Only Rubber Bullets Used On Fatal Day: Thai Army Marksmen

[rubl]

I hope they follow proper labor laws when firing grenade launchers at the BTS

Central World - if there was a proper investigation, it seems to have not been made public. Maybe one was just never done. Someone who's job it is to know a bit about this event makes that point and also the point that a building like Central World is pretty hard to burn down - ie: simpletons like you and me and the redmob probably would not be able to manage it ...

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4574177

No offence meant, but a photo-journalist is not really the first I'd ask about an arson / torching case. Mind you, even amongst real experts there are still a few who can 'prove' the fall of the WTC towers was a inside job.

One thing is certain though and may be stated here as a real fact: "it wasn't the rubber bullets"

[philw]

I was going to "like" this until I thought, " how do you fire a grenade launcher at the BTS" ??

I suppose give him his salary and tell him get off the station and get another job............

Who did burn down Central / Zen ??

Amazing no arrests yet, just think of all them cameras.

My local Caltex petrol station has at least 14 ( I stopped counting at that point ) targeting pumps, staff, tills, the air pump etc etc.....

Why is there so little evidence about who was in those buildings??

Next time you walk around a mall, count the cameras.

Same logic applies to killing a lot of people in 2010. Where is your proof that soldiers killed innocent demonstrators, with all these international camera crews around no one captured a soldier actually shooting a person. You are just guessing on who did what, or following an agenda.

Good martini's are like beautiful women, two is not enough and three is too many.

Either way, ones judgment goes out the window.

Looks like you had a couple of Lao khao.............

Of course the army never shot anybody.

The rest of the planet imagined it.

[tlansford]

I was going to "like" this until I thought, " how do you fire a grenade launcher at the BTS" ??

I suppose give him his salary and tell him get off the station and get another job............

Who did burn down Central / Zen ??

Amazing no arrests yet, just think of all them cameras.

My local Caltex petrol station has at least 14 ( I stopped counting at that point ) targeting pumps, staff, tills, the air pump etc etc.....

Why is there so little evidence about who was in those buildings??

Next time you walk around a mall, count the cameras.

Same logic applies to killing a lot of people in 2010. Where is your proof that soldiers killed innocent demonstrators, with all these international camera crews around no one captured a soldier actually shooting a person. You are just guessing on who did what, or following an agenda.

no, that logic does not apply. Your statement is false. With all those journalists around, there were plenty of eyewitnesses of soldiers killing protesters.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/541283-red-shirts-to-mark-2nd-anniversary-of-protests/page__view__findpost__p__5308387

Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed Soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me.

[tlansford]

I hope they follow proper labor laws when firing grenade launchers at the BTS

Central World - if there was a proper investigation, it seems to have not been made public. Maybe one was just never done. Someone who's job it is to know a bit about this event makes that point and also the point that a building like Central World is pretty hard to burn down - ie: simpletons like you and me and the redmob probably would not be able to manage it ...

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4574177

No offence meant, but a photo-journalist is not really the first I'd ask about an arson / torching case. Mind you, even amongst real experts there are still a few who can 'prove' the fall of the WTC towers was a inside job.

One thing is certain though and may be stated here as a real fact: "it wasn't the rubber bullets"

JHC Rubl, read his post - HE talked to the experts as part of his job and has reported it.

[rubl]

I hope they follow proper labor laws when firing grenade launchers at the BTS

Central World - if there was a proper investigation, it seems to have not been made public. Maybe one was just never done. Someone who's job it is to know a bit about this event makes that point and also the point that a building like Central World is pretty hard to burn down - ie: simpletons like you and me and the redmob probably would not be able to manage it ...

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4574177

No offence meant, but a photo-journalist is not really the first I'd ask about an arson / torching case. Mind you, even amongst real experts there are still a few who can 'prove' the fall of the WTC towers was a inside job.

One thing is certain though and may be stated here as a real fact: "it wasn't the rubber bullets"

JHC Rubl, read his post - HE talked to the experts as part of his job and has reported it.

I did read the post and a.o. saw

"Again, experts i spoke with (who asked not to be named) said that the amount of petrol bombs and explosives that were thrown should not have caused such a huge fire if all these security measures would have been in place, unless there were accellerants placed."

The discussion of new photo's begin of December 2011 concluded at least two (or was it three?) armed groups. The area not really under control yet. Army there for a few hours at the most, red-shirts at location a few weeks. Ergo it must have been the army. Logic, farang style.

