Only Rubber Bullets Used On Fatal Day: Thai Army Marksmen

[OzMick]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

Is it your position that on April 10 the protesters were unarmed, but fearing a crackdown, rushed in military weapons? You can't be THAT naive.

Of course the attack on the military leadership was well planned in advance, but they did that to themselves. Absolutely incredible, literally.

[Soutpeel]

"There were a number of events that occurred just before the general caught a bullet with his forehead that could explain why that happened"

It's a bit of a sad individual who would belittle peoples deaths with sentences like this. I don't care what you thought of him personally he was still a human being when he was shot and killed. Do you have the same mindset when referring to say a road traffic accident victim or a death occuring as a result of a drunken fight?

I wonder if your messiah had any such empathy when he ordered the murder of 2000 + "drug dealers" during his tenure ?

[phiphidon]

"There were a number of events that occurred just before the general caught a bullet with his forehead that could explain why that happened"

It's a bit of a sad individual who would belittle peoples deaths with sentences like this. I don't care what you thought of him personally he was still a human being when he was shot and killed. Do you have the same mindset when referring to say a road traffic accident victim or a death occuring as a result of a drunken fight?

I wonder if your messiah had any such empathy when he ordered the murder of 2000 + "drug dealers" during his tenure ?

Well after 3 inquiries, no evidence has been found that Thaksin - I presume you mean he, I'll ignore the childish messiah jibe, ordered the murder of 2000 +plus "drug dealers"

So how would I know? Now if you have something to add on the OP thread.....................?

[KireB]

Why do unarmed "Peaceful Protesters" need a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" to train and deploy their guards?

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

Seh Deang was already training the 'red warriors' long before they reds came to Bangkok. Of course you know this and just want to bend the truth to your own agenda. I can imagine that some of us are getting tired of your, and your mates', continuous attempts to rewrite history by absurd claims and manipulation of the occurrence and dates of events!

[AleG]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

No, they called a man how boasted about his paramilitary band of merry men and how many people he had killed and who, among other things, threatened to kill the Army chief (whose office was subsequently bombed).

Hardly the actions of a group that claims to be peaceful.

[toybits]

Why not do that? I will take notes.

Anyone care to know how fast an M16 or M4 bullet travels?

M16

Muzzle Velocity- 3250 fps

Maximum Range- 2653 m (2901 yds)

Max Effective Range- 460 m (503 yds)

M16A2

Muzzle Velocity- 3100 fps

Maximum Range- 3600 m (3938 yds)

Max Effective Range Point Targets- 550 m (602 yds)

Max Effective Range Area Targets- 800 m (875 yds)

M4

Maximum Range- 3600 m (3938 yds)

Max Effective Range Point Targets- 500 m (550 yds)

Max Effective Range Area Targets- 600 m (660 yds)

Now imagine a "rubber" bullet that is .223 cal. hitting you at 3200+ feet per second. That is waaaay faster that a bb gun or airsoft gun (normally 300 fps)

How unfortunate that after doing some research, you just couldn't be bothered to go the extra mile and then research how the rubber bullet is fired and what the velocity of the round is

[Buchholz]

"There were a number of events that occurred just before the general caught a bullet with his forehead that could explain why that happened"

It's a bit of a sad individual who would belittle peoples deaths with sentences like this. I don't care what you thought of him personally he was still a human being when he was shot and killed. Do you have the same mindset when referring to say a road traffic accident victim or a death occuring as a result of a drunken fight?

One set of events has absolutely nothing to do with the other, despite your disingenuous attempt.

I feel no more pity for Sae Daeng's death than I did for Ted Bundy. Neither deserve pity IMO. There are far more people more worthy for our sympathy. But to each his own.

Anyway, back to your "quarrel" argument - it seems like Suthep had his own views on that accusing Jatuporn of being responsible for Sae Daengs death

Suthep also claimed that perhaps Maj-General Khattiya Sawasdipol aka Seh Daeng was killed by a sniper under the orders of Jatuporn.

"Is it Jatuporn who is responsible for the killing" he said claiming he had heard reports that Khattiya had admitted to being in conflict with red-shirt leaders not long before he was shot.

http://www.nationmul...n-30151255.html

Yes, there were a number of people that had a number of reasons to dispatch with Sae Daeng.

