Army Had No Rubber Bullets In 2010, Weng Says

[tonglen]

I doubt there are rubber bullets for AKA-47

There are rubber rounds in 7.62 X 39. Scary.

[phiphidon]

http://ibnlive.in.co...tml#1871-3.html

http://www.ekantipur...kok/314384.html

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8684506.stm

All of the above sites date the photographs as having been taken on the 15th May.

You could have saved yourself a lot of embarassment if you had accepted my word and my previous links ( I understand that your MO is to pretend you've never been told something before and keep on asking for it until hopefully it or I go away, a trait you share with a few others I've found) - but I didn't lie about the date, why should I?

Now if you want to apologise for doubting me thats fine but please do not expect me to carry on telling you the same information time after time. I've got better things to do with my life. You're on your own kiddo, I tell you once, thats it. Believe it if you will if not that's your problem.

My dear phiphidon, you didn't post these links before. Interesting is to read 'army take position after getting fire from anti-government protesters', of course the army chaps would just carry on as usual shooting rubber bullets against these peaceful protesters. Another link has ''Tharit, however, said that soldiers, including dozens of army snipers, who were only following orders from superiors, may not be included in the filing of charges. Only two of the snipers, both being non-commissioned officers, have been questioned by DSI officials so far."

Now with some posters speculating on who the MiB were and hint at government involvement, may I speculate that some snipers being deployed at various places decided or had decided for them that rubber bullets might be not quiet enough to counter fire from peaceful, unarmed anti-government protesters? Maybe more firepower in order as counter measure? Next we will hear that army personel in Ghandi Tshirts should have stopped those friendlies 'peace brother, peace'.

Anyway UDD leader Dr. weng knows full well that there were armed elements in the red-shirt camp, unless he needs new glasses of course and is a wee bit out of touch like some posters here. No rubber bullets? Maybe being a Pheu Thai party list MP does that to you?

No , those links I gave you before had dates on you could verify from the text and or context. For some reason you wilfuly ignore evidence in front of your nose. I notice you haven't apologised. The rest of your post is just a collection of random thoughts and suppositions to muddy the water.

It's quite clear where these snipers were operating. It's clear where they were firing. It's clear there were deaths from headshots of high velocity bullets in the area the army snipers were operating. Its clear they were firing live ammunition. It is clear that they are lying when they say they only fired rubber bullets that day. It is clear that the Army Brass are backing them up in this ridiculous lie.

What is not clear is why people like you are also backing up the armies ridiculous lies by denying that this happened and post rubbish like your post above trying to detract attention away from the army. Why do you do it?

[hellodolly]

This seems like another tactic to delay the whole procedure by another year or two by ordering the DSI as to what they should do. Who the hell is he anyway to give orders to the police, that is the job of the police and the public prosecutors. I hope Weng produced the proof that the army did not have any rubber bullets.

Well I like your post.

But if I remember correctly and that is a big if the ammunition that the red shirts got from the army on April10 was the real McCoy. No rubber bullets recovered.

[hellodolly]

This appears to contradict evidence already given, by soldiers who were on-the-ground, but at least one of the Red-Leaders is talking to the DSI, and will be able to be questioned about his own and others' contribution to the events of the day.

Any chance of him telling the world where the red shirts got the money to pay for their obvious attempt to take over the Government.

Now that sounds like a silly thing to say but that was what they were doing.

[hellodolly]

Here we go again. What is about the Peu Thai? Do they think the world does not have eyes or ears. Red rioters seized the city - army finally had to clear it so what access did 'Weng' have to check the army? Since when were red supporters allowed access to army to make such assessments? Give it a rest. Get a life...

You can kind of see his point. Weng says they did not have rubber bullets - now when he said that, do you think it might be in response to the army saying their snipers, sorry marksmen, were only using rubber bullets.

Now take that a little bit further. These snipers/marksmen we are told were put in place to protect soldiers, well, officers on the ground who were under threat of deadly force.