Anyway the topic still is about 'rubber bullets', not about some peaceful protesters running around with matches

[philw]

I hope they follow proper labor laws when firing grenade launchers at the BTS

Central World - if there was a proper investigation, it seems to have not been made public. Maybe one was just never done. Someone who's job it is to know a bit about this event makes that point and also the point that a building like Central World is pretty hard to burn down - ie: simpletons like you and me and the redmob probably would not be able to manage it ...

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4574177

No offence meant, but a photo-journalist is not really the first I'd ask about an arson / torching case. Mind you, even amongst real experts there are still a few who can 'prove' the fall of the WTC towers was a inside job.

One thing is certain though and may be stated here as a real fact: "it wasn't the rubber bullets"

JHC Rubl, read his post - HE talked to the experts as part of his job and has reported it.

I did read the post and a.o. saw

"Again, experts i spoke with (who asked not to be named) said that the amount of petrol bombs and explosives that were thrown should not have caused such a huge fire if all these security measures would have been in place, unless there were accellerants placed."

The discussion of new photo's begin of December 2011 concluded at least two (or was it three?) armed groups. The area not really under control yet. Army there for a few hours at the most, red-shirts at location a few weeks. Ergo it must have been the army. Logic, farang style.

Anyway the topic still is about 'rubber bullets', not about some peaceful protesters running around with matches

Can't be bothered to reply to this pedantry.

The two teenage shoplifters did it.

Incarcerated for two years but yet not convicted.

Some scapegoat they are...........

Now, back to the rubber bullets.

[rubl]

No offence meant, but a photo-journalist is not really the first I'd ask about an arson / torching case. Mind you, even amongst real experts there are still a few who can 'prove' the fall of the WTC towers was a inside job.

One thing is certain though and may be stated here as a real fact: "it wasn't the rubber bullets"

JHC Rubl, read his post - HE talked to the experts as part of his job and has reported it.

I did read the post and a.o. saw

"Again, experts i spoke with (who asked not to be named) said that the amount of petrol bombs and explosives that were thrown should not have caused such a huge fire if all these security measures would have been in place, unless there were accellerants placed."

The discussion of new photo's begin of December 2011 concluded at least two (or was it three?) armed groups. The area not really under control yet. Army there for a few hours at the most, red-shirts at location a few weeks. Ergo it must have been the army. Logic, farang style.

Anyway the topic still is about 'rubber bullets', not about some peaceful protesters running around with matches

Can't be bothered to reply to this pedantry.

The two teenage shoplifters did it.

Incarcerated for two years but yet not convicted.

Some scapegoat they are...........

Now, back to the rubber bullets.

You are somewhat inconsistent in your non-reply, but that's probably because you can't be bothered

Anyway stay cool, grab a beer and keep smiling.

Oh, by the way, dodge, rubber bullets can hurt

[Insight]

Those rubber bullets make a hell of a mess of a man's head.

For those interested.

The M16 can/does fire rubber bullets. it is a slowish laborious process. The ammunition must be fired from at least 50 M to ensure the projectile is non lethal. At close range, the round is small, heavy and has high energy and could easily penetrate the body. Further than 50M it is designed to inflict non lethal pain. These rounds are nothing like the large bore baton rounds in common use with UK security services. It used to be recommended to fire the rounds on the ground in front of the target, thereby ridding the round of more energy and hitting the target via ricochet, however this often causes problems as it is unpredictable where the round will hit a target (eyes/head etc).

For those who think that blank rounds do not cause any recoil on a military rifle, you are wrong.

The reds wanted an inquiry, they now have one. As soon as any evidence is given in court that does not suit their purpose they cry foul...pathetic!

Would you like to comment on whether the gentleman seen firing from 0'51''in the attached clip is firing rubber bullets in a slowish laborious process - for indeed it is the very same chap being investigated and shown in the OP photograph in the white shirt on the left.

By the way there is evidence, and then there is just plain outright lying. I think you can tell the difference in this case, surely?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmlkt6adtw

Is that "sniper" shooting at the red shirt attempting to set ablaze the gas tanker parked in a large residential area of Bangkok?

Can't help but wonder how trigger happy such a "sniper" would be if it was being manned by a red shirt aiming at the army attempting to do something similar.

[rubl]

Those rubber bullets make a hell of a mess of a man's head.

For those interested.

