It's hopeless, there are some on here who might accept that my mother is the pope and my sister a grand caliphate, before accepting that the RTA is responsible for about 2500 shot and injured and about 80 Thai civilians, generally unarmed, shot dead.

Thaksin is evil and AV has to face ( like both of them ) his responsibilities.

Doesn't alter the fact that the RTA should also be accountable for their needless murders.

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.

i think that's schizophrenics but anyway.

ok, and hopefully you'll be shooting the guy with the weapon in the crowd of 20 (or whatever 'irrelevant' number of civilians it is), yeah? have we any evidence that this was accomplished just once in 2010?

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.

My dear fiend, I totally agree: the vast majority of red-shirt protesters were unarmed

Having said that there was this 'minor' group of armed militants freely mingling who spoiled it for the rest. Till now no real answer as to how and why this minor group could mingle with impunity, fire shots, drop grenades and still be unknown by the vast majority of those peaceful protesters. Maybe 24x7 PTV shoutcasts does that to one?

BTW for the record I do not and never have laughed when someone tries to tell me 'red-shirts were peaceful'. I must admit to a slight smile seeing k. Jatuporn in his Ghandi Tshirt though. Terribly sorry about that, my Dutch sense of humour probably

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

It's hopeless, there are some on here who might accept that my mother is the pope and my sister a grand caliphate, before accepting that the RTA is responsible for about 2500 shot and injured and about 80 Thai civilians, generally unarmed, shot dead.

Thaksin is evil and AV has to face ( like both of them ) his responsibilities.

Doesn't alter the fact that the RTA should also be accountable for their needless murders.

Whereas I must admit to a certain doubt your mother is the pope or your sister a grand caliph, it's clear the RTA caused harm and death in the great cleanup April-May 2010 if only by simply 'fighting gun battles with unarmed protesters'.

""Journalists said that in several instances troops fired in a random manner into crowds of apparently unarmed demonstrators, frequently in areas where reporters were present. Their news reports and interviews with CPJ also highlighted the presence of heavily armed, black-clad protesters who fired gunshots and launched grenades at troops deployed in areas where journalists were positioned."

http://cpj.org/repor...-under-fire.php

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

Personally speaking I would only worry if it had the rest of the chair attached to it, but thats just me.

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

is there a point to this question?

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.

What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?

More creating facts from nowhere

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

Personally speaking I would only worry if it had the rest of the chair attached to it, but thats just me.

Are you unaware of the relative density of hardwoods?

I'd be more concerned about the momentum of the club

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

is there a point to this question?

Only to the uninitiated

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.

i think that's schizophrenics but anyway.

ok, and hopefully you'll be shooting the guy with the weapon in the crowd of 20 (or whatever 'irrelevant' number of civilians it is), yeah?

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

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.

What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?

More creating facts from nowhere

uhm.... gun residue...

jesus.

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.

What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?

More creating facts from nowhere

Have you heard of forensic photography? A photo of a crime scene is commonly used to help in inquests, likewise video. These two media could very well "show that they were armed or otherwise"........................

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

is there a point to this question?

Only to the uninitiated

you're still not funny or smart, but keep trucking.

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

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

Well, excuse me, I would consider anyone approaching me brandishing a chair leg as a threat, wouldn't you?

Personally speaking I would only worry if it had the rest of the chair attached to it, but thats just me.

Why, would that mean that some one had taken your bar stool.

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

my point isn't to defend any armed people who used the crowd to hide because i don't defend them one bit, my point is that the tactics the military used when faced with this difficult situation obviously failed, as we have lots of dead civilians and how many dead anti-government militia?

unless of course their objective was dispersal by any means necessary, which obviously that's what it became in the final days.

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

And I'll ask you one question, I've already answered it, what would you do?

You shouldn't be decrying me, you should be denouncing the utter cowards who surrounded themselves with disillusioned civilians to carry out the job they were paid to do.... or were they there for some other reason.

Using ordinary people as a shield is just deplorable, instilling the need for those people to act as a shield is even worse.

how am i decrying you, you're the one that talked about what you would do and i asked you about it further.

my point isn't to defend any armed people who used the crowd to hide because i don't defend them one bit, my point is that the tactics the military used when faced with this difficult situation obviously failed, as we have lots of dead civilians and how many dead anti-government militia?

unless of course their objective was dispersal by any means necessary, which obviously that's what it became in the final days.

In military terms the operation achieved it's aim: dispersal.