.

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

There were a number of events that occurred just before the general caught a bullet with his forehead that could explain why that happened.

A grab for organizational power is a frequent cause of many violent disputes.

No new team of red shirts leaders : Nuttawut

BANGKOK: -- A red shirt leader on Monday dismissed as groundless a claim by an outspoken general that ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra appointed new team of red shirts leaders.

Nuttawut Saikua said Major-Geneneral Kattiya Sawasdipol maybe misinformed or misunderstood that Thaksin was not happy with the existing red shirt leaders who Kattiya said were changing their position to a compromising one in their talks with Abhisit government.

"Seh Daeng's report is not correct. Maybe he is misinformed," Nuttawut said.

Kattiya claimed Monday that he talked to Thaksin on a phone on Sunday. "Thaksin said he would appoint of new team of the red shirts leaders."

The new team would exclude Veera Musikapong, Jatuporn Prompan, Dr Weng Tohjirakarn and Nuttawut Saikua as they appeared to agree with Abhisit's roadmap and prefer to end the rally.

The group had several secret meeting with Abhisit's team, Kattiya said.

Nuttawut told reporters that even Thaksin has no authority to change the leaders' team.

Each of the new team claimed by Seh Daeng has not yet been contacted about the matter, Nuttawut said.

Kattiya quoted Thaksin as saying that those who did not want to fight on should go home.

The new team comprises Arisamun Pongruengrong, Suporn Attawong, Kwanchai Praipana, Waipot Apornrat.

-- The Nation 2010-05-10

"There were a number of events that occurred just before the general caught a bullet with his forehead that could explain why that happened"

It's a bit of a sad individual who would belittle peoples deaths with sentences like this. I don't care what you thought of him personally he was still a human being when he was shot and killed. Do you have the same mindset when referring to say a road traffic accident victim or a death occuring as a result of a drunken fight?

Anyway, back to your "quarrel" argument - it seems like Suthep had his own views on that accusing Jatuporn of being responsible for Sae Daengs death - from the safety of being in parliament of course, and we know how truthful Suthep is...............

Suthep also claimed that perhaps Maj-General Khattiya Sawasdipol aka Seh Daeng was killed by a sniper under the orders of Jatuporn.

"Is it Jatuporn who is responsible for the killing" he said claiming he had heard reports that Khattiya had admitted to being in conflict with red-shirt leaders not long before he was shot.

http://www.nationmul...n-30151255.html

By the way have you been excepted from posting links these days?

1) that the government would put out an alternative story rather than just admit that they assassinated the man should surprise no one.

2) although Bucholtz finds it offensive to write the letters BS in a post, it seems to escape him that being offensive is not dependent on the vocabulary one uses.

3) But it fits in with the government line from Suthep about protesters running into bullets...

4) you would think that the government/military supporters on the forum would give them credit where credit is due. For those for whom killing other people is not an issue, then strategically, removing the general was a good move from the perspective of the Army. A bad move from the perspective of being a human being, however...

Again, the timing is pretty obvious, and unlike April 10th, the assault planned in advance. IMO (speculating) the assault would have been planned prior to the Abhisit offer for elections. The assault, fresh on the rejection of a seemingly honorable proposition, would be more justifiable.

As in the CNN video, Abhisit was to state that armed militants intended to start a civil war - a rhetoric clearly (1) unjustifiable, therefore (2) deliberately stated to justify the violence by the army. Generate fear among the people - our country is being threatened. This can be used to justify many things.

I sell the government short on the April 10th dispersal which was botched. But the May action was clearly (well) planned.

[OzMick]

Any final report should complete discount this testimony even to the point of calling the these Army personnel liars. It is clear they are lying even if it can't be proven. But, the investigators don't need to believe it and don't need to accept it or consider their testimony credible.

you have to understand that since Tharit (head of DSI) changed the definition of perjury so as to allow himself NOT to prosecute Yingluk, perjury is now not only socially acceptable, but expected.

Note that since the change of government, all investigation into crimes committed by red/black shirts have been abandoned in favour of possible prosecution of RTA members in line with the current political leanings. That they were carrying out orders of the legitimate government during a SOE while trying to quell an armed insurrection is immaterial when laws can be bent/amended to suit the requirements of the day.