The M16 can/does fire rubber bullets. it is a slowish laborious process. The ammunition must be fired from at least 50 M to ensure the projectile is non lethal. At close range, the round is small, heavy and has high energy and could easily penetrate the body. Further than 50M it is designed to inflict non lethal pain. These rounds are nothing like the large bore baton rounds in common use with UK security services. It used to be recommended to fire the rounds on the ground in front of the target, thereby ridding the round of more energy and hitting the target via ricochet, however this often causes problems as it is unpredictable where the round will hit a target (eyes/head etc).

For those who think that blank rounds do not cause any recoil on a military rifle, you are wrong.

The reds wanted an inquiry, they now have one. As soon as any evidence is given in court that does not suit their purpose they cry foul...pathetic!

Would you like to comment on whether the gentleman seen firing from 0'51''in the attached clip is firing rubber bullets in a slowish laborious process - for indeed it is the very same chap being investigated and shown in the OP photograph in the white shirt on the left.

By the way there is evidence, and then there is just plain outright lying. I think you can tell the difference in this case, surely?

... link to clip removed

Is that "sniper" shooting at the red shirt attempting to set ablaze the gas tanker parked in a large residential area of Bangkok?

Can't help but wonder how trigger happy such a "sniper" would be if it was being manned by a red shirt aiming at the army attempting to do something similar.

No idea from what day/date the clip, but it doesn't seem to be from the 10th of April which is the topic here. Therefor the clip might be 'nice', but hardly relevant. Maybe just relevant to prove what the army was up against

[rubl]

Same logic applies to killing a lot of people in 2010. Where is your proof that soldiers killed innocent demonstrators, with all these international camera crews around no one captured a soldier actually shooting a person. You are just guessing on who did what, or following an agenda.

no, that logic does not apply. Your statement is false. With all those journalists around, there were plenty of eyewitnesses of soldiers killing protesters.

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5308387

Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people. I didn't either when heavily armed Soldiers asked me the same (not very polite) after their unit killed a protester in front of me.

Oh by the way, did NN really say "met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting" ?

[phiphidon]

Those rubber bullets make a hell of a mess of a man's head.

For those interested.

The M16 can/does fire rubber bullets. it is a slowish laborious process. The ammunition must be fired from at least 50 M to ensure the projectile is non lethal. At close range, the round is small, heavy and has high energy and could easily penetrate the body. Further than 50M it is designed to inflict non lethal pain. These rounds are nothing like the large bore baton rounds in common use with UK security services. It used to be recommended to fire the rounds on the ground in front of the target, thereby ridding the round of more energy and hitting the target via ricochet, however this often causes problems as it is unpredictable where the round will hit a target (eyes/head etc).

For those who think that blank rounds do not cause any recoil on a military rifle, you are wrong.

The reds wanted an inquiry, they now have one. As soon as any evidence is given in court that does not suit their purpose they cry foul...pathetic!

Would you like to comment on whether the gentleman seen firing from 0'51''in the attached clip is firing rubber bullets in a slowish laborious process - for indeed it is the very same chap being investigated and shown in the OP photograph in the white shirt on the left.

By the way there is evidence, and then there is just plain outright lying. I think you can tell the difference in this case, surely?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmlkt6adtw

Is that "sniper" shooting at the red shirt attempting to set ablaze the gas tanker parked in a large residential area of Bangkok?

Can't help but wonder how trigger happy such a "sniper" would be if it was being manned by a red shirt aiming at the army attempting to do something similar.

If you feel happier with the term "marksmen" go ahead. The most accurate term would in fact be "liar".

Despite your attempt to drag the debate of course with your gas tanker red herring would you like to affirm that he is firing rubber bullets here as he has stated in the inquest? I have not had one response so far to this video backing up the "soldiers tale". Most of the army lovers seem to have found other threads to pontificate on. Strange, that.

[phiphidon]

Is that "sniper" shooting at the red shirt attempting to set ablaze the gas tanker parked in a large residential area of Bangkok?

Can't help but wonder how trigger happy such a "sniper" would be if it was being manned by a red shirt aiming at the army attempting to do something similar.

No idea from what day/date the clip, but it doesn't seem to be from the 10th of April which is the topic here. Therefor the clip might be 'nice', but hardly relevant. Maybe just relevant to prove what the army was up against

Well done rubl, the tape indeed was not taken on the 10th April, which despite your insistence, is not the topic here. May I quote from the OP

They were stationed on a building in Soi Ngam Dupli, near Bangkok's Bon Kai community, on May 15, 2010.