Now what do you think would be the point of equipping the snipers/marksmen with only rubber bullets? They are there supposedly to protect their fellow officers with supposedly non deadly ammo (depends how near to one you are and where it hits you) but not much use if someone was armed with a war weapon, so are they lying?

Now you're Weng, you've seen the results of deadly fire from snipers (the number of head shots with high velocity bullets points to a fair bit of sniper activity) and you've got a bit of a gut feeling that the army are telling lies about using rubber bullets. He has a list of snipers and a list of dead bodies and where they were shot.I'd imagine he'd want to compare those two lists for evidence for the inquests.

There are inquests going on I'm sure you are aware. The army have already tried to intefere and delay the results.

Just my two satang worth...........

I know you don't like facts and when asked for them you avoid the questions.Or change the topic. You are not very clever at doing that either but you keep trying.

But has he got a list of who started and paid for the red shirts to defy the law?

Has he got a list of the people who made the decision to continue breaking the law even before April 10?

Has he got a list of people who receive the orders from Thaksin?

Has he a clue as to what happened. Or is he just another whiner that didn't get his way even if it was illegal?

[hellodolly]

And........I suppose that those mysterious 'men in black' were using spud guns and water pistols that go bang!!!!.

Have I ever said that , No, so why bring it up? The mysterious "men in black" were armed. As to who they were, that's never been solved, which is strange because the government of the time claimed to have military intelligence that there were 500 of them ( enough to warrant a military response of 30,000 soldiers, apparently) yet none were arrested. Well, I find it strange, with that number of security forces milling about.

Exactly what is it that you are exclaiming you never said??

Forget it. That is just another tactic he uses to avoid reality.

[hellodolly]

If you increase your own ferocity to match your opponent you will never bring an end until one side or the other is eliminated. Isn’t that what we see now? One side has to be more adult, more thoughtful, more clever, do the ‘security force’ want to win at any cost or do they want to bring a diplomatic end in a diplomatic country?

(Armoured water cannon will shield against grenades and blow away grenade throwers without injury to the security force.)

If you don't increase your own ferocity to match your opponent, all that happens is that you're opponent wins and you're eliminated.

Diplomatic solutions were offered to the red shirts and rejected.

Using those parameters it would then be OK for every single one of the red shirts protesting on the 10th April to bring a gun and live ammunition to the protest. Did that happen, No, so why did the Army tool up with live ammo?

This is going to be like pouring kerosene into the fire, but it can be argued that many people attending the red shirt rallies showed remarkable restraint, calm and courage in the face of a sustained army show of force and unwarranted belligerence, including sniper shots to flag wavers and other "terrorists ". ( sorry, I meant citizens )

The issue of about 2,500 casualties seems not yet to be addressed, where are the supposed 500 armed to the teeth men in black and how surprising that none have been arrested or charged and that so far, the only folks charged with the central arson are a couple of underage shoplifters and 2 or 3 other guys against whom there seems to be little evidence.

Not withstanding 30,000 troops in the area and god only knows who else, plus at least a few hundred cctv cameras.

Interesting that, isn't it ?

Well to start with there was no army present at the peaceful rallies. Kind of shoots down your first paragraph.

As for the rest of your post I don't know but I am mighty suspicious when the Government in power now was and still is connected to all those black shirts and arsonists in the red shirt movement. I really expect them to forget that part of it. Hence no arrests or prosecutions.

Can't say as I remember them doing any thing to stop the illegal armed terrorists citizens behind barricades seizure of down town Bangkok. Not to mention invading a hospital and using children as shields.

[rubl]

No , those links I gave you before had dates on you could verify from the text and or context. For some reason you wilfuly ignore evidence in front of your nose. I notice you haven't apologised. The rest of your post is just a collection of random thoughts and suppositions to muddy the water.

It's quite clear where these snipers were operating. It's clear where they were firing. It's clear there were deaths from headshots of high velocity bullets in the area the army snipers were operating. Its clear they were firing live ammunition. It is clear that they are lying when they say they only fired rubber bullets that day. It is clear that the Army Brass are backing them up in this ridiculous lie.