Edited September 3, 2012 by OzMick

[OzMick]

1) that the government would put out an alternative story rather than just admit that they assassinated the man should surprise no one.

2) although Bucholtz finds it offensive to write the letters BS in a post, it seems to escape him that being offensive is not dependent on the vocabulary one uses.

3) But it fits in with the government line from Suthep about protesters running into bullets...

4) you would think that the government/military supporters on the forum would give them credit where credit is due. For those for whom killing other people is not an issue, then strategically, removing the general was a good move from the perspective of the Army. A bad move from the perspective of being a human being, however...

Again, the timing is pretty obvious, and unlike April 10th, the assault planned in advance. IMO (speculating) the assault would have been planned prior to the Abhisit offer for elections. The assault, fresh on the rejection of a seemingly honorable proposition, would be more justifiable.

As in the CNN video, Abhisit was to state that armed militants intended to start a civil war - a rhetoric clearly (1) unjustifiable, therefore (2) deliberately stated to justify the violence by the army. Generate fear among the people - our country is being threatened. This can be used to justify many things.

I sell the government short on the April 10th dispersal which was botched. But the May action was clearly (well) planned.

" that the government would put out an alternative story rather than just admit that they assassinated the man should surprise no one."

Would that be the PTP government?

"..... unlike April 10th, the assault planned in advance."

The assault on the RTA local headquarters which effectively decapitated the dispersal operation was obviously well planned well in advance and equates to an act of war. Any repercussions from that were justified.

[SomTumTiger]

Sorry to dissapoint you but surely I am in the best position to determine whether my time has been wasted. I take it you must have spent some time out reading the threads and writing your post - do you regard that time as wasted?

LOL - absolutely!

[chotthee]

These people should not have walked into the path of the bullets in the first place; may it be rubber or lead.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I sell the government short on the April 10th dispersal which was botched. But the May action was clearly (well) planned.

I'm surprised you phrase like this. I would say 'the May action was badly planned as well'. If and only if the army thought shooting the renegade general Seh Daeng would subdue his militant followers they were in for a unpleasant surprise. Violence really escalated, grenades flying in the air, alleged red-shirt snipers, the need for a 'live fire zone'. Dr. weng complaining "We are being surrounded. We are being crushed. The soldiers are closing in on us. This is not a civil war yet, but it's very, very cruel".

Of course even to this day there are some who have a problem accepting there might have been a peaceful red-shirt with something slightly more menacing than a catapult.

philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ...

EDIT: ADD:

2010-04-18

"Army tanks would roll down the streets of Bangkok to defend the protesters rallying at Rajprasong intersection if the government decided to use lethal means to dislodge them, a red-shirt leader warned on Friday evening."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/04/18/politics/Soldiers-will-fight-for-red-shirts-Jaran-30127349.html

Edited September 3, 2012 by rubl

[rubl]

As for Dr. weng and others threatening with 'civil war', UDD leaders even if they happen to be Pheu Thai party list MP's still seem to like to do that

2012-07-11

"Korkaew warns of civil war if court rules against amendments"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Korkaew-warns-of-civil-war-if-court-rules-against--30185931.html

[tlansford]

begin removed ...

I sell the government short on the April 10th dispersal which was botched. But the May action was clearly (well) planned.

I'm surprised you phrase like this. I would say 'the May action was badly planned as well'. If and only if the army thought shooting the renegade general Seh Daeng would subdue his militant followers they were in for a unpleasant surprise. Violence really escalated, grenades flying in the air, alleged red-shirt snipers, the need for a 'live fire zone'. Dr. weng complaining "We are being surrounded. We are being crushed. The soldiers are closing in on us. This is not a civil war yet, but it's very, very cruel".

Of course even to this day there are some who have a problem accepting there might have been a peaceful red-shirt with something slightly more menacing than a catapult.

philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ...

EDIT: ADD:

2010-04-18

"Army tanks would roll down the streets of Bangkok to defend the protesters rallying at Rajprasong intersection if the government decided to use lethal means to dislodge them, a red-shirt leader warned on Friday evening."

http://www.nationmul...n-30127349.html

"philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ..."