In your haste to counter anything nasty said about your peace loving, "it's a unpleasant job killing your own countrymen and women, but someones got to do it", army you appear to have mixed this thread up with another one "Suthep lies through his teeth about the 10th April", my phrasing, but you get the point.

So while for some reason best left unexplained you find the video of a soldier shooting people with live rounds as "nice" but "not relevant", I would very much beg to differ. It's not "nice" but is very relevant when the soldier shown in the video has testified to the inquest that he was firing rubber bullets during the day. Do you see any rubber bullets being fired there?

[Thaddeus]

Despite your attempt to drag the debate of course with your gas tanker red herring

Red herring .... interesting choice of words.

[phiphidon]

Despite your attempt to drag the debate of course with your gas tanker red herring

Red herring .... interesting choice of words.

I'm getting fed up with writing obfuscation. Wiki has its uses - how does this sound?

"The term is mostly used to claim that the argument of another person is not relevant to the issue being discussed."

I think that just about sums up what I wanted to say.

is it still an "interesting choice of words" or just an every day phrase that you are going to try and be pedantic over?

How about "meanwhile, back on topic".......................

[rubl]

Is that "sniper" shooting at the red shirt attempting to set ablaze the gas tanker parked in a large residential area of Bangkok?

Can't help but wonder how trigger happy such a "sniper" would be if it was being manned by a red shirt aiming at the army attempting to do something similar.

No idea from what day/date the clip, but it doesn't seem to be from the 10th of April which is the topic here. Therefor the clip might be 'nice', but hardly relevant. Maybe just relevant to prove what the army was up against

Well done rubl, the tape indeed was not taken on the 10th April, which despite your insistence, is not the topic here. May I quote from the OP

They were stationed on a building in Soi Ngam Dupli, near Bangkok's Bon Kai community, on May 15, 2010.

In your haste to counter anything nasty said about your peace loving, "it's a unpleasant job killing your own countrymen and women, but someones got to do it", army you appear to have mixed this thread up with another one "Suthep lies through his teeth about the 10th April", my phrasing, but you get the point.

So while for some reason best left unexplained you find the video of a soldier shooting people with live rounds as "nice" but "not relevant", I would very much beg to differ. It's not "nice" but is very relevant when the soldier shown in the video has testified to the inquest that he was firing rubber bullets during the day. Do you see any rubber bullets being fired there?

My dear phiphidon, as gracefully as I'm able to I admit to have been too hasty. Three topics keeping me busy at the moment and lots of nonsense to counter.

As for the video clip, I can see a soldier looking through the scope on his rifle, I can see his left arm in such a way as to suggest he wasn't shooting anything unless he's such an excellent marksman to only need his right hand/arm? Furthermore whereas I believe the clip might be filmed on the 19th of May along RamaIV, I do not see evidence that this clip relates to the two sergeants Saringkan Thaweecheep and Kacharat Niamrod, nor do I see them stationed on a building.

So, please keep them coming, the nonsense that is

EDIT:ADD: at the very end you can see the soldier shooting, straight ahead, somewhat nonchalantly I'd say. The relevance with the two sergeants on the rooftop seems unclear. Anyway clearly brutal force against unarmed protesters

[Thaddeus]

Despite your attempt to drag the debate of course with your gas tanker red herring

Red herring .... interesting choice of words.

I'm getting fed up with writing obfuscation.

You can stop any time you feel like it then, personal choice, no one is forcing you.

Or are they ........

[phiphidon]

My dear phiphidon, as gracefully as I'm able to I admit to have been too hasty. Three topics keeping me busy at the moment and lots of nonsense to counter.

As for the video clip, I can see a soldier looking through the scope on his rifle, I can see his left arm in such a way as to suggest he wasn't shooting anything unless he's such an excellent marksman to only need his right hand/arm? Furthermore whereas I believe the clip might be filmed on the 19th of May along RamaIV, I do not see evidence that this clip relates to the two sergeants Saringkan Thaweecheep and Kacharat Niamrod, nor do I see them stationed on a building.

So, please keep them coming, the nonsense that is

Rubl you need to get a grip, the date in question is the 15th May, not the 10th April and not the 19th May - the 15th May, the day the video and the stills were taken.

