the army. Those being their conclusions, not mine.

Forensic reports that show whether the people shot were armed or not?! Forensic reports that show who fired the weapon?! You are making this up as you go along.

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

[rixalex]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

[birdpooguava]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army, not that forensic evidence showed they were unarmed. Video & photographic evidence will do fine to prove they were unarmed.

[birdpooguava]

& what evidence has been gathered against TS?

[Thaddeus]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army,

Nope, it proved that they were shot by a certain type of firearm. Nothing else.

[OzMick]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army, not that forensic evidence showed they were unarmed. Video & photographic evidence will do fine to prove they were unarmed.

Forensic (autopsy) evidence will show that a person was shot, but not who fired the gun. Unless someone is using gun-sight cameras, it is impossible to tell exactly who fired a round when more than one person or group is firing.

But of course, there was no black shirts or armed red shirts, and those people caught, prosecuted, confessed, convicted and incarcerated were not real reds, or are somehow hard done by because "we dun nuffink rong!"

[phiphidon]

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army, not that forensic evidence showed they were unarmed. Video & photographic evidence will do fine to prove they were unarmed.

And there is also the HRW report, for what it's worth

On May 14, the government set out new rules of engagement for security forces, allowing them to use live fire under specific circumstances. These included using warning shots for self-defense, and when troops had clear visual site of “terrorists,” a dangerously vague term.

In practice, the security forces began deploying snipers to shoot anyone who tried to enter “no-go” zones between the UDD and security force barricades, or who threw projectiles towards soldiers.

On many occasions, security forces appear to have randomly shot into crowds of UDD supporters who posed no threat to them, often with lethal consequences.

While Thai authorities have not released comprehensive orensic analyses of the wounds sustained by those killed between May 14 and May 18, incidents reviewed by Human Rights Watch indicate that several unarmed protesters were killed with single shots to the head, suggesting the use of snipers and high-powered scopes.

For example, a photographer who was filming a wounded protester in Lumphini Park on the morning of May 14 and found himself under heavy gunfire 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.”

http://www.hrw.org/s...rochure_low.pdf

Interestingly enough the original copy of the HRW report started like this,

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.

seems like the HRW deemed the original version too "damning" to the RTA ....................

[rubl]

Can someone please tell me if this is the thread on "Suthep Denies Troops Fired During The Day Of April 10, 2010" ?

[nurofiend]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army,

Nope, it proved that they were shot by a certain type of firearm. Nothing else.

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

[rubl]

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army,

Nope, it proved that they were shot by a certain type of firearm. Nothing else.

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

armed red-shirt militants were just peaceful protesters, anyone who believes otherwise ... ...

BTW this topic is on daytime April 10th with lots of rubber bullets and no Beatles

[mauGR1]

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

So it seems " protesting " means shooting, throwing grenades and burning of buildings ( to make it short )

IMHO, millions of people in BKK think the Government and the Army itself were far too patient..

[philw]

Oh, didn't realise the photographers & nurse had weapons. Sorry bout that.

I didn't say that the photographers & nurses had weapons. I said that forensic evidence doesn't show if people were armed or not.

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army, not that forensic evidence showed they were unarmed. Video & photographic evidence will do fine to prove they were unarmed.

Forensic (autopsy) evidence will show that a person was shot, but not who fired the gun. Unless someone is using gun-sight cameras, it is impossible to tell exactly who fired a round when more than one person or group is firing.

But of course, there was no black shirts or armed red shirts, and those people caught, prosecuted, confessed, convicted and incarcerated were not real reds, or are somehow hard done by because "we dun nuffink rong!"

"............... But of course, there was no black shirts or armed red shirts, and those people caught, prosecuted, confessed, convicted and incarcerated were not real reds, or are somehow hard done by because "we dun nuffink rong...........!"

An there wasn't no army there neither woz there...........

Ain't none of them sniperz in the Thai army and if there were they were probably Russians using special ( known only to squaddies ) non verbal communication techniques.....sign language and such.

[nurofiend]

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

So it seems " protesting " means shooting, throwing grenades and burning of buildings ( to make it short )

IMHO, millions of people in BKK think the Government and the Army itself were far too patient..

no that's not what it seems, maybe to you that's what it seems.

have you any evidence of an armed red shirt that was murdered?

and as for your last sentence, i don't doubt that it is what a lot of people think in bangkok......

[Thaddeus]

Nope, it proved that they were shot by a certain type of firearm. Nothing else.

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

You will get no denial of that from me, yes they did.

However, if I have a gun, and one person in a bunch of twenty (numbers irrelevant) starts trying to kill me, I will shoot back.

Better not talk about morons eh, when morons look in the mirror they see Einstein, don't they.

[nurofiend]

And I said forensic evidence showed unarmed protesters were shot dead by the army,

Nope, it proved that they were shot by a certain type of firearm. Nothing else.

the army shot protesters dead, anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

armed red-shirt militants were just peaceful protesters, anyone who believes otherwise ... ...

BTW this topic is on daytime April 10th with lots of rubber bullets and no Beatles

no one believes that armed red-shirt militants were just peaceful protesters, people like yourself just project that view onto others.

people do question what is meant by armed....guns?

because i don't consider someone with a slingshot and some fireworks as armed militants.

so yes obviously we're talking guns and grenades.

so how many armed red-shirt militants were there rubl? care for a guesstimate?

how many have we evidence of?

no one denies there was an element of it, it's just because there was a miniscule minority of these people, people like yourself like to laugh when people say the red shirts were mainly peaceful.

but here's a newsflash, the vast majority of them were unarmed.