IMO that shows that you don't (want to) understand the point of his question.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I sell the government short on the April 10th dispersal which was botched. But the May action was clearly (well) planned.

I'm surprised you phrase like this. I would say 'the May action was badly planned as well'. If and only if the army thought shooting the renegade general Seh Daeng would subdue his militant followers they were in for a unpleasant surprise. Violence really escalated, grenades flying in the air, alleged red-shirt snipers, the need for a 'live fire zone'. Dr. weng complaining "We are being surrounded. We are being crushed. The soldiers are closing in on us. This is not a civil war yet, but it's very, very cruel".

Of course even to this day there are some who have a problem accepting there might have been a peaceful red-shirt with something slightly more menacing than a catapult.

philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ...

EDIT: ADD:

2010-04-18

"Army tanks would roll down the streets of Bangkok to defend the protesters rallying at Rajprasong intersection if the government decided to use lethal means to dislodge them, a red-shirt leader warned on Friday evening."

http://www.nationmul...n-30127349.html

"philw asking me about Dutch army using snipers for crowd control is a stupid, baiting question. The Dutch government would never have let it get that stage. Now if he had asked about a young general using his cannons to clear the streets of Paris ... ..."

IMO that shows that you don't (want to) understand the point of his question.

My dear Tom, I saw your reply in another topic with philw refering to 'other posters who'd agree'.

Look at his question, wouldn't you after reading it again call is baiting or at least leading, as in suggesting the only possible answer which even a moron like me should understand?

""So, you would agree that in Holland it would be ok, quite acceptable, for the Dutch army to use snipers for crowd control and shoot unarmed people in the head, on the grounds that the guy 9 people to the left of the person shot, may have had a hand held catapult or firework""

So, would you agree that young General Napoleone di Buonaparte was correct in using the troops and artillery under his command to clear the streets of Paris and shoot the hungry rabble to protect the newly risen 'elite' ? Or do you think such a question is inappropriate, totally besides to point, unrelated to rubber bullets on a fatefull day in May 2010

Edited September 3, 2012 by rubl

[hellodolly]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

Is it your position that on April 10 the protesters were unarmed, but fearing a crackdown, rushed in military weapons? You can't be THAT naive.

Of course the attack on the military leadership was well planned in advance, but they did that to themselves. Absolutely incredible, literally.

OzMick

You are wasting your time on him. I asked him some questions and he evaded every one of them by referring to some thing else.

I get the feeling that if we were talking face to face he would just raise his voice and interrupt every time you stated a fact and if you continued to state it he would just yell louder.

A complete waste of time.

[rubl]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

Is it your position that on April 10 the protesters were unarmed, but fearing a crackdown, rushed in military weapons? You can't be THAT naive.

Of course the attack on the military leadership was well planned in advance, but they did that to themselves. Absolutely incredible, literally.

OzMick

You are wasting your time on him. I asked him some questions and he evaded every one of them by referring to some thing else.

I get the feeling that if we were talking face to face he would just raise his voice and interrupt every time you stated a fact and if you continued to state it he would just yell louder.

A complete waste of time.

All English know that if the natives don't understand first time you just need to talk a bit louder. Maybe part of Angle-Saxon heritage and a leftover of germanic roots? Maybe not, those were somewhat militant. Maybe the romantic Celts?

[phiphidon]

Why do unarmed "Peaceful Protesters" need a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" to train and deploy their guards?

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

Seh Deang was already training the 'red warriors' long before they reds came to Bangkok. Of course you know this and just want to bend the truth to your own agenda. I can imagine that some of us are getting tired of your, and your mates', continuous attempts to rewrite history by absurd claims and manipulation of the occurrence and dates of events!

Just glad to see your observing another viewpoint - can't hurt to have an open mind, can it?

I hope thats not a threat to cease and desist, I've already had one of those from a forum member.....................

[whybother]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

It's amazing that the army encountered gunfire and grenades when the stormed the "unarmed peaceful protesters" on May 19.

[sbk]

Off topic discussion of moderation removed

[philw]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

It's amazing that the army encountered gunfire and grenades when the stormed the "unarmed peaceful protesters" on May 19.

I suppose one would try to fight back a bit when stormed by the army.

Your words. "stormed by the army".