Er........ did you run the video? Did you hear that bang noise? There were several bang noises. That was bullets being fired. Did you notice that the guy making the bang noises looked exactly like the guy in the white shirt on the left hand side of the picture in the OP. Thats because they are the same person. Now that being stationed on a building bit - where do you have trouble with that? There's a building and they are stationed on it. Perhaps these pictures will help. There is no such thing in real life as a sky hook - sky hooks are not real.

http://publicintelli...hotos-may-2010/

http://daniellesabai...t-of-no-return/

If you still think this is nonsense do yourself a favour and look at this

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=22095

See, they are stationed on a building and firing, just stop now rubl, it's embarassing............

[rubl]

Rubl you need to get a grip, the date in question is the 15th May, not the 10th April and not the 19th May - the 15th May, the day the video and the stills were taken.

Er........ did you run the video? Did you hear that bang noise? There were several bang noises. That was bullets being fired. Did you notice that the guy making the bang noises looked exactly like the guy in the white shirt on the left hand side of the picture in the OP. Thats because they are the same person. Now that being stationed on a building bit - where do you have trouble with that? There's a building and they are stationed on it. Perhaps these pictures will help. There is no such thing in real life as a sky hook - sky hooks are not real.

http://publicintelli...hotos-may-2010/

http://daniellesabai...t-of-no-return/

If you still think this is nonsense do yourself a favour and look at this

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=22095

See, they are stationed on a building and firing, just stop now rubl, it's embarassing............

Terribly sorry, but life as it is and not like some want us to see it, I'm having a problem accepting just from you that this clip depicts the two sergeants in question. The photo's are not explained in the articles you quote, just added to show army activity against obviously very peaceful protesters.

Which reminds me, I wrote where I was those fateful days (walking along Silom/RamaIV and seeing with my own eyes), but you didn't answer yet where you were.

[Thaddeus]

See, they are stationed on a building and firing, just stop now rubl, it's embarassing............

Why is it embarrassing?

The day you can find one bullet that can be linked to one gun and that one gun being in the sole possession of one person, then and only then, can you bang a steak in to the ground, otherwise it is just smoke, mirrors, photoshop, youtube and speculation.

But the basic question that most if not all red shirt supporters on this forum try to avoid at all costs is, why did it happen, who stood to benefit from it, who was prepared to sacrifice anyone else's life apart from his own, who funded it either directly or indirectly, who has a clan of sycophants ready and willing to do their masters bidding and whip the crowd in to frenzy of class hatred, one man, one man alone, the cancer of Thailand.... and like the country, starts with a capital T.

[rubl]

See, they are stationed on a building and firing, just stop now rubl, it's embarassing............

Why is it embarrassing?

The day you can find one bullet that can be linked to one gun and that one gun being in the sole possession of one person, then and only then, can you bang a steak in to the ground, otherwise it is just smoke, mirrors, photoshop, youtube and speculation.

But the basic question that most if not all red shirt supporters on this forum try to avoid at all costs is, why did it happen, who stood to benefit from it, who was prepared to sacrifice anyone else's life apart from his own, who funded it either directly or indirectly, who has a clan of sycophants ready and willing to do their masters bidding and whip the crowd in to frenzy of class hatred, one man, one man alone, the cancer of Thailand.... and like the country, starts with a capital T.

Now, now, dear (capital) T, that's only hearsay, no proof whatsoever.

Mind you, I found this post of NN from a long time ago really interesting (big thanks to Tom for reminding me)

"Several of us, including me, met armed Red Shirt militants during the fighting, and non of us were killed by them, even though in cover of darkness it would have been easy for them to do so. I, for example, was only asked by them not to photograph them (quite politely, actually), and i won't argue with this point with heavily armed people."

http://www.thaivisa....00#entry5308387

[nurofiend]

Rubl you need to get a grip, the date in question is the 15th May, not the 10th April and not the 19th May - the 15th May, the day the video and the stills were taken.

Er........ did you run the video? Did you hear that bang noise? There were several bang noises. That was bullets being fired. Did you notice that the guy making the bang noises looked exactly like the guy in the white shirt on the left hand side of the picture in the OP. Thats because they are the same person. Now that being stationed on a building bit - where do you have trouble with that? There's a building and they are stationed on it. Perhaps these pictures will help. There is no such thing in real life as a sky hook - sky hooks are not real.

http://publicintelli...hotos-may-2010/

http://daniellesabai...t-of-no-return/

If you still think this is nonsense do yourself a favour and look at this

http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=22095

See, they are stationed on a building and firing, just stop now rubl, it's embarassing............