BTW if the objective was 'dispersal by any means' it's unlikely that's what it became as you seem to assume that was it already. Also 'dispersal by any means' doesn't address 'only killing' anti-government militia. I understand that even that is seen as an unfriendly act

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.

What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?

More creating facts from nowhere

uhm.... gun residue...

jesus.

"Gun residue"

I presume you mean gunshot residue. That could prove that they were armed at some stage but no more. How can it prove they were unarmed?

Have you heard of forensic photography? A photo of a crime scene is commonly used to help in inquests, likewise video. These two media could very well "show that they were armed or otherwise"........................

I note your use of the word "could".

Unless there are real photos that depict the shooting then there is no evidence

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.

What kind of forensic science will show that they were armed or otherwise?

More creating facts from nowhere

uhm.... gun residue...

jesus.

"Gun residue"

I presume you mean gunshot residue. That could prove that they were armed at some stage but no more. How can it prove they were unarmed?

that's what i meant to say yes, so checking for residue on their hands could show that they were involved with the use of guns, therefore armed.

you really don't understand how forensic science could show this?

they can show they were unarmed, by lack of residue on their hands.. oh and no gun is a big tell-tale sign too.

All a bit theoretical after the event, isn't it... Can, could... rather than did. Good to know for next time, anyway.

How do you show forensically the lack of machetes, knives, sticks, bamboo stakes, grenades, etc., which are also offensive weapons?

sorry, are you talking to me this time or someone else?

that's what i meant to say yes, so checking for residue on their hands could show that they were involved with the use of guns, therefore armed.

you really don't understand how forensic science could show this?

they can show they were unarmed, by lack of residue on their hands.. oh and no gun is a big tell-tale sign too.

So you are saying that these bodies were swabbed for gunshot residue and it came back negative?

You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?

I believe the first point to be a guess and the second to be inadmissible

that's what i meant to say yes, so checking for residue on their hands could show that they were involved with the use of guns, therefore armed.

you really don't understand how forensic science could show this?

they can show they were unarmed, by lack of residue on their hands.. oh and no gun is a big tell-tale sign too.

So you are saying that these bodies were swabbed for gunshot residue and it came back negative?

You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?

I believe the first point to be a guess and the second to be inadmissible

"So you are saying that these bodies were swabbed for gunshot residue and it came back negative?"

am i? first i've heard about it.

"You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?"

implies they were unarmed with a gun, yes. i'm also saying those found without weapons implies they were unarmed.

sorry, are you talking to me this time or someone else?

It's an open discussion, isn't it? Hence called a "Forum". Personal communications should best be made by PM, afaik.

"You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?"

implies they were unarmed with a gun, yes.

Can we put an end to this ridiculous malarkey with a 3 second googling?

Examination of Gunshot Residue

False negatives result from washing of the hands (when this area is sampled) or by victim wearing gloves.

A rifle or shotgun may not deposit Gun Shot Residue (GSR) on hands.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html

sorry, are you talking to me this time or someone else?

It's an open discussion, isn't it? Hence called a "Forum". Personal communications should best be made by PM, afaik.

or quoting.

so i take it you weren't talking to me in that post... again.

"You are also saying that no gunshot residue implies they were unarmed?"

implies they were unarmed with a gun, yes.

Can we put an end to this ridiculous malarkey with a 3 second googling?

Examination of Gunshot Residue

False negatives result from washing of the hands (when this area is sampled) or by victim wearing gloves.

A rifle or shotgun may not deposit Gun Shot Residue (GSR) on hands.

http://library.med.u...UNS/GUNGSR.html

ok,

1. if you care to guess how many people washed their hands after being shot dead then go for it.

2. if you care to guess how many people were a: wearing gloves and b: took them off after being shot dead then go for it.

3. "A rifle or shotgun may not deposit Gun Shot Residue (GSR) on hands" but it more than likely does in most cases i would guess, and if not on the hands then somewhere on their person.

so if it's in a place nowhere near the wound, then that would suggest that they were using a gun themselves afaik... though maybe you could clear that last part up for me, seeing as you can use google.

sorry, are you talking to me this time or someone else?

It's an open discussion, isn't it? Hence called a "Forum". Personal communications should best be made by PM, afaik.

or quoting.

so i take it you weren't talking to me in that post... again.

Is this diversion still on topic? If you'd like to contribute more of your forensic eminence to identifying armed and unarmed persons, please go ahead. Where were we... Knives, machetes, etc... Oh yes...