What is not clear is why people like you are also backing up the armies ridiculous lies by denying that this happened and post rubbish like your post above trying to detract attention away from the army. Why do you do it?

I reread all 205 posts of "Only Rubber Bullets Used On Fatal Day: Thai Army Marksmen" and the only link which points a.o. to the 15th of May is

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

Apart from the photo with possibly at least one of the Army snipers who answered questions, it also has lots of 'the last two days' and 'Thai troops faced off against die-hard protesters'. The photo has text a.o. "A Thai army soldier and a sniper fire at anti-government protesters after getting fire from them in Bangkok".

So now you say "it's clear" like a GPS gridmap / timestamp and yet you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?

Apolgise? Probably to all those soldiers who had to face peaceful protesters shooting and lobbing grenades.

And your Dr. weng just said the army had no rubber bullets, still lots of photo's with them. Why does he say that? Why try to distract from his friendly protesters?

[phiphidon]

No , those links I gave you before had dates on you could verify from the text and or context. For some reason you wilfuly ignore evidence in front of your nose. I notice you haven't apologised. The rest of your post is just a collection of random thoughts and suppositions to muddy the water.

It's quite clear where these snipers were operating. It's clear where they were firing. It's clear there were deaths from headshots of high velocity bullets in the area the army snipers were operating. Its clear they were firing live ammunition. It is clear that they are lying when they say they only fired rubber bullets that day. It is clear that the Army Brass are backing them up in this ridiculous lie.

What is not clear is why people like you are also backing up the armies ridiculous lies by denying that this happened and post rubbish like your post above trying to detract attention away from the army. Why do you do it?

I reread all 205 posts of "Only Rubber Bullets Used On Fatal Day: Thai Army Marksmen" and the only link which points a.o. to the 15th of May is

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

Apart from the photo with possibly at least one of the Army snipers who answered questions, it also has lots of 'the last two days' and 'Thai troops faced off against die-hard protesters'. The photo has text a.o. "A Thai army soldier and a sniper fire at anti-government protesters after getting fire from them in Bangkok".

So now you say "it's clear" like a GPS gridmap / timestamp and yet you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?

Apolgise? Probably to all those soldiers who had to face peaceful protesters shooting and lobbing grenades.

And your Dr. weng just said the army had no rubber bullets, still lots of photo's with them. Why does he say that? Why try to distract from his friendly protesters?

If you have one photo on with a date and then several other photos without a date but of the same subject it is reasonable to deduce they were taken on the same day. Then you apply a bit of logic when the original (not this one) OP tells you were the snipers were stationed and you read the blog showing those photographs and you can see where they were stationed. The OP tells you that the two snipers are being questioned about firing live bullets, they even provide pictures of the two snipers at the hearing. The OP provides the day, coincidentally the same day as the photos referred to by the hearing as the well known and well publicised sniper photos were taken. The pictures of the soldiers at the hearing (1 now ex-army) show that they are the same people as the snipers in the well publicised photos. These same soldiers state under oath (presumably?) that they were only firing rubber bullets on that day. The hearing is about the deaths on that day in that area on that road that they were "protecting". It can clearly be seen that they are not firing rubber bullets from both the video and still photographs as they have no adaptors fitted to the gun. They are obviously lying.

Now I can't prove it but the hearing more than likely can. They have all the evidence in front of them but I can make a judgement call and I feel the balance of published facts points towards these snipers having killed people that day.

In the meantime you accuse me of "you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?"

I do that because up to now I have not seen anywhere near that amount of "evidence" put forward in support of their arguments. I accept that some 'red shirts" were responsible for burning a couple of provincial buildings because there is plain video evidence. I do not accept that the "redshirts" were responsible for burning central world because I have not seen convincing evidence enough to form an opinion, quite the opposite actually. The courts couldn't do so either.

So that's why.