You omitted the slingshots, fireworks, rubber tires and bamboo staves bit, not to mention the human child shields.

All rock solid defences against snipers on the roof with rubber bullets or dildoes or something other than lead.

[whybother]

Ah, you had the answer all along - it's in the post. The military are about to crackdown on a crowd of peaceful protesters who are unarmed, using tried and trusted tactics (apart from the live fire zones and sniper aspect of it). Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters?

No, you rely on someone who was trained by that very same army who is a "military expert well-versed in military tactics" who would know what to expect. As they say, it ain't rocket science...................

It's amazing that the army encountered gunfire and grenades when the stormed the "unarmed peaceful protesters" on May 19.

I suppose one would try to fight back a bit when stormed by the army.

Your words. "stormed by the army".

You omitted the slingshots, fireworks, rubber tires and bamboo staves bit, not to mention the human child shields.

All rock solid defences against snipers on the roof with rubber bullets or dildoes or something other than lead.

But that's the whole point isn't it? The army wouldn't have had to "storm" the protest area if the red shirts weren't armed.

Do you think the army should have gone in their with their riot gear? I wonder how plastic works against bullets and grenades.

[phiphidon]

Any final report should complete discount this testimony even to the point of calling the these Army personnel liars. It is clear they are lying even if it can't be proven. But, the investigators don't need to believe it and don't need to accept it or consider their testimony credible.

you have to understand that since Tharit (head of DSI) changed the definition of perjury so as to allow himself NOT to prosecute Yingluk, perjury is now not only socially acceptable, but expected.

Note that since the change of government, all investigation into crimes committed by red/black shirts have been abandoned in favour of possible prosecution of RTA members in line with the current political leanings. That they were carrying out orders of the legitimate government during a SOE while trying to quell an armed insurrection is immaterial when laws can be bent/amended to suit the requirements of the day.

You seem to have this blank space where all knowledge of the 300 odd red shirt supporters who were and some still are serving jail sentences for their part in the April May 2010 events has disappeared into.

The autopsies that were started and then delayed by army / government interference (remember the about face of the Muramoto killing after the visit from the army chief) are only now morphing into the Inquests that are happening today (27, I believe). I don't know what other mysterious crimes committed by black/red shirts that are not being investigated now that were being investigated 2 years ago.

Do please tell the forum what you know.

[phiphidon]

OzMick

You are wasting your time on him. I asked him some questions and he evaded every one of them by referring to some thing else.

I get the feeling that if we were talking face to face he would just raise his voice and interrupt every time you stated a fact and if you continued to state it he would just yell louder.

A complete waste of time.

All English know that if the natives don't understand first time you just need to talk a bit louder. Maybe part of Angle-Saxon heritage and a leftover of germanic roots? Maybe not, those were somewhat militant. Maybe the romantic Celts?

Would you be less rude if I was Dutch? or South African? Or is it just the English you're in awe of?

Dolly, You called me a red shit - I pointed it out to you, you ignored what you had written. I don't respond to people who when their arguments are running low resort to profanity. Simple as that.

[rubl]

OzMick

You are wasting your time on him. I asked him some questions and he evaded every one of them by referring to some thing else.

I get the feeling that if we were talking face to face he would just raise his voice and interrupt every time you stated a fact and if you continued to state it he would just yell louder.

A complete waste of time.

All English know that if the natives don't understand first time you just need to talk a bit louder. Maybe part of Angle-Saxon heritage and a leftover of germanic roots? Maybe not, those were somewhat militant. Maybe the romantic Celts?

Would you be less rude if I was Dutch? or South African? Or is it just the English you're in awe of?

Dolly, You called me a red shit - I pointed it out to you, you ignored what you had written. I don't respond to people who when their arguments are running low resort to profanity. Simple as that.

Fair question, deserves a fair answer.

I don't think I'm rude for one. Furthermore as this is an English language forum it seems more fair and certainly more easy to take the piss out of Native English speakers. With non-Native English speakers one needs to be more careful. Some English might not be understood properly and it wouldn't be correct to make fun of that, not cricket as it were, you understand?

I feel I do need to correct you in one aspect, I'm not in awe of the English, but I respect them in a similar manner I respect others.

From your local Dutch uncle