Terribly sorry, but life as it is and not like some want us to see it, I'm having a problem accepting just from you that this clip depicts the two sergeants in question. The photo's are not explained in the articles you quote, just added to show army activity against obviously very peaceful protesters.

Which reminds me, I wrote where I was those fateful days (walking along Silom/RamaIV and seeing with my own eyes), but you didn't answer yet where you were.

what did you see with your own eyes that makes any difference to the conversation you're having at the moment?

i bet you won't answer that question in a straightforward, to the point, fashion.

i'm sick of people on this site making out that glancing at a crowd from a distance or even walking past them somehow gives them more of a foothold in determining the facts of what happened with the rta, mib and whoever and whatever else.

it's absolute bs.

[Rob8891]

Wow..... some of you boys are certainly getting your knickers in a knot......

Couple of questions,.... maybe naive, but they might divert you from forum-fratricide...

• They were stationed on a building in Soi Ngam Dupli, near Bangkok's Bon Kai community, on May 15, 2010.
  

Who the heck has ever heard of rubber bullets being fired down from a building?

• They said the scope in a photo taken during their operation belonged to a BB gun, and not an assault rifle.
  

A BB gun with a scope (or if possible, one that could be confused with a military grade one???

• They were ordered only to fire warning shots, and for self-defence only.
  

Two things.... rubber bullets are (allegedly) defensive ....but how the hell do you fire a warning shot with them??????

• The two sergeants said they were unaware at the time that a number of people had been killed and injured during the unrest on that day,
  

Trained (I assume) marksmen who were unaware that people were hurt?????? ................rofl ............and in any case, how many of you have heard of marksmen using plastic bullets??

Dam_n.... I thought there had been one of those flash-floods while I was laughing, but guess I need to see a urologist.....

[rubl]

Terribly sorry, but life as it is and not like some want us to see it, I'm having a problem accepting just from you that this clip depicts the two sergeants in question. The photo's are not explained in the articles you quote, just added to show army activity against obviously very peaceful protesters.

Which reminds me, I wrote where I was those fateful days (walking along Silom/RamaIV and seeing with my own eyes), but you didn't answer yet where you were.

what did you see with your own eyes that makes any difference to the conversation you're having at the moment?

i bet you won't answer that question in a straightforward, to the point, fashion.

i'm sick of people on this site making out that glancing at a crowd from a distance or even walking past them somehow gives them more of a foothold in determining the facts of what happened with the rta, mib and whoever and whatever else.

it's absolute bs.

My dear fiend, did you notice the 'which reminds me'? At the end of my reply to member phiphidon? Now if I remember what my English teacher tried to teach me those many, many years ago, this might indicate that having said what I wanted to say, I (suddenly) remember there's still a (not necessarily related) other item which wasn't properly addressed yet in a discussion with the member I replied to.

You may be sick, but might I be so bold as to suggest that me having walked past the very nicely build bamboo/tire/fire wall, having heard the peaceful protesters, I might have an oh so slightly better feeling for the situation than those who enjoyed watching clips from the safety of their (bar)stool or sofa back home in the British countryside?

I must admit I'm not sick but frankly amazed by comments from armchair experts

I do hope this reply is deemed sufficiently straightforward to a fashion. If not, please let me know what you don't like of it and I will try to be even more straightforward, frank and open minded. Mind you, some I might not be able to express, da_mn these bloody forum rules

[nurofiend]

Terribly sorry, but life as it is and not like some want us to see it, I'm having a problem accepting just from you that this clip depicts the two sergeants in question. The photo's are not explained in the articles you quote, just added to show army activity against obviously very peaceful protesters.

Which reminds me, I wrote where I was those fateful days (walking along Silom/RamaIV and seeing with my own eyes), but you didn't answer yet where you were.

what did you see with your own eyes that makes any difference to the conversation you're having at the moment?

i bet you won't answer that question in a straightforward, to the point, fashion.

i'm sick of people on this site making out that glancing at a crowd from a distance or even walking past them somehow gives them more of a foothold in determining the facts of what happened with the rta, mib and whoever and whatever else.

it's absolute bs.

My dear fiend, did you notice the 'which reminds me'? At the end of my reply to member phiphidon? Now if I remember what my English teacher tried to teach me those many, many years ago, this might indicate that having said what I wanted to say, I (suddenly) remember there's still a (not necessarily related) other item which wasn't properly addressed yet in a discussion with the member I replied to.