Apolgise? Probably to all those soldiers who had to face peaceful protesters shooting and lobbing grenades - See paragraph above.

And your Dr. weng just said the army had no rubber bullets, still lots of photo's with them. Why does he say that? Why try to distract from his friendly protesters?

He is not my Dr. Weng. And, No the above statement is wrong. The Nation reported that he said that the army had no rubber bullets - no quotes, no context, just pp reporting in English as usual. So did he say that - the other paper deems it unnecessary to pick up on this quite important conversation, if it were ever made. Do you have this reported anywhere else or is it just a Nation exclusive?

Interestingly enough the Political Prisoners of Thailand pick up on this and agree with buchholz that there were plenty of reports of rubber bullets being used - hence the suspicions about the nations reporting (again).

PPT is not sure if Weng has been accurately quoted or the exact context of his statement, but there are plenty of reports at the time that suggest rubber ammunition was available and used, along with plenty of “live ammunition” (see here, here, here and here).In fact, the initial report by Amsterdam & Peroff (see p. 14), states that such projectiles were fired from shotguns on 10 April 2010. Perhaps Weng is referring to the claim that snipers used rubber bullets with M16s, and questioning that.

http://politicalpris...essure-on-army/

[rubl]

If you have one photo on with a date and then several other photos without a date but of the same subject it is reasonable to deduce they were taken on the same day. Then you apply a bit of logic when the original (not this one) OP tells you were the snipers were stationed and you read the blog showing those photographs and you can see where they were stationed. The OP tells you that the two snipers are being questioned about firing live bullets, they even provide pictures of the two snipers at the hearing. The OP provides the day, coincidentally the same day as the photos referred to by the hearing as the well known and well publicised sniper photos were taken. The pictures of the soldiers at the hearing (1 now ex-army) show that they are the same people as the snipers in the well publicised photos. These same soldiers state under oath (presumably?) that they were only firing rubber bullets on that day. The hearing is about the deaths on that day in that area on that road that they were "protecting". It can clearly be seen that they are not firing rubber bullets from both the video and still photographs as they have no adaptors fitted to the gun. They are obviously lying.

Now I can't prove it but the hearing more than likely can. They have all the evidence in front of them but I can make a judgement call and I feel the balance of published facts points towards these snipers having killed people that day.

In the meantime you accuse me of "you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?"

I do that because up to now I have not seen anywhere near that amount of "evidence" put forward in support of their arguments. I accept that some 'red shirts" were responsible for burning a couple of provincial buildings because there is plain video evidence. I do not accept that the "redshirts" were responsible for burning central world because I have not seen convincing evidence enough to form an opinion, quite the opposite actually. The courts couldn't do so either.

So that's why.

Apolgise? Probably to all those soldiers who had to face peaceful protesters shooting and lobbing grenades - See paragraph above.

And your Dr. weng just said the army had no rubber bullets, still lots of photo's with them. Why does he say that? Why try to distract from his friendly protesters?

He is not my Dr. Weng. And, No the above statement is wrong. The Nation reported that he said that the army had no rubber bullets - no quotes, no context, just pp reporting in English as usual. So did he say that - the other paper deems it unnecessary to pick up on this quite important conversation, if it were ever made. Do you have this reported anywhere else or is it just a Nation exclusive?

Interestingly enough the Political Prisoners of Thailand pick up on this and agree with buchholz that there were plenty of reports of rubber bullets being used - hence the suspicions about the nations reporting (again).

PPT is not sure if Weng has been accurately quoted or the exact context of his statement, but there are plenty of reports at the time that suggest rubber ammunition was available and used, along with plenty of “live ammunition” (see here, here, here and here).In fact, the initial report by Amsterdam & Peroff (see p. 14), states that such projectiles were fired from shotguns on 10 April 2010. Perhaps Weng is referring to the claim that snipers used rubber bullets with M16s, and questioning that.

http://politicalpris...essure-on-army/

I couldn't have been more clear than you are here now. Thank you, dear opponent.

I rest my case

[phiphidon]

Here we go again. What is about the Peu Thai? Do they think the world does not have eyes or ears. Red rioters seized the city - army finally had to clear it so what access did 'Weng' have to check the army? Since when were red supporters allowed access to army to make such assessments? Give it a rest. Get a life...

You can kind of see his point. Weng says they did not have rubber bullets - now when he said that, do you think it might be in response to the army saying their snipers, sorry marksmen, were only using rubber bullets.

Now take that a little bit further. These snipers/marksmen we are told were put in place to protect soldiers, well, officers on the ground who were under threat of deadly force.

Now what do you think would be the point of equipping the snipers/marksmen with only rubber bullets? They are there supposedly to protect their fellow officers with supposedly non deadly ammo (depends how near to one you are and where it hits you) but not much use if someone was armed with a war weapon, so are they lying?

Now you're Weng, you've seen the results of deadly fire from snipers (the number of head shots with high velocity bullets points to a fair bit of sniper activity) and you've got a bit of a gut feeling that the army are telling lies about using rubber bullets. He has a list of snipers and a list of dead bodies and where they were shot.I'd imagine he'd want to compare those two lists for evidence for the inquests.

There are inquests going on I'm sure you are aware. The army have already tried to intefere and delay the results.

Just my two satang worth...........

I know you don't like facts and when asked for them you avoid the questions.Or change the topic. You are not very clever at doing that either but you keep trying.

But has he got a list of who started and paid for the red shirts to defy the law?

Has he got a list of the people who made the decision to continue breaking the law even before April 10?

Has he got a list of people who receive the orders from Thaksin?

Has he a clue as to what happened. Or is he just another whiner that didn't get his way even if it was illegal?

Off topic dolly.

[chrisinth]

And........I suppose that those mysterious 'men in black' were using spud guns and water pistols that go bang!!!!.

Have I ever said that , No, so why bring it up? The mysterious "men in black" were armed. As to who they were, that's never been solved, which is strange because the government of the time claimed to have military intelligence that there were 500 of them ( enough to warrant a military response of 30,000 soldiers, apparently) yet none were arrested. Well, I find it strange, with that number of security forces milling about.

Maybe all the evidence went the same way as the millions of bullets the army was supposed to have fired along with all the death and damage caused.

"Millions" represents a big number...................

[whybother]

<snip>

In the meantime you accuse me of "you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?"

I do that because up to now I have not seen anywhere near that amount of "evidence" put forward in support of their arguments. I accept that some 'red shirts" were responsible for burning a couple of provincial buildings because there is plain video evidence. I do not accept that the "redshirts" were responsible for burning central world because I have not seen convincing evidence enough to form an opinion, quite the opposite actually. The courts couldn't do so either.

So that's why.

<snip>

You're quite happy to dismiss that the red shirts burned down Central World because no individuals have been found guilty.

But you are also happy to blame the army for most of the deaths even though no individuals have been found guilty, or there even being much evidence that the army killed many of them.

A good example of double standards there.

[Buchholz]

Weng said he had checked and found the military did not have rubber bullets during the time of the riots.

Just another Weng-ism to throw into the stuffed folder of Weng-isms.

.

[phiphidon]

<snip>

In the meantime you accuse me of "you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?"

I do that because up to now I have not seen anywhere near that amount of "evidence" put forward in support of their arguments. I accept that some 'red shirts" were responsible for burning a couple of provincial buildings because there is plain video evidence. I do not accept that the "redshirts" were responsible for burning central world because I have not seen convincing evidence enough to form an opinion, quite the opposite actually. The courts couldn't do so either.

So that's why.

<snip>

You're quite happy to dismiss that the red shirts burned down Central World because no individuals have been found guilty.

But you are also happy to blame the army for most of the deaths even though no individuals have been found guilty, or there even being much evidence that the army killed many of them.

A good example of double standards there.