You may be sick, but might I be so bold as to suggest that me having walked past the very nicely build bamboo/tire/fire wall, having heard the peaceful protesters, I might have an oh so slightly better feeling for the situation than those who enjoyed watching clips from the safety of their (bar)stool or sofa back home in the British countryside?

I must admit I'm not sick but frankly amazed by comments from armchair experts

I do hope this reply is deemed sufficiently straightforward to a fashion. If not, please let me know what you don't like of it and I will try to be even more straightforward, frank and open minded. Mind you, some I might not be able to express, da_mn these bloody forum rules

"having walked past the very nicely build bamboo/tire/fire wall, having heard the peaceful protesters, I might have an oh so slightly better feeling for the situation than those who enjoyed watching clips from the safety of their (bar)stool or sofa back home in the British countryside?"

so obviously you completely miss my point, which is just because you knew the 'feeling' of being in bangkok, it doesn't give you any more of a foothold in determining the facts of what happened with the rta, mib and whoever else.

what does having the 'feeling' have to do with the discussions that go on here?

show me one example where having this 'feeling' from being in bangkok has proved a point for you against someone who was arguing a point in a discussion about what happened in 2010?

explain one thing of factual importance that you know about from your commutes to work, viewing it from a distance, that others don't already know about?

[Reasonableman]

The retarded apologist argument of the man (safely) faraway, that eyewitnesses who lived through these events are somehow struck braindead, have no access to the media, and somehow lost their critical faculties by being present. Total BS. You embarrass yourself by even trying that lame old spin once again. Boring, transparent, and dishonest.

[Notstupid30]

This come's to mind Those Are Real Bullets, Aren't They? ... 'Bloody Sunday' was the army's most significant blunder in Northern Ireland, an iconic event that would dramatically alter ...

[473geo]

The retarded apologist argument of the man (safely) faraway, that eyewitnesses who lived through these events are somehow struck braindead, have no access to the media, and somehow lost their critical faculties by being present. Total BS. You embarrass yourself by even trying that lame old spin once again. Boring, transparent, and dishonest.

Really, 'retarded apologist' that would also be applicable to those on the forum who have previously tried to ridicule the eyewitness accounts of Nick Nostitz as being biased....yes?

[Reasonableman]

The retarded apologist argument of the man (safely) faraway, that eyewitnesses who lived through these events are somehow struck braindead, have no access to the media, and somehow lost their critical faculties by being present. Total BS. You embarrass yourself by even trying that lame old spin once again. Boring, transparent, and dishonest.

Really, 'retarded apologist' that would also be applicable to those on the forum who have previously tried to ridicule the eyewitness accounts of Nick Nostitz as being biased....yes?

The supposition that absentees are de facto privileged to greater objectivity or knowledge is some BS put forward by absentees to discredit eyewitnesses. "Bias" or "perspective" can certainly exist, whether one was/is present or absent, and for whatever purposes and motivations; but that is another issue.

[nurofiend]

The retarded apologist argument of the man (safely) faraway, that eyewitnesses who lived through these events are somehow struck braindead, have no access to the media, and somehow lost their critical faculties by being present. Total BS. You embarrass yourself by even trying that lame old spin once again. Boring, transparent, and dishonest.

"the man (safely) faraway"

does this apply to everyone who was in thailand but not in bangkok during 2010 on this forum then?

"retarded?"

let's have a look at what you've just said shall we?

you (allegedly) read my post and then interpret what i said as "eyewitnesses who lived through these events are somehow struck braindead, have no access to the media, and somehow lost their critical faculties by being present."

have a think about that, then try read it again and then try point out to me where there was a hint of a suggestion of what you've just said... and if you can't, which you can't... then try reading it again... and rinse and repeat.

i await for your clarification on how i was making the point that you project on me.

you've got it wrong, you completely made up something that i wasn't saying.

i see your next post says:

"The supposition that absentees are de facto privileged to greater objectivity or knowledge is some BS put forward by absentees to discredit eyewitnesses"

this is a viewpoint that wasn't even hinted at in my post.

so man up and admit it like a good reasonableman.

[Reasonableman]

Oh dear, just because the term "retarded apologist" was used, you apparently inferred the post was directed at you. How unfortunate. Of course not. That being said, on reflection, your post did resonate with the discourse advanced by many absentee armchair warriors.