Well despite loony tune theories of the MIB being told to kill red shirts so the blame could be put on the army, who else was likely to be responsible for shooting them? Did they all commit suicide? It is more than likely that the security forces were responsible for the majority of the deaths in my opinion. It's not a double standard, there are no hard and fast rules, but cmon, use your common sense.

[whybother]

Well despite loony tune theories of the MIB being told to kill red shirts so the blame could be put on the army, who else was likely to be responsible for shooting them? Did they all commit suicide? It is more than likely that the security forces were responsible for the majority of the deaths in my opinion. It's not a double standard, there are no hard and fast rules, but cmon, use your common sense.

Given the way the red shirts escalated their protest every chance they had, and given that the MIB moved within the red shirts protesters to shoot at the army (which was shown clearly in some of the April 10 videos), and given the acceptance that there were most likely MIB snipers, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they shot some of their own to get sympathy. It certainly did get them sympathy.

There is very little clear evidence that the army killed all those people. I am sure they did kill a lot of them.

But to brush aside certain evidence of red shirt (or MIB) violence and destruction because no one has been found guilty, and to accept that the army killed all of these people beside there being very little evidence, is clearly showing your bias.

[rubl]

Well despite loony tune theories of the MIB being told to kill red shirts so the blame could be put on the army, who else was likely to be responsible for shooting them? Did they all commit suicide? It is more than likely that the security forces were responsible for the majority of the deaths in my opinion. It's not a double standard, there are no hard and fast rules, but cmon, use your common sense.

Given the way the red shirts escalated their protest every chance they had, and given that the MIB moved within the red shirts protesters to shoot at the army (which was shown clearly in some of the April 10 videos), and given the acceptance that there were most likely MIB snipers, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they shot some of their own to get sympathy. It certainly did get them sympathy.

There is very little clear evidence that the army killed all those people. I am sure they did kill a lot of them.

But to brush aside certain evidence of red shirt (or MIB) violence and destruction because no one has been found guilty, and to accept that the army killed all of these people beside there being very little evidence, is clearly showing your bias.

Now, now, don't bother too much. The "most likely MIB snipers, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they shot some of their own to get sympathy" shows a certain bias. Maybe it was friendly (red-shirt) fire

[hellodolly]

<snip>

In the meantime you accuse me of "you cast doubt on almost any think other where people can 'only' indicate 'MiB', armed red-shirts, torching, etc. Why do you do that?"

I do that because up to now I have not seen anywhere near that amount of "evidence" put forward in support of their arguments. I accept that some 'red shirts" were responsible for burning a couple of provincial buildings because there is plain video evidence. I do not accept that the "redshirts" were responsible for burning central world because I have not seen convincing evidence enough to form an opinion, quite the opposite actually. The courts couldn't do so either.

So that's why.

<snip>

You're quite happy to dismiss that the red shirts burned down Central World because no individuals have been found guilty.

But you are also happy to blame the army for most of the deaths even though no individuals have been found guilty, or there even being much evidence that the army killed many of them.

A good example of double standards there.

Well despite loony tune theories of the MIB being told to kill red shirts so the blame could be put on the army, who else was likely to be responsible for shooting them? Did they all commit suicide? It is more than likely that the security forces were responsible for the majority of the deaths in my opinion. It's not a double standard, there are no hard and fast rules, but cmon, use your common sense.

You are the last person in the world I would expect to use common sense. All the u tube videos showing the red leaders urging there followers on to burn Bangkok down and your common sense tells you they did not do it.

Common sense does not require a guilty verdict.

[nurofiend]

Pheu Thai Party MP Weng Tojirakarn yesterday dismissed Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha's statement that the military used rubber bullets during the red-shirt riots in 2010.

Weng said he had checked and found the military did not have rubber bullets during the time of the riots.

There are literally hundreds thousands of contradictions to that assessment.

http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz269JAykU4

Thai troops fire rubber bullets

http://www.abc.net.a...at-anti/2574412

Red shirt demonstrators have hurled petrol bombs after troops fired rubber bullets and tear gas.

http://www.wopular.c...move-red-shirts

Thai troops fired rubber bullets at opposition "red shirts" on Saturday as they moved in to clear a protest site in Bangkok

http://wisdomquarter...rs-15-dead.html

protesters were pushed back by water cannons and rubber bullets from the headquarters of the 1st Army Region

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...f-thailand.html

Thai security forces fire rubber bullets

buchlolz i find myself in agreement with you, it is a ludicrous statement to say they never used rubber bullets, as i pointed out on P1

< off-topic comments snipped >

The topic in the OP is rubber bullets and the statement by indicted Red Shirt Leader Weng that the Army didn't have them.

I agree it's ludicrous of him to say so.

.

even when i'm in agreement, you still have to add a childish snip of my post for what you deem off topic, seeing as you have to act like the mod that you are('nt).

pffft.

Edited September 12, 2012 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

QUOTE:

Pheu Thai Party MP Weng Tojirakarn yesterday dismissed Army Chief Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha's statement that the military used rubber bullets during the red-shirt riots in 2010.

Weng said he had checked and found the military did not have rubber bullets during the time of the riots.

UNQUOTE.

There are literally hundreds thousands of contradictions to that assessment.

http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz269JAykU4

Thai troops fire rubber bullets

http://www.abc.net.a...at-anti/2574412

Red shirt demonstrators have hurled petrol bombs after troops fired rubber bullets and tear gas.

http://www.wopular.c...move-red-shirts

Thai troops fired rubber bullets at opposition "red shirts" on Saturday as they moved in to clear a protest site in Bangkok

http://wisdomquarter...rs-15-dead.html

protesters were pushed back by water cannons and rubber bullets from the headquarters of the 1st Army Region

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...f-thailand.html

Thai security forces fire rubber bullets

buchlolz i find myself in agreement with you, it is a ludicrous statement to say they never used rubber bullets, as i pointed out on P1

< off-topic comments snipped >

The topic in the OP is rubber bullets and the statement by indicted Red Shirt Leader Weng that the Army didn't have them.

I agree it's ludicrous of him to say so.

even when i'm in agreement, you still have to add a childish snip of my post for what you deem off topic, seeing as you have to act like the mod that you are('nt).

pffft.

When you add aspects to your post that aren't stated in the OP, they are off-topic from the OP.

It is not childish to point that out and it's not difficult to sort out what is and is not off-topic.

You agreed with my post, but then added points to your post that were not in my post that I neither agreed with nor were they on-topic.

It's a bit childish to think that wouldn't be addressed.

.

[KRS1]

I just realised something....

There have been inquiries into deaths if journalist, civilians and even soldiers but what about the Red Shirt General?

Havent heard any investigation into who introduced extra holes to his head.

sniper of course...great shot !

[scotbeve]

But these people are all liars ......

Yes, the military has got a lot to answer to/for but porkie pies are bountiful.

[Tanaka]

If you increase your own ferocity to match your opponent you will never bring an end until one side or the other is eliminated. Isn’t that what we see now? One side has to be more adult, more thoughtful, more clever, do the ‘security force’ want to win at any cost or do they want to bring a diplomatic end in a diplomatic country?

(Armoured water cannon will shield against grenades and blow away grenade throwers without injury to the security force.)

If you don't increase your own ferocity to match your opponent, all that happens is that you're opponent wins and you're eliminated.

Diplomatic solutions were offered to the red shirts and rejected.

Using those parameters it would then be OK for every single one of the red shirts protesting on the 10th April to bring a gun and live ammunition to the protest. Did that happen, No, so why did the Army tool up with live ammo?

You are thai? And redshirt supporter, that is obvious. And as such unable to see and understand things outside of what you have been told to believe. Anyway, to you remark, the only reason why not every redshirt brought a gun to Bangkok at that time, is that most of them do not own a gun.

[Buchholz]

"You agreed with my post, but then added points to your post that were not in my post"

i didn't either say nor imply that you were in agreement with the other part of the post.

nevermind. continuing the petty off-topic discussion other than the OP ceased.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Buchholz

[473geo]

Do you have anything to say regarding the topic of Weng saying the Army didn't have any rubber bullets?

.

Off course the RTA had rubber bullets.......when and where they were using them appears to be a bit of a mystery, unless they are quite accurate and deadly at long range.

[animatic]

Like the army will be talking to Weng in any case.

How can he check and find the WHOLE THAI ARMY had no rubber bullets?

They will say what ever they want, truth is not needed, maybe even a hindrance.

[philw]

See below for the rest of the article.

".......Weng, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), or red shirts, gave the Department of Special Investigation a list of 39 sharp-shooters appointed by the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

He asked the agency to reveal details about the appointment of the sharpshooters, their operation, and sites they were stationed at.

Weng said he also asked the DSI to probe the death of Sergeant First Class Pongchalit Pittayanontakan on May 17, 2010 near Silom, to try to find out if he was killed by a militia force or security officials.

The MP said he also wanted the report on Pongchalit's autopsy and those on Col Romklao Thuwatham and Private Narongrit Sala. He also submitted a picture of a sharpshooter that he wanted the DSI to summon for investigation."

Nice to see Wengs open minded approach, seeking details of the death of army personnel and interesting that he has the names of 39 "sharpshooters" er, I mean rubber bullet firers.......

Edited September 13, 2012 by philw

[nurofiend]

"You agreed with my post, but then added points to your post that were not in my post"

i didn't either say nor imply that you were in agreement with the other part of the post.

nevermind. continuing the petty off-topic discussion other than the OP ceased.

making the point that saying no rubber bullets were used is just as ludicrous as saying they didn't use live rounds before the live fire zone was declared is what you deem petty.

go figure, and yeah, we're done here.

[phiphidon]

If you increase your own ferocity to match your opponent you will never bring an end until one side or the other is eliminated. Isn’t that what we see now? One side has to be more adult, more thoughtful, more clever, do the ‘security force’ want to win at any cost or do they want to bring a diplomatic end in a diplomatic country?

(Armoured water cannon will shield against grenades and blow away grenade throwers without injury to the security force.)

If you don't increase your own ferocity to match your opponent, all that happens is that you're opponent wins and you're eliminated.

Diplomatic solutions were offered to the red shirts and rejected.

Using those parameters it would then be OK for every single one of the red shirts protesting on the 10th April to bring a gun and live ammunition to the protest. Did that happen, No, so why did the Army tool up with live ammo?

You are thai? And redshirt supporter, that is obvious. And as such unable to see and understand things outside of what you have been told to believe. Anyway, to you remark, the only reason why not every redshirt brought a gun to Bangkok at that time, is that most of them do not own a gun.

Ah European he know everything.

[rubl]

See below for the rest of the article.

".......Weng, a leader of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), or red shirts, gave the Department of Special Investigation a list of 39 sharp-shooters appointed by the Centre for Resolution of the Emergency Situation.

He asked the agency to reveal details about the appointment of the sharpshooters, their operation, and sites they were stationed at.

Weng said he also asked the DSI to probe the death of Sergeant First Class Pongchalit Pittayanontakan on May 17, 2010 near Silom, to try to find out if he was killed by a militia force or security officials.

The MP said he also wanted the report on Pongchalit's autopsy and those on Col Romklao Thuwatham and Private Narongrit Sala. He also submitted a picture of a sharpshooter that he wanted the DSI to summon for investigation."

Nice to see Wengs open minded approach, seeking details of the death of army personnel and interesting that he has the names of 39 "sharpshooters" er, I mean rubber bullet firers.......

All this raises some questions:

- how did Dr. weng get a list of 39 sharpshooters?

- Dr. weng is asking as Pheu Thai MP or as UDD leader?

- why would the DSI provide this info to just any MP / UDD leader?

- since when is asking for reports showing an 'open mind'?

- if Dr. weng has info he should provide to the DSI without conditions rather ask for info in case he might be able to add / correct